Dean's vulnerability combined with his projection of ticking-bomb repressed emotions would have been very good for Brick.
However, I agree with the people who have said that his smaller stature and thinner build would make the stud football star (so dominant that he could carry a substandard friend / teammate at the pro level) aspect of the role a tough sell; and that, in the context of Southern American society of the 1950s the selection of football as the sport is important. It's a somewhat different setting (Chicagoans in the 1930s), but it is not completely irrelevant to remember the attitudes implicit in a gymnasium exchange between James Garner and Alex Karras in Victor / Victoria:
Garner: "I can't believe you're gay. You were the meanest, roughest, toughest, sonuvabitchin football player I ever saw."
Karras: "Yeah, well, if you didn't want the guys to call you 'queer' you became a mean, rough, tough, sonuvabitchin football player."
(As the V/V reference might bring to mind, boxing might project a sufficiently macho image. However, it is complete non-starter because of the required team element between Brick and Skipper.)
Also, I think that Dean, who would have been 27 in Cat, probably would have been too young for Brick, who is an already-retired-from-playing 30 year old. It's not that I think that actors need to be exactly the same age as their characters, and I know that a three year difference isn't all that much. However, in this particular case ....... Dean was always especially young looking; remember that it was only three years before Cat that he was playing a high school kid in Rebel Without a Cause. Also, it is important that Brick is already retired and "can't do what he used to do". Frankly, even 30 seems to be on the young end of the range for him to be retired, given how good he is described as having been.
PS: TCT, since your writing appears so literate otherwise, I thought that I would mention a nitpicky pet peeve that I usually try to ignore (though it always still makes me shake my head). It isn't "could of" or "would of" or "should of". It should be "could've", "would've", or "should've" (the contractions of "could have", "would have", and "should have"). The preposition "of" does not make any sense there.
reply
share