Dissing George Reeves – Unjustified
-
LaurieMann — 19 years ago(September 13, 2006 03:06 AM)
Yeah, while she might have gotten everything, but George Reeves wasn't particularly wealthy. The movie made it very clear that the Mannixes were very wealthy. And she bought George that house in the first place.
I concur she came off as something of a stalker, but
Laurie Mann
Dead People Server
http://www.deadpeople.info -
wgranger — 11 years ago(June 27, 2014 06:10 PM)
I always thought it was suspicious until I saw an Unsolved Mysteries segment where it showed him with the gun upside down. So he was not standing on his head: the gun was upside down. That accounted for the unusual distribution of the bullet casings.
Here's something maybe you guys can answer: why does everything list his place of death as Beverly Hills when he died in the Hollywood Hills?
PS I think he was the best Superman ever. He had already committed suicide when I saw the series in the 60s. Could he have killed himself because there was such a disparity between his squeeky clean on-stage persona and his sordid personal life? Who knows? -
gw166 — 19 years ago(September 10, 2006 10:49 PM)
The personal attacks on George are really disgraceful. What is worse, is that some of them come from nationally known writers, who should know better. The things that they are writing are both mean-spirited, and show ignorance about his career prior to Superman, as well as a lack of perspective on how much impact he had on others. The fact that we are even talking about George Reeves in 2006 means something.
Prior to WW II, George was an up and coming actor of some promise. Besides "So Proudly We Hail", he had good supporting roles in a number of "A" films. There is a scene with Merle Oberon in "Lydia" where he played a suitor who was drunk and abusive. How anyone could watch im in that and think he couldn't act is beyond me. He was very capable, and certainly as good or better than some actors of his era who became bigger stars.
I saw Hollywoodland today, and while honest about his human failings, the movie does not denegrate George. The personal attacks by some reviewers have nothing to do with the content of the movie. It was a very good film.
The so called film gurus who are ripping George Reeves should do a little research. -
ecarle — 19 years ago(September 12, 2006 09:55 AM)
It has been reported that George Reeves was booked to play the private eye Arbogast in Hitchcock's 111c"Psycho" around the time of his death in 1959. The film was released in 1960, with Martin Balsam in the role.
If true (is this covered in "Hollywood Kryptonite"?), this would certainly prove that a major director felt that George Reeves could act.
If you've seen "Psycho," you know that the detective is a fairly sly and sharp character. George Reeves did bring some of that slyness to his work as Clark Kent. He might well have been fine in this role (though, the detective does get horribly murdered.)
Think of it: had George Reeves not died young, and had been in the very "adult" "Psycho" (which was a BIG hit in 1960), his whole career might have changed. Superman behind him, he could have played character parts and leads in the 60's and beyond. -
JimB-4 — 19 years ago(September 12, 2006 03:48 PM)
Rumor has it that in mid-1959, Reeves was approached to play the doomed detective Milton Arbogast in Alfred Hitchcock's newest picture, Psycho, and that Reeves actually filmed a few of his scenes with the rest of the cast, just a week before his death. This rumor is absolutely false. Psycho did not begin filming until November, 1959, five months after Reeves's death. (See Donald Spoto's "The Dark Side of Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock," pp. 417-418.) Indeed, the script for "Psycho" was not written until four months after Reeves's death. For the entire spring and summer of 1959, Alfred Hitchcock was editing and promoting his previous film and preparing a new film which was never made.
-
bluesman-20 — 19 years ago(April 01, 2007 10:38 AM)
George Reeves could act and in fact he was rated as a star after so proudly we hail. However the war came along and when it ended public perception changed in terms of what kind of actors they wanted. Marlon Brando and James Dean And Robert Mitchum as well as John Wayne fit the bills for the types of actors they wanted to see. George Reeves acting could never really be said to fall into any of those catogaories. He was old school cool the public wanted new school cool.
Sad but true. He did however reach the ranks of the immortals as Superman. -
schappe1 — 19 years ago(September 18, 2006 08:04 PM)
And I agree that he's the best Superman. He has a melodious voice that conveyed both authority and gentleness, (as did Clayton Moore and William Boyd, big reasons why the small fry- like me- went crazy for them). He had a gravitas that really comes through and I agree that his perforance as Clark Kent was the key to stories. The show would haven cancelled in weeks if some beekcake was hired for the role who had to read off of idiot cards. No one wuld remember it now. He looks good and sounds good and acts well in the many movie roles he had over the years. He deserved better.
-
daveburd — 19 years ago(September 22, 2006 05:40 AM)
I've been watching the TV series on DVD (I'm halfway into the 3rd season) and I'm surprised at what a good actor Reeves was.
There are many ways to judge acting ability (charisma being one of them) but most people focus on versatility. Therefore Lawrence Olivier is a great actor because he could play so many different types of roles whereas Humphrey Bogart is not a great actor since he almost always plays Bogie. I disagree.
To me, the rule of thumb is believability. If the actor can convince you that he is who he's supposed to be, that's good acting. (As an aside, Ben Affleck never convinced me he was George Reeves; I kept seeing Ben Affleck).
George Reeves plays a very convincing Superman. And, most remarkably, he does it mostly with his voice and the way he carries himself. Heck, I could play Superman today, if I had an army of special effects technicians to give me super powers (and make me a foot taller, take off 20 pounds, fill in my bald spot, etc.) Reeves gave a convincing performance with nothing more than a costume and his acting ability. When the crooks shoot at him and the bullets bounce off, no attempt is made to show the bullets (as they did in Superman Returns). There is the richochet sound effect, and George Reeves' posture, standing defiantly with his hands of his hips. That's it!
Even as an adult watching these shows 50 years after they were made, I still believe George Reeves is Superman.
Interestingly, the tag line for the Christopher Reeve Superman film was "you will believe a man can fly." But it was the state-of-the-art special effects that pulled off the illusion. I believe the TV Superman can fly because of the performance by G5b4eorge Reeves. -
johncarnevale — 18 years ago(September 16, 2007 07:40 AM)
I agree George Reeves if he liked the role or not made you believe he was Superman. This is due to his acting abilities. I grew up in the 60's/70's long after George was gone and the effects are the same kids used to run home to watch Superman that kind of staying power is due to him and the way he performed. I am one who tends to believe he was murdered, someone wanted him out of the way maybe over a broken heart or something. I think the police did him a wrong by not at least looking into the evidence. Seems to me someone powerful hushed it all up.
-
maxbrand — 19 years ago(September 24, 2006 10:00 PM)
I wrote a caustic e-mail to the slandering and surprisingly ignorant NY Times reviewer. Most critics these days seem to think it's all about destructive opinions to display their lame wit, rather than informed criticism. This guy knew nothing about what a great guy Reeves was supposed to be and had no feel for the warmth he brought to the role. He seemed to just go by what he saw in the movie.
Let's hope that many other e-mails followed suit. -
paulgraygras72 — 18 years ago(April 15, 2007 01:38 AM)
I agree with the last post, George Reeves was indeed a great screen presence and whilst other actors may have winged their way through a role like Superman, doing just enough to make it believeable George seemed to live the role and take great joy in making him human and the essence of American values. What always struck me about George was the energy and the smile, the joy he was having performing a role simply shone through and the audience loved him for it, we imagined what it would be like to be Superman, Bill Cody etc and how much fun it would be and there was George confirming it was fun through every pore, he enjoyed himself and we did to!
As for the paper reviewers who diss him and snidely make comments to up their readership, well, when they die Id be suprised if they had a fraction of the emotion that poured out when George went, critics are just talentless individuals bitter because they cant do what the guy their talking about can. -
Smile_U_SOB — 18 years ago(June 19, 2007 11:20 PM)
if Jack Nicholson died in 1968 after doing a decade of low budget Roger Corman films before EASY RIDER propelled him to getting good roles, he would have died a B movie actor.
Same with Robert Deniro (who did a string of low budget Z movies directed by Brian DePalma).
also:
if Hillary Swank died right before BOYS DONT CRY she would have been known as a B actress (karate kid 4, "steamy" HBO movies).
case closed.
if you're the salt of the earth, then the earth is a slug -
inoldhollywood — 18 years ago(September 05, 2007 01:17 AM)
I also agree that George Reeves was the most authentic to the original comic book Superman.. yet he skillfully added a sense of humor and compassion to the character. He really had fun with the role. As a kid, most of us kids were huge Superman fans. For myself, I was a Lone Ranger fan with Clayton Moore.. but I never missed an episode of Superman. George was a fine actor.
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown!" -
KenyaJaide — 18 years ago(November 10, 2007 10:44 PM)
I think a lot of it was because he couldn't expand from the "Superman" character, not because of his acting, but because that's what he was most famous for and most people think of that when they hear his name. Which was 'theatrecized' in hollywoodland when at the premier someone shouted stronger than a speeding locomotive
-
pacinofan58 — 18 years ago(January 19, 2008 11:27 AM)
Taking a role like Superman, which (as Toni Mannix observes in the film) had bad scrpts, and cheap looking sets, and making the character, and the show as good as it was, instead of the cheesy show it could have been, was the true testament to the talent George Reeves possessed! I'm sorry that Reeves couldn't grasp just how memorable a character he created. I look back at all the shows of my youth, I watch them now, and I roll my eyes and wonder how, even as a child, I could have ever liked watching them. I don't have that reaction to "The adventures Of Superman"! It is truly remarkable, how well Reeves acting, and the series as a whole. holds up 50 years later! You look at Reeves' talent, and his failure to reach superstardom, and then you look at James Dean being on his way to major stardom, with his marginal talent, and one can't help but ask themselves "what the hell was wrong with that picture"? Unlike the natural talent Reeves brought to roles, and how effortlessly believable he made them all, Dean's acting was wooden, and by todays standards, even amateurish! If Reeves died from a mistaken belief, that his career had somehow been a failure, it's a shame he didn't have the right people around him, to tell him how wrong he was! If only Reeves had had Deans representation, he would have been as big as Brando!!