May 28, 2005
Movie Stars
by JeremyWhy do they make these things so hard to open?
This is my list in no particular order:
- Jimmy Stewart
- James Dean
- Leslie Howard
- Cary Grant
- Humphrey Bogart
- Katherine Hepburn
- Bette Davis
- Myrna Loy
- Spencer Tracy
- William Powell
Of course you have to leave people out of a list like this and so I did. I erred on the side of role models for a boy growing up in a very confusing world. And I kept it in my pants, as it were, when it came to selecting actresses. Myrna Loy, I guess, is the only woman on this list who could have had a career even if she stank as an actress, and Bette Davis certainly had her moments. But all of these people are on my list because they come alive on screen in a way that I just don't think I see in anyone more contemporary. They all feel like they are my close friends who happen to have been inserted into old movies as if in a dream.
And I guess I'm just not as mesmerized by contemporary film actors.
I think it has something to do with the freshness of the technology back in the first half of the 20th century. People in those days had their chance to project the essence of themselves through this miraculous door that had opened up in the firmament. It was a bit of a miracle, and yet it was simultaneously just another example of the explosion of technology that was transforming the world like never before. And there was all that dialectical tension against the realities of the world wars, and the depression. All of the actors on my list somehow convey the intense mystery of all that in their eyes and in their mannerisms. And they were all, at their best, extremely convincing actors.
These days films are just another art form and there aren't many actors who give me that sense that they are aware of some looming existential moment that they know we are all trying to keep our cool about.
It's as if they're aware that you're not really there to see the movie. There's something else that's going on. It's like black magic. But no one, not even the actors themselves, quite know what it is.
Cary Grant is a good example of that. He often has a knowing look on his face that seems to transcend what's intended for the actual scene he's in. It's like we all know each other back on the farm in Kansas and we're just pretending that they are 'movie stars' and we are 'audience members.' The art form now seems to be geared toward making it all seem as if it's really happening so that we forget it's not real. And I think I like the old way better.
It's all personal,but I am surprised at the William Powell inclusion.
I happened merely by chance to see some of the 'Thin Man' flics recently and wow did they ever not meet the test of time.You can watch Casablanca many times, and still find it diverting but these 'comedies' were really not at all funny,except in a very jaded NYC(hey look how 'droll I can be) kind of way.Between Powell and Loy I could not decide which one of the Charles was the most 'sophisticatedly' annoying.I compromised by disliking both characters.
I would have put The "Duke" on the list for sure,as I always think he played larger than life but in a good way, which is part of what makes the greats great.
Hey now that I think of it---- how about Henry Fonda(surely more impactful than James Dean)?
Posted by: dougf ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.whoknew.us/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 28, 2005 03:58 PM
I suppose I can concede that William Powell is not on the same par as most of the others on my list. And I can see adding Henry Fonda, though I don't necessarily rank him above Dean. I don't have the John Wayne gene, though. I think some people just don't receive his wavelength, and I guess I'm one of them.
Posted by: Jeremy Brown at May 28, 2005 04:29 PM
James Dean but not Marlon Brando? When they were both early in their careers, Brando complained that he was being copied by Dean. Take a close look at their movies, and he was right. The question of why movie actors used to somehow be better needs more examination. But they did, they just did. I pity anyone born without the Duke gene. How impoverished life must have been.
Posted by: JJay at May 29, 2005 04:59 PM
"I pity anyone born without the Duke gene. How impoverished life must have been.--JJay
No 'Duke'gene, indeed.Them's fightin'words-- pilgrim !! Is not that what sums up our current situation? 'A mans gotta do,what a mans gotta do'.And should we require additional firepower, "Sorry don't get it done,pilgrim".
No 'Duke'gene ----- pshaw !!
Posted by: dougf at May 29, 2005 07:35 PM
That sounds more like sidekick humor. Andy Divine comes to mind.
Posted by: JJay at May 29, 2005 11:09 PM
What's the deal, JJay? Am I completely misreading your tone or are you trying to start trouble? I'm a little tipsy on a girlie martini at the moment so I'm cool with things either way. But I don't want to be all 'oh sure, that's what I said to your mama last night' when I should be more like 'heh. Indeed.' So don't bother flattering us with subtle irony, if that's what I'm sensing, because we don't get it.
Posted by: Jeremy Brown at May 30, 2005 12:03 AM
Boy that comment of mine sounded unkind. I'm really not an unkind person. I get a lot of nasty comments though, a fact I regret chiefly because it makes me paranoid and defensive, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you.
Posted by: Jeremy Brown at May 30, 2005 12:09 AM
Yes, well, when I read that comment I got a mental image of Jack Palance slowly looking up from his drink at Shane in the barroom first time they met.
Posted by: JJay at May 30, 2005 03:59 PM
I think you should put in the effort to TRY to come up with a current actor who has that "screen magic", or at least the most.
I immediately think of Tommy Lee Jones, not Harrison Ford, in the Fugitive.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 3, 2005 08:41 AM
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
