if William Holden had been cast as guy instead of Farley Granger?
I think it would have. Granger's kind of a weak. Robert Walker seems to blow him off the screen. Holden would have held his own much better.
Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.
Just for the fact of Granger being able to play vulnerable, it would have been a mistake to use Holden, who I don't think could have played vulnerable.
Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...share
Granger's character is supposed to be weak - Holden would have just punched the creep in the face and told him to piss off.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
In his address to the 1988 Republican National Convention, Ronald Reagan introduced a section of his speech with the words:
"Before we came to Washington, Americans had just suffered the two worst back-to-back years of inflation in 60 years. Those are the facts, and as John Adams said, ‘Facts are stubborn things.’"
This paragraph, and the following four paragraphs, finished with Adams’s words. However, at the end of the third paragraph, Reagan made a verbal slip, which he immediately corrected. A transcript of the speech reads,
"Facts are stupid things – stubborn things, should I say. [Laughter]."
However, despite its origin as a slip of the tongue, "Facts are stupid things" has taken on a life of its own in the world of quotations by those ignorant of... the facts.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
-- John Adams
No, I agree with the other posters. Hitchcock tended to have two types of male leads; the naturally heroic lady's man or an "every man" forced by circumstances to rise to the occasion.
Holden's specialty was being the urbane, tough and witty guy that made the women swoon. Nothing like Guy's personality. But then, when Hitchcock needed an urbane, tough and witty swoon-meister, he picked up the phone and called Cary Grant.
A young Jimmy Stewart could have played Guy, a generally decent man struggling to come to grips with a situation beyond his control. It was the same character type Stewart played as an older man in Rear Window, Vertigo and The Man Who Knew Too Much.
Bruno was looking for an accomplice he could intimidate and run circles around. He obviously intended to kill this person once the "cross-cross" was complete in order to tie up the last lose end.
Though his own opinion need not be seen as any better than ours, Hitchcock told Francois Truffaut that the wanted William Holden for Guy, and felt that a "stronger" Holden would have been better for the story's conflict. He was disappointed to have had to taken Farley Granger instead. (Granger was less of a marquee star than Holden.)
But the movie is what it is as we have it, and Granger's subdued, weak performance does seem to fit the story better...not to mention, Guy DOES become strong in the "Granger version": he fights on the tennis court to win, he fights Bruno on the carousel.
Ironically, Hitchcock also wanted William Holden because Holden had just hit big in "Sunset Boulevard" where he plays...a pretty weak guy(dominated by rich old silent movie star Gloria Swanson.)
---
Hitchcock was famous for working with Cary Grant and James Stewart, but he said he always wanted to work with William Holden. He seems to have offered Holden the wrong movies: Strangers on a Train and The Trouble With Harry. Had Hitchcock been willing to give Holden say, The Man Who Knew Too Much '56, he might have landed him.
Hitchcock noted that he always wanted to work with Bill Holden, but that Billy Wilder always got to. Conversely, Wilder always wanted to work with Cary Grant, but Hitchcock always got to.
Must have been the offered roles...
Not fair. William Holden is just good in everything.
share