Was Holden Too Old? - Picnic Discussion

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Billa1971 18 years ago

His performance in Picnic is one of my favourite ones, he's quite convincing and I think this is an example of great acting. I particularly appreciate the use he made of his voice and body language...

He was a bit too old (being 37 at the time) but this IMHO don't affect the movie in any way. Besides, given the kind of life Hal lives is not surprising he would look battered in comparision to Alan, furthermore he really shaved himself off more than a few years with his acting....

...unfortunately Millie looks even younger than her actual 16....but he treats her like a kid...so it's not creepy (IHMO), just odd....

Betty: Don't you sometimes hate yourself?
Joe: Constantly.

reply

[–] lotsofwordz 17 years ago

Yeah, right - 37 is over the hill ... this could only have been written by a 17-year old.

reply

[–] WhWm 17 years ago

To me Holden looked more handsome 5 years later in THE WORLD OF SUZIE WONG than in PICNIC.

reply

[–] praxagora 17 years ago

I certainly didn't read Billa1971's post as stating that Holden was "over the hill".
Just too old for his part in this movie.

The character "reads" like someone in their late 20's - not pushing 40.
He's supposed to have gone to school with Cliff Robertson, but he's 7 years older - it just doesn't quite work.

Basically, I have to agree with Billa1971. Holden always seems a bit old for the part to me.
However, he is so perfect for the role that it doesn't really bother me.

reply

[–] Billa1971 18 years ago

Hi,

IMHO the only possible alternative to Bill Holden should have been Brando, Dean and Newman did not look dangerous enough....they were both handsome but (for my taste) a bit too sensitive...

In fact Newman was in the cast of the theatre play, but in the role of Alan, which suits him perfectly...

Betty: Don't you sometimes hate yourself?
Joe: Constantly.

reply

[–] thchicago 18 years ago

Holden did seem a bit "too old" for the part, but I think he pulled it off. I have read where Holden himself questioned playing the role of Hal because of his age. Interestingly, in Joshua Logan's autobiography, he mentions that: "Superstar Bill Holden had already been cast before I came on the picture. It was a contractual thing: he still had to work off two more pictures on an old Columbia contract. Although he was really too old for the part of Hal, he was such a vital, virile, talented man and with such a youthful body, that I felt he would be strong in the part."

reply

[–] cableye 18 years ago

He may have been a bit too old, but now, can anyone imagine any other actor in this role? In that era there were a lot of older actors who were doing roles too young for them, with actressess way too young by the standards of today. Back then Clark Gable Jimmy Stewart and Gary Cooper, were such mega stars that nobody wanted to beleive they were getting too old. Add to that the culture of the times that approved of a older man/younger woman alliance and not of the opposite.

reply

[–] judith-mcgee1025 13 years ago

I agree; I don't think that there was anyone suitable at that time in films that could have portrayed Hal. Intriguingly perhaps Cliff Robertson could have, but this was quite early in his film career; a few years later it might have worked.

reply

[–] Billa1971 18 years ago

I completely agree w/Logan

Betty: Don't you sometimes hate yourself?
Joe: Constantly.

reply

[–] mobbs_47 17 years ago

On the subject Was Holden Too Old? I have just watched Picnic on Film 4 and although I think his body is good in the role, his face clearly is not. In profile you can see his jaw is starting to sag (too much booze?) and his eyes are puffy with bags in some shots. He tries very hard to disguise it, but not altogether successsfuly. Anyway, its 52years on now so we just have to take the best from his performance, and as there are so many other good performances from the cast as a whole, including the debut of Kim Novak, well, I think he can be forgiven for wanting to make that role his.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WhWm 17 years ago

He did. But he looked better in WORLD OF SUZIE WONG to me. He was very handsome and sexy in both.

reply

[–] NSurone 17 years ago

It's funny that there should ever have been controversy about Bill Holden being too old for Kim Novak, yet there were no such queasiness about 40-year old Gene Kelly romancing 19-year old Debbie Reynolds in "Singin' in the Rain". Guess it doesn't matter in musical comedy, huh?

reply

[–] Jason_Radley 13 years ago

But Gene's face was tight and he's not getting his shirt off every five minutes.

reply

[–] Alfriend 16 years ago

Newman also played the lead role of Hal on Broadway; replacing the original Hal, Ralph Meeker. I think roles of the same time period like "The Left-Handed Gun" and "Somebody Up There Likes Me" proved that one of Newman's many cinematic qualities was a sense of danger or unpredictability, when he wanted to use it. The fact that he was also critically acclaimed for playing the role of Alan Benson on Broadway also showed quite a range of versatility as an actor.

reply

[–] monabona 17 years ago

I was about 12 when I saw this film on tv--I believe it was on NBC's "Saturday Night Movie" which was a unique idea then--a fairly recent film during prime time that one wouldn't yet have seen on tv during the daytime or late at night.

Anyway, since I was young I was quite interested in the character of Millie and all the attention Holden's character was paying her. Then Kim Novak came into the scene, and i was mesmerized by what happened next. Between the electricity I was feeling between those two and the great music, the scene was seared into my memory. It was the most romantic thing I had ever seen, and I still find the "Theme from Picnic" to be the most romantic music. Holden too old? Nah!

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maisonvivante 17 years ago

I think that it isn't so much Holden's age that is the problem--it's that he is miscast. I think his natural sophistication is hard to hide, and it comes off awkward when he's trying to play the part of the slightly goofy, immature Hal. I think he is a fine actor--but he's just not right for this role, which really should have gone to a long-in-the-tooth James Dean type (before there was a James Dean type!).

I do think he gives it everything he's got--it's just not him. I know others will disagree with me, mainly because the movie gives us some fine, classic moments--and even somewhat miscast, Holden is still entertaining (and easy on the eyes). But sorry--he just isn't right for the part.

reply

[–] milliondollarbaby1213 17 years ago

Actually he was perfect for the part, and he was not miscast by any means. His entire look evokes an intimidating, intriguing personality, that has many feelings hidden beneath his rugged physique. While its his looks that catch the eye of those he encounters, its his demeanor that unfolds his personality, and you begin to pity him. Yet he also gives his character an edge, that while he realizes when he's been exposed, he's still not willing to go down without a fight, and while he has many changes to make, he's strong enough to know he can't do them alone. He amazingly shows just how much he needs someone when it is apparent that his character's design should really not require the assistance of others - but he does.

He was perfectly cast, and made the movie.

reply

[–] splendor 17 years ago

I could not get past the fact that he seemed too old. I just kept thinking "my God....he seems so old."

reply

[–] rpartrid-2 17 years ago

Assume you were casting this movie in 1955 - who else could have played this role?Paul Newman? Would he have been too old? And he did play the role in another movie - The Long Hot Summer. Who else was available at the time - Tab Hunter? Tony Curtis? Troy Donahue? Who else was there?

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] louis-king 17 years ago

I didn't think he was too old. The part calls for an ex golden boy who never fulfilled his promise. Lots of men who failed to live up to their talents continue to act young into middle age. Rosalind Russell even calls him on it. His slightly seedy face was in good contrast to his young mans physique.

reply

[–] Sunflower007 17 years ago

~ He did look old for the role but it still suited him somehow.

*~~*

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

"And all shall fade
the flowers of spring
the world and all the sorrows
at the heart of everything"

Ilse from Spring Awakening

reply

[–] hotfriend1 16 years ago

I didn't think he was too old. The part calls for an ex golden boy who never fulfilled his promise. Lots of men who failed to live up to their talents continue to act young into middle age. Rosalind Russell even calls him on it. His slightly seedy face was in good contrast to his young mans physique.
--------------------------

Well said, louis-king.

You've hit on something that a lot of us (as well as a great many reviewers) seem to miss--that Holden was playing a one-time golden boy who failed to live up to his promise. The character (as well as Holden himself) did a lot of hard living in his life and it showed. But, heck, he was still Bill Holden. As sunflower005 has said, he was too old but it suits him somehow.

Another poster asked who would they have cast instead? Tab Hunter? Troy Donohue?
Ralph Meeker played the role on Broadway (opposite Paul Newman in the Cliff Robertson role). Could you see Ralph Meeker over Holden? Just because he was "younger"?

As another poster said, Holden certainly wasn't over the hill. And a lot of teenage girls were crazy for Bill Holden.

Was he too old? It really doesn't matter. Picnic is a memorable movie across the board. But it wouldn't be Picnic without Bill Holden.

reply

[–] WhWm 16 years ago

In the book GROWING UP WITH WILLIAM HOLDEN, Virginia Holden Gaines says:

"Before PICNIC began, I'd heard Mother pushing Dad to accept the role, as he was certain he was too old for it. He also didn't like remembering the feelings and behavior of his teen years, or the way he'd felt around women, which was what she told him he'd have to do in order to play Hal."

reply

[–] mojo2004 16 years ago

Cliff Robertson was only 5 yrs younger than Holden. If Bill was too old so was Cliff.

Sidewalks have rights too! They refused to be stepped on anymore!

reply

[–] skiddoo 14 years ago

I don't think he was too old for Novak but he was too old for Robertson who seemed much younger than his chronological age.

With Novak and everyone else in town he came across as an aging youth who had sabotaged his own life, and might or might not turn things around and mature. He was realistically the man all the women there would swoon over whereas someone like James Dean wouldn't have been. This was the "oh my goodness, take a look at him!" fellow of their romantic dreams. That's why he was a catalyst instead of just a bad boy troublemaker the older adults could easily have dismissed.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] forfarmarkus-1 13 years ago

Holden was charismatic, no doubt about it, but he looked uncomfortable in the part in some scenes and some of the acting is embarassing to look at today. If I were to choose someone younger and all-American what about Charlton Heston. Although I think Paul Newman would have been a perfect fit.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joewhiteyipee 17 years ago

From what I recall, weren't there references in the film to his being older---even verging on middle-age---in the film?

reply

[–] Trippetta10 15 years ago

I got the impression he was supposed to be in his late twenties--not over the hill, but not a kid anymore either. But he still looked too old for the role. This made his disgust over being pawed by an older woman not particularly credible, because she really didn't look that much older than him.

reply