MovieChat Forums > Picnic Discussion > Holden and Novak miscast

Holden and Novak miscast


Its already been stated that, at 37, Holden was too old for the part, a down on his luck, ex-college jock. Also, as an established leading man Holden would bring (or at least the audience would expect him to bring) leading man characteristics to any part he played. These characteristics would be strength of character, toughness, intelligence, maturity, authority, etc. These are not the characteristics of the character Hal. Like Holden Hal is good looking and athletic. Hal is amiable and people like being around him. However, Hal is also a broken person. He has the sense that he is inferior and trys to overcompensate. Although not retarded he is not too smart. He lacks the resolve to see things through such as finishing college or sticking to one job or living in one place. It would have been interesting to see Ralph Meeker who played the part on Broadway (although by 1955 even he may have been too old) play the role in the movie.

For similar reason Novak was miscast as Madge. No doubt she fit the bill as the pretty girl who could easily be crowned Miss Neewallah. Madge is a character similar to Hal. Madge is insecure, immature and perhaps not to bright. Someone with an agreeable personality but not too strong. Someone who has succeeded so far because she is pretty. Novak was comfortable with her beauty, intelligent, and secure in who she was and I think these qualities came through despite her trying to act the part.

Perhaps someone like Marilyn Monroe could have played the role of Madge better. The ending may have made more sense if other actors brought out the flaws and vulnerabilities of Hal and Madge. They were much alike and it was natural they would fall for each other. Some don't like the ending, asking why some like Madge would run off with someone like Hal. Maybe its because Holden played his part a little better. They're really asking why would someone like Kim Novak run off with Hal Carter.

reply

I was so looking forward to watching this movie and utterly disappointed; I had to endure the pain to finish watching it. I like Novak a lot (Vertigo is one of my favorite movies) but found her acting in Picnic forced; same with Holden's. I had difficult times to buy into their characters. Agree with your analysis. Maybe miscast, or maybe bad acting too.

reply

Totally agree with you. I too, was so excited to watch this film then got sooo bored about halfway and was tempted to turn it off several times, but i stuck it out. They had no chemistry. I think Holden over did it and Novak didnt do enough.

reply

IMO, Tina Louise and either Paul Newman or Aldo Ray would have been better cast in the respective roles as Madge and Hal. Tina Louise would have been about 20 and she would been great as the insecure and vulnerable bombshell. I like Kim Novak, but she seemed so restrained and cool. Aldo Ray would been good as Hal and he was about 30. He was more than capable of being a fine dramatic actor.

reply

If Novak was miscast, Monroe would've been a disaster.

reply

I can't see Monroe as Madge. But then I always thought she was a terrible actress.






"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"

reply

Monroe would have always been the bad girl, or town tramp. Even dying her hair dark wouldn't have saved the film. She was too typecasted by then.

reply

[deleted]

Really??...What planet do you folks live on??...The Dir Logan wanted the odd mix of Novak and Holden...Do some research!

reply

I'm with you Boliwill!
All the weaknesses of the characters these ...critics are pointing out actually lend strength to the very premise of the film.
Why do the uninformed insist the most in getting their opinion out there?

-=-
IMDB Troll Doctrine:
http://www.newmoondesigns.net/troll-doctrine

reply

Agreed, Biliwill. Holden reveals qualities in Picnic I hadn't seen before. His was an impressive body of work. From Sunset Boulevard to this to Stalag 17 to The Bridge on the River Kwai, he was always believable. He may have been too old for Hal, but he portrays the character's torment and unconscious, almost innocent sexuality brilliantly. His work with Stasberg's Millie is the best thing about the film. He relates to her on her level and is perfectly natural doing it. Hal is out of his depth with almost everybody else in the film, but the interplay with the misfit girl is wonderful to see. Russell and O'Connell provide a terrific counterpoint to the dilemma of Madge and Hal. Mrs. Potts' line, near the end, about how Hal clomped through the place and shook everything out of its rut is as good an expression of right on.

This film came out in the same year as Pather Panchali, East of Eden, Rebel without a Cause, Diabolique, Rififi, Bad Day at Black Rock, The Ladykillers, Richard III, Oklahoma! Mister Roberts. I was a junior in high school. It was a good year.

reply

Speaking of "research," you should do some yourself. It was the studios that wanted "movie stars" to make this movie sell. Otherwise, someone more appropriate would've been cast for Hal, maybe even Paul Newman. What a loss. He would've made this movie the masterpiece it deserved to be. Everything was so pitch perfect except for such a glare of a miscasting.

reply

Just have to put my two cents worth in here. I disagree with about everything said here. We all have our opinions and I just want other people who come here to be reminded that the above are the viewpoints of a limited few.

I loved the way Novak portrayed Madge. And I totally get why she left her hometown to go after Hal. And I thought Holden was excellent, as well. I could elaborate on all of the reasons but...they're still just my opinions and feelings about the movie and the casting of it.

One last comment I have to add, "Novak was not much of an actress, but she was certainly sexy and decorative." Out of all of the comments made, I'd have to say I find this one the most troubling. I am an intelligent, sensitive and complicated person and I find Novak to be an incredible actress. To me, she can portray more feeling and emotion in one look than most can portray in an entire scene.

reply

lschmitt,

I get the impression that SOME of the negative comments Kim Novak gets on IMDb comes from a rather odd source. There is this group of Grace Kelly fanboys who dislike that Hitchcock's greatest film has Novak in it, and a great performance it is. That is Vertigo, of course, and I understand that Hitchcock cast Novak in it largely based on her performance in Picnic. Well, to my mind Hitch was a master at casting his female leads (arguably no one did it better - well, maybe Ingmar Bergman!). It is inconceivable he thought Novak was bad in Picnic. In fact he had to have been impressed by her.

I'll take his opinion over that of some hater poster here on IMDb. And in fact I think Novak was exceptional in Picnic.

reply

I think the casting was perfect.

reply

Holden looked positively ridiculous in this flick, especially when he was dancing. Novak was ok, but maybe Monroe could have pulled it off.

reply

I feel like I'm watching one very awkward attempt at small town Americana that is sorely missing the mark.

Not at all impressed with Holden and Novak, separately or together. I think Newman could have done this better.

No wonder the baby boomers were so messed up if they had imagery like this being thrust at them as to how things were. I don't think any of this is realistic.

reply

As previously posted by Richard.fuller1, Paul Newman for Hal and Lee Remick for Madge over Marilyn Monroe. Because as beautiful as Marilyn Monroe is, I'm not sure she would be convincing as someone who found the courage to leave after playing someone with so little self esteem.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

reply

"Miss Neewallah"

It's Miss Neewollah (Halloween spelled backwards).

As it's the first movie I saw in a theater, the casting and score will forever
be perfect.

reply

I think William and Kim played the roles well and had the chemistry to make the connection believable. Their dancing scene was great!

~"Chris, am I weird?"
~"Yeah, but so what? Everybody's weird."

reply

Just watched it a day ago and agree with the OP.
William Holden at 37 jumping around like a youngster just did not work for me....he overacted a few scenes and I hated those three or four curls that were always adorning his forehead...they were very childish and annoying!
Kim seemed uncomfortable too.
Still worth watching and a lot better than most modern efforts imho.

reply

That was the whole point.
Holden's character "Hal" had obviously gone thru life, getting by on his boyish good looks and charm.
Now, here he was in his upper 30's. While still great looking, he is obviously no longer a "boy".
With no "grown-up" achievements, however, he finds himself acting the role of a much younger version of himself in order to get along. He is painfully aware of his situation as exemplified by the line:
"I gotta get somewhere in this world. I just gotta."
He knows in his heart he can't keep milking this "youthful stallion" thing much longer.
Even Rosemary, the schoolteacher cruelly lashes out at Hal, telling him he is not a young man, and calls him a bum.

The casting was purposeful and it worked.
Why can some people not see that?

-=-
IMDB Troll Doctrine:
http://www.newmoondesigns.net/troll-doctrine

reply

Spycat,

Your post is spot on !

reply

Thanks Boliwill - I am perplexed as to how many people are missing this.

-=-
IMDB Troll Doctrine:
http://www.newmoondesigns.net/troll-doctrine

reply

Spycat,

I don't know your age but I'm in my early 50s!...I suspect that many of the posts on this subject are of a younger generation!...I have noticed on IMDB there does seem to be a large generational gap, with probably a higher number of younger posters, lets say teens to 30s more dominate on this site that's why some of the posts seem so off the wall at times...That's not to say that younger posters opinions don't count but seem to clash with folks that are a bit older!

reply

I tend to think that Holden was miscast but NOT because of his age. He was miscast for the simple reason that he wasn't at home in the role. I watch and listen to his performance but I see and hear something different than the character he's supposed to be playing. Sure, Hal Carter is the embodiment of cynicism, and Holden excelled at playing cynics, but that's only part of the role. It's the drifter, the down-and-outer, the man with a delinquent past, that Holden seems unable to play naturally or convincingly, and as others have noted, he and Novak don't really get it right. I personally think that Frank Sinatra could have done a better job in this part. Having said all that, I love the movie despite these and its other imperfections. And William Inge was one amazing playwright.

reply

William Holden worked best as a 'hero', or as a failed hero, or a solid citizen turned to drink. Not as an overgrown delinquent youth, a shiftless, rootless drifter. There is a reliability about him that he's fighting against in some roles, and he tends to lose the fight.

I once saw a version of 'Treasure Island' with Charlton Heston as Long John Silver. Similar problem: he seemed implausible as the wicked old pirate, coming off more as an admiral down on his luck.

I have to say, Elvis Presley would have been good as Hal. Yeah, Elvis and Marilyn. I don't know who you could trick into trying to direct them, but it would be something to see.

reply

Spycat, I agree with you. It is difficult for me to imagine other actors playing their parts after seeing Holden and Novak as Hal and Madge. Some scenes that I think fit these two actors very well:

1. When Madge has decided to go after Hal, and she pulls away from her mother.

2. When Hal tells the story about the two women who picked him up when hitchhiking, yelling out "Hey Beefcake!"

3. The moment during the picnic when Hal and Madge look at each other and he says, "Hi."

Novak plays Madge perfectly as the beauty who underestimates her beauty yet realizes it is her strong suit. This seems contradictory, but she pulls it off.

Holden has the very strong physical presence to make Hal the ex-football star, a laborer. Like Madge, no one has ever appreciated him for more than his physicality, but he longs for someone who can make him feel satisfied with what he is. He and Madge are well matched.

reply

I just saw the movie on TCM last night and am somewhere in between. I'm fine with Novak, and think she did great with the role. It was after all, an early performance of hers.

And I thought William Holden did a great job as Hal. The only thing is that at certain times in the movie, I got the impression that either Holden or Logan (the director) said to themselves, "Gosh, Hal is supposed to be years younger -- maybe if he hops around, that'll make him look like a kid."

It just felt a bit forced to me, and early on in the picnic, it nearly drove me out of the movie. William Holden was a great actor, but even he couldn't hide the fact that he wasn't a kid at the time the move was made.

To me, it was perfectly fine that Holden was older, the character could have been older, Cliff Robertson looked young, so maybe an older looking Holden was OK because he had been through a tougher life.

reply

Imre Demech, Novak could not stand up on a lead role alone. She wasn't starpower & the other cast members, Russel, Arthur Connel held this movie together. Kim Novak never seemed aggessive to be an actress. It's not a believable movie with a big age difference. I liked viewing it, it's not academy award material. A 7.0 on my scale. Music Score 8.0.


reply

Ronev1 -- that's why you think the casting and score will forever be perfect -- because it brings back fond memories as the first movie you saw in a theater.

And you're entitled to your opinion of course. It doesn't make it factually true though. Holden was waaaaay too old for the part, and ruins the entire movie as a result. He was 38 when this was filmed, and thanks to his alcoholism and smoking, he looked 48.

The miscasting of Holden is in fact the majority opinion in the reviews here and elsewhere.

reply