|
|
Post by hi224 on Sept 29, 2021 14:01:29 GMT
I've always wondered how he'd do within a Hitchcock movie, he has the right sort of screen presence and candor to commit to something like Rope or Dial M for Murder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 29, 2021 14:09:46 GMT
I've always wondered how he'd do within a Hitchcock movie, he has the right sort of screen presence and candor to commit to something like Rope or Dial M for Murder. Welles certainly would have been better cast in Rope (also Joseph Cotton, Laurence Olivier, Clifton Webb) than James Stewart was.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 29, 2021 14:42:23 GMT
I just learned that he wanted to play Vito Corleone in The Godfather.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Sept 29, 2021 14:57:59 GMT
I just learned that he wanted to play Vito Corleone in The Godfather. Yikes lol. I've said this before but have always been curious what a Burt Lancaster Vito would've looked like. I could see him being equally somber and melancholic while also giving the role some pragmatism as well, a steely repressed Vito whose still bullish and maybe refuses to fight the changing winds. Laurence Olivier probably would've made Vito much more refined and demure, a white collar Vito whose dignified ala Newman in Road to Perdition. |
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Sept 29, 2021 14:59:38 GMT
One part that Orson should NOT have played -- LADY FROM SHANGHAI.
Too paunchy to be portraying a rugged sailor, could not throw a punch, had no sexual chemistry with wife Rita.
He should have just directed, and let Glenn Ford play the role (now HE and Rita had an inferno for sexual chemistry).
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 29, 2021 15:05:20 GMT
If Welles were in a Hitchcock movie, the two of them probably would have killed each other.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 29, 2021 15:09:16 GMT
I've always wondered how he'd do within a Hitchcock movie, he has the right sort of screen presence and candor to commit to something like Rope or Dial M for Murder. Welles certainly would have been better cast in Rope (also Joseph Cotton, Laurence Olivier, Clifton Webb) than James Stewart was. I’m still baffled by the dislike for Stewart’s performance in Rope. He always had a streak of darkness beneath the all-American likability, even going back to After the Thin Man, and that gets exploited in all his performances for Hitchcock. In Rope he has always convinced me as a man who preaches ideas he thinks he believes in but when push comes to shove actually doesn’t.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Sept 29, 2021 15:11:13 GMT
If Welles were in a Hitchcock movie, the two of them probably would have killed each other. Naturally lol, and it's too bad really, because it'd be gangbusters but yeah no way two huge monster egos like them could exist without the whole world imploding. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Sept 29, 2021 15:17:38 GMT
Welles certainly would have been better cast in Rope (also Joseph Cotton, Laurence Olivier, Clifton Webb) than James Stewart was. I’m still baffled by the dislike for Stewart’s performance in Rope. He always had a streak of darkness beneath the all-American likability, even going back to After the Thin Man, and that gets exploited in all his performances for Hitchcock. In Rope he has always convinced me as a man who preaches ideas he thinks he believes in but when push comes to shove actually doesn’t. I feel it's more that theirs a lack of cerebral intelligence, and bookish hubris which Stewart doesn't really convey, Stewart really exudes a bit too much grounded earnestness and he's a bit blue collar for a role like Cadell. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 29, 2021 15:20:30 GMT
Welles certainly would have been better cast in Rope (also Joseph Cotton, Laurence Olivier, Clifton Webb) than James Stewart was. I’m still baffled by the dislike for Stewart’s performance in Rope. He always had a streak of darkness beneath the all-American likability, even going back to After the Thin Man, and that gets exploited in all his performances for Hitchcock. In Rope he has always convinced me as a man who preaches ideas he thinks he believes in but when push comes to shove actually doesn’t. His dark streak beneath the likability was well utilized throughout his career, and it makes him among the greatest and more compelling of our "Golden Age" stars. But the one kind of character you ought never to cast Stewart as is a character with a whiff of patrician superiority. And the character in Rope must have that. You must believe he is someone who a couple of college students aspiring for superiority want desperately to impress. Stewart never gives off that air. He is too down to earth to convincingly be held in awe by those two students.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Sept 29, 2021 15:22:15 GMT
I’m still baffled by the dislike for Stewart’s performance in Rope. He always had a streak of darkness beneath the all-American likability, even going back to After the Thin Man, and that gets exploited in all his performances for Hitchcock. In Rope he has always convinced me as a man who preaches ideas he thinks he believes in but when push comes to shove actually doesn’t. His dark streak beneath the likability was well utilized throughout his career, and it makes him among the greatest and more compelling of our "Golden Age" stars. But the one kind of character you ought never to cast Stewart as is a character with a whiff of patrician superiority. And the character in Rope must have that. You must believe he is someone who a couple of college students aspiring for superiority want desperately to impress. Stewart never gives off that air. He is too down to earth to convincingly be held in awe by those two students. As far as I know Grant was supposed to play the role but dropped out at the last minute. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 29, 2021 15:29:14 GMT
I’m still baffled by the dislike for Stewart’s performance in Rope. He always had a streak of darkness beneath the all-American likability, even going back to After the Thin Man, and that gets exploited in all his performances for Hitchcock. In Rope he has always convinced me as a man who preaches ideas he thinks he believes in but when push comes to shove actually doesn’t. His dark streak beneath the likability was well utilized throughout his career, and it makes him among the greatest and more compelling of our "Golden Age" stars. But the one kind of character you ought never to cast Stewart as is a character with a whiff of patrician superiority. And the character in Rope must have that. You must believe he is someone who a couple of college students aspiring for superiority want desperately to impress. Stewart never gives off that air. He is too down to earth to convincingly be held in awe by those two students. I’m not sure I agree with that never… True, Stewart rarely played such a role. But, stepping back and not thinking of him as his screen persona, what about him forbids that patrician superiority? The accent? Also, he seems to me exactly the kind of professor—youngish, speaks their language—that college students would look up to. My college classmates definitely looked up to that sort of teacher.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 29, 2021 15:33:23 GMT
I’m still baffled by the dislike for Stewart’s performance in Rope. He always had a streak of darkness beneath the all-American likability, even going back to After the Thin Man, and that gets exploited in all his performances for Hitchcock. In Rope he has always convinced me as a man who preaches ideas he thinks he believes in but when push comes to shove actually doesn’t. I feel it's more that theirs a lack of cerebral intelligence, and bookish hubris which Stewart doesn't really convey, Stewart really exudes a bit too much grounded earnestness and he's a bit blue collar for a role like Cadell. Actually, it’s exactly his earnestness in the role that convinces me. A Clifton Webb would seem so bookish and elitist that the role would seem like stereotype; oh, the viewer might think, this is some pointy-headed college professor spouting off. But Stewart actually seems to believe the horrible ideology he’s preaching—and, I think, would be effective at communicating that ideology to students.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Sept 29, 2021 15:35:38 GMT
I feel it's more that theirs a lack of cerebral intelligence, and bookish hubris which Stewart doesn't really convey, Stewart really exudes a bit too much grounded earnestness and he's a bit blue collar for a role like Cadell. Actually, it’s exactly his earnestness in the role that convinces me. A Clifton Webb would seem so bookish and elitist that the role would seem like stereotype; oh, the viewer might think, this is some pointy-headed college professor spouting off. But Stewart actually seems to believe the horrible ideology he’s preaching—and, I think, would be effective at communicating that ideology to students. Also maybe he was a bit old at that point but what about possibly Clift within this whole movie replacing Farley Granger? Something perhaps I actually toyed with which could be kinda neat as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 29, 2021 15:56:55 GMT
His dark streak beneath the likability was well utilized throughout his career, and it makes him among the greatest and more compelling of our "Golden Age" stars. But the one kind of character you ought never to cast Stewart as is a character with a whiff of patrician superiority. And the character in Rope must have that. You must believe he is someone who a couple of college students aspiring for superiority want desperately to impress. Stewart never gives off that air. He is too down to earth to convincingly be held in awe by those two students. I’m not sure I agree with that never… True, Stewart rarely played such a role. But, stepping back and not thinking of him as his screen persona, what about him forbids that patrician superiority? The accent? Also, he seems to me exactly the kind of professor—youngish, speaks their language—that college students would look up to. My college classmates definitely looked up to that sort of teacher. Different articles discussing the movie say "Stewart later admitted he felt he was miscast as the professor". medium.com/@sadissinger/a-film-to-remember-rope-1948-223e569318b8Stewart's screen persona, even when drawing from his dark side, still always has a lack of affectation. This lack works against the character of the professor. While your average college student may look up to Stewart's professor, these two students were preoccupied with superiority, and the professor they want to impress must have that air about him. Stewart doesn't bring that to the party, while lesser actors like Cotten and Webb (and Welles) would have.
|
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Sept 29, 2021 16:00:13 GMT
I've always wondered how he'd do within a Hitchcock movie, he has the right sort of screen presence and candor to commit to something like Rope or Dial M for Murder. Welles certainly would have been better cast in Rope (also Joseph Cotton, Laurence Olivier, Clifton Webb) than James Stewart was. I just watched Rope again and thought Stewart did better ,especially in the long final speech than is usually thought. Where he really flounders is in the cynical snarky speeches at the party. Maybe they would be unbelievable anyway, but Stewart completely fails to convince me that he ever thought these things. All of your choices would have been much better, as would JAMES Mason. Their party chat would have been convincing, so their renunciation of the Superman ideas would have had meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 29, 2021 16:06:40 GMT
Welles certainly would have been better cast in Rope (also Joseph Cotton, Laurence Olivier, Clifton Webb) than James Stewart was. I just watched Rope again and thought Stewart did better ,especially in the long final speech than is usually thought. Where he really flounders is in the cynical snarky speeches at the party. Maybe they would be unbelievable anyway, but Stewart completely fails to convince me that he ever thought these things. All of your choices would have been much better, as would JAMES Mason. Their party chat would have been convincing, so their renunciation of the Superman ideas would have had meaning. If I'd been in charge, I'd have said "Get me someone patrician, but taller than Mason. I want those two snot nose students to have to literally look up to him."
|
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Sept 29, 2021 16:12:17 GMT
What should/ could/ would ORSON Welles have Played?
He had a load of fun as Colonel Haki in JOURNEY INTO FEAR. I think he would have been great in some costume East European roles, such as Rasputin, Doctor ZHIVAGO as Komorovsky. Actually he would have been good in almost any part Steiger Played. He played Othello in his own film of the play , but I would like to have seen him as Iago. His wonderful verbal skill would have been great to see as the wheedling, manipulator
|
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Sept 29, 2021 16:18:07 GMT
I’m thankful for Sydney Greenstreet but can’t you just picture Welles chewing the scenery as Casper Gutman?   |
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Sept 29, 2021 16:27:20 GMT
By gad, Jervis -- you ARE a character.
I don't know what you will post next, but it's bound to be astonishing.
|
|
