I like the actors in this film, but not in THIS film. Very early efforts by most of them, and stiff, amateurish acting to say the least. Cagney is an icon, of course, but his best work was still in his future. Take out the grapefruit and the (now) big names, and whaddya got? Bleh... The high esteem for this movie over the years puzzles me.
Hi, Bob.
It's funny you say that. On the DVD extra, Blood and Beer, it's said that the moment Cagney walks on the screen is the beginning of modern acting. So it would mean that everyone else on screen isn't doing modern acting in the film.
I agree to your statement somewhat, there are different styles of acting seen here, Cagneys great more natural approach is most evident compared to Donald Cook's (Who played his brother) old school style of acting.
Jean Harlow wasnt that great either, but theres no denying she has a certain presence that added to the film.
http://www.cagneyonline.co.uk/
Agree with your comment about Donald Cook & James Cagney. When Cagney was on the screen he COMMANDED your attention. The others are just bleh, as someone else stated. And Jean Harlow...go easy on her, she was just learning!
shareThis picture was made in 1931. The actors were mostly all 'kids' just starting out in 'talkies' making it up as they went along. Jim Cagney's first film role had been just a year earlier, in 1930. Jean Harlow's, in 1928; Edward Woods - 1930; Joan Blondell - 1930; Donald Cook - 1930. How good (as film actors) could any of them be, really?
Compare the dates of their earliest films to that of actress Beryl Mercer (Ma Powers) who started back in 1916.
This was an early one, and talking film acting was in its infancy. And it shows!
Hi, Bob.
You have a point, but just to add some insight...What about stage actors? That job is much harder because the performances are live and the actors have to be on their toes. So I personally don't think that a talkie back then would be any different. It would actually be easier for someone who had stage experience since they could produce multiple takes.
Charlie Chaplin was a stage actor before silents and more recently Ian McDiarmid did stage acting before the whole Star Wars saga...both are immensely talented on the screen.
The first sound movie was made in 1927 and silent pictures didn't disappear until 1930. This movie was made in 1931 so acting, and speaking in sound movies was a new art form. Stage acting, then and now, is MUCH different that (sound) movie acting. Stage acting calls you to project your voice and use exagerated gestures so that those in the balcony can see and hear you. The early sound actors were experimenting with something totally NEW!
share
George Arliss was an extremely popular star of early talkies who had spent decades on stage in England and the U.S. I've seen maybe four of his films and I wonder "Why was he so popular?" Physically unprepossessing with a distinctly "stagy" manner. In a film with Bette Davis, she comes off as naturalistic and real, while he seems to have dropped from another planet (or century).
"We're fighting for this woman's honor, which is more than she ever did."
Very good point. I don't think it was necessarily “bad acting”, the style of acting was just totally different in the early years of cinema. A bit of a trial and error process if you will. I mean, Edward Woods is very wooden, but I think he was more there for the way he looks than anything else. Of course, when the movie was originally cast Woods was playing Tom and Cagney was Matt, but after a screen test they realised Cagney was far superior for the part and swapped them. And as somebody mentioned before, Cagney’s appearance in The Public Enemy is considered by many to be the beginning of modern screen acting.
Consider that a recording of a stage production loses a lot in translation, if you compare to seeing it live. I think that was probably what happened in this film... they were just not familiar with the most effective techniques for acting for the screen.
FreedomBeautyTruthLove
Silent movies were just ending, so new styles had to be developed.
But Cagney is sensational in this movie.
Putty Nose plays it just about right also.
Well I must say Cagney has never really convinced me he was quite the great actor he´s said to be - and here he´s again plenty hammy. Moreso than necessary, I think.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
The guy playing Mike was terrible.... he was bad by early silent era films where he seemed to be trapped, like at the end.
Cagney a was short, skinny kid his whole life. He, like Alan Ladd, needed special attention with casting to use other short actors just to keep from looking like a shrimp. Both made up for it with buckets of pure charisma and charm. All in all, not too bad for an early talkie.
Totally disagree. I came across this film last night on TCM and the first thing that grabbed me was the poise and intensity of the actor playing Mike. Cagney we all know about...but Donald Cook stood up to him in terms of screen presence very effectively in their big scene as Mike was packing to leave for the army. Cook matched Cagney expertly, and the tension increased with every line. I kept expected Cagney to deck his brother, but when the opposite happened, it capped off this very well directed (and acted) scene perfectly.
I agree that the scene with the shell-shocked Mike at the dinner table (with the beer keg) was another matter. But since Donald Cook had proven himself to be a talented, convincing actor in his previous scene, I would fault the director for the exaggerated style of the dinner scene; clearly Cook had the ability to play it more subtly.
And everybody knows that during this period, the industry was just starting to learn how to adjust the technique and style of stage-trained actors (with the many new challenges of talkies) to film performance.
I mean, let's be realistic here: Cagney's immense talent and screen presence don't change the fact that he was a major scenery-chewer, whose often garish over-acting we tend to excuse because he was so fascinating and unique.
[deleted]