|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 12, 2009 11:48:28 GMT -5
The Nighcomers Directed by Michael Winner Cast: Brando (Quint), Stephanie Beacham (Miss Jessel), Virna Harvey (Flora), Christopher Elis (Miles). Thora Hird (Mrs. Grose) Oscars: None (Brando was nominated for a BAFTA)
Brando went off to England to film this prequel to the Turning of the Screw. An uneven production that received less than stunning reviews, but good notices for the actor at the time. These days a few snide critics compare his Irish accent to something heard in a Lucky Charms commercial, but I thought it was lyrical and Marlon was in fine and nasty form. He is full of unbridled energy, playful, running to and fro. The odd children, who have lost their parents and are being raised by employees at a relative’s manor, adore him but that’s not a good thing, as he has a dark and cruel streak that infects their strange little minds.
The movie has its moments but it never rolls on all cylinders. The story itself is no great shakes, it lacks any palpable sense of horror, and the direction seems rather pedestrian. Its strengths come from the acting and the interplay between characters. Brando is a lot of fun to watch (there’s even some sex play that might remind a few of Last Tango in Paris).
After the debacle of NOTFD it was nice to read that Director Michael Winner had nothing negative to say about Brando, stating that he acted professionally and never was difficult to work with. In his autobiography, Marlon named this as one of his most enjoyable shoots and that the director had a great sense of humor.
So closes the 60s (though Nightcomers was released in 71, it seems like it fits with his 60s run) – It was a decade where the industry grew tired of Marlon’s idiosyncrasies, his politics had taken center stage and at the end he was only getting work in foreign productions. People complained that he was failing to live up to his incredible talent, equating poor box office with poor acting. While I sympathize with those sentiments, cinephiles all want a great actor to do great things; the decade wasn’t a complete disaster. Marlon was still capable of delivering fine performances in movies that -while they didn’t make money- were not as bad as critics were making them out to be. While Fugitive Kind inconsistent and Countess a horrific bomb – Mutiny on the Bounty, One Eyed Jacks, The Chase and Burn, were superb films and his performances in the flawed Golden Eye, Ugly American and Nightcomers were all highlights of the era.
Up Next: The prodigal son returns, Marlon in a masterpiece!
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 14, 2009 1:02:37 GMT -5
The Godfather (1972) Directed by Frances Ford Coppola Cast: Brando (Don Vito Corleone), Al Pacino (Michael), James Caan (Sonny), Robert Duvall (Tom Hagen) Oscars: Won for Best Picture, Actor (Brando) Screenplay. Nominated for Supporting Actor (Caan, Pacino & Duvall), Best Director, Costume, Editing, Score, Sound
The studio didn’t want Brando anywhere near this movie, even when their first choice, Olivier had to bow out due to illness. Marlon hadn’t participated in a major production since 1967 and it would seem that he was in effect, blacklisted in Hollywood. So he filmed his own screen test to convince them, and once he secured the part he behaved himself. And in doing so restored his tattered reputation.
The production had its troubles; Coppola was nearly fired after the first week, but somehow held on to the job. Actor wise everyone got along, things were playful on the set and even though he hadn’t had a hit in ages, Brando was revered by these young actors- and that, according to Coppola- caused them to elevate their game. Pacino was channeling that moody, downbeat thing Marlon did so well and because of it, it’s one of his greatest, and lest over the top emotional performances (meaning there was none of that arm waiving, over done yelling stuff he’s known for)
I’m not a fan of Mafia pictures; don’t care for Scarface or Goodfellas or Casino. I’m not saying these are badly made movies but that I have zero interest in the subject or the people. But my love of Brando got me to stick with this one, and it is a great film.
The draw for me is primarily Brando. And Brando is magnificent. The movie is about the father giving way to the son (first Sonny, then Michael) Vito is the main focus during the first hour, and then it shifts to Michael as he is pulled into the family business. Pacino is brilliant and probably should have been nominated with Marlon in the Best Actor category (but the studio probably didn’t want to risk splitting the vote, so they wrangled Al into a supporting nomination).
Don Corleone is a whisper and because of that it took a second viewing (way back when) before I appreciated just how exceptional Marlon was in it. He might speak softly, but there’s so much power in what he says and how he says it. As great as the rest of the cast is, whenever Marlon shows up on screen the film clicks into another gear. This is not a man you screw with. He doesn’t have to scream at you or bash you on the head with a baseball bat… he simply, with a quiet authority you don’t dare contradict, makes you an offer you can’t refuse.
But Brando’s Vito is so much more; he’s a family man, a father. The bit where he plays with a child at the end we see him as just a grandpa, like any other grandpa. And though he was only in his mid 40s, he moves like an old man, he talks and carries the aura of a long and full life around him. Overall it’s such superb work; marked by subtle touches. Even though Vito disappears for a spell midway through the nearly 3-hour film, Brando is so commanding that every one of his scenes leaves a lasting mark. It is one of the 4 greatest performances of his career. The first 3 are pieces where he became a new person; Marlon was gone and in his place stood Stanley Kowalski, Terry Malloy and Don Vito Corleone. In that 4th great performance, the expatriate Paul in Last Tango, he put a lot of himself on screen.
But that’s for the next review… in closing Brando was welcomed back and embraced by the industry, but if Hollywood thought Brando would be humbled and contrite they had another thing coming. As Charleton Heston once said, he couldn’t separate his work and his causes, so it probably should have come as no surprise that when he won his second Oscar, he sent someone up to refuse the award on the basis of his primary cause (Indian rights) – it was actually quite a polite speech, though I think he should have gone up their and delivered it himself.
Up next: A controversial film that would feature Brando’s last acting tour de force.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 15, 2009 0:48:01 GMT -5
Last Tango In Paris (1972) Directed by Bernardo Bertolucci Cast: Brando (Paul), Maria Schneider (Jeanne) Oscars: Nominated for Best Actor and Director
This was my most difficult review and one I avoided until the last moment. Not because I had nothing to say but rather that there was too much. How to describe why I love this film, why it is so powerful and why I never want to place it under a microscope? So I’ll warn you, this is going to be a lengthy write-up.
In reading and researching this piece, I found old school critics who said that the sex and premise was no longer shocking to today's audience. And yet I found review after review from non professionals (bloggers, list makers, MB commentators and such) who would contradict that sentiment – many still expressed outrage over the story.
I also discovered an odd antagonism: People who confess that they didn’t "get" the film were incensed, and the undertone in these critiques was, in effect, "How dare this movie think it’s smarter than me?!" And that anger funneled its way toward those of us who respected and the enjoyed the film. As if we were diluted artsy fartsy types who only praised it because we were supposed to. I can understand not liking a movie, but why all this hostility for those who do?
The biggest laugh I received from these amateur (and a few professional) critics came when they'd level the charge that the film was pretentious, and to a man they'd all find use for the word. Pretentious? That's like a food critic complaining that his baked Alaska contained ice cream. Of course it’s pretentious it’s a Bertolucci film. Find me one of his movies that isn't pretentious? There are certain artists who can use a negative to their benefit; Bertolucci is to pretension what Charles Laughton is to scenery chewing.
On the other side of the coin are the films defenders who have written all kinds of intellectual exploration on the meaning of the story. I’ve brushed through a few of these and there are some brilliant theories and examinations covering everything from the use of the Frances Bacon portraits to detailed character motivations. I had to stop reading because in truth, I don't want or need all these specifics. I know enough of the story to get by – I know that a disillusioned expatriate named Paul enters into a strange affair with a young woman named Jeanne. He's angered by his wife’s suicide - while she's about to be married to a tiresome (and pretentious) filmmaker - each escape into this anonymous relationship for their own reasons. But I don't hunger to over-explore those reasons. Why? Because I don't want Last Tango to simply become an intellectual exercise. I'm not saying I refuse to think and analyze, but that I want to continue to ‘feel’ this film, not to over-analyze it to death; I want it to remain raw and visceral.
Brando's performance is unbelievable and unlike anything he has ever done. Marlon has always been a rather mannered actor, but here he throws off all artifice to offer up something disquieting. He peels back the layers and gives completely of himself. He was asked to improvise scenes and in those moments he draws stories from his own life.
The sequence at his unfaithful wife's deathbed is unsettling in the way it expresses unvarnished and painfully real emotion. It is said that the scene made Dustin Hoffman so uncomfortable that he hid behind his seat as it unfolded. Ebert called it the greatest piece of acting Brando had ever done. It is not a moment to be viewed in an unlit room with the family. It’s hard to watch this man swearing at this woman’s corpse, crying and releasing all the hurt and resentment he's feeling. There are also subtle touches. At one point Brando wanders off during a conversation and stands by a door. I wondered at first what the hell he was doing; did he have his lines posted nearby? Then a shock of realization worked its way down my spine... that's what he did when before he found his wife’s body. In the film Paul keeps turning off leaky facets, no explanation, no speeches, it's just something he does. And it struck me that when he came home; perhaps he called his wife’s name. Hearing no answerer he tried the bathroom door, he called out again, put his head to the door and could hear the drip, drip, drip of the bathtub. He enters to find her...
Bertolucci never tells us if this is the case, he never gives us the full story. He simply drops hints and lets us speculate (for example, why does the woman cleaning up the blood, stand there with a slight smile?) It’s a chilling aspect to the story and the performance.
"Last Tango in Paris" isn't a date movie; it isn't truly sexy. The sex isn't sensual and it’s sometimes humiliating. The two do share some laughs (the film is not without humor) and she wants to break the rules of anonymity but he refuses -- until something clicks inside of him, which makes him change his mind. The film's end was controversial and invites debate, but I can’t join that debate. I want the movie to continue to breathe for me, so I watch it sparingly and without much (over) analysis. The film is one of my all time favorites, based primarily on the strength of the acting (I'd sure love to see Bernardo’s 4 hour cut!). Brando received another Oscar nomination - considering the previous year’s refusal he wasn't going to win it, though to my mind he was even better than in The Godfather.
Emotionally exhausted Brando told Bertolucci that this was the last time he'd never go through an experience like this.
Brando's teacher and the one he credits for changing the face of acting, Stella Adler, taught Marlon to not act out an emotion, but to truly experience it. But after Tango left him feeling depleted he decided that from here on out he would revert to a more technical way of acting. He felt if the story was well written and the technique was right that the effect would be the same and would exact less of a toll on his psyche.
Add this in with Marlon's dismissive statements about acting, comments he made about being in it for the money and this would color critics thoughts when reviewing his coming work. But critics should have known by now that Marlon said a lot of things you needed to take with a grain of salt. In a few cases Brando couldn't help himself. There might not be another Paul in his future but he’ll still manage to breathe vitality into a few characters and exert himself when he believed in something.
Up next: Brando disappears for 4 years and when he returns he enters a new phase of strange gimmick laden performance
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 16, 2009 0:44:27 GMT -5
Wounded Knee, was going to be his acting swan song, several directors from Gillo Pontecorvo (Burn!) to Martin Scorsese were brought in, but neither man was comfortable with the intimidating Sioux Indians and backed out. After several delays the project was dropped and Marlon looked for work elsewhere, which lead him to…
The Missouri Breaks (1976) Directed by Arthur Penn Cast: Brando (Robert Clayton), Jack Nicholson (Tom Logan), Randy Quaid (Little Tod), Kathleen Lloyd (Jane), Harry Dean Stanton (Calvin) Oscars: None
And now a new phase in Brando’s career, call it self-parody? He’d do his own makeup and adopt a strange quirk with absurd manner of clothing. Here, as with Dr. Moreau he isn’t acting, he’s playing dress up games. Arthur Penn was so fed up he simply gave up on the man and allowed him to do whatever he wanted. Brando’s erratic –sometimes good, mostly too strange and out of place- acting is a blot on this first-rate western.
Penn is a noteworthy director of such films like “Little Big Man” and Brando’s under rated “The Chase”. You had Nicholson fresh off his Oscar winning performance in Cuckoo’s Nest and Brando triumphant after Godfather and Last Tango in Paris. This was one of the most anticipated features of the year, but when it premiered Critics were baffled and the film took a pasting.
It has since found an appreciative audience. If you like Penn’s easy simmering style you’ll probably enjoy this one as well. There’s the humor, wonderful scenery and a unique and interesting take on a familiar story, all the hallmarks of the director’s work. And then there’s Brando… playing a Regulator, hired to gun down a gang of horse thieves (lead by Nicholson).
One reviewer had an interesting take on Marlon’s work, equating it to the scary monster in a horror film… nice try but I’m not convinced, while I can see elements of this -as when he pursues Little Tod- overall there is no consistency, no rhyme or reason to the performance. You could just as easily say that Brando was playing it as a cumquat and that would make about as much sense. I believe Brando in Breaks is a 2-sided coin: On the one - he’s an over indulged enfant terrible making mud pies to no ones delight but his own. On the other… People who knew Marlon best said that he couldn’t make decisions, he knew what he didn’t want but he didn’t know what he did want. Specifics eluded him. He couldn’t be pegged probably because he didn’t know himself – he needed a bit of direction. Penn needed to somehow steer Brando into some sort of cohesive portrayal as other directors had – because leaving his star to his own devices resulted in chaos.
Despite Brando’s nonsensical antics (which includes a bit where he dresses like a granny for no good freakin reason!) there were a few scenes between he and Nicholson that were interesting; the bit with the bathtub was weird but effective. Better yet - I really enjoyed the playful romance between Nicholson and Lloyd - both of them were outstanding. Some of the “boys roughhousing” stuff at the start was clumsily done, but once it settled into the story these actors too became as asset. Stanton was solid as was Quaid. They were also responsible for more than a few laughs (as when one of the guys complains “Why’d they put Canada way up here?”) The story held my interest but it’s a bummer. My 2 favorite actors in one film, but only one showed up to do his job.
Up Next: A 2-year hiatus before Marlon takes a small role that paid astronomical bucks!
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 16, 2009 15:23:57 GMT -5
Superman (1978) Directed by Richard Donner Cast: Brando (Jor-El), Christopher Reeves (Clark/Superman), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor) Oscars: Won Special Achievement Award for Special Effects - Nominated for Editing, Score and Sound
Brando had been running his fool mouth off for so long about not giving a damn that everyone took it as Gospel and it tainted the way we viewed his work. One reviewer made the comment that Marlon was fine, but that any actor could have done what he did; Paul Newman could have done the same thing for half the money (Newman actually was offered his choice of roles for a $4 mil paycheck. He turned it down, as did many others who saw this as a silly subject to tackle)
And yet, while this isn’t a great performance along the lines of “The Godfather”, his Jor-El does carry a strength and a quiet dignity that benefits the character. He adds much to some of the best moments in the film (as some know from past comments and my review at the Superhero Marathon, I love the first part of the film, hate the second half with the villains etc. If anyone disappoints me it’s Hackman and Beatty and I agree with critic Dave Kehr who wrote… “It is best when it takes itself seriously, worst when it takes the easy way out in giggly camp, When Lex Luthor enters the action, Gene Hackman plays the arch-villain like a hairdresser left over from a TV skit”)
Years, many years later, fans would finally get to see the Richard Donner cut for Superman II on DVD (For those not in the know. Director Donner filmed Superman I and II simultaneously – but was fired before he could finish part II and was replaced with Richard Lester). While this version is choppy and we’ll never know how Donner’s version would have ended, it does reveal that Supes II could have been one of the greatest superhero movies ever made and that Brando was far more important and better than many gave him credit for.
The moment in Supes II where Kal-El gives up his power was always a contrived plot device. And the scene between he and his mother doesn’t add much heartfelt weight to the decision. But restoring Brando’s scenes and the sequence, while still contrived, suddenly has great impact and emotional resonance. Though Brando’s just a floating head (at first) and he and Christopher Reeve’s never interacted face to face in those scenes, the two do click brilliantly. You feel the sadness, the loss. Both Reeves and Brando are wonderful… so could just any old actor/actress do what Brando did? Comparing the difference between that scene in Lester’s theatrically released version, the answer is a clear and resounding – no!
So I guess Reeves wasn’t impressed, and Brando embarrassed him in their lone face-to-face scene in the first film, when Christopher said his line “Who am I?” and Marlon replied, “you gonna go with that reading kid?” (For the most part though, Brando was well behaved). I felt Brando was a vital presence. Yes he was overpaid; yes I agree it isn’t fair that he made more money than the star (But that’s not uncommon in Hollywood. An established bankable name will often make more money than a newcomer; screen time doesn’t play into it. I believe Hackman even made more than Reeves, who was such an unknown that he was 3rd billed behind Brando and Hackman in the first film). Regardless, Marlon left an impression and what a nice warm feeling I had when I heard his voice in Singer’s “Superman Returns”.
Note: Conflict on the set didn’t revolve around Marlon, but the Salkind’s –who made a career out of getting sued for not paying what they promised- And surprisingly it was Reeves that some folks had a problem with (God rest his soul). He and the actor playing Non disliked one another so much that they nearly came to blows, which wouldn’t have been a good thing for Christopher as Jack O’Halloran was a top ranked heavyweight boxer, who squared off against the likes of George Forman in his prime!
Up Next: Marlon takes on 3 small roles in 1979, and find himself reunited with Coppola.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 17, 2009 16:28:50 GMT -5
Roots: The Next Generations (TV Miniseries 1979) Cast: Brando (George Lincoln Rockwell)
Marlon had wanted to parlay his earnings from Superman into a Roots-like miniseries for the American Indians. He couldn’t find anyone interested in filming the project and later wound up in a small part playing the leader of the white supremacists in the Roots sequel. Marlon was good, though it wasn’t a challenging role. He won an Emmy for his work.
Raoni: The Fight for the Amazon (1979) Directed by Jean-Pierre Dutilleux Oscars: Nominated for Best Documentary
I’ve never seen this. Here’s the synopsis at Rotten Tomatoes: Marlon Brando narrates this revealing look at an indigenous people struggling to survive in their endangered habitat. Raoni is the Chief of the dwindling Megkronoti tribe and has become an internationally recognized spokesman against the rapacity of multinational corporations and the short-sightedness of governmental policy for destruction of the Amazon rain forest, an action that holds the promise of environmental disaster for every human being on Earth
Apocalypse Now (1979) Directed By Francis Ford Coppola Cast: Brando (Col. Kurtz), Martin Sheen (Cap. Willard), Robert Duvall (Lt. Kilgore) Oscars: Won for Cinematography and Sound – Nominated for Best Picture, Direction, Screenplay, Supporting Actor (Duvall), Art Direction, Editing,
Out of all the movies I’ve looked at this is actually one that I was least interested in talking about. I don’t like the rambling, overlong film and Brando doesn’t really do anything but sit there and spout incoherent dogma. I didn’t find most of his scenes interesting. In truth I think the documentary about the making of this movie, “Hearts of Darkness”, is far more captivating and the outtakes offer better material than what we see in the film. Brando has a few fascinating monologs that were cut out (plus he ate a bug. Lol).
But there was a new extended cut “Apocalypse Now Redux” and I thought I should at least give this version a go. So I girded my loins and prepared for the tedium.
This isn’t a standard linear war story; it’s surreal, a primal stream of consciousness. Funny to think that George Lucas developed this project and was going to direct but he got involved with Star Wars (His concept was to do it smaller, like a documentary film).
Kurtz is the scary and mysterious specter that haunts the entire film (redux offers more dossier scenes that add to this vibe). Though Brando -with his baldhead drawing in and out of shadow- is kind of creepy, all told, when Kutrz is finally found it’s rather anti-climactic. Those final scenes are often too ethereal, lack a solid foundation, and I quickly got bored with it.
Watching it again after all these years I can see why the film, as well as Brando caused such a stir. It is ambitious and audacious. There’s solid acting, and an eerie score. While there are memorable sequences, the movie, as a whole simply doesn’t work for me. I think the script and direction meanders too much, which is made worse in Redux (The scene at the French compound brings the whole story to a screeching halt. It was a momentum killer). The film ranks high for many people – But it’s not my bag.
Note: Lynda Carter was going to be one of the original Playboy bunnies entertaining the troops. A typhoon delayed the scene and while they waited for it to pass, Lynda was hired to play Wonder Woman and didn’t return to the film.
Up Next: Brando plays Dick Cheney before anyone knew there was a Dick Cheney - It’s murder and conspiracy within the big oil game!
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 18, 2009 20:44:55 GMT -5
The Formula (1980) Directed by John G. Avildsen Cast: Brando (Adam Steiffel), George C. Scott (Lt. Barney Caine), Marthe Keller (Lisa) Oscars: Nominated for Best Cinematography
Brando is doing what I’ve referred to as gimmick acting. Here he’s stuffing his cheeks and playing this odd, baby lipped caricature of an Oilman investigated by George C. Scott after a murder. The thing is, unlike The Missouri Breaks, his nutty take is one of the few good and lively things in the whole movie.
The Formula is bone dry, statically directed (lots of long scenes where we see people walking and discussion things as the camera follows them) and riddled with some confusing scripting, with trite dialog (and cripes, would Cain shut up about his kid already! We get it, your supposed to be a “family man”) In addition to this, MGM gave Avildsen fits by cutting scenes and re-editing (actually making it longer than John G. wanted)
Scott was among the tide of actors from the 50s who followed in Brando’s wake – One of Marlon’s techniques was to use natural gestures and such, he fiddles with his nose or that often imitated hand scratch on the side of the chin thing he did on The Godfather. Scott did this as well; mostly he’d rub his forehead and would add a sigh as he’d speak a line. It’s kind of fun watching these 2 employ their Method ticks and it’s unfortunate that Brando’s scenes were so few and far between because this film came alive when he and Scott share a moment.
Both actors could be difficult on a set; Scott had a reputation for being moody and intimidating. Though he got frustrated with Marlon never saying his lines the same way with each take, the two played chess on down times and seemed to get along okay. As to Marlon, the director said he was a sweetheart with a great sense of humor.
In the book “Conversations With Brando”, Marlon complained that the film was ruined in editing and that his funniest scenes were cut, which seems an odd thing to say since this was a conspiracy/murder mystery/drama. But he has a point, that bit with the frog might be nonsense (Marlon injecting irony – a ruthless oil baron, who was worried about the environment in his own backyard) but it did offer a laugh. And this humorless, desiccated flick was in desperate need of a spark of any kind.
Favorite line: When Marlon offer’s Scott some candy… “Milk dud? Their good.” LMAO
Most eerie line: When a foreign cop tells Scott… "You have been fortunate in America so far. You haven't experienced organized terrorism."
And that puts a close to this section of Marlon’s career. Nearly 10 years will pass before he’ll make another movie. This was quite a mix: We had 2 classic performances with the Godfather and Last Tango in Paris. Then he shifted into this camp, gimmick style of acting that would plague much of his work to the end. His time on screen in his remaining movies would also diminish. I felt his work as Kal El in the Superman films was note worthy, but it was so small that it’s difficult to call it a “Brando Film”. The same could be said of The Formula and Apocalypse Now.
Up Next: Brando makes a big splash in a small role.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 19, 2009 16:47:50 GMT -5
Marlon was working on a couple of ideas with Donald Cammell titled Jericho (about the CIA’s involvement with drug lords) and Fan Tan (which was later turned into a novel). The projects languished, unfocused and unfilmable, when Marlon’s attentions were suddenly captured by another script that had come his way.
A Dry White Season (1989) Directed by Euzhan Palcy Cast: Brando (Ian McKenzie), Donald Sutherland (Ben Du Toit), Zakes Mokae (Stanley), Jurgen Prochnow (Cap. Stoltz) Susan Sarandon (Melanie) Oscars: Nominated for Best Supporting Actor (Brando)
Brando went to war with MGM and the director, who he felt lacked the talent to do this story of apartheid justice. He rewrote his part and begged the studio to allow him to re-edit the film. For Marlon, his return to the screen was a missed opportunity to do something special.
Despite these complaints the film did find a vocal group of fans who felt that the story had impact and that Brando gave a winning performance (it was one that earned him his 8th and final Oscar nomination). It was a very tiny part; lasting about 15 minutes. He plays a lawyer who is approached by Sutherland’s Ben Du Toit, to represent the family of a black man-his fiend-who was tortured and killed by police.
It isn’t perfect: The score is weak; it pipes in melodramatically here and there. The production lacks a certain sophistication and the direction is static - perhaps Marlon’s suggestions would have helped. Regardless, I felt it was a compelling story, one that got me emotionally invested with the characters and angry over the injustices heaped upon them. Donald Sutherland is stellar as a teacher who resists getting involved and at first, is blind to the horrors going on around him. Jurgon Prochnow is effective as a truly despicable police Captain. Zakes Mokae brings a pragmatic strength as Stanley, acting as Ben’s guide through this nightmare.
Cinephiles were a buzz over Brando’s return; from interviews it appears he cared about this story and put a lot of thought and effort into the performance. He does lean on familiar proclivities, nose scratching, nonsensical small talk. There are times I could sense a bit of Charles Laughton in his work, a touch of that self aware-“Watch me work my magic”-vibe that Laughton brought to the table with brilliant flourish. All told “A Dry White Season” was a triumphant return
Up Next: It gets even better with a bigger part, and a familiar role.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 20, 2009 18:47:31 GMT -5
The Freshman (1990) Directed by Andrew Bergman Cast: Brando (Carmine Sabatini), Matthew Broderick (Clark Kellogg), Bruno Kirby (Victor), Penelope Ann Miller (Tina Sabatini) Oscars: None
Matthew Broderick plays a film student who gets caught up in scheme set up by a Mafia type figure.
While Vito Corleone’s spirit is present, Brando is not truly parodying his Godfather figure, there’s nothing malicious or desperate in the portrayal. He plays it straight and imbues what could have been a sweet nothing, with a soul. His performance has heart and humor and presence. As Roger Ebert wrote, “…Brando has learned, over the years, to dominate a scene more completely than any other living actor. He is not performing, he is there. He is a fact. And behind that fact are the shadows of our memories of all his other performances”
I took my parents out to see the film and remember my father’s laughter throughout. In the seat ahead of us was a man in his 30s – every time Brando came on the screen he leaned forward and put his hands to his lips like a prayer. I could see his smile and a look of pure untainted bliss -I could relate, there were a lot of us who felt the same. The movie was so much fun and Brando was hilarious. Every line, every movement was perfection. I loved the nods to his past (He calls Clark, Kent (Superman), he talks on the phone to someone named Charlie (Waterfront). Marlon always said that he couldn’t do comedy, well he must have learned in his old age because he was spot on. The Freshman was one of Brando’s best.
Up Next: Is Brando back? Or will old habits comeback to haunt his fans?
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 21, 2009 17:52:41 GMT -5
Christopher Columbus: The Discovery (1992) Directed by John Glen Cast: Brando (Torquemada), George Corraface (Columbus), Tom Selleck (King Ferdinand) Oscars: None
Marlon had been saying for years that he didn’t care anymore, but he still put forth some kind of effort. Either by doing a standup job (Superman) or by acting the fool (Missouri Breaks) or even on rare occasions, by pulling off the wonderful (The Freshman) - he’d never been completely apathetic until now. Marlon is truly asleep at the wheel. He comes off bored, empty. He’s playing this cruel character, the potential for a colorful or dramatic flourishes were endless. Instead Brando actually did what he said he was going to do. Take the money and then coast through a performance.
To be fair, his personal life was in turmoil. His son was charged with manslaughter a few years before, his daughter was suffering from mental illness and he was doing all he could to get her help - legal fees and what not forced the actor to borrow 1 mil from Michael Jackson. A movie was meaningless at this point, but he was having financial problems and when you’re offered 5 mil for 10 minutes of work, you take it.
In his biography Brando said he convinced the filmmakers to rework the script so it would be historically accurate. He wrote his own part and had planed to play Torquemada as a kind of specter of death - and it was good to go, until old man Salkind (The Producer) balked and forced them to return to the bland original screenplay. I’m not sure if Brando’s take would have been any better but the movie as it is sucks big time. There’s nothing worth watching. It’s depressing, bloodless, without energy (odd coming from the director of several Bond flicks). It is not even bad/fun enough for a riffing. It truly is a movie without any merit.
Of Note: It was nominated for a lot of Razzies, and won a supporting Razzie for Tom Selleck.
Up Next: A light comedy adds another highlight to Marlon’s Filmography.
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Plumber on Jul 21, 2009 21:37:52 GMT -5
You put quite a bit of work into this. Typically, all I tend to think of Brando's career is Vito Corleone and Colonel Kurtz, despite the fact that I haven't sat through Godfather in its entirety and it's been many years since I've seen Apocalypse Now that I barely remember anything about it.
I did recall recently seeing the ending to a western with Jack Nicholson and Brando and I was looking through your thread to see if you might have covered it. It looks like it would have been The Missouri Breaks. I incidentally caught a bit of trivia that animal rights activists disapprove of this film because of animal fatalies and injuries that occurred in the making. I would say that would be a cause upon which I forego viewing a movie for.
That's not to say that I would find Brando directly responsible for such atrocities, but he didn't walk off the set either ... and we're talking about a man who puts his political causes before his work. And that's leads to a large vibe that I'm getting from this review and this man. I would think of a good film crew and cast being very integrated into a function team. It really seems like Brando is the loner who punches in, says his lines, and punches out. He treats his jobs like I would treat my pathetic, minimum wage, go-nowhere jobs.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 22, 2009 0:23:32 GMT -5
The animal abuse story is one that has been debated over the years. And it's an alegation that I've not seen addressed in biographies about the actor (even in the 'so called' unfriendly bios). So I don't know what the truth is in regards to the exent of cruelty. The one that seems to be a given though is that it was a real, living rabbit that was actually killed on screen (I'd always hoped that was Hollywood trickery but other sourses say no).
So that could be disturbing for some folks. (Brando did live on a farm in his youth, he probably had to kill a few rabbits or chickens... just as my father did when he worked on a farm, it might not have bothered him. Injuries to horses, I don't know about that and he or Nicholson never spoke about it)
Over the course of his life his causes focused more on humans. He did raise a stink when blacks working on "Burn" weren't being fed the same good food the stars were, and got angry when they were overworked - when a child got ill on set, he refused to work and made sure the kid got to the hospital.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 22, 2009 18:48:42 GMT -5
Don Juan DeMarco (1994) Directed by Jeremy Leven Cast: Brando (Dr. Jack Mickler), Johnny Depp (Don Juan), Faye Dunaway (Marilyn Mickler) Oscars: Nominated for Best Original Song (Bryan Adams “Have You Ever Really Loved A Woman”)
This film is a treasure. There are those cynics and critics who dismiss it as empty and forgettable fluff. Well I’m convinced that those people have no magic in their souls and that their blood, as Don Juan would say, is like dust in their veins.
Wonderfully comic, warm and delightful, DJD is buoyed by a winning cast, Johnny Depp is in peak form, magnetic and convincing as a man who believes that he indeed the great lover Don Juan. Brando is his doctor at the psychiatric hospital where Don is committed. He’s a man worn down over the years, who finds a spark after hearing DeMarco’s fantastic tales of romance and tragedy. Dunaway is a joy, strong and loving as Brando’s wife. The two have a nice, natural born chemistry together.
Director and screenwriter Leven weaves a charming tale of the renewing power of love and of creating magic in ones life. Is this deep? Is it work of art? I ask you, does it have to be? I’ve read negative reviews for this film where the entire tone of the piece came off as if the author were suffering from a terminal case of grouchiness. I feel sorry for them because while this movie isn’t spectacular in all the ways we define spectacular Hollywood productions, I always feel like a million bucks after I watch it. And I think that’s the whole point of the picture.
Brando and Depp work well together and Marlon liked Johnny so much that they quickly decided to do another film (I can’t remember the title, but it was to be filmed in Ireland). That project fell through, but later on Brando signed on to act in Depp’s directorial début, “The Brave”. Working with Depp had a positive effect on the actor and that shows through in his performance.
Up Next: The pendulum swing back into darkness! One project Marlon considered was a remake of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof with Madonna (of all people). He should have done that, instead of this next one…
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Jul 22, 2009 22:18:14 GMT -5
Up Next: The pendulum swing back into darkness! One project Marlon considered was a remake of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof with Madonna (of all people). He should have done that, instead of this next one? The greatest movie ever made. "There...must be...god...number...one!" Drumrole please!
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jul 23, 2009 17:16:25 GMT -5
Forgive me Torgo but...
The Island of Doctor Moreau (1996) Directed by John Frankenheimer Cast: Brando (Dr. Moreau), David Thewlis (Edward), Val Kilmer (Montgomery), Fairuza Balk (Aissa), Ron Pearlman (Sayer of the law) Oscars: None
A mad scientist, isolated on an island, lives as a God among the animal people he created. The flicks most lasting legacy, Brando’s act was parodied as a South Park character
Oh what a weird and troubled film, star David Thewlis refuses to watch it because the job was such a horrible experience. Val Kilmer changed roles so that he wouldn’t have to be in the film as much and later was so disappointed in the way things were going tried to get out of the movie all together. The original director, for which this was a dream project, was fired after 4 days for reasons that remain cloudy and only 2 lines from his original script survive.
There are tales of tension on the set. Though Brando and Kilmer were hanging out before production, there’s talk of friction between the two once the cameras rolled and each were going through personal strife (Kilmer learned that his wife was divorcing him while watching TV during filming, Brando’s daughter had committed suicide not long before). Thewlis was annoyed with Brando having his lines piped in through a device he wore in his ear, and it seems everyone disliked the director and the work he was doing. The only ones who seemed to get along were Marlon and his tiny sidekick.
The film reeks of discord and the story is haphazard and unwieldy. There’s a lot of subtext, which,-mined with skill-might have salvaged the movie, but that is undermined by the “stars”. Brando is camping it up big time, in his colorful muumuus and an ice bucket for a hat, the actor seems to be off in his old world. It’s an embarrassing performance, a cartoon like mockery of self. Brando has made himself the punch line in a bad joke. Kilmer is either trying to mimic his idol or attempting to out do him, as he too is both insouciant and camp.
The story has the potential to offer social content and insightful character study wrapped in a dark and thoughtful drama, but everything in this film conspires against all of that. The egos and eccentricities, the loss of a director who cared for one who didn’t and Moreau becomes an unholy mess. It’s a freak show (and I’m not talking about the animal people). I guess Kilmer & Brando performances could be enjoyed as twisted curiosities (and Kilmer provides a funny Brando impression). Thewlis does an able job; he and Fairuza Balk worked well together. Other than that, this is a difficult one to sit through for me and though I hate to say it, I feel that if you want to see a great Dr. Moreau, skip Brando and go watch Charles Laughton in “Island of Lost Souls” (with Lugosi as Sayer of the Law. No spill blood and the house of pain!)
Up Next: 2 films that didn’t hit American theaters, either at all, or only with infinitesimal distribution.
|
|