MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > John Gavin:

John Gavin:

posted 6 years ago by ProductionNow (1072)
11 replies | jump to latest

I seem to be in the minority here (except for Mr Hitch) but I found his opening scene to lack nuance; one-tone of discontent running through his lines. Hey, I'll never be as successful and famous as him, and dont' try, but acting classes demonstrate how you can go "against" the lines, within reason, You could debate that a man who is so fully discontent would not break away from that mood; but in a film, you need some spark of what-will-he-do -next, as an actor.

For example, when he says "tell you what, you can lick the stamps" (and some of the other), he could had actually ended that on a deprecating amusing gesture or half-hearted laugh to show his vulnerability and loss of hope, especially when he's with with his lover and his guard is down. Another technique for Gavin would be to fully boil over with frustration, then catch himself and calm down to a sense of . His scenes with Perkins were more straightforward, so his uptight nature fit.

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

I don't know why you say (except for Mr. Hitch), when Hitchcock himself didn't want Gavin to play the part. Many people agree with you.

There's a reason why Hitch referred to Gavin as 'the Stiff.' And you just pointed out a good reason why.

Have you ever seen him in 'Midnight Lace', attempting a British accent? Gavin was a very handsome man, no doubt, but an actor he wasn't.

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

I know, I was trying to be tactful. Psycho fans seem to like him

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

You were tactful. I've read people's opinions on both sides of the coin.

Those who think Gavin was just the stiff, and those who think his stiffness was appropriate for this role.

Me? As is often the case, I'm somewhere in the middle. I think he was fine in some scenes and absolutely terrible in others.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I know, I was trying to be tactful. Psycho fans seem to like him.

--

Oh, some of us do, some of us don't.

I've always found that Psycho is accused of three "major flaws":

John Gavin
The process shot of Arbogast falling backwards down the stairs(fake)
The psychiatrist scene at the end

....and personally, I can defend all of them, and , to varying degrees, I like all of them. I'll leave the Arbogast fall and the psychiatrist scene for another day, but as for John Gavin...

...well, first of all he was cast as a business proposition.

Hitchcock was going to offer the role of Sam to Stuart Whitman -- but Hollywood superagent Lew Wasserman -- Hitchcock's own agent -- pushed for Gavin, a client. I expect that Hitchcock and Wasserman knew the same thing: Sam Loomis was not the "star part" in Psycho. Norman Bates was. And Marion Crane on the distaff side. And frankly, Arbogast was a more interesting part, too. So Hitchcock looked at footage on John Gavin and said "oh, I guess he'll do" and hired him.

The good things Hitchcock got with John Gavin: a great body(for that opening shirtless scene, and for Psycho movie posters.) Great height -- he towers over Anthony Perkins in their confrontations and believably subdues the psycho. And...a certain facial/hair similarity TO Perkins; wrote Robin Wood: "They are like mirror images of each other -- one healthy and virile, the other rotted by twisted sex."

Also: Gavin had just been in a big hit ("Imitation of Life") and was "hot" in movies -- a possible new star.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

The bad things Hitchcock got with John Gavin: none that I can see. He was a so-so actor, not a bad one. Glen Campbell in True Grit..THAT's a bad actor.

The just-Ok things Hitchcock got with John Gavin: that performance, I guess. Personally I love the force of his line reading with Lila and Arbogast: "Well, one of you better tell me what's going on and tell me FAST -- I can only take so much of this!" I felt the righteous fury of the guy on that line reading.

I was very interested in reading the OP's critique of how Gavin reads those lines in the opening hotel scene; suddenly I could see how the lines COULD have been read better. "Good acting" is a mysterious process, and Hitchcock too often with his heroes chose not-great actors: Bob Cummings, MacDonald Carey, Michael Wilding...Farley Granger(sorry, Granger fans.) The villains much more interested Hitchcock(Joseph Cotton, Ray Milland, Robert Walker, Tony Perkins...)

Since I think Sam Loomis is the fifth-most important character in Psycho(after Norman, Marion, Arbogast and Lila), Gavin is OK by me in the film.

And this: I've mentioned this before, but so many of Gavin's line readings -- from the hotel at the beginning to the motel at the end -- are very tense and urgent. He gives us a portrait of a big strapping man who is SCARED of things: women, marriage, debt, LIFE. And then he becomes a hero at the end...

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] liscarkat (19418) 6 years ago

Cummings was great in "Saboteur". Granger was great in "Strangers on a Train" and "Rope". Sorry you can't see it.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Well, I'll admit it is simply an opinion. All of these actors are a matter of personal taste.

There is also the matter of "star pecking order." To wit:

Robert Cummings ended up starring in Saboteur after higher up stars like Gary Cooper and Henry Fonda turned it down. I'm not sure that 1942 Universal could have afforded those guys anyway (or got them on "loan out.") So even at the time, Cummings was considered B-ish casting. Came time for Dial M for Murder, Ray Milland(as the villain) got top billing and the best pay for Dial M; Cummings felt a bit "second place" behind the villain.

Farley Granger ended up the lead in Strangers on a Train only after William Holden turned it down(and a loan out from Paramount couldn't be arranged, both or the other.) And there -- even though Robert Walker is third-billed, it was clearly "the villain's movie to run."

I must admit that I like Granger in both Rope and Strangers on a Train and I think it is fascinating that his weak villain in Rope becomes a weak hero in Strangers, it suggests that Granger carried both good and evil within him simultaneously.

But there can be no doubt that HITCHCOCK didn't much care for Granger, or Cummings, or MacDonald Carey, or John Gavin. He just couldn't get behind the actors playing his heroes if they were NOT at Stewart, Grant, Fonda level. And truth be told, Hitchcock was never going to get major male stars to play the MacDonald Carey role in Shadow of a Doubt or the John Gavin role in Psycho. A star would say: "that's not the lead." (Interesting: Priscilla Lane is top-billed in Saboteur and Teresa Wright is top-billed in Shadow of a Doubt.)

I'm unsure of myself, now. Do I not like these actors' work (the lesser Hitchcock heroes) because of their lack of marquee value, or because of their talent? Maybe more the former, I guess.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Irony: of the group of them, I actually like John Gavin(specifically in Psycho) the best. He "fills the screen" better than Cummings(of whom Hitchcock said "he has too amusing a face" for drama) or Granger. He did the shirtless beefcake thing at the beginning to help bring more sex into the Hitchcock movie; and he seems to have a lot at stake as the story goes on and he becomes aware that his peaceful hometown is neighbor to unspeakable horrors 15 miles away. When Gavin takes on Perkins AS MOTHER in the fruit cellar, it is a historic movie moment -- bigger than anything in Saboteur, Dial M, or Strangers on a Train. Gavin may get my highest marks because he is in the most important Hitchcock movie of this group.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Cruising the web, I found the following original review from 1960 of Psycho...in The Hollywood Reporter(a "trade" paper with a certain interest in promoting the industry):

BEGIN:

Anthony Perkins gives by far the best performance of his career in the title role. As the young, sensitive and amiable proprietor of the motel he maintains an appearance of innocence even while disposing of the remains of the murder victims purportedly killed by his mother. Miss Leigh is excellent as the young woman who steals $40,000 to buy off her unhappiness and solve her boyfriend's money problems, only to be murdered at the hotel. John Gavin is very good as the boyfriend and Vera Miles is splendid as the devoted sister, both instrumental in solving the murders. Martin Balsam as a private investigator, John McIntire as a small town sheriff, and Simon Oakland as a psychiatrist contribute sharp and effective characterizations.

END

So in 1960, a reviewer for a paper read mainly by Hollywood insiders, said: "Anthony Perkins gives by far the best performance of his career....Miss Leigh is excellent...John Gavin is very good as the boyfriend and Vera Miles is splendid as the devoted sister...(Martin Balsam, John McIntire, Simon Oakland) contribute sharp and effective characterizations.

I'm amused by how the reviewer had to group his acting criticisms "according to star billing." Perkins gets a full sentence and the highest praise (and the giveaway gag "in the title role") Leigh gets a sentence to herself and one word of praise("excellent.") Gavin and Miles are grouped together; he is "very good" and she is "splendid." Balsam, McIntire, and Oakland are further grouped together, and given the SAME praise "contribute sharp and effective characterizations."

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

One is reminded that critics writing about actors are often stymied by the issue of trying to "sort out the performances." I mean, in The Godfather, Brando, Pacino, Caan, Duvall, and Casale are all good, but good in different ways, according to their characters, and their own faces, physiques, voices, and personalities. Again...its hard to differentiate.

But back to that 1960 Hollywood Reporter review of Psycho. The reviewer says that John Gavin is "very good." No sniping, no "stiff" reference. Very good.

Gavin, I trust, read that review and smiled.

For Janet Leigh's book on Psycho, John Gavin gave her an interview(he did so for no other book on Psycho.) Among the things Gavin shared with Leigh was how, during a break in their motel office confrontation scene filming while lighting was being re-set, Anthony Perkins said to Gavin, "you are really good in this scene," and Gavin felt like for the first time working on Psycho, someone actually cared about his work. He was very grateful to Perkins for the praise.

None of this is to dissuade any of you who don't much like Gavin's acting in Psycho. He was not a Brando or even a Peck; his movie career fizzled quickly and he became a TV guy before quitting acting entirely. But I AM demonstrating that at least one critic(for the Hollywood Reporter) and one actor (Anthony Perkins) praised Gavin's work(probably to be nice, in Perkins' case.)

And I'm OK with his work in the role. I'll go further -- I'm a big fan of Rod Taylor, but I think Taylor in The Birds is less good than Gavin in Psycho. But the reason is: the script for Psycho is better, and so is the character.