|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jun 30, 2009 1:37:49 GMT -5
The Fugitive Kind (1960) Directed by Sidney Lumet Cast: Brando (Valentine Xavier), Anna Magnani (Lady), Joanne Woodward (Carol), Maureen Stapleton (Vee), Victor Jory (Jabe) Oscars: None
Brando, along with Elizabeth Taylor (Cleopatra), was the first actor to be paid 1 million dollars for a film. The movie was highly anticipated; it featured a respected director and saw the return of Brando doing a Tennessee Williams play. Unfortunately this great coupling didn’t result in a great movie. There are brilliant scenes, great bits of acting here and there but as a whole, it fails.
Brando plays a drifter who enters into an affair with a married woman and this inspires the wrath of her husband and the townsfolk. Problems on the set were legendary, it’s said that Magnani tried to seduce Marlon but he wouldn’t have anything to do with her. Egos from both actors began to clash, with Tennessee William’s entering the fray, angry with Brando because he felt he was garbling his lines on purpose to throw off Magnani (who was speaking her dialog phonetically). The end result was that there was zero chemistry between the 2. For a movie about an affair it has no heat.
Brando is decent enough, Magnani at times goes to far over the top but in truth, the best performances didn’t come from either star, but from Joanne Woodward as a crazed waif and from Stapleton’s sensitive Vee and Jory as the cruel a-hole married to Lady.
The story, originally titled “Orpheus Descending” wasn’t Williams best, it’s unfocused and rambles too and fro - but as I stated earlier, there are great moments. The opening sequence with Marlon addressing a Judge is brilliant and a later speech where he speaks about a bird without legs that cannot land and can only keep flying, is another exquisite bit. Oh if only the whole film was half as good.
Up Next: tensions build as Brando goes over budget in his first and only directorial effort.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Jun 30, 2009 9:24:40 GMT -5
JUst curious, will the Richard Donner Cut of Superman II and/or Superman Returns be included in Brandothon? Or will they be skimmed over, since they were edited after his death?
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 1, 2009 0:09:52 GMT -5
Both will be looked at in the same review, I've even written the piece already. I've never heard Donners commentary on Supes I, but in my research he suprisingly didn't seem to give Donner much trouble, he made a few oddball suggestions, one that was ignored (that he should just do voiceover and that Jor-El should be represented by a giant green bagle) the other they did - he wanted an S on his chest too. Like it was the family crest.
I'm not up on Superman lore, but that seems to be how they are using the "S" these days (in comics and Smallville), or maybe that was always the case?
One Eyed Jacks (1961) Directed by Marlon Brando Cast: Brando (Rio), Karl Malden (Dad), Katy Jurado (Maria), Pina Pellicer (Louisa) Oscars: Nominated for Best Cinematography
This was originally going to be directed by Stanley Kubrick and it would have been interesting to see what he would have come up with. One source I read said that Marlon was upset during pre-production because all Kubrick talked about was making money rather than the artistic vision for the piece and that’s why he took over the directorial duties (Kubrick felt Brando wanted to direct all along and was just looking for an excuse)
Whatever the reason, One Eyed Jacks became Marlon’s directorial debut and he did a wiz bang job of it. The story of 2 bank robbers, once closest friend, now sworn enemies is a compelling piece. A beautifully filmed with -unique for a western- ocean settings. It’s a thinking man’s western and a kind of precursor to Eastwood “Unforgiven”. There are layers; notions of good and evil are blurred. Brando the actor is also a joy, brooding and quietly seething in the part of Rio.
It is long and moves at a pace that might bore action oriented western buffs, but it did earn favorable reviews, is a favorite among many of his fans and posted respectable numbers at the box office. Never the less, it was so expensive a production that it lost money (it’s reported that Marlon once spent a day filming the ocean, trying to get ‘just the right’ wave).
The director’s cut ran 5 hours long! The film was taken out of his hands and edited by the studio with an upbeat ending and Brando complained that they erased the gray elements he wanted (he was exaggerating that point, the gray areas might have been softened, but they are still evident. Though in his ending, Malden kills his stepdaughter when an errant bullet intended for Rio, strikes her in the back instead - and that would have made for a heartbreaking, and perhaps more fitting finish, in line with the tone of the piece)**
OEJ was the last film made with Vistavision, but there have been no decent VHS or DVD releases. With its interesting history, and perhaps some lost footage floating out there, it is a prime candidate for a Criterion release.
**In addition to the ending I spoke about in my review - Once Eyed Jack’s originally included sequences where everyone is caught in a lie, except Dad… it was changed to where even Dad was shown to be a liar. There was also a scene where Rio rapes a Chinese woman. These scenes would have added to the gray area (no one is completely good or bad) that Brando wanted infused in the story.
Up Next: Over inflated egos and budgets sink a pretty good film!
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 1, 2009 23:53:04 GMT -5
Mutiny On The Bounty (1962) Directed by Lewis Milestone Cats: Brando (Fletcher Christian), Trevor Howard (Bligh), Richard Harris (Mills), Oscars: Nominated for Best Picture, Song, Score, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Effects
Ah yes -this remake of the classic tale of cruel Captain Bligh and his crew, lead by Fletcher Christian, who mutinied against him- was the straw that nearly broke Brando’s career (and he chose this over Lawrence of Arabia because he didn’t want to hang around the desert for months)
When things went south on this production the studio, needing a scapegoat offered up Brando**. Smelling blood in the water, critics bared their teeth and took a bite. In truth their reaction wasn’t against the movie, but against the idea of the movie and of Brando and his disruptive behavior. Clark Gable, the original Fletcher Christian, had recently died and was elevated to Sainthood. Marlon was looked upon as the usurper, spitting on the icons legacy. Tales of excess, of a stars ego out of control, of a budget spiraling to the heavens… conflicts on the set with an old school revered Director who, sullen and sick of it all, would pop his head up, offer a few instructions before hiding himself away. Brando himself took over directing much of the movie – and this was all the fuel critics needed to burn the actor to the ground.
It’s said that time is a movies only real critic. There has been many a production that started off with a drubbing, which years later would be embraced by fans and reviewers. This has happened with Bounty. Separated from the politics and the personal vendetta’s today’s viewer examines the movie on it’s own merits and they have found it a damn good tale.
Over stuffed, over cooked, with a death scene at the end that is milked dry? Sure, but it’s also a grand and colorful story and one of Brando’s better performances. While Gable’s Christian was a man’s man, striding purposely to the ship. Brando comes dressed in foppish clothing, arm and arm with 2 pretty ladies, non-challant without a care in the world. In his first exchange with Bligh his voice is nasally, high pitched and too refined. It’s laughable -in a good way- and so far removed from Gables take. In this version, Fletcher is forced into manhood, forced to give a damn due to Bligh’s excessive cruelty. Brando’s Christian is well rounded, flesh and blood - much more than a simple one-dimensional cardboard representation of manhood.
Not as successful but not bad… Trevor Howard’s Captain Bligh is nowhere near as colorful as Charles Laughton’s. Actually he’s a bit bland. There is no nuance; this man is an ugly, emotionally stunted bastard - easy to hate. There are more nuances among the crew, Richard Harris is the lead actor from this lot and he is the one who feels he can manipulate Christian into Mutiny.
There’s the beautiful Tahitian locations, which Brando himself would forever be bonded with; there’s that magnificent ship that was built for the film. In this age of CGI and such, it astounds us to think that there once was a time in movieland when they would actually build a whole ship, which set sail for Tahiti and beyond. And there’s some great lines of dialog, as when Brando (after the mutiny) exclaims that he feels fine “…except for the desire to be dead, which I’m sure will pass” Ha, Ha – I love it!
Despite all the garbage this movie unjustly received over the years, Oscar did reward it with several nominations, including Best Picture. It did do well at the box office, but as with OEJ, it couldn’t make enough to cover the expansive budget. Mutiny used to be lumped in as another Brando failure from the 60s – financially maybe, but artistically it’s a winner.
Up Next: A dry but fascinating political tale
** Carol Reed was the original director, studio made it sound like Brando was the reason he was fired, in truth Brando was with Reed, supporting him at a meeting with studio heads, when Reed quit in frustration.
Later, Marlon sued the Saturday Even Post for libel over stories they wrote about his behavior in the film.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 3, 2009 0:34:23 GMT -5
The Ugly American (1963) Directed by George Englund Cast: Brando (Carter Macwhite), Eiji Okada (Deong), Sandra Church (Marion) Oscars: None (But Brando did get nominated for a Golden Globe)
The politics were what drew the actor to the project. Marlon plays an American ambassador who goes to a Southeast Asian country to smooth the way for the building of the “freedom road”. Opposing him is a former friend who is manipulated by the communists who want to keep the road from being completed.
The story lacks subtlety; it delivers its message with a heavy hand. There are boring patches and lots of speeches. In the first half hour we sit through the appointment of Macwhite at a hearing, where a glinty eyed politician baits the future Ambassador with obvious zeal. I’m surprised they didn’t give him a mustache he could twirl.
In regards to acting – Marlon isn’t disappearing into the character the way he did with Terry Malloy or Stanley Kowalski, this is Brando the star, acting. That’s not to say that he’s bad, just different. He’s at his best when his bull necked Ambassador uses humor to charm his way into his position, and in an argument with Deong he comes alive in a burst of anger. As the story progresses he comes undone by his own blind fervor to prove that he’s right and stick it to the reds. And Deong is blinded and betrayed in his own way as well.
In the end, after all that death and destruction, nothing really changes, the wheel spins on and while MacWhite is humbled, nobody else seems to care or learn from these events. Ugly American is a satisfactory film, it features some excellent lines of dialog, decent acting (Marlon’s sis, Jocelyn Brando and Pat Hingle are noteworthy). It aims for the brain, sometimes strikes the heart and after a slow start finishes up strong.
Up Next: A mindless sex comedy that many consider to be one of Brando’s worse
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 4, 2009 0:09:58 GMT -5
Bedtime Story (1964) Directed by Ralph Levy Cast: Brando (Freddie), David Niven (Lawrence), Shirley Jones (Janet) Oscars: None
This is one of those breezy sexist comedies that were in vogue during the 60s. Colorful, light and silly – Bedtime Story receives universally poor reviews, even from many Brando fans. And yet I had a decent time while watching it.
Later remade as “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”, it’s about a couple of con men that target women and make a bet to see who stays and who goes. Marlon, looking chunky, hams it up and there are scenes where I hid my face in my hands when he’d go overboard. Still despite this and the sexism, the movie has its funny moments -“Then they took away my Hymn book and gave me a gun!”- Freddie, feeding Janet a line to gain her sympathy
Niven is charming and deft in the role as he always is. Marlon not so much, he’s a heavy hand with this kind of broad comedy but he seems like he’s having fun and his work sticks within the spirit of the piece (meaning he’s not winking at the camera). He got me to laughing several times (Prince Ruprecht in the car cracked me up). Shirley Jones is a sweetheart; I liked her even if she was regulated to naive love interest and object of a con.
It sounds like all was well on the set; Brando behaved himself, loved David Niven, who in kind had nothing but praise for his co-star.
The movie is a silly time waster, an empty confection for times when you need to turn off your brain and relax with something breezy - so why is there all this distress over the role? Because for many folks Bedtime Story is beneath Brando’s talent, it would be akin to Pavarotti singing bubble gum with “The Archies”. “Sugar, Sugar?” Okay, that’s a fun song but you’re Pavarotti, you can blow a hole through a steel door with your voice; you can make us weep with its subtle tones. So you wanna play around and be a goofy kid, fine, that’s cool. But when do we see the master doing "Waterfront" type work again?
In the end Bedtime Story was bashed by critics and was yet another failure at the box office. There are stories that it failed miserably in the South where people were beginning to avoid his films due to his politics.
Up Next: The British Navy plots a scheme to steal Hitler’s rubber!
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Jul 4, 2009 9:38:47 GMT -5
Up Next: The British Navy plots a scheme to steal Hitler?s rubber! And thus, Hitler Jr. was born!
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Plumber on Jul 5, 2009 2:02:25 GMT -5
That little clip of Brando attempting to woo the woman reminds of those painful scenes from Some Like It Hot where Tony Curtis woos Marilyn Monroe.
The one thing this tends to make me think of is the difference between a celebrity and an actor. I tend to define the acting style of celebrities not as playing different characters, but rather as playing themselves in different scenarios. "What if ... Tom Hanks was stranded on a deserted island?" "What if ... Tom Cruise was a JAG lawyer?" "What if ... Clint Eastwood was an astronaut?" They essentially play the same characters they have always played, but just in a different scenario. It almost tempts me to ask why they even give their characters different names; just name the character after the actor!
I am very reluctant to even say this, but one of the few actors that I truly consider to be a genuine character actor is Johnny Depp. It pains me to even say that, but I have to. Depp never outshines the rest of the production and seems to be a genuinely different character in every different film I've seen him in (which probably can be attributed to the fact that he wears more makeup than Lon Chaney).
So, I hope that doesn't deviate too much with the strict discussion about Brando, but I felt that observation was somewhat relevant, since after all we're finding that reviews are leading more and more into the scapegoating or actual calling-out of Brando's ego.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 5, 2009 11:45:38 GMT -5
Morituri (1965) Directed by Bernhard Wicki Cast: Brando (Robert Crain), Yul Brynner (Cap. Mueller), Janet Margolin (Esther), Trevor Howard (Col. Statter) Oscars: Nominated for Best Cinematography and Costume Design As with The Ugly American this is another good though not great movie, and fans were desperate for a return to greatness. Brando does a decent job – though again, fans wanted to see more than decent from the actor. Any old artist can do “decent” work, but this is Marlon Brando, America’s Olivier. Around this time actor James Mason was quoted as saying George C. Scott had suprassed Brando as America's best performer.
I’ve read accounts of Marlon relying more on cue cards at this point in his career. He said it was to fuel spontaneity, others said it was because he was flippin lazy. Whatever the reason, many were bothered by the practice. I’ve been pointing these negatives out not to bash him (he's my favorite actor) but to show how and why it was going sour for Brando. Marlon was not only losing support from the film industry and critics, but he was losing respect from his peers and his fans.
Morituri isn’t a bad movie; it offers intelligent high sea’s intrigue with some internal conflict from the characters. Brando plays a pacifist, blackmailed into a scheme to steal Hitler’s rubber (yeah, I know – the pull to tell a dirty joke over that plot point is almost impossible to resist). Yul Brynner is the ethical Captain of the ship that is transporting that rubber. Brynner doesn’t get enough credit as an actor, and perhaps he was limited, but he was outstanding within those limits. He has a strong screen presence and adds a lot of life to the movie. Janet (David and Lisa) Margolin’s Jewish prisoner brings a tragic element that truly disturbed me.
On the down side, the film doesn’t deliver the tension it should, Wicki’s direction is direct and measured, though there are examples of interesting camera work and cinematography to be seen. I failed to get a bead on Brando’s character; there was something emotionally distant about him and because of that I wasn’t able to get too emotionally invested in the story.
We are half way through the decade and Brando’s star is falling fast. But when I look at it from a fans perspective it wasn’t a horrid run, just uneven and sometimes uneventful. He did film 2 of my favorites (Jacks and Bounty).
Up Next: Marlon’s a small town sheriff in an under-rated look at intolerance and mob rule.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 6, 2009 13:14:51 GMT -5
In regards to what Mad wrote: I'm ahead of the reviews and just finished with the Godfather, and it’s amazing to watch him disappear and become this character. He’s not Brando the star anymore, that’s Don Vito Corleone on screen. And though he was only in his mid 40s, he moves and acts like an old man. It’s remarkable and got me to thinking of James Dean in Giant as well as Orson Welles in Kane.
Welles was in his 20s and yet he also did a great job playing an old man and became that character, but Dean was always James Dean. When he was playing an older man it was kind of laughable, Dean couldn’t pull it off, he moved young, he acted young. Welles and Brando transformed into old men, in Giant, it was always, “Hey there’s James Dean playing around in old man makeup”.
The Chase (1966) Directed by Arthur Penn Cast; Brando (Sheriff Calder), Jane Fonda (Anna), Robert Redford (Charlie), E.G. Marshall (Val), Angie Dickinson (Ruby Calder) Oscars: None
This is one of my favorite Brando films, it didn't do well at the box office (that’s a given during the 60s for the actor), not sure it was well received by the critics, but I feel it's a gem -- stocked with talent top to bottom. It's about a small town and its secrets. And how nasty, cheap people -their brains soaked in alcohol- explode into violence against the sheriff (Brando) and an escaped con (Redford). Written by Horton Foote and Lillian Hellman, the dialog is sharp and memorable. Arthur Penn's direction is understated and captures that colorful slow Southern vibe. There's even a nice score by John Barry of James Bond fame.
The actors are all pros and add much to the production: Apart from the outstanding leads listed above the cast includes Robert Duvall, James Fox, Henry Hull (a smooth and nosy instigator), Miriam Hopkins and Diana Hyland. There’s even an appearance by Marlon’s sister Jocelyn and a young Paul Williams. Brando is natural and throws in those subtle tones - jealousy, pride and dissatisfaction are all there in a quick look or an off-handed gesture. He's smart and onto everyone’s game but can't help but be pulled down by their ugliness.
The title suggests a fast paced adventure, but it's more an intense a look at how stupid, petty and cruel people can be. And though unheralded, it’s one of Brando's best.
Up Next: Marlon goes after some horse thieves in a dull movie that never the less has some die-hard fans.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 8, 2009 0:27:30 GMT -5
A quick and friendly note: I'd written this review days ago, before any comments were made about it on the board. Nothing stated within was directed at anyone specifically.
The Appaloosa (1966) Directed by Sidney J. Furie Cast: Brando (Matt Fletcher), Anjanette Comer (Trini), John Saxon (Chuy) Oscars: None
Though the critics drug it through the mud (similar to what Chuy did to Fletcher), this actually has a strong fan base and I know someone out there will argue that it’s greatly underrated but…. personally I find I side with the critics with this one. I think it’s plodding and kind of pointless. Brando broods and does little else. He looks like an old west version of Torgo with scraggly beard and tattered clothes. His Matt Fletcher is a drifter who returns home with dreams to settle down and start a ranch. When a Mexican bandit, played colorfully by John Saxon, steals his prize appaloosa, Matt sets off to get it back.
Should be thrilling, it’s actually a snore. Aside from Saxon’s evil grin and an interesting bit with a pair of scorpions, this has no zip or zing. There is no tension; no sense of real danger and the big gunfight at the end is a big zero (SPOILER ALERT) Brando shoots into the tress, and later Saxon’s body rolls down a hill. Uh yeah, that was nail biting. A longer, tension filled, eye to eye gunfight would have been nice.
It is not that it’s so bad it’s unwatchable; in truth it’s not a painful to sit through at all. I could pop in on right now and watch it without a problem. It isn't a wretched flick, it’s just that theirs nothing to it. It has no meat on its bones.
Up Next: It goes from lukewarm to, “Sweet holy mother what a pile of crap” as Marlon agrees to work in Charlie Chaplin’s final film.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 9, 2009 0:28:57 GMT -5
After searching through more boxes I finally found my Desiree tape (ahh "Key Video" - I remember them well.). Updated my review but it didn't change much.
A Countess From Hong Kong (1967) Directed by Charles Chaplin Cast: Brando (Ogden), Sophia Loren (Natascha), Sydney Chaplin (Harvey), Tippi Hedrin (Martha) Oscars: Are you kidding?
Hijinks on the high seas as a prostitute (maybe?) stows away in an Ambassadors stateroom
Chaplin’s last movie is an embarrassment; Brando did this because he loved the comedian’s work. But once the cameras rolled he quickly saw that nothing good was going to come of it (and he was saddened by Chaplin's cruelty, he called him a sadist and said his treatment of son, Sydney was intolerable). The actors can’t bring their characters to life because their movements are mannered and controlled as if they were puppets on a string. I can’t comment on Brando’s acting because he wasn’t allowed to act.
The production lacks sophistication and is clumsily rendered: On an early dolly shot the camera wobbles, later there’s a bit with Ogden answering the door that looks like it was filmed on cheaper film stock, and the sequence on the beach was laughably bad. While no one wants to bash a master like Chaplin, no matter how hard I try to find a silver lining out of respect for the man, its simply doesn’t exist.
The tedious running back and forth between rooms, the constant overly-startled reactions whenever a bell rings, the throwing up sequence, the embarrassingly forced bit with the butler in the bedroom… all of it employs humor only an 8 year old could appreciate. The film was a complete chore to sit through, nearly excruciating and if I never see it again it’ll be too soon.
Up next: For those who stopped believing, Marlon proves that he is still a GREAT actor!
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 10, 2009 0:16:04 GMT -5
Woman Times Seven (1967) This is a collection of seven different stories involving themes of love and adultery, all taking place in Paris. Marlon had a small uncredited non speaking part in the “Two Against One” segment, as Shirly McLaines husband - we see him looking stern in a photograph!
Reflections In A Golden Eye (1967) Directed by John Huston Cast: Brando (Weldon Penderton), Elizabeth Taylor (Leonora Penderton), Brian Keith (Morris Langdon), Julie Harris (Alison Langdon), Robert Forster (Pvt. Williams) Oscars: None
You want great performances; well this is a great performance, Brando’s best work of the decade and he did it without any help from the director (Marlon and others have said Huston gave little or no instruction, ala a Kazan, he trusted they knew their jobs).
Based on a story by Carson McCullers, the movie is an odd Southern Gothic tale, as skewed as anything written by Tennessee Williams. Brando plays a closet homosexual, Weldon Penderton, who is married to Army-brat Leonora (Liz Taylor) but lusting after a Private’s… uh, privates (sorry, couldn’t resist). The Private (played by Robert Forster) has his own secret, he likes to ride a horse buck naked, and to steal away in Leonora’s bedroom and watch her sleep. Morris (Brian Keith) is having an affair with Leonora, while his own wife struggles with mental illness that causes her to do things with a pair of hedge trimmers that’ll make you squirm. To top it off, there’s a theatrical houseboy that cares her for.
Adding to this convoluted tale John Huston was feeling experimental and filmed it all through a golden filter. Audiences were so flummoxed by this that the studio ordered the golden hue removed after a week of its theatrical release. The DVD restores the color, it’s the first time I’ve seen it this way and I didn’t mind it, it fits.
I use the term pretentious with great care, it’s a word overused, often merely to trivialize something for daring to have high standards. But Golden Eye, from the title to the direction to the golden haze, is pretentious, but I think that’s what Huston was shooting for. That showy camera work at the end seems to indicate that John was consciously going for exaggerated and garish.
The movie has earned mixed reviews. Roger Ebert loves it; most have a difficult time getting engaged by the story. I think it’s a well-done film, interesting (though it leaves many things unanswered, I never could figure out the Forster character, what motivates him to do what he does. He seems such a blank). At its core it’s about denial and repression, people say one thing and do another (Keith acts like he doesn’t like the houseboy, but when the man leaves, all he does is talk about him).
The acting is brilliant. Brando returns to the Brando of old. Once again he disappears into a character. The scene where he stares into a mirror and talks to himself inspired Martin Scorsese to have Robert DeNiro to do the same thing in “Taxi Driver”. Penderton is fussy and reticent. He holds everything inward, when he loses his temper and tells his wife that he could kill her, he not only says it though clenched teeth, but a clenched throat - as if he’s trying to pull the words back inside even as he speaks them.
And there’s a sequence where Brando takes Taylor’s prize horse out for a ride in the country. He loses control and the horse runs wild through dense forest where both are slashed by passing branches. At the end Marlon’s Penderton starts beating the horse in a display of hysterics I’ve never seen matched by any actor. I wrote in my “Viva Zapata” review that Brando was a master of conflicting emotions. Well here they collide against each other in rapid succession, melding and becoming something new in the process. Before this scene Penderton is so calm he almost appears lifeless. But at this moment that reserve shatters – He is frightened, angry, embarrassed, his face contorts into almost comic expressions as he tries desperately to hold it in. Crying seems to shift into laughter… it’s a jaw dropping piece of work, a return to seamless performance that is fresh and bold and powerful in its execution. It’s Brando, our great American actor in all his glory.
Up Next: 1968: Brando has roles in two odd movies; one he did as a favor, in the other he causes a stir in Paris.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 11, 2009 0:21:46 GMT -5
Candy (1968) Directed by Christian Marquand Cast: Brando (Grindle), Ewa Aulin (Candy), Ringo Starr (Emmanuel), Richard Burton (MacPhisto) Oscars: None
Brando took this role as a favor to his friend who was directing it. Candy is a weird, poorly made sex comedy that also featured Ringo Starr as a Mexican. Brando is broad and silly, slipping from one accent to another as the sex crazed Guru Grindle. His part lasts about 16 minutes (with another sliver where he flies). It’s a throw away role, but one that provides a few chuckles on occasions. It did nothing to improve his reputation and despite all the name guest stars, the film was a bomb in the States.
Night of the Following Day (1968) Directed by Hubert Cornfield Cast: Brando (Bud), Richard Boone (Leer), Rita Moreno (Vi), Pamela Franklin (DuPont’s daughter), Jess Hahn (Wally) Oscars: None
A kidnapping unravels!
Despite the fact that he was pretty much considered box office poison at this point (the Southern regions even refused to show his movies because he marched with the Black Panther’s) the actor was not humbled. He fought with the director, caused turmoil and acted like a petulant ass. The director pushed right back, fighting fire with childish fire until the 2 reach a point of such mutual loathing that neither could work together: The producer moved things to Paris for the director, who quickly filmed all Marlon’s bits so that he could be rid of him, and at the end Brando insisted that co-star Richard Boone direct one of his final scenes.
NOTFD is not a good movie; and all that chaos on the set added to the chaos on screen. Boones directed scene (The conversation between Brando and Jess Hahn about Bud leaving the caper) is overlong and meanders over the same material. The overall story is pointlessly convoluted, the money-grabbing scheme becomes wearisome before it concludes, and some of the direction makes no sense (how did Brando get in front of Boone at the end without being seen? His hiding place made no sense, as there was no place to hide?)
And yet… it’s one of those strangely fascinating films that hold my interest despite itself (and I wasn’t the only one. Roger Ebert gave it warm notices upon its release). Though the story is a straightforward look at a kidnapping gone wrong, there’s a general off kilter vibe to the entire thing that my (weird) mind found appealing. It’s minimalist in appearance and stocked with a solid cast, including Richard Boone as a sadist who is at his most chilling when he’s acting nice and Rita Moreno as a strung out heroin addict. Rita sometimes goes over the top, but she’s good and handles a range of emotion (Her scene in the bathtub was quietly strong, out doing Brando –whose bits were severely edited because he was drunk –or so says the director, who I feel had a petulant streak in him as well)
Brando performance is slick and explosive and the 44-year-old looks damn good. Blond, decked out in slimming back, his arms well defined. The image that sticks in my mind from this film is of him running across the beach toting a machine gun. He was the very model of cool.
All told this messy production is a mixed bag, I actually kind of like it even though there’s so much I don’t like in it. How to define it then, so bad it’s good? A guilty pleasure? How about… a fascinating failure?
Notes: Brando also wouldn’t go for the love story angle, which the director said ruined the entire picture. That’s an exaggeration (your film was in bad shape before then) and I’m not sure a sex scene between Brando and the kidnapped girl would have helped. I get that he cares and is concerned for her, but I didn’t see love blossoming. With the 27-year difference in age (Pamela Franklin was 17 -maybe 18 by the time filming ended- Brando was 44) it did come of more a brotherly love, a knight in shining armor deal. But who knows, maybe the director was right. If Brando has made love to her maybe it would have added emotional weight to the ending?
Up Next: Hollywood may have had its fill, but Brando finds a memorable project overseas
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 11, 2009 17:20:20 GMT -5
Burn (1969) Directed by Gillo Pontecorvo Cast: Brando (William Walker), Evaristo Marquez (Jose Dolores), Renato Salvatori (Teddy Sanchez) Oscars: None
Aka: Queimada. Politics and social issues were more important than movies for Marlon. He spent more time with his causes and as Charleton Heston, who once marched with Marlon on Washington, stated that Brando was unable to separate the 2. He turned down working with Paul Newman on Butch Cassidy, he broke a deal that would have reunited him with Kazan, but he did agree to take this role because of the premise and while it wasn’t a hit, it was artistically the best acting he’d done since “Golden Eye” and the best movie since “The Chase”.
Kevin Thomas of the L.A. Times said it best when he wrote, "...At once an epic adventure, an intimate tragedy and an urgent protest..." The film is stark, the cruelty and racism is ugly and strikes like a blow to the stomach. Brando’s Walker is cold and calculated, he manipulates the slaves into revolting against the Portuguese (originally the Spanish, but due to pressure Gillo had to change this) so that Britain can move in and seize control of the lucrative sugar cane industry. 10 years later he returns to crush the black political movement he helped create. After much resistance, the British army burns down the forests to draw the rebels out of hiding,
Burn is one of Brando’s best (and his own personal favorite). Though a fictional account, it draws from several sources and makes a pointed and painful socio-political statement that resonates to this day. His portrayal gives us Walker as a kind of world-weary snake oil salesman, Unscrupulous but there’s a hint that he’s harboring some guilt over this hell he created.
The movie isn’t perfect, it lingers too long on crowd shots and the 10-year gap isn’t transitioned smoothly and there are a few short but odd choppy cuts that will pop up right in the middle of a scene. Overall though, the story is strong enough to cover these defects. One other problem: We here in the States don’t really know how good this movie really is because 20 minutes of film has been cut from the version we are offered on DVD. There was a restored version that toured theaters a few years back, but that version has yet to be released (come on Criterion, get on this one please!)
Up Next: Brando in Britain playing a nasty Irishman
|
|