MovieChat Forums > Key Largo (1948) Discussion > Why Bogey may be the best in history

Why Bogey may be the best in history

posted 18 years ago by Tony43
61 replies | jump to latest

We love lists these days and for my money, Bogart stands atop the list of the greatest movie stars ever. Not the best actors, for there was a lot Bogey could not do. Stage trained before he came to Hollywood, Bogey could handle dialogue just fine, but was not the best at another staple of filmmaking, the reaction shot. When the script said for the camera to move in on Bogey to catch his reacton to something, it was often not the best part of the picture. This is evident in Key Largo in the scene where the sheriff announces he has just killed the Oceloa Brothers, thinking they'd murdered Sawyer. The camera closes in on Bogey and rather than being offended, he looks like he's about to be sick, which I don't think was the intention.

But that, and his inept lovemaking aside, I list him as the movies' greatest star, actually atop Cary Grant, Clark Gable,even Chaplin.

Why Bogey? For me, the criteria is generally what was left behind and Humphrey Bogart appeared in more classic films than just about anyone I can think of.

"Petrified Forest"

"Maltese Falcon"

"Casablanca"

"To Have and Have Not"

"The Big Sleep"

"Key Largo"

"Treasure of Sierra Madrea"

"African Queen"

"The Caine Mutiny."

And these are just the all time classics. The list does not include "High Sierra," "In a Lonely Place," "Sahara," "The Roaring Twenties" and on and on.

Can anyone name an actor who left behind a stronger body of work?

[–] EJWCOMMRE 16 years ago

I agree with you that Bogie was the best in history. But I never felt he was "inept" in love scenes. I early noticed that he was the only star of his generation who touched a woman's face when he kissed her-all the others did the basic hug clinch.

[–] chrisbedford 16 years ago

I agree with you that Bogie was the best in history

Best what, 6 foot wooden Indian?

brilliant, subtle, understated reaction shots

subtle & understated, yes, to the point of nonexistence - brilliant? Rubbish.

Bogart in particular, and most of his films in general, have this bogus "aura" about them that is totally undeserved. Sheez, Bogey could have *been* the Petrified Forest, he is so immobile. He delivers his lines with the panache of a Sherman tank, his actions are stilted and forced, and his face (as is Bacall's) is totally deadpan for 99% of the performance.

And as for Edward G, I have seen Lou Ferragno and Chuck Norris give more convincing performances. The only reason I watched this film all the way through is to marvel at just how bad it is.

The only question I have about all these "classic" movies is how come "Plan 9 from outer space" got picked as the "worst"? There's nothing *that* special about it compared to 80% of Bogart's work.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joeparkson 16 years ago

I love Bogie, but this is E. G. Robinson's film. He dominated this film like James Cagney in White Heat.

[–] chrisbedford 16 years ago

this is E. G. Robinson's film. He dominated this film like James Cagney in White Heat

more like a ceiling fan dominates a room. He's about as menacing as a kitten - the way he stalks about the room with that pistol in his hand, cigar in the corner of his mouth, reminded me of a Superman comic. His performance would have been more at home in a Marx Bros movie.

[–] Teach417 15 years ago

Please allow me to explain something to you: you're an idiot, without the wit or taste to appreciate older movies that don't hit you over the head with special effects, but rather expect you to follow such aspects of the cinematic experience as dialogue, and characterization. Bogie, wooden? Try watching Maltese Falcon, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or African Queen sometime. Nothing wooden about any of those performances. Bogie put on the screen what the role required. He was a star, but he was an actor first. The fact that you can't appreciate his performances says much more about you than it does him.

[–] chrisbedford 15 years ago

Please allow me to explain something to you: you're an idiot, without the wit or taste to appreciate older movies that don't hit you over the head with special effects, but rather expect you to follow such aspects of the cinematic experience as dialogue, and characterization. Bogie, wooden? Try watching Maltese Falcon, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or African Queen sometime. Nothing wooden about any of those performances. Bogie put on the screen what the role required. He was a star, but he was an actor first. The fact that you can't appreciate his performances says much more about you than it does him

Please allow me to explain something to you: You've fallen for the "golden oldie" propaganda in a way that must make all those pretentious, pompous-ass critics' hearts warm.

Just because a movie is old doesn't mean it's good. Just because millions of swooning, vacuous girls thought Bogie was the greatest star of all time doesn't mean he could act.

I never at any point said a movie had to have special effects to be good (where did you get that from, anyway???). And I have no special admmiration for Tom Cruise or any of the other modern generation of heart-throbs. But I do think Humphrey Bogart delivered his lines with little to no feeling, and showed negligible facial expression. At least Sylvester Stallone has two expressions (mouth open, mouth closed) - Bogie has one (blank). A totem pole might be more subtle, but only a little.

Why should I watch any of his other movies - I was commenting on this one, and Cassablanca was no better.

So you have wit and taste, then? Well if it takes your kind of wit and taste to "appreciate" boring movies with stilted acting and lines delivered like the junior-high school play then I'll pass on the wit and taste, thanks. The fact that I can't "appreciate" his performance says it was geared for a forties audience and it is no longer relevant. If you poll people who thought it was terrific cinema when they saw it in 1948, many will tell you that it simply doesn't measure up today. I know that's true, my opinion isn't unique.

If my taste doesn't match yours it doesn't make me an idiot. If you think that it does that makes you *truly* an idiot, and a pompous, conceited idiot at that.

[–] Teach417 15 years ago

On the contrary, I don't think that all old movies are good, or that all current movies are bad. It's a case by case assessment, looking at each film on its own terms. Of course, with old movies, just as with old songs, or old books, it tends to be the better ones that survive, while the weaker ones fade away. So, a higher percentage of the old movies that we do see tend to be stronger, simply because some of the dross isn't shown any more.

Now, as far as Bogart is concerned, you seem to have dismissed one of the best film actors of the 20th century on the basis of two movies. And saying that his performance in Casablanca is wooden, or that he only shows one expression, is mind boggling. You aren't blind, by any chance, are you?

As to why you should watch any of his other movies, there are a couple of reasons. One, is that as first a leading character actor, then later in his career as a major star, he was cast in many first rate movies, well worth seeing for the level of writing, acting, cinematography, etc. involved. The second is so that you don't sound like an arrogant, ignorant young punk dismissing an actor whose work you're basically unfamiliar with.

Of course, you might be better off skipping those movies. If you think that Edward G. Robinson's acting in Key Largo is "stilted" and like that in a "junior high play," if you can't understand why Bogart's performance nails his character, and shows us just what he wants us to see, you probably are incapable of appreciating any of the finer movies, old or new. And once more, your attempts to dismiss Bogart, and insult me, reveal much more about you, and your own mental shortcomings, than they do about any of your targets.

[–] chrisbedford 15 years ago

I won't bother with your assessment of Bogart or any of his movies, since this has something of the flavour of a religious argument and we all know how likely that is to lead to anyone changing their mind.

And once more, your attempts to dismiss Bogart, and insult me, [blah blah blah]

This started as my expressing my opinion of a movie. You are the one who got personal (are you really a teacher? Hope you don't address your students with the same contempt) and now you are attempting to make it all about you. All I did was turn your own words on you!

Your conceit and pomposity are astounding. Just because people are still renting a particular movie doesn't make it a masterpiece - "Shaun of the Dead" still has a strong cult following, but it's total nonsense - reputation has a snowball effect, and once a movie has reached a certain critical mass it gains a certain aura. Pretentious fools get sucked in by the hype and repeat the rubbish they have heard from others, and so the vicious circle turns and gains momentum until it's like an urban legend - doesn't matter how true it is, everyone tells everyone else the falsehood.

Don't bother replying, I won't respond any further to your personal attacks.

[–] Teach417 15 years ago

The one thing we agree on is that popularity is not a reliable guide to quality. However, when someone achieves both critical and commercial success, and maintains that popularity and critical acclaim for decades, even after their death, it is more than a little presumptuous to dismiss them -- and their fans -- as cavalierly as you do the talents of Bogart and Robinson. I might also point out that your blanket dismissal of the acting in Key Largo also includes Claire Trevor and Lionel Barrymore, two more accomplished screen actors. It would be one thing if you stated that you don't see what makes Bogart -- or Robinson -- so special. That might lead to an interesting discussion. (There's a thread on the High Noon board about Gary Cooper that illustrates how this type of respectful approach can stimulate a fruitful give and take.) However, you attack them with such vitriol, and obvious disrespect for those who do appreciate their talents, that your whining about "personal attacks" cannot help but smack of hypocrisy.

[–] anthny_platt 9 years ago

Gee, after watching a beloved and respected actor in one film, where he plays a hostage who must be on his guard at all times, I think I'll call people's considered opinions 'rubbish', then whine about 'personal attacks'.

Good job, Bedford. Thanks so much for the input.

[–] cyninbend-149-610489 9 years ago

Edward G. Robinson gave the greatest acting performance in history based on his performance in Double Indemnity. He was nothing but amazing. Without him, I think the film might have been confused with a comedy.

Bogey was the greatest actor because he knew how not to overdo it. It's why anyone can imitate a Jimmy Cagney line or a John Wayne line--they are the same in every role as well. All they have on Bogart is the unfortunate lisp caused by his anatomy, not a voluntary thing. And they overdo it. When Bogart was playing Sam Spade or Philip Marlow, he knew not to play it up--these hard-boiled detectives were extremely low key. Other actors are among those who raved about Bogart. The subtlety is amazing. As for romantic, my heart pounds watching only Bogey. The rest were downright silly, except for Cary Grant--and when I saw photos of him with Randolph Scott, I knew why he just never worked for me. The chemistry between him and the man HE loved explains what our heads may not comprehend but somewhere more intuitively, we understand. Jimmy Stewart made a perfect grandpa, even when he was just in his 40s, and Henry Fonda was just not wantable, for lack of a better word...he was a curmudgeon, probably as a child.... Paul Newman was great, as an actor, and as a pinup--those eyes were something else. But he was the quintessential married man. He just did not seem like he'd seduce you. But Bogey did.

I can't criticize Fonda's acting because sometimes he was superb. But not always. Bogart was great whether acting with women in a romantic scene or with tough guys, or with sophisticated men's men, like William Holden. But if you are a Lou Ferrigno and Chuck Norris fan, you'd never understand.

P.S. He was nowhere close to 6 feet tall, so playing a 6 foot Indian would actually have been quite an accomplishment.

[–] heyuactor 15 years ago

Right, ScatteredxDream. It was Rocco's fault. And my guess it was one of the reasons Frank decided to stand up to him, at the end.

"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.

[–] MrBigglesworth999 12 years ago

Robert de Niro anyone?

[–] ccs-5 11 years ago

I completely agree -- as far as I'm concerned, Humphrey Bogart was in a class by himself. Of the old-time actors, Clark Gable and Cary Grant also had their own unique brand of charisma and "star quality", but they didn't appear in as many "all-time-great" movies.

By the way, my personal top 20 list would consist mostly of "modern" actors (e.g. De Niro), including some who are still rather young and probably have much of their career still ahead of them.

My favorite Bogart movies:

1. Casablanca [again, in a class by itself]
2. The Caine Mutiny
3. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
4. The African Queen
5. ? (I need to re-watch some of the others you mention. "The Maltese Falcon" has never been one of my favorites, though.)

[–] gullwing592003 11 years ago

I'm a huge Bogart fan but I'm also a fan of the other actors of his time such as George Raft, James Cagney, Spencer Tracy & Edward G. Robinson who clearly dominates & owns this movie. He & Claire Trevor stood out the most.

I think the reason Bogart is the "best" (matter of opinion) is because unlike the other actors of his time Bogart didn't become a major star early in his career like Cagney, Raft, Robinson, Muni etc. He really didn't come into his own til the early 40's after being in films for 11 years. The Petrified Forest turned him into a minor star & supporting player but it typed him in gangster roles he couldn't shake until The Maltese Falcon.

Had he been a star 10 years earlier like the others would he still be the "greatest movie star" of all time ?? Probably not.

[–] marhefka 11 years ago

ccs-5,

I pretty much agree with you.

1. Casablanca. Yes, in a class by itself.
2. The Caine Mutiny. Bogart's performance in the courtroom was one of the best performances in film history.
3. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. I haven't seen this one.
4. The African Queen. Yes, it was a great movie.

Also, I agree with you on the Maltese Falcon.

[–] Yorick_Brown 11 years ago

Bogart and John Huston sure made a great team.

Some other actors with great films on their resume are Cary Grant, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, Tom Hanks, Matt Damon and Tom Cruise.

Have you ever seen a human heart? It looks like a FIST wrapped in BLOOD!

-Closer (2004)

[–] hodie 10 years ago

One vote for Robert Duvall here.

Get me a bromide! And put some gin in it!

[–] mark-1589 10 years ago

Regarding Bogie's reaction shots, I cannot say I ever paid close attention to that aspect of his acting, but I do recall one famous scene where I thought his reaction was absolutely brilliant and subtle. I am thinking of the scene in Casablanca where he first catches sight of Elsa after she comes to Casablanca. An ever so slight sneer of utter disgust and revulsion comes over his face, just for an instant. In fact, I had seen that film many times before I even caught it.

In any case, I always assumed his persona generally had a poker face.

[–] udippel 9 years ago

Yes, and No.

Humphrey Bogart was Humphrey Bogart in all of his movies. The like-able, slightly 'bad', but fearless hero. Variable, master of all roles, he was not. He was playing the Humphrey Bogart as Humphrey Bogart.
Yet, in this capacity to me he ranks only second behind Fernando Rey, who also played always similar characters, and yet with less effort, less acting, but with his whole body, as motionless as he might visibly have been.

Asking myself now, who was top at playing various roles, of all sorts, that's much more difficult for me to answer. In the field of comedy, the answer would be simple: Peter Sellers and Alec Guinness.

[–] anthny_platt 9 years ago

Bogart was Bogart in every movie he made?

Have you seen The Roaring Twenties? African Queen? Action in the North Atlantic? The Caine Mutiny? Treasure of Sierra freaking Madre, where we see his character slowly lose his mind?

Just because the man had a distinctive face and voice doesn't mean these characters weren't different from one another, and all very different from Sam Spade.

Yeah, I saw him in one or two movies and I think he lacks range. People, when you see John Wayne in 47 movies you know what a lack of range is.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]