...looking that way. I remember the dashing, beautiful leading man in "The Dark Angel", "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde", opposite Garbo in "Anna Karenina", and many more. I realize that time takes a toll on all of us. But really, the man is unrecognizable. He aged terribly. What was it - drink? Illness? Really shocking and sad to see him so transformed.
shareHe was 63 at the time, but I think it was more make-up than the actual man.
His next movie was "Seven Days in May" where he looked slim and quite good (for being in his mid 60s).
A great actor can make you forget the actor, but not the character. I was surprised to see him look fat and old, but it fit the character.
I don't know his biography - whether he was sick (I doubt that given his vibrant performance), or the way he lived.
I do agree he was unrecognizable, but for reasons above.
Betrunkene und Kinder sagen die Wahrheit.
They made up Frederic March to resemble William Jenning Bryan.
shareFor the film, he was heavily made up to look like William Jennings Bryan:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/scopes/SCOPE2.JPG
[deleted]
That's why he was so good in Frankenheimer's The Iceman Cometh.
People never expected him to play roles like that.
I think the original poster was being facetious. But, still, I am a big fan of Fredric March and can't pass up a chance to brag on him. I think he is one of the top handful of actors ever to appear on screen. And I can't think of a single role he did not sell completely.
In particular, I think his Matthew Harrison Brady - blowhard religious buffoon; a man thoroughly clueless about the estrangement of his one-time friend and supporter; and compassionate counselor to the preacher - is almost perfect. It is undeniably over-the-top, and that may be the reason March was not nominated for an Oscar. But I think that's the way the part was written, and for me it is one of the all-time great performances.
Oh, and that other guy wasn't too bad either.
Oh, how I wish I could believe or understand that.
To be blunt, I'm not a big fan of much of March's earlier work. I will say that I'm more impressed by many of his performances from the 50's on.
But his work as Matthew Brady is positively transcendent. March's persona is completely submerged in the role, and it's one of the best performances of that or any other decade. And it's no mean feat managing to draw the viewer's attention away from the other actor, when that other actor is Tracy. March is riveting, and I enjoy the film as much - or more - for his performance as for any other reason.
Poe! You are...avenged!
March was indeed, superb, but in seeing this film again the other day after many years, I'm now disappointed in the role written for him.
I can't believe that William J Bryan was as buffoonish as portrayed in the film. He seemed always to be the straight man and foil for the Darrow character. Indeed, one would never believe the two attorneys were good friends and worked together on many political issues and campaigns if they hadn't said so.
It is said that the courtroom script was taken directly from courtroom transcripts, but do we know if they were literal? I have no doubt S Kramer would modify for cinematic effect.
If this was Bryan, then so be it, but even so I think it could have been more lasting and powerful a film if the two had been written as intellectual equals and let the merits of the arguments battle it out.
In reading about Bryan on wiki, it doesn't appear that he had put a great deal of thought to evolution vs creationism, and was likely not interested. His driving motivation his sense that evolution was being employed to undermine our national morality (see Eugenics) rather than the factual basis of evolution vs creationism.
Without reading the transcripts, one could then make the case that tripping up Bryan on biblical creationism was more of a "lawyer trick" by Darrow, he could nail Bryan because the truth of creationism/evolution was far less important than the effects of what is being taught (according to his perception).
I saw some of that bleeding into the film, but the Bryan arguments were made bombastically such that as an audience, it's not so compelling. A bit manipulative, I think.
I'll say, I am an atheist, have been for a while, certainly accept the science of evolution, my minor gripe is the film portrayal.
I can't NOT watch this film when it comes on, however.
If I recall from the time of Kramer's activity as a director, a common complaint among detractors involved a heavy-handed - "manipulative," as you put it - approach to messaging, and it's certainly a fair observation where it concerns "Matthew Brady" as conceived by the script. To be equally fair, some of this must be traced back to the play from which the screenplay was drawn.
The last time I watched it, I wondered the same thing you did, and sought out the trial transcripts online. Although the drama is certainly based thereupon, a great deal of truncation took place, as well as liberal "punching up" for dramatic effect (and hammering home of thematic points). The transcripts are an interesting read, but I'm sure it comes as no surprise that the actual testimony is considerably drier, more drawn out and lacking in big, dramatic moments than what's portrayed in the film. And if taken literally, much of it simply wouldn't have "played" to a 1960 audience.
All that being the case, and whether or not "Brady" is a fair representation of Bryan, March took the part as written and ran with it, presenting the outsized and bombastic character with which we've become familiar. One of the things I find so remarkable about the performance, aside from the points I mentioned in my original comment, is that it works so well in juxtaposition to Tracy's characteristically subtle approach. Rather than creating an uncomfortable contrast in styles, Tracy's low-key one has a grounding effect on March's more theatrical one, resulting in a complimentary rather than clashing dramatic effect. And at appropriate times (the conversation in the hotel porch rockers, for example), March indeed finds his own moments of subtlety.
Of all of March's portrayals, this comes closest to a high-wire act (although his Sam Clemens in "The Adventures Of Mark Twain" and Joe Esposito in "It's A Big Country" aren't far behind), and I can't really detect any faltering or missteps.
Poe! You are...avenged!
Yes, my understanding is that the "real story" was given a punched-up Hollywood treatment all the way around. True stories make for good history, but not always so much for "entertainment". The real townspeople were reportedly very hospitable to Darrow as well as Bryan, for instance.
But OH, Fredric March! He always just immersed himself in whatever character he played and here, the makeup just made him that much more "unrecognizable". He was a great "chameleon" who really "became" his characters. If I didn't know ahead of time who was playing Matthew Harrison Brady here, I don't think I would've realized it WAS Fredric March! (He was also drop-dead handsome too, in my not-so-humble opinion! *blush*)
Spencer Tracy was a good actor too, but to me, seeing him in nearly any role is like seeing James Stewart in any role: no matter what character they portrayed or what real person they represented in their films, they were still obviously themselves. Their real-life physical appearances and their voices - particularly in Stewart's case - always seemed to overshadow their characters.
"Think slow, act fast." --Buster Keaton
I once read something about Tracy's basic approach to a role (it was some years back, so I'll have to paraphrase).
In playing Dan Haywood, he looked at it as, "This is who Spencer Tracy would be if he were a judge instead of an actor." In playing Matt Drayton, it was, "This is who Spencer Tracy would be if he were a newspaper publisher." As Capt. Culpepper, "This is who I'd be if I were a cop." And so on.
I don't recall ever reading anything about Stewart's approach, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were something similar. In both their cases, they generally seemed to mold the role to fit their individual personas, rather than to adopt another to suit the role. Whatever Stewart's approach, it seemed to work for him, because I never found him anything less than completely credible (which is the simple standard I use for evaluating a performance).
It may represent a minority opinion, but I've always considered the role for which Tracy most aggressively adopted a characterization - in terms of submerging his own persona under different speech, mannerisms and appearance - to be one of his least effective: Manuel in "Captains Courageous." He did so much more successfully, in my view, in "Pat and Mike" (although those alterations in speech and mannerisms were more subtle). Perhaps in that case, it was simply, "This is who I'd be if I were a sports promoter, and had grown up in Brooklyn."
I'm sure I've oversimplified, and I imagine Tracy did too in his description. I'll wager he'd also have taken things like level of education, affluence (or poverty) and other elements of a character's background and experiences into consideration.
There were many actors - Gable and Wayne, for example - who were most successful when molding the character to suit their personalities. Others - like Muni or Hoffman - had great success with the opposite approach. Considering the totality of his work, March seems to have been successful doing some of both.
Poe! You are...avenged!
Oversimplified or not, I think that's a REAL clear, concise description of Tracy's overall approach to his roles.
I've not seen Captains Courageous, but I understand what you're saying. What Tracy did there does sound like how March would've approached it, and for him, it probably would've worked well (or at least better than it did for Tracy).
Yes, certainly each actor had his or her own way of preparing for and playing their roles, and clearly it's not a "one-size-fits-all" thing (whiceh the best ones seems to realize).
Thank you for your post; very interesting and informative. :-)
"Think slow, act fast." --Buster Keaton
Doghouse, I've really enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. They're perceptive and entertaining, and very well written. I do appreciate hearing your point of view, which rings true also for my own impression of the film. Thanks!
My one misgiving of the film is that I feel Kramer (who I greatly admire) hammers his points home a little too fiercely and with too broad-headed a mallet. The drama tends to become something of a shadow-play, despite scenes that add layers to Brady's character, such as the scene where he moderates the preacher's anger or the moving scene towards the end where his wife professes her faith in his honesty and inherent goodness. Much of the rest seems a little too blunt and thickly laid-on for my tastes, and I admire March's skill in keeping it nonetheless emotionally credible.
I have to agree with your comments on Tracy. He's a favourite of mine from the period, but I'm aware it's largely because I find his screen persona so likeable. I think the difference is that Tracy is a personality, while March is what I consider a "real" actor. Though I absolutely enjoy both in this film, I do feel that March had the steeper hill to climb.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
First off, I hope you'll forgive me for being so late in thanking you for your remarks and their generous kindness.
And in turn, may I say that I find your evaluation of both Kramer's and March's work in the film bang on (as the Brits say).
In one of my earlier comments, I volunteered that I wasn't such a fan of March's pre-war work, but since then, I've had the opportunity to catch some of it that I'd missed, as well as to take a second look at some others of his films I'd already seen. Those opportunities have brought about something of a reevaluation; I detected skillful nuances to which I'd not been exposed earlier, or that had escaped me initially.
Although I remain most appreciative of his work from, say, The Best Years Of Our Lives on, my regard for his craftsmanship overall has only grown since I first jumped onto this thread.
Poe! You are...avenged!
I'm very impressed (and pleased) by the intelligent discussion this movie has prompted.
shareWell said efs2. The acting in this movie is second to none. Spencer Tracy and Fredric March gave an absolute clinic. Makes me not want to watch these new guys ... lol.
shareIt looked to me more like a make-up job to make him closely resemble William Jennings Bryan, the real life person on whom March's character was based on. Check out the photograph of Bryan with Clarence Darrow (who was the defending lawyer in the case) in Scopes Monkey Trial entry in wikipedia.org and see for yourself.
shareThose used to March's youthful leading man roles would be even more surprised at his last film appearance, as the senile, drunken barkeep Harry Hope in Lumet's adaptation of Eugene O'Neill's The Iceman Cometh.
March is the one wearing the hat:
http://www.fandor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/iceman-cometh-ma rch-ryan.jpeg
"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino
He was wearing a fake bald head wasn't he?
share