He was so much more than 'leading man' material. He could do comedy and drama with equal flair. Shame he was such a great, very underrated actor IMO.I think he was underrated and overlooked by the Hollywood movers and shakers because it was an 'open secret' that he was gay.
shareHmm….. would you even go so far as to say he’s overrated?
shareUnderrated???? 🤔🤔🤔🤔
shareMost Americans didn't know he was gay. There was a rumor in some parts of America, but it was sort of like what Tom Cruise faces, only far less. No, fans adored him, and those who didn't did so only because they didn't like his light, romantic comedies.
He was competing with James Garner in the light, romantic comedy race, and James Garner...well, Garner was simply a better, more likable actor.
Hudson, while one of the name actors of the day, was down the list of the top 50. Not because he was gay. He just didn't have the gravitas.
His favorite movie is a creepy little number called "Seconds." He's genuinely good in it. If you see it as a metaphor for his life you can see why he loved it so.
But I dunno. He always seemed to phone his performances in. He'd got his chances because of his face and physique. That usually makes actors lazy.
I don't think he was underrated, my first thought is that he had the career he deserved. He was good with light material, and got to ride high in an era when flirty farces were in style, and then he brought some charm to his detective show on TV. And he was tall and handsome, and Hollywood does love a tall handsome actor who can do comedy. But I wouldn't say he was good at drama, as far as I know he only gave one stellar dramatic performance in his career, the creepie indie film "Seconds" - and IMHO there were personal reasons for that. It was the one time he put certain of his real feelings on the screen.
But as said above, everything Hudson could do well, James Garner could do better, and for a very long time Hudson was higher on the A-List than Garner! So I'd say that meant that Hudson was slightly overrated... but only slightly so. He really was good at what he did, just not as good as Garner.
I don’t think Garner could have played Bick Benedict in Giant half as good as Hudson.
shareI don't think that Hudson was particularly good in "Giant", but then there were no outstanding performances in that movie so at least all the lead actors were on the same page. Hudson played Bick as tall, handsome, and completely stolid, which was believable but not particularly interesting. Hudson's performance leaves you wondering what Leslie saw in him other than his being tall and wealthy, he was so lifeless in the love scenes.
Garner would have at least brought a little sparkle and charm to the love scenes, even if he made a point of being stolidly Texan while out with his men, and then, he might have let some soulful eyes show that he was actively suppressing his feelings. And he could have out-Texaned any actor of the era, seeing as he was from Oklahoma himself, so I totally stand by my assertion that anything Rock Hudson could do, James Garner could do better! At least, as an actor.
Hudson was nominated for an Academy Award for Giant.
I don’t see Garner with Elizabeth Taylor. At all. Hudson And Taylor were good together spanning over 20 years. Giant was directed by George Stevens who did Place in the Sun and Shane.
“No outstanding Performances.” ??? You might want to take a moment to reflect. James Dean was nominated.
Review from Bodley Crowther NY Times 1956
Thanks to Mr. Stevens' brilliant structure and handling of images, every scene and every moment is a pleasure. He makes "picture" the essence of his film…Mr. Stevens with superlative artistry. Under Mr. Stevens' direction, …However, it is the late James Dean …a haunting capstone to the brief career of Mr. Dean. Others, too, are excellent—Chill Wills as an old Texas type, Jane Withers as a plump and uncouth heiress, Mercedes McCambridge (she was nominated) as a bitter, cold old maid, Charles Watts as a hypocritical windbag and Carroll Baker as a spirited Texas deb.
Personally, I think Dean's performance is poor overall. Yes, his early scenes as a young outsider are magical, but when he comes back after the plot has advanced a decade or two... he's terrible! He was young, and had no clue what a mature person thought and felt, so he played this fortyish success story like an angsty teen in a gray wig. (IMHO that's a weakness of an actor who relies too heavily on their own feelings, they can't play someone unlike themselves, they don't do the kind of research and observation a more well-rounded actor does.) So since his performance is half great and half terrible, I rate him poor overall.
But yes, I agree that Garner and Taylor wouldn't have worked as a screen couple. She just wasn't in his league as an actor. She was beautiful, likable, and I suppose sexy if you're into that, but she had no charm.
Ok. Garner is very good. I liked Grand Prix a lot. I liked Marlowe. Americanization of Emily. Great Escape. I didn’t see the one he was nominated for. I don’t have a preference for either guy. They were both good in the movies they made. When I saw Giant, I didn’t say. Oh. If only James Garner was in this. But Giant was a very good movie and Hudson was very good in it. Garner and Hudson are not interchangeable just bc both are tall dark and handsome. Comparisons can be made with the movies made with co-star Doris Day. But even with that, there was nothing as good as Pillow Talk.
shareI don't insist you share my fanboying of Garner, but as stated, I do think he was a better actor than Hudson. And I do think it's fair to compare the two, as they were both tall handsome actors who were around the same age, and who were both known for comedy, so they really were up for a lot of the same roles. Heck, they both co-starred with Doris Day - Garner made two films with her and Hudson made three, all the same sort of fluff.
To be fair, I've never seen Garner give a dramatic performance as good as the one Hudson gave in "Seconds", but then, I don't know that I've ever seen Garner give a purely dramatic performance with no humor or charm. As far as I know, Garner worked humor and charm into every performance he ever gave in his life, which is why I am such a fan.
David Niven was with Doris too. Please Don’t Eat the Daisies. Different guy altogether.
Here’s something you’ll appreciate about Garner when he played in Notebook. Ryan Gosling played the younger version of Garner.
From director Nick Cassavetes about when the two actors first met…
[Ryan] says, “I was thinking about accents. There’s all kinds of South Carolina accents. One’s more rural,” and this and that. [Garner] goes, “I don’t do accents, kid. They’re stupid.” And [Ryan] goes, “Okay. What about eye color? I have blue eyes. You have brown eyes.” He says, “Everyone knows Jim Garner’s got brown eyes. Do what you want, kid.” [Ryan] says, “Okay, I guess I’ll wear contacts. What about hair?” And he says, “Do whatever you want, kid. Nice to meet you. See you later.”
And. Thank you. Now I’m going to watch Seconds.
Hey, Garner knew what HE was doing! What his co-stars did was up to them.