Marlon Brando

Comment

Comment by Sevorin on April 7, 2012 at 12:42pm

but he was no less dependent on those around him (actors, cameramen, directors, etc.) than any other big name actor

I'm not suggesting otherwise. My point is that Brando often dissociated himself from his colleagues, revving up his performance into something striking yet, in some cases (Desiree and Mutiny on the Bounty, for example), actually deleterious to the rest of the project.

Could anyone but Kazan have coaxed out of Brando his performances in Streetcar Names Desire or On The Waterfront ?

No.

But look at the performance Kazan "coaxed" out of James Dean in East of Eden. And he had some very disparaging remarks to make about that young actor.

I think Brando's best performances (like any other actor) are those where those around him are first rate

Except for Last Tango in Paris, where Brando reaches an apotheosis, I don't disagree. But you're confusing Brando being the beneficiary of his collaborations with Brando being a source for his collaborators.

I've seldom heard disparaging remarks about Brando from directors

It was from writer-director Hubert Cornfield -- who directed Brando in The Night of the Following Day -- that I heard the most disparaging remarks. In act, every time I mentioned to him a scene where Brando excited or intrigued me Cornfield reacted with annoyance and exasperation, insisting that Brando distorted the film just to gratify his own wilfulness.

One can't watch The Ugly American  or Morituri  and pretend it's a "Brando film". By the same token, one can't watch anything he made with Kazan and pretend that it's not.

Burn  is not a Brando film, though he contributes nicely to it.

Comment by Ando on April 7, 2012 at 7:55am

Of course I'd know what to expect, if I knew the title.

Exactly. Without knowledge of the title being told you were going to to watch a Brando film would mean nothing.

But all the movies I mentioned as Brando movies do depend on Brando.

But not on Brando, the actor, specifically - which is my point. No one could replicate Brando, naturally,  but he was no less dependent on those around him (actors, cameramen, directors, etc.) than any other big name actor (and vice-versa). 

You oversimplify his contribution to films is all I'm saying. I've seldom heard disparaging remarks about Brando from directors, who would have more of an overall perspective of his input than a co-star. You also diminish the contributions of other artists when you assert that his gifts compel us to see him in isolation. Could anyone but Kazan have coaxed out of Brando his performances in Streetcar Names Desire or On The Waterfront ? Would, in fact, have Streetcar been the break-out hit for Brando if he had not had the history of collaboration with Kazan, Kim Hunter, Karl Marlden, Tennessee Williams, etc. on Broadway prior to the film adaptation? I think Brando's best performances (like any other actor) are those where those around him are first rate.

Stage presence is one thing but in film the director has far more influence than the featured actor. So you could use the case of One Eyed Jacks as being a Brando Film. But I can't think of any other film where Brando's presence so dominates that everything else around him fades into insignificance. That would just be a bad film.

Comment by Sevorin on April 7, 2012 at 12:37am

Meryl Streep is a good analogy, since she's the closest actor to Brando in prestige and native genius. (She's more versatile, however, and exhibits a gift for impersonation that Brando never had.)

 

if you were informed, for instance, that you were going to watch a Brando film tomorrow night, would you know what to expect?  

Of course I'd know what to expect, if I knew the title. So would you. Brando's filmography is now a closed book, and my observation about "Brando movies" is a retrospective one. Burn is no Brando film. It's a Pontecorvo film. No matter what Brando brings to it the molten core of the picture does not depend on him. I've read that Brando threatened to kill Pontecorvo -- perhaps because the director refused to cede his ideas about what his own film should be to Brando's voraciously egoistic artistry.

 

But all the movies I mentioned as Brando movies do depend on Brando. He sensed that, and he was ruthless in demanding -- and getting -- his way. You speak of him as if he were some sort of generous thespian spirit, eager to flourish in collaboration with others. That's not the Brando I've been told about. Given your background I assume you've spoken with people who've worked directly with him. I've also done so. I can't answer for your sources of information, but as far as my own are concerned, Marlon Brando was uniformly regarded as hell to work with, a self-directed, self-involved, greedy, unsympathetic, unprofessional, screen-hogging son-of-a-bitch.

 

I agree that I've never heard such criticisms about Streep or John Wayne or Jimmy Cagney.

he wasn't the the type of actor whose presence was so overwhelming that it overshadowed the contributions of the other artists involved - he was always a collaborator. Give him that, at least

 

If I don't choose to overlook the other actors in his films -- actors who often got Oscars for the movie where Brando is the most distinctive and memorable thing in it -- the reason is not that I think of Brando as a collaborator. When he's on screen we can't take our eyes off him. He's that powerful. But genius that he was, his gifts compel us to see him in isolation. Recently, on another thread a lady posted a comment about Brando's scene with Steiger in the backseat of the cab. She told how Brando did his riff and split, leaving Steiger to complete much of his own performance without Brando there to bounce off of. That's not a generous, collaborative, actor. That's an asshole.

 

Comment by Ando on April 6, 2012 at 8:56pm

A Brando film is one where his performance is the centerpiece of the plot, the focus of everyone else's attention, the eponymous hero, the only interesting personality in front of the camera or the elephant in the room.

I must respectfully disagree. While all your qualifiers are certainly valid as stand alone points they don't really define the films as Brando vehicles. First of all, he wasn't the the type of actor whose presence was so overwhelming that it overshadowed the contributions of the other artists involved - he was always a collaborator. Give him that, at least. Also, the films in which he's featured are so varied and his performances so different that if you were informed, for instance, that you were going to watch a Brando film tomorrow night, would you know what to expect? If someone said the same thing about a John Wayne film or a James Cagney film you'd undoubtedly be on surer ground. Meryl Streep gets similar press, unfortunately. But I don't think I'd call any film that she's appeared in a Meryl Streep film.

Comment by eviltimes on April 4, 2012 at 12:41pm

I always liked that he hated acting and only did it for the money.

Comment by Sevorin on April 4, 2012 at 11:54am

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

 

The idea is to start at the top and read down -- not vice-versa.

 

A Brando film is one where his performance is the centerpiece of the plot (On the Waterfront), the focus of everyone else's attention (Streetcar Named Desire), the eponymous hero (Viva Zapata), the only interesting personality in front of the camera (Last Tango in Paris), or the elephant in the room (The Appaloosa and God knows how many others).

 

He's important in Burn -- is, in fact, a stand-in for all sorts of European interventionists -- but the narrative is far more important than he is. Another actor might have been quite as effective in every way. (This is not to belittle what he does in the movie. Even with his "Giddyap, you fool " moments, he's still wonderful -- and I love the film.)

Comment by Ando on April 4, 2012 at 8:21am

How can I reply to your comments?

You just did.

Or edit my own?

Apparently, you can only edit thread replies, not comments.

What is a Brando film? Aside from Brando there are other fine performances in The Men. I can't think of a single role for which he is famous that dominates the film to the extent that you'd call it a Brando film barring the Dick Cavett interview. I mean, he wasn't Cagney.

Comment by Sevorin on April 3, 2012 at 10:05pm

Goddamnit, Ando! 

 

Will you please get this thread un-fucked ?

 

How can I reply to your comments? Or edit my own?

 

Burn is definitely  the better choice. But however powerful Brando is, it isn't really a Brando film.

Comment by Ando on April 3, 2012 at 9:40pm

The Men is currently on IW - but Burn! is the better choice.