MovieChat Forums > The Two Mrs. Carrolls (1947) Discussion > Bogart was miscast here, despite...

Bogart was miscast here, despite...

posted 12 years ago by TheManInOil
6 replies | jump to latest

... the amazing sequence towards the end where he's alone in the house with Stanwyck. I thought he was great in that and the whole sequence plays out like a silent film horror.

But as a tortured artist and madman, it really needed someone with qualities more sensitive and passionate - someone like Montgomery Clift (I know he wasn't in movies quite yet - I just mean someone of his 'type').

Nevertheless I thought it was quite good in the last act. It's just a different movie than it had been up to that point.

My only other complaint really is that they should have gotten a better artist for the portraits, which were so obviously amateurish that nobody would believe they were 'masterpieces'.

"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."

[–] rnmackenzie 12 years ago

I agree that the casting was odd, but I gradually bought into it. The trailer, though, proclaims that the really big deal was putting Bogart and Stanwyck together on screen--the trailer screams in big letters that this is "what you've been waiting for!" Also, casting Bogie as a wife-murderer was not new: see him in the 1945 film "Conflict."

And I agree with your points about the quality of the portraits and the casting of a sensitive-seeming painter. I felt this was a major issue also in the otherwise great Fritz Lang film, "Scarlet Street," (again 1945) with Edward G. Robinson as a misunderstood painter.

[–] joeparkson 11 years ago

Ray Milland, Cary Grant, George Sanders would have been better than Bogie.

Even Errol Flynn might have enjoyed playing such a part, and he had great chemistry with Alexis Smith.

Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

[–] MyMovieTVRomance 11 years ago

You're right, he was definitely miscast. He had no real chemistry with Stanwyck AT ALL. And, I was about to say that maybe if Bacall had been in the film instead, it might have worked for him. But no, because I just can't see her in that kind of role, whereas Stanwyck was good in the part.

So, to make this work, the formula would have been to keep Stanwyck but nix Bogart. I mean, he's good, but not the best for this role. I still like him in it though---even though the glaring lack of chemistry between he and his leading lady is hard to ignore.

Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize!

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

In the film's beginning, portraying the fishing trip to Scotland, I think the chemistry was definitely there between Bogart and Stanwyck. Later in the film, after Alexis Smith appears, there is not SUPPOSED to be chemistry between the Carrolls. I think the OP misses the point that is clearly in the narrative.

Meanwhile there was great chemistry between Bogart and Smith.

Imo this was a great role for Bogart. People are used to him as either the hero or the film noir anti-hero. But in fact he played characters like Dobbs in Sierra Madre, and Captain Queeg. And of course his earlier, non-leading man roles often had him playing bad people, like in The Roaring Twenties and Dead End. Our greatest actor, he was not miscast here. I enjoyed his performance immensely, and those who did not understand it, such was their loss.

[–] RobbieCalifornia 9 years ago

Oh please with the condescending remark about not "understanding."

Bogart did a good job with mediocre material. The film wasn't that good, and in my opinion he was miscast. For me the best part of the film was Alexis Smith. Much as I love Bogart and Stanwyck, I'd rather watch them in anything but this.

[–] doroberts-1 8 years ago

Sorry, this film is just a plain stinker ! Both Bogart and Stanwyck are miscast, especially him. The only things remotely interesting are Ann Carter, and maybe Anita Bolster.