|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 11, 2021 17:50:55 GMT
I still can't believe this was actually made. Is "The Conqueror" really that bad? Like if were to get past the horrible miscasting and yellowface, is it a watchable movie? Supposedly this is the movie that gave Wayne cancer (it was filmed near a nuclear testing site). A bunch of other people involved in the film got cancer as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Oct 11, 2021 18:01:54 GMT
He smoked 5 packs a day, more likely that gave him cancer.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 11, 2021 18:37:15 GMT
Eh outside of the awkward casting decisions, it's kind of a bore. If you want to see a Genghis Khan movie, check out Mongol (2007) instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Oct 11, 2021 18:44:38 GMT
Politicidal has a handle on this. As weird as the casting choices were, it's really hard to even tell because it is directed in such a dull manner. Plod, plod, plod, try to stay awake. Who even knows if the acting or writing is any good? It just plods along so slow that no one knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 11, 2021 18:59:01 GMT
Politicidal has a handle on this. As weird as the casting choices were, it's really hard to even tell because it is directed in such a dull manner. Plod, plod, plod, try to stay awake. Who even knows if the acting or writing is any good? It just plods along so slow that no one knows. Merci. I checked who directed it, I know Hughes produced it, and apparently it was Dick Powell.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Oct 11, 2021 20:38:54 GMT
He smoked 5 packs a day, more likely that gave him cancer. He probably died from the nuclear testing. But if he lived longer he would get cancer anyway maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Oct 11, 2021 21:06:25 GMT
It's been a long time since I seen it. It was an abomination. I do remember thinking it might have worked if Jack Palance had starred. I don't mean "worked" like Lawrence of Arabia worked but it might have been watchable. The dialogue was so hokey and even moreso coming out of the Duke's mouth. as far as miscasting, it's up there with the 50+ year old Henry Fonda playing the 14 year old Pierre Bezukov in War and Peace
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Oct 11, 2021 21:13:38 GMT
I always preferred the Omar Sharif Genghis Khan film but neither one are very satisfactory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hurdy Gurdy Man on Oct 12, 2021 4:29:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 12, 2021 12:27:11 GMT
He smoked 5 packs a day, more likely that gave him cancer. I dunno about that, he died from stomach cancer, not lung cancer.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReyKahuka on Oct 12, 2021 12:41:13 GMT
What range!
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Oct 13, 2021 0:37:46 GMT
Some actors are so ingrained in the public mind as American icons and/or Everyman, it is difficult to accept them in any other form, even if they have the capability to pull off accents and alter their features.
Wayne was one of them. Jack Lemon was another. His Marcellus in Branagh's Hamlet was an embarrassment, as if he had dropped from some alien planet into Middle Ages Denmark.
Others who have tried, with varying results, are Gene Hackman as a Polish Major General in A Bridge Too Far and Nick Adams as a Pole who wants to join a squad of G.I.'s in Hell Is For Heroes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Oct 13, 2021 5:31:27 GMT
He smoked 5 packs a day, more likely that gave him cancer. I dunno about that, he died from stomach cancer, not lung cancer.
He switched to snuff after having a lung removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 13, 2021 11:31:32 GMT
I have never seen it, but I find very annoying the whining about the casting of a white actor in the role of an Asian historical figure in a movie made decades ago. Today of course this wouldn't be done (unless it is casting a black actor in the role of a white historical character, which for some reason is not only acceptable but desirable according to some people) but at the time? An American studio decided to make a (presumably expensive) Genghis Khan biopic. They have one of the major stars of the day interested in playing the part. What do they do, go with a completely unknown Mongolian actor instead and risk losing their investment?
It was either make the movie with a widely popular star even though his ethnicity didn't match the character's, or not make the movie at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Oct 13, 2021 13:29:33 GMT
I have never seen it, but I find very annoying the whining about the casting of a white actor in the role of an Asian historical figure in a movie made decades ago. Today of course this wouldn't be done (unless it is casting a black actor in the role of a white historical character, which for some reason is not only acceptable but desirable according to some people) but at the time? An American studio decided to make a (presumably expensive) Genghis Khan biopic. They have one of the major stars of the day interested in playing the part. What do they do, go with a completely unknown Mongolian actor instead and risk losing their investment? It was either make the movie with a widely popular star even though his ethnicity didn't match the character's, or not make the movie at all. The movie bombed and was criticized for its white-wash casting even back that. So that didn't work out at all. Maybe the unknown Mongolian actor would've been a better idea for their investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 13, 2021 14:14:41 GMT
I have never seen it, but I find very annoying the whining about the casting of a white actor in the role of an Asian historical figure in a movie made decades ago. Today of course this wouldn't be done (unless it is casting a black actor in the role of a white historical character, which for some reason is not only acceptable but desirable according to some people) but at the time? An American studio decided to make a (presumably expensive) Genghis Khan biopic. They have one of the major stars of the day interested in playing the part. What do they do, go with a completely unknown Mongolian actor instead and risk losing their investment? It was either make the movie with a widely popular star even though his ethnicity didn't match the character's, or not make the movie at all. The movie bombed and was criticized for its white-wash casting even back that. So that didn't work out at all. Maybe the unknown Mongolian actor would've been a better idea for their investment. I am sure that there were many reasons why the movie bombed. Having the title role played by a white actor was not one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Oct 13, 2021 14:20:55 GMT
The movie bombed and was criticized for its white-wash casting even back that. So that didn't work out at all. Maybe the unknown Mongolian actor would've been a better idea for their investment. I am sure that there were many reasons why the movie bombed. Having the title role played by a white actor was not one of them. Considering critics were pointing out how even back then that was a bad choice, it absolutely played a role. The white washed casting is denounced far more than any bad acting or story problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 13, 2021 14:29:40 GMT
I am sure that there were many reasons why the movie bombed. Having the title role played by a white actor was not one of them. Considering critics were pointing out how even back then that was a bad choice, it absolutely played a role. The white washed casting is denounced far more than any bad acting or story problems. In 1956? Nope, not buying it. *** Edit *** Just to be clear, I am perfectly aware that TODAY the "white washed" casting is seen as the biggest problem among critics and ordinary moviegoers alike - it was the first thing that came to MY mind when I saw the thread title, and I haven't even seen the movie! What I am saying is that I don't believe for a moment that back in 1956 the casting of a white actor to play Genghis Khan in a Hollywood movie had a significant negative effect in the poor performance of the movie in the box office (even if some critics of the time did raise objections). |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 13, 2021 15:13:33 GMT
I have never seen it, but I find very annoying the whining about the casting of a white actor in the role of an Asian historical figure in a movie made decades ago. Today of course this wouldn't be done (unless it is casting a black actor in the role of a white historical character, which for some reason is not only acceptable but desirable according to some people) but at the time? An American studio decided to make a (presumably expensive) Genghis Khan biopic. They have one of the major stars of the day interested in playing the part. What do they do, go with a completely unknown Mongolian actor instead and risk losing their investment? It was either make the movie with a widely popular star even though his ethnicity didn't match the character's, or not make the movie at all. Yeah but you gotta admit even ignoring the yellowface, John Wayne (one of the most American and typecasted actors ever) was an odd choice for Ghengis Khan. I mean that kind reminds me of when Kevin Costner was cast as Robin Hood, even if it were limiting it to American actors for the role, that was such an odd choice. Even if it absolutely had to be a big name white actor, surely there were better other options at the time (Marlon Brando?).
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 13, 2021 15:25:54 GMT
I am sure that there were many reasons why the movie bombed. Having the title role played by a white actor was not one of them. Considering critics were pointing out how even back then that was a bad choice, it absolutely played a role. The white washed casting is denounced far more than any bad acting or story problems. Well they probably thought he was a bad choice because it was John Wayne (a guy known almost exclsuively for playing a rugged cowboy) playing Genghis Khan rather than him being white. I 'd have to look it up, but I doubt very many people were complaining back then about the yellowface. I mean the movie was released just a few years after the Japanese interment camps for crying out loud.
|
|
