Today, May 1 2006, is Glenn Ford's 90th birthday. I wonder if he ever reads these comments. Gilda was the biggest hit of his career, after all. Anyway, Happy Birthday to "Johnny."
share[deleted]
Famalberts, I don't understand your post. Were you saying that Glenn Ford was lucky because he costarred with Rita Hayworth or did you mean something else? And what was that about Richard Widmark and Gene Tierney?
shareThe very wooden Glenn Ford has always surprised me with the roles he got, instead of giving them to a much better actor, as he was a bad actor in the same way Jack Webb and Dana Andrews were bad actors. Both were stiff and wooden with almost no realistic and believable emotional range. Both ruined every movie they were in, in my opinion, with that unrealistic woodenness that made them look embarrassed.
The same can be said for quite a few other male "stars" who came out of Hollywood rather than legitimate stage origins. Some arrived by way of singing careers like Roy Rogers or Elvis Presley; others were strictly the creation of public relations departments like Rock Hudson or Tab Hunter; and the dearth of actors available during the WWII years had producers reaching pretty far down the line for leading men. Even John Wayne owes his career at least to some extent to a good director like John Ford. Being in the right place at the right time or being available for duty on the casting couch has made many stars. And quite a few women came by way of the same route. The classic example there would be Lana Turner -- an actress she never was.
Glenn Ford was perhaps neither the worst nor even the most mediocre of an unpretentious lot. That he built a career lasting well into the 1970's has as much to do with his work habits and longevity, as well as a good reputation among his peers and a sound war record.
Can anyone else think of some stars who were not necessarily great actors?
I first saw Ford in 1978's 'Superman' and I loved his part. I think he is a good, solid actor, and it is not fitting to call him 'mediocre' when he has had such a long string of movies to his career. I think the reason some people today might consider his acting "bland" or "aloof" is because most of today's roles are catered to wise-cracking smarty-pants types like Will Smith, Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis. In Hollywood today, unless you appear ironic and smug you don't attract the attention of the popcorn crowds that bring in the big bucks. That isn't to say that there aren't good actors today, but it seems that movies have been sort of dumbed down for the mass audiences, and as everyone knows, an audience loves to see the lead actor crack a bunch of jokes as he shouts Yippee-Cayay...
Ford reminds me of a different era, an era when men had enough dignity and self-respect to not sink beneath themselves. What today might be considered being "open to your feelings" was once considered effeminate, perhaps even gay. I am not saying that being open with one's emotions is bad. After all, great male Hollywood actors have always shown a good degree of emotional range. But in that by-gone era, men simply didn't wear their hearts on their sleeves. It was considered a sign of strength to withold one's emotions. One's actions spoke louder and more clearly than an over-abundance of emotion that is so common today to most male roles.
Ford in many ways reminds me of another great, but under-rated actor, Joseph Cotten. Although Cotten is widely known among afficionados of the film noir genre, especially his collaborations with Orson Welles, he has never garnered the public fame of many of his contemporaries. Like Ford, he also exuded a quiet but determined strength in his roles. Do not confuse, here, quiet strength and dignity with a lack of acting talent. Both men had a remarkable degree of acting talent and both deserve greater recognition from their peers.
I might've agreed that Ford wasn't all that special until I saw Human Desire recently. He was astounding in that, and Gloria Grahame as well - both really worked their roles in that movie.
shareGloria Grahame was a fine actress, not pretty enough to star but always ready to give a flawless performance, either as a scorned lover or a "bad" girl.
shareWith the death of Glenn Ford today, we may have lost the last chance to explore further some of the puzzling aspects involved in his characterization of "Johnny." Not that he would have or could have ever revealed anything new, but any loss of first-hand sources in the discussion of old films is unfortunate.
shareYes, it's sad that Glenn Ford has passed to the great studio in the sky. If he was that bad an actor (as stated in other blogs) how did he get so many parts? I particularly remember him in 'Midway'.
share[deleted]
Glenn Ford, God rest his soul, was a very natural actor who was (and still is) criminally underrated. He had a long-running career, which must stand for something. He always insisted that he played himself onscreen, and while we may take that as self-deprecation or the mere assumption that he wasn't really "performing", that statement is, in fact, very revealing. Playing yourself is not easy - you have to convey, in a sense, your own life experiences and faults. That is a very tough assignment, and for many actors who have studied "the method" as Ford did in the fifties, self-examination and dissecting yourself is a very eye-opening, painful and frightening experience.
His chemistry with Rita Hayworth was explosive in all five of the films that they made together, and it can be said that Ford was very much in love with her (as he admitted in interviews after her death) but he kept that very carefully guarded as something very personal and precious. Hopefully, they are reunited.
He was deserving of a Lifetime Achievement Oscar, an honor that was never given to him. Another star has ascended to heavens, leaving an unforgettable afterglow. As a Canadian, Ford will always have a very special place in my heart.
RIP Glenn.
http://vintagestars.proboards67.com
He did 'repressed' very well.
share