Is it just me?


I watched last night's Sinatra marathon on TCM until 3 in the morning. I had only seen a couple of his movies before, and I really tried to keep a serious open mind about him, but it didn't help.

Is it just me or is Sinatra really dull, in the movies? I don't see the attraction to him at all. His acting isn't all that and from what I can tell, the only movie he really seemed to really act in was From Here to Eternity and to be honest, I don't think he even needed to act. He just needed to be himself.

I cannot see why Ginnie was attracted to him, nor any of his leading ladies. I just don't see the talent. His only talent, I'll grant him, is his singing and not even all of that interests me either. However, I can see why his singing was so popular. I can at least see that talent.

Can anyone enlighten me on him? What am I missing?

ETA: This probably belongs on the Sinatra board, but I think that his biased fans will likely not try and explain it to me. That's why I posted here.

reply

This must have be one of those "of its time" movies that just hasn't held up very well.

Sinatra is charm free and totally unconvincing as underweight character taking on guys twice his size. MacLaine is endearing but waaay over the top, and Martin still seems to think he was in a Jerry Lewis movie. Why three of performers (including Martha Hyer in totally unremarkable role) were nominated for Oscars is baffling.

A good cast wasted in a colorful mess.

reply

Hollyrock has always tried to make movie stars out of popular singers/vocalists (not always the same thing), and they sometimes succeed in doing so, but they rarely make great actors out of them. They've got a built-in fan base from their singing fame, so they'll put butts in seats aka sell tickets.

Sinatra got a lot of roles that were wholly unsuited to his physical type when he was younger, and weighed about 110 lbs soaking wet. He pretty much just played Frank Sinatra. Playing the same role, and that role being basically your own self, seems to work for some: John Wayne did it most of the time. Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Clark Gable also did it much more often than not. For them it worked, but for Sinatra (and most singing stars made movie stars) it didn't work nearly as well.

--
“There comes a point when seduction is over and force is actually being requested.”
-DD

reply


It may not be "just you" but rather you and other people. Attraction and charm are subjective matters- personnally, I find Sinatra cool and attractive with his streetwise, suave voice and manners (except in a few movies he's acting a bit lazy to me). I'm not a great fan of his performance in From Here To Eternity. I know he wanted to play it desesperately and won his Oscar for it...but to me, he's playing too hard the "Italian soldier", and he's much better being more relaxed and natural. Did you see him in The Man With the Golden Arm ? In my opinion, this is his best piece of acting. The cold turkey sequence is specially impressive but the whole performance is so good, expressive yet sober, that I doubt even Marlon Brando could have done much better.
That's for the acting part. But, hey, different strokes for different people. I, for instance, was never able to understand what was all the fuss about Grace Kelly.

" You ain't running this place, Bert, WILLIAMS is!" Sgt Harris

reply

When I was young, from about 15 to about 30 years of age - the first 15 years during which I would say I started to listen to music and watch movies seriously, I did not care much for Frank Sinatra. His singing left me flat and he was filler in the movies that I watched in which he played a role.

In my thirties, and especially in my later forties through currently, I have watched movies and listened to music with a different approach. I am still very story oriented when watching a movie and very mood oriented when I listen to music and don't just dance to it. As I grew more into that I have come to appreciate Frank Sinatra's talents much more.

I no longer see him as an overblown singer, as I still view Elvis Presley. When I fell in love with Harry Connick Jr.'s voice I started reading and listening to his interviews. He based his style on two singers, Nat "King" Cole and Frank Sinatra. I soon became a devoted worshipper of King Cole and gained a better appreciation of Frank. I am convinced that King Cole is the best popular singer who has lived, so far. However, Harry is still good and maybe improving, and Frank was no slouch. I don't think that Cole ever acted in a movie, though he did sing the narration in Cat Ballou. Harry acted in the dramatic version of Memphis Belle, not to be confused with the documentary and he was barely competent. He also chose never to act again. Frank, however, was certainly a talented actor.

He was usually used by producers and casting directors for his star power. In spite of that, he managed to give several noteworthy, even Oscar worthy performances, including as DiMaggio in From Here to Eternity.

What I needed to do to see Frank's talent was to shut my mind to the hostility I felt towards him due to his FAME. Excessive fame dumped on someone tends to alienate me from the individual. I think I never felt that way about John Wayne because he was constantly under attack in my life time from liberals who hated him for his politics. I don't mean that they hated his politics, I mean that they hated John Wayne, just as they do still hate Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh for their unabashed conservatism. There has been none of that for Frank Sinatra, or for Elvis Presley, or Tom Hanks. They seem to get universal congratulation and admiration. When that happens, I need to push away an instinctive hostility toward them for being too popular.

An actor's job is to play each role they are assigned believably. Public acceptance and likability is an asset to getting hired because of the box office issue, but the job is still to play the role. I think Frank Sinatra did that well many times, and he was also a terrifically good singer.

reply

Gosh, people are really stupid nowadays.

reply

It took me until an adult to see the appeal of people like Frank Sinatra..

He had a very natural method of acting which resonates today and he had a certain "cool" attitude that is appealing. But never would I have thought him sexy or appealing in "that" way. He's way too puny..But still, I do see the appeal of him as a character.
I think he was a natural as an actor.
His singing took me a while to appreciate too. But I can see now that he has an effortless style and a soothing voice. I can appreciate the appeal there too.

As an early sex symbol to the "bobbysockers"?..Not so much... but it was a different place and time (the 40's) and he was about the first singer to appeal and target the younger generation. By the 50's he was done as a teen idol.

reply

I really like this movie, but I agree he's a better singer than leading man.. He has some dull lifeless films that I really don't like but overall a good actor that did a good job

reply

He was an idol to people of my mother's generation, and I can take or leave him as a singer or as an actor in a "cool" (Ocean's 11) or romantic role. But I did like him in "ordinary struggling guy" roles like The Manchurian Candidate, The Man with the Golden Arm, and Some Came Running. I have yet to see From Here to Eternity, I'm embarrassed to say. But after seeing Some Came Running today I'll make a point of seeing it.

reply

CindyH says > Is it just me or is Sinatra really dull, in the movies? I don't see the attraction to him at all.
I understand where you're coming from. I enjoyed this movie but it's not because I'm a big fan of the actors. What I like is the story.

What you're describing in regards to Sinatra is how I feel about Martin, Elvis, and the Beatles. I enjoy their music but I didn't live at the time they were hot. As in most things, perspective makes all the difference.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

In a field of male pop singers who were interchangeable and bland (Crosby excepted), Sinatra stood out in the early 1940s. His acting, singing, and dancing in musicals was generally delightful. His acting in the 1950s and 1960s took a different turn, toward the morose and self-involved. I like some of his performances in that phase of his movie career, but he often seems to be straining to be cool and manly, two attributes that should come effortlessly and un-self consciously to be believable and effective. The truly cool and masculine almost seem unaware of how they are, but Sinatra seems always to be shouting, "Look at how cool and macho I am! Look!". He works far too hard at it, and it shows.

reply