MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Possible Remake Arbogasts

Possible Remake Arbogasts

posted 3 years ago by ecarle (14979)
27 replies | jump to latest

I was browsing a book on Gus Van Sant the other day and one chapter covered his remake of Psycho.

The chapter got around to the difficult process of casting that movie -- trying to "replace" Anthony Perkins(Vince Vaughn? NO), Janet Leigh (Anne Heche? NO) and doing somewhat better with Julianne Moore for Lila and Viggo Mortenson for Sam( but by "better," all I mean is that Moore and Mortesen weren't as greviously miscast as Vaughn and Heche -- Vera Miles and John Gavin were just fine, thank you -- and I think Gavin was better than Viggo.)

A note was made that of the main five characters, Arbogast got cast last, but Van Sant got his choice: William H. Macy, who was riding high in 1998 (when Psycho was made and released) as the "consummate character guy in movies" right then.

Truth be told, Macy was a bit farther along in his career in 1998 than Martin Balsam was in 1960 when Hitchcock's Psycho was made. Macy already had an Oscar nomination under his belt for 1996's Fargo ; Balsam wouldn't get HIS first Oscar nomination until 1965 -- and he won ("A Thousand Clowns.") Balsam had been in a few key roles prior to Psycho -- 12 Angry Men above all, but also Al Capone and Middle of the Night -- but Balsam would REALLY start being in everything AFTER Psycho( I think Psycho put Balsam on the map for character parts thereafter.)

Fargo made Macy marketable and between Fargo and Psycho we saw Macy in PTA's Boogie Nights(as the hapless porno assistant direcftor whose porn star wife kept screwing other men in his presence), and Air Force One(one of the those movies which led Macy to say of his role in Psycho: "If you see me in the credits for a movie, you know I'm gonna get killed." But then, come to think of it, he dies in Boogie Nights too, by his own hand. He survives in Fargo.

Evidently one reason it was hard to get Arbogast cast in the Van Sant was that Macy wasn't really interested in the part. After the film's failed release, Macy let his true feelings be known: "I think most of Hitchcock's work is pretty lame, I'm not a fan." And Macy said during filming, "I just spent four hours in chair faking like I was falling downstairs. Its not work you get an Oscar for."

Well, hey, it SHOULD have been -- at least for Martin Balsam, who gave HIS all to play the part in 1960. Arbogast is a definitive supporting role -- short duration(20 minutes), vital importance to the plot(he finds out key things, calls them in , and dies), great lines(Macy DID say that Arbogast "is the best written part in Psycho") and an unforgettable shock death scene("The most spectacular martyrdom in the history of rear screen projection," wrote one critic.)

Martin Balsam himself refused to do interviews about Arbogast. He "flatly and repeatedly" refused to give an interview to Stephen Rebello for his book on the making of Psycho. Too many people asked about it, evidently. That was too bad, because it WAS a great role with something very special for a character man: screen time ALL BY HIMSELF for several scenes, including his unforgettable suspense-slaughter murder.

In addition, Balsam got a great "two hander" sequence with the equally brilliant Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates. Plus a really well written introduction sequence with Miles and Gavin.

It was a great role and William H. Macy was "top character star casting" for it in 1998 BUT...

...Macy didn't quite make it in the role. His natural antipathy to Hitchcock may have been part of it. The extremely oversized and silly looking hat that Van Sant made him wear in the part may have been part of it(Macy takes the hat off for some of his dialogue with Vince Vaughn; he probably demanded this.)

But mainly , William H. Macy felt wrong versus Balsam because he lacked what Balsam had for the part originally: a believable TOUGHNESS for the private eye character(ex-cop? ex-military?) that Milquetoast Macy can't convey. In the original, Balsam was shorter than Perkins, but more stocky and solid -- could maybe take Perkins in a fight. Mousy Macy facing off against Giant Vince Vaughn makes Arbogast vulnerable from the start -- and his routing by Mother on the stairs less of a surprise.

And...Macy had a full head of hair. The balding, round-faced Balsam gave Hitchcock a great "work of living art" with Arbogast's terrified face after the knife blade first slashes his forehead and cheeck -- everything is ROUND, like a series of concentric circles: Balsam's round head, round eyes(bugging out), round nostrils(flaring as his slashed face turns upwards), round mouth(open in silent outrage and terror.)

Macy has his own "fun" with the bloodied close-up(he gets slashed three times to Balsam's one time, forming an X of blood on his face and utter confusion in the detective's eyes), and he gets to "yodel all the way down the stairs" whereas Balsam's scream was silent and drowned out by screeching violins.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Even if somewhat miscast, William H. Macy to play Arbogast was more of a success than a failure for director Van Sant: he DID get the hottest character actor around...in 1998. (My 1998 Arbogast casting would have been a little known actor named Paul Guilfoyle, who had just one wordless scene in LA Confidential as mobster Mickey Cohen and a few other parts around 1998...he would later become famous on the CSI show.)

In the years since William H. Macy was so "hot" and got to play Arbogast, I"ve seen some other character actors come along and get "hotter." Its the way of the business. (Macy had the cable show "Shameless" to carry him for years, but did get entangled with his actress wife in that college scandal that led to brief prison time for HER. Macy's luster has even less sheen now.)

Some possible "later Arbogasts" as according to fame:

Paul Giamatti. Like Macy, Giamatti was in a LOT of movies ("Being a middle-aged white guy is a great career in Hollywood" said Giamatti) and he peaked as a star with "Sideways" in 2004. Giamatti didn't get Oscar nominated for his leading role(a classic "snub") but the movie got a lot of other noms, and was good, and made him famous.

Giamatti was in some ways, just as wimpish as William H. Macy, but his turn as a murderous mob killer in "Shoot Em Up" showed he had some danger behind that droopy face. And a distinctive whiney voice. He sometimes wore a beard(in Sideways), so a bearded Arbogast might have been interesting. Or he could have done the part clean shaven, as he did with other roles. I think if Van Sant's Psycho had been made around 2004..Giamatti may have been the choice.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Phillip Seymour Hoffman. In 2011, Paul Giamatti and Phillip Seymour Hoffman played warring campaign consultants in The Ides of March. George Clooney and young Ryan Gosling were the "leads," but Giamatti and Hoffman were like "twinned Gods of character guys" who stole the movie away from everyone else. Hoffman had outdistanced Giamatti by winning the Best Actor Oscar in 2005(one year after Giamatti wasn't nominated for Sideways.) For playing Truman Capote.

Playing Truman Capote isn't much of a warm-up to play a tough private eye like Arbogast; but then William Macy had takent the role wimpier anyway. And though Hoffman had that Best Actor win, he really returned rather quickly to playing really GOOD supporting roles.

That said: Phillip Seymour Hoffman in his early films like Twister, Boogie Nights(with William H. Macy) and The Big Lebowski was a rather plump, soft, boyish nerd presence. THAT version of Hoffman had no makings for middle-aged tough guy Arbogast at all.

That would change in 2007, where an almost "instantly" middle-aged looking Hoffman played a dry, wry, acerbic, tough talking CIA man in Charlie Wilson's War, as "star support" to Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts -- stealing the movie right away from them and getting the films sole acting nomination. Hoffman also now had a "perfected" deep, low, mumbling voice that could also yell real good.

The Phillip Seymour Hoffman of Charlie Wilson's War could well have played a modern-day Arbogast though -- a fairly overweight one. Balsam was stocky; HiS belly weight would come later in his career. But Hoffman was...portly. Still, portly men can fall down stairs too. Hoffman would have been good in the part.

Which brings us to: today. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, sadly enough, has died and is gone. Paul Giamatti doesn't seemt o have the visibility anymore.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

JK Simmons. There's a guy named JK Simmons who is the current "go to" character man. He won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar a few years ago; he was nominated in 2021 for playing William Frawley(Fred Mertz in I Love Lucy) in that biopic of Lucy and Desi(complete with "the pants that ate Fred Mertz.) He's also got a running TV commercial gig hawking insurance, but we can't hold that against him.

JK Simmons two best attributes for "classic Arbogast" are these: a great, deep sonorous voice(Balsam had it, Macy could fake it, Hoffman gained it) and..he was/is BALD. So finally a "remake Arbogast" could have recreated the "bald head and blood" human artwork that was Martin Balsam's close-up at the top of the stairs.

One problem is WHEN in time JK Simmons gets this role. He's in his late 60's now(2022.) But he's in very good shape and COULD play the role right now. Give it to him in the past decade, no problem.

And -- I say -- JK Simmons right now is where William H. Macy, Paul Giamatti and Phillip Seymour Hoffman once WERE -- the hottest character man in Hollywood.

Its funny about Psycho. To cast Marion, Lila, and Sam, you just need two pretty women and one handsome beefcake man. Norman Bates was once in a lifetime perfect casting, never matched.

But Arbogast is a "Classic Character Role." Truly one of the greatest in movie history. A good character man will always be great in THAT role. The role was properly given to a good actor in 1960 and another good actor in 1998 and SHOULD be given to a good actor if it is ever played again.

[–] EdwardHaskell (142) 3 years ago

Bob Hoskins. Obviously not for a remake, God forbid there should ever be another.

But in 1998, yeah.

[–] swanstep (2715) 3 years ago

That said: Phillip Seymour Hoffman in his early films like Twister, Boogie Nights(with William H. Macy) and The Big Lebowski was a rather plump, soft, boyish nerd presence. THAT version of Hoffman had no makings for middle-aged tough guy Arbogast at all. That would change in 2007...

@ecarle. You're forgetting his acidic turn as Freddie in The Talented Mr Ripley (1999) (and also his part in Punch-drunk Love (2002)). Pudgy yes a little, but not soft, rather he's snobby, sharp/needling, entitled, and menacing. Ripley sees the danger and offs him immediately and shockingly much as Mother does Arbogast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyTke7tD35o
(Watching again now, there's some definite Herrmann/Psycho in the strings in this scene.)

So, yes, Seymour Hoffman could have been a *great* (tho' very young) Arbogast in 1998.

Man, writing this has pitched me into mourning again the loss of Seymour Hoffman at such a young age. We should have had at least another 20 years of him burning up the screen with his demons. Instead he succumbed to them.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Bob Hoskins.

---

Good choice. Size, shape...formidable but not TOO formidable. And as Roger Rabbit proved, he could ditch the British accent if he had to. Alas, Hoskins is no longer with us.

--

Obviously not for a remake,

God forbid there should ever be another.

---

Ha. Well, there WAS one, and thus we were given ANOTHER Arbogast -- Macy -- and I suppose my OP is how given that Macy was THE character man in 1998 (He also made Pleasantville and A Civil Action and Jurassic Park III around this time)...he got the role even if not really right for it. Moreover(I contend), Macy ceded his "hottest character guy" slot along the way to Paul Giamatti, then Phillip Seymour Hoffman, now JK Simmons. (Hoffman's out from death, perhaps he would have held the title.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

That said: Phillip Seymour Hoffman in his early films like Twister, Boogie Nights(with William H. Macy) and The Big Lebowski was a rather plump, soft, boyish nerd presence. THAT version of Hoffman had no makings for middle-aged tough guy Arbogast at all. That would change in 2007...

@ecarle. You're forgetting his acidic turn as Freddie in The Talented Mr Ripley (1999) (and also his part in Punch-drunk Love (2002)). Pudgy yes a little, but not soft, rather he's snobby, sharp/needling, entitled, and menacing. Ripley sees the danger and offs him immediately and shockingly much as Mother does Arbogast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyTke7tD35o
(Watching again now, there's some definite Herrmann/Psycho in the strings in this scene.)

---

Aha. You know, I haven't seen Ripley in a long time, but I watched Punch Drunk Love recently in follow up to my Licorice Pizza jones. Its 2002 by the time Hoffman does Punch Drunk Love and he is well able to "toughen up" in that part. Big YELLER.

Punch Drunk Love was for PTA in 2002. Boogie Nights was for PTA back in 1997, and THATS where Hoffman is rather soft. In between for PTA for Hoffman was Magnolia, where he was basically kind and emotional and very good(one of those movies that really showcased his talent -- Tom Cruise worked with him on that and put him into one of his Mission Impossibles as the meanest villain yet.)

I think it was the one(Twister), two(Boogie Nights) and three (Big Lebowski) of 1996, 1997, and 1998 where Hoffman is pretty squishy and not very fun to watch(though he is good in the roles.) And yet, it only took to 1999 for him to get his Ripley role and to show off (in an early form) his deeper voice(soon a trademark) and menace. He needed a few MORE year to mature into the guy who is in Charlie Wilson's War...and then Moneyball and then...of all things, The Hunger Games, where he is quite good, rather handsome(getting the star treatment) and charismatic.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I like Hoffman best (for the fun character and his lines) in Charlie Wilson's War, but I know that Hoffman did a LOT of powerful indie work in his brief time with us, heavily so in the early 2000s. Synecoche (I made up that spelling), Love Lisa(was that the title?) , the gambling addict one,...Movies I never saw but read a lot about.

I DID see Hoffman in Sidney Lumet's final film, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead." He's a powerful man, he sexually steals Marisa Tomei(!) away from Ethan Hawke and...his character is a heroin user in a terrible foreshadowing of his actual death(some of the data on Johnny Depp in his current trainwreck libel trial -- when coupled with PTAs early death -- reminds us that a lot of our movie stars sure do get into drugs, for better and often for worse. See also: John Belushi and, maybe, Heath Ledger.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

ou're forgetting his acidic turn as Freddie in The Talented Mr Ripley (1999) (and also his part in Punch-drunk Love (2002)). Pudgy yes a little, but not soft, rather he's snobby, sharp/needling, entitled, and menacing. Ripley sees the danger and offs him immediately and shockingly much as Mother does Arbogast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyTke7tD35o
(Watching again now, there's some definite Herrmann/Psycho in the strings in this scene.)

So, yes, Seymour Hoffman could have been a *great* (tho' very young) Arbogast in 1998.

--

I took a look at the scene where Hoffman confronts Damon -- and gets killed -- and its very interesting. It is DEFINITELY an "Arbogast derivative" -- character snoops around, confronts the villain in cat and mouse interrogation, catches the villain in lies, and is killed -- MUST be killed -- before he reveals what he knows to others.

That said, the scene ALSO ties into DIFFERENT scenes off the same template, in different ways.

In Hitchcock...its the very great Gromek scene in Torn Curtain, which has an uglier Arbogast(Wolfgang Kieling, all watery, slobbery speaking voice) and has HIM pushing the HERO (handsome Paul Newman) to murder most foul and lingering and difficult.

But there is a similarity to a few Columbos where the victim so constantly pushed the killer with accusations -- "I'm going to reveal your crimes! You'll lose your business! You'll lose your wife! You'll go to PRISON!" that they might as well be wearing a "KILL ME" sign on their chest. (These Columbo victims often spur the villain to a messy spur of the moment killing that must be covered up, but sometimes the killer expected the KILL ME speech and had a murder plan ready -- see Robert Conrad in a great turn as the gym owner killer.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

But the Hoffman/Damon scene in Ripley also differs from Arbogast/Norman in a key way: the audience really HATES Hoffman for his character's ultra-cruel, ultra-snobby rich kid's arrogance and meanness. We WANT him to get killed, even if it means that Damon will get away with his crimes yet again.

I've never quite liked thrillers where the victim is so hate-able that one sides with the killer who kills him. Hitchcock knew that for a villain to BE a villain...he should kill GOOD people, maybe likeable people. Marion and Arbogast are perhaps "cold" characters (Marion is unmarried and chlidless, we know nothing of Arbogast's home life) and Marion is a thief(amateur) and Arbogast is pretty tough...but we don't WANT them to die. (Flash forward to Brenda Blaney being raped and strangled by the evil Rusk in Frenzy -- she simply doesn't invite or deserve her killing in any way, she's so innocent, its so painful.)

"The Talented Mr. Ripley" is almost 40 years after Psycho, and it is a more "dramatic, realistic and prestigious" type of movie. Hoffman versus Damon has some of the plot elements of Arbogast versus Norman, but it goes deeper in dialogue, and the actual murder is a more mundane and brief bit of business than Arbogast's spectacular and scream-worthy death on the stairs. The director of Ripley was Anthony Manghella, fresh off of his "English Patient" triumphs and -- I'd say -- out to make yet another serious prestige picture even if a thriller. Ripley is "better" than Psycho as a matter of intelligence and realism(as well as expensive European locations), but "worse" than Psycho as a matter of "fun" and historic impact. Oh, well.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Note in passing: Mr. Ripley is from a novel by Patricia Highsmith, author of Strangers on a Train so one can see yet ANOTHER "compare and contrast" with a Hitchcock movie, and again, the Hitchcock is more stylish and fun but less intelligent in approach.

Note in passing: As I recall, Ripley has an early scene with a rich shipbuilder who gives him an assignment of sorts -- and all I could think was "Vertigo." If there is one thing I really LIKE about Vertigo, its that early scene with shipbuilder Gavin Elster in his COOL, expensive wood-walled office with big ships being built right outside that window -- and HE gives James Stewart an assignment.

Note in passing: I actually own a DVD of The Talented Mr. Ripley. The movie came out in 1999 and in 2000 DVDs really hit their stride as the replacement for videos, and I bought DVDs of practically every movie I saw around that time. But my jones died out by about 2001 and I cut back on DVD purchases. Still "Ripley" was part of that initial surge, and I own it, and I should go look at it. (HITCHCOCK movies hit DVD in a big way from 2000 through 2001, they released a bunch of 'em, I bought all of 'em.)

I'll be sad if DVDs go away -- because versus streaming, they still have the benefit of being able to "jump right to a scene." Streaming requires VHS fast-forwarding.

I'll be buying the Licorice Pizza DVD and I want it so I can JUMP to one of my favorite scenes near the end -- the final argument, fight and "break up" between Gary and Alana. That scene captures(for me) how young teenagers (even a 25-year old teenager) can substitute anger and argument for sexual tension and love, and how it can go too far. A perfect little scene but too hard to fast forward to on streaming. DVD will allow the "jump."

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Man, writing this has pitched me into mourning again the loss of Seymour Hoffman at such a young age. We should have had at least another 20 years of him burning up the screen with his demons. Instead he succumbed to them.

---

I've been watching bits and pieces of this terrible Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial and it has haunted me in one particular way: I've had these qualms, at this part of my life, about movie stars. For me personally: WHY do I care about them? WHY do I like them? WHY do I follow them?

Listening to Depp and Heard one feels that they are truly inconsequential people, not very smart, not very caring...but he is rich in the 100s of millions and I'm sure she's well off.

We can feel so weirdly about these people. Was Jack Nicholson all THAT great in his prime? Well, great enough to personally earn 60 million off of Batman, and most of us won't earn a fraction of that in our whole lives. That ALONE makes the movie star "different from regular people."

So for the most part, at this age and this time in my life, I am rather rejecting the idea of the movie star as being someone or someTHING I should care about.

And yet I DID. For so many decades of my life. Seeing Cary Grant in North by Northwest, one sees the "perfect movie star" and his TV copycats of the time -- Craig Stevens(Peter Gunn), Gene Barry(Burke's Law) even Peter Lawford(TVs 'Thin Man") are not at that level. There's something very special about Cary Grant and that makes North by Northwest very special, too.

Steve McQueen came from a hardscabble background and was tempermental and evidently weird(did drugs, too) but what he did as Bullitt(not just in the car, but in INTEGRITY) became a touchstone of my young life. I really dug how he looked as he got older -- more rugged, more mature, more commanding(The Towering Inferno may be schlocky, but not when McQueen's fire chief takes the screen.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Nicholson, such a tough guy and yet LOSING in The Last Detail, Chinatown, and Cuckoo's Nest. Nicholson in that period managed to be a movie star of the old school (the voice, the smile, the manner) and yet conveyed a guy who just couldn't save anybody, including himself. He fit the cynical times.

And so forth and so on. I might not want to MEET these movie stars in real life(their personalities might be too messed up), but yeah, they MATTERED.

And as one of the new ones , yeah, Philiip Seymour Hoffman mattered and it was just shocking to lose him early and yes, I sometimes feel a sting in knowing that he's gone and we don't get to see him on the movie screen anymore being great. (This line has been used about many, but Hitchcock got it , too: "Alfred Hitchcock is dead. No more Hitchocck. But worse -- no more Hitchcock movies.)

But there is this: I still have a lot of Phillip Seymour Hoffman movies I have NOT seen. I'd better get cracking.

[–] swanstep (2715) 3 years ago

But there is this: I still have a lot of Phillip Seymour Hoffman movies I have NOT seen.

I've got a few from his later years I've yet to see. At any rate I'm fairly sure that two of his absolute best are two near masterpieces about depression and self-hatred that I can definitely recommend (assuming that one is not in a mentally fragile state oneself): Happiness (1998) and Synechdoche, NY (2008). The former is an Altman-ish group piece but PSH's part in it (which is mostly a two-hander with ultra-skinny Twin Peaks beauty, Lara Flynn Boyle, who was, I believe, dating Jack Nicholson at the time!) is something no one ever forgets. The latter is a swing-for-the-fences, testament-film & complete existential depression-fest from Charlie Kaufman (he'll never top it - he's largely repeated himself since with Anomalisa and I'm Thinking of Ending Things). PSH is at the absolute center of SNY and is in every scene. In general I don't think many actors *could* play these PSH roles. Actors without extensive personal demons to draw on need not apply.

I recently watched Neflix's new Marilyn Monroe doc., and was struck by a parallel between her and PSH (notwithstanding their very different actorly reputations). MM had an incredibly tough, sad life before stardom (and her life after stardom wasn't a day at the beach either) and the doc. clarifies that it was *that* that shone though her physical perfection, reading as vulnerability, that made her irresistible to directors and moving to audiences. No one at the time (outside of the business) knew MM's problems, just as no one not in the biz. had any idea of what PSH's real issues were, but in both cases their special-ness on screen effectively let *everyone* know that *something* was up with them. *Very* troubled people can make *amazing* performers even as their underlying troubles are very real and may well eat them alive.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I've got a few from his later years I've yet to see. At any rate I'm fairly sure that two of his absolute best are two near masterpieces about depression and self-hatred that I can definitely recommend (assuming that one is not in a mentally fragile state oneself):

--

I, for one, am cool and OK on this stuff.

---

Happiness (1998) and Synechdoche, NY (2008). The former is an Altman-ish group piece but PSH's part in it (which is mostly a two-hander with ultra-skinny Twin Peaks beauty, Lara Flynn Boyle, who was, I believe, dating Jack Nicholson at the time!) is something no one ever forgets

---

Alas...I know I SAW Happiness...but I've forgotten it. Except, as I recall, the rather frank and neutral presentation of one character(a father?) as a child molester. Not that I hold this against the film.

Its interesting to me: certain movies like LA Confidential and Saving Private Ryan and even Van Sant's Psycho from 1997 and 1998 seem like I saw them "only yesterday." But then I own those and watch them from time to time on DVD or on streaming.

Happiness was a one-time deal, a now-distant memory (and frankly, from a long ago relationship that was LADEN with indie film and foreign films; quite an educational period.)

I am willing to try Happiness again -- to try and remember who PSH played. And yes, the ultra-thin and pretty Lara Boyle got some time as the rather paunchy Nicholson's quite public amour and eye candy. Superstardom has its perks.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

The latter is a swing-for-the-fences, testament-film & complete existential depression-fest from Charlie Kaufman (he'll never top it - he's largely repeated himself since with Anomalisa and I'm Thinking of Ending Things).

---

Interesting analysis. I think I have bet myself that I will not watch that Kaufman film until I can spell the title without error. Just kidding. It is on my list.

---

PSH is at the absolute center of SNY and is in every scene. In general I don't think many actors *could* play these PSH roles. Actors without extensive personal demons to draw on need not apply.

---
Yes, I suppose so. In its "basic, movie star state," acting in movies isn't all that hard or such a big deal(Dean Martin said that his early job dealing blackjack was MUCH harder.)

But if you are going to take on the heavy, emotional material well...be careful. Evidently Daniel Day Lewis has retired because of the emotional wear and tear, and Marlon Brando said he reached a point(evidently after the Godfather/Tango in Paris double play) where he simply would NOT give of himself that deeply anymore(and the proof is in the movies he made thereafter.

Meanwhile, back to Dean Martin. Maybe movie star acting wasn't that hard for him (and certainly not sitting around being pampered between scenes) , but he had to climb a long hard road and break from Jerry Lewis to BECOME a movie star. Lots of people can act. Few can become bankable stars.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I recently watched Neflix's new Marilyn Monroe doc., and was struck by a parallel between her and PSH (notwithstanding their very different actorly reputations). MM had an incredibly tough, sad life before stardom (and her life after stardom wasn't a day at the beach either) and the doc. clarifies that it was *that* that shone though her physical perfection, reading as vulnerability, that made her irresistible to directors and moving to audiences.

--

Certainly a fair enough assessment of Ms. Monroe. There's a reason she became such a big star when Jayne Mansfield and Mamie Van Doren did not. She COULD act, she DID have "it," and this managed to get her in a few classics in her short time on earth.

I know nothing of PSH's early life and why trouble may have begun there. All I know is that drugs got him -- and evidently got him after a period of very public sobriety.

I did find some quote from him somewhere where he wished that a critic or two might have called him handsome -- and not lingered on his weight. He WAS handsome, from certain angles and photographed certain ways facially. And he had a sexy deep voice when he wanted to so employ it. I'm just wondering if he had issues with how he looked physically. Given how many of the rest of us struggle with weight, it seems an unsatisfactory issue for such an end. I dunno. There seems to be a LOT of recreational drug taking in Hollywood; a comparatively small number of actors succumbed to it.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

No one at the time (outside of the business) knew MM's problems, just as no one not in the biz. had any idea of what PSH's real issues were, but in both cases their special-ness on screen effectively let *everyone* know that *something* was up with them. *Very* troubled people can make *amazing* performers even as their underlying troubles are very real and may well eat them alive.

---

Well...I give you Brando, Clift, and Dean...in different doses.

But Cary Grant was evidently quite neurotic on set too. He didn't get in a disfiguring auto accident or die young or gain weight...but something may have even been going on with THAT guy.

(Note on Brando: Dean died very young, Monty died somewhat young; only Brando lived on to such a long life that his demons manifested in a very noticeable weight gain -- but he got a long life.)

MM's life seemed to be so tragic that she outdistanced many other pretty actresses who managed to live on and age without TOO much psychic damage. But as you say, we just don't really know WHAT goes on with these people.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

An Arbogastian swerve on Phillip Seymour Hoffman:

In addition to the snoopy snob who gets killed in Mr. Ripley; Hoffman in 2002 took a role in the remake of Manhunter(1986) called Red Dragon -- as per the name of the novel from which both films were made. Both films featured the now infamous Hannibal Lecter (Brian Cox in Manhunter; Anthony Hopkins again in Red Dragon.)

Anyway, its not Lecter who kills PSH in Red Dragon, its another psycho called The Tooth Fairy (Ralph Fiennes) and the scene of death is simply horrific and nearly unwatchable.

Whereas Arbogast 1960 was killed in a quick furious flurry of knife blows -- gone in sixty seconds -- PSH in Red Dragon is captured by the Tooth Fairy , tied to a wheelchair in his tighty whities (PSH's girth on full, brave display) and tortured both mentally and eventually physically in a hard to watch scene. Then comes his death elsewhere -- aflame in the rolling wheelchair.

Stephen Lang had played the role in Manhunter, but PSH brought his distinctive qualities to the part - the mumbling voice, the slobbish manner(in this role), the vulnerability. He played another one of those victims I don't like to see -- a ruthless tabloid reporter whose villainy INVITES his horrible murder. Not a very fun sequence, but memorable.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 3 years ago

So for the most part, at this age and this time in my life, I am rather rejecting the idea of the movie star as being someone or someTHING I should care about.

And yet I DID. For so many decades of my life. Seeing Cary Grant in North by Northwest, one sees the "perfect movie star" and his TV copycats of the time -- Craig Stevens(Peter Gunn), Gene Barry(Burke's Law) even Peter Lawford(TVs 'Thin Man") are not at that level. There's something very special about Cary Grant and that makes North by Northwest very special, too.
--
Maybe it's because movie stars once symbolized some kind of ideal, like the gods in a pantheon. Just as Zeus symbolized kingship and Aphrodite erotic love, Cary Grant symbolized a certain kind of masculine elegance and Steve McQueen a macho cool. Does anyone really have that sort of quality anymore? They certainly don't seem out of reach like the movie star gods and goddesses of old either-- they openly air their private lives on social media.

And now with celebrity becoming something anyone with an online account and creative output can achieve, with or without big Hollywood money-- well, the movie star is rather outdated as a concept, even if celebrities are still very much a thing and probably always will be.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Maybe it's because movie stars once symbolized some kind of ideal, like the gods in a pantheon. Just as Zeus symbolized kingship and Aphrodite erotic love, Cary Grant symbolized a certain kind of masculine elegance and Steve McQueen a macho cool.

---

I don't doubt this at all. As much as we can say that their pay is ridiculously high for comparatively simple work, for those movie stars who BECOME(or perhaps BECAME) stars, we cannot ignore exactly how worshiped and immortal these people became. There is something downright mystical about how fans came to worship these people.

I use the example of The Beatles being screamed over (if we can believe those girls weren't paid) as an example of the intensity of the worship. I read that shortly after Star Wars(the first one) came out in 1977, Harrison Ford was shopping at Tower Records and was rushed by fans who ripped his shirt off and tore it up among themselves. He had to run out of the store for his life.

And how about..Anthony Perkins? The summer Psycho came out, Perkins went to play miniature golf and watched entire families run away from him, get in their cars, and drive away...

But stardom -- however high paying to the actors in Marvel movies -- has been devalued today. If its the end of the movies, it is also largely the end of movie stars. Very few of the Marvel stars can carry a movie outside those vehicles.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I've said this before. VERY few modern day stars can EVER have the careers that Bogart, Grant, and Stewart got -- where the REASON people CAME to their movies was to see THEM..in whatever material they chose.

This continued on for Clint Eastwood and Burt Reynolds(in lesser movies than Bogart made) but it has been much harder for Leo and Brad Pitt and Matt Damon to carry that torch. And George Clooney (somewhat of a Grant clone) dropped the torch entirely.

A rule I've always personally followed is "the movie, not the movie star." In other words, I place my highest serious value on good movies in which movie stars do their best work.

Here's an example. Cary Grant's final decade of films included:

Kiss Them for Me
The Pride and the Passion
An Affair To Remember
Indiscreet
Houseboat
North by Northwest
Operation Petticoat
The Grass is Greener
That Touch of Mink
Charade
Father Goose
Walk Don't Run

...and there are very few true classics in that group. The two thrillers: North by Northwest(above all hls films) and Charade. And the rather too soapy Affair to Remember. And...that's it. Movies like Kiss Them for Me and The Pride and the Passion were negligible; Grant's there looking great in them but they don't really work. That Touch of Mink(with Doris Day) and Operation Petticoat(with Tony Curtis) were huge hits, but something's lacking in them. And yet: Cary Grant is clearly Cary Grant in all of them.

"The movie, not the movie star."

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Does anyone really have that sort of quality anymore? They certainly don't seem out of reach like the movie star gods and goddesses of old either-- they openly air their private lives on social media.

---

Yep...we are way too familiar with them. They are just other people to us -- spectacularly more rich then we are, but "the same."

---

As I've noted before, Cary Grant would do NO TV when he was active as a star, except the Oscar show. He was the one guest Johnny Carson could never get. (Jack Nicholson also refused to do talk shows.)

---

And now with celebrity becoming something anyone with an online account and creative output can achieve, with or without big Hollywood money-- well, the movie star is rather outdated as a concept, even if celebrities are still very much a thing and probably always will be.

---

True -- the MOVIE star is lesser, but reality stars and Tik Tok stars and Facebook stars...we all have a shot. Ha.

I'm reminded with this Depp/Heard trial that "old time Hollywood" had plenty of scandalous trials, too, usually about divorce and affairs. Cary Grant's divorce from Dyan Cannon had scandals attached(his LSD use!) Grant was among many male stars hit with paternity suits. And we had Lana Turner's daughter stabbing the gangster boyfriend to death, and the Marilyn Monroe tragedy.

But still...for the most part, old time Hollywood "kept things to themselves," and kept their stars mysterious and above us.

Circling round: movie stars WERE too much of my life --in a positive, role modelling, life affirming way -- not to remain somewhat grateful for all the years I've had watching them.

Even Johnny Depp. I sure did feel he was an offbeat, "cool" star throwback. I probably still will -- on screen.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

A little "connection within the thread" : Arbogast and movie stars.

Gus Van Sant had been trying to get his Psycho remake approved by Universal for years. And years BEFORE he made the one he made, he pitched a version with Timothy Hutton for Norman Bates(not bad; he might have said yes)...and Jack Nicholson as Arbogast! Nicholson would have been great, but he would have said no, I'm sure.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 3 years ago

A rule I've always personally followed is "the movie, not the movie star." In other words, I place my highest serious value on good movies in which movie stars do their best work.
--
I've often felt this way too, mainly because the greatest part of the reason why we care about any movie star to begin with is that we LIKE their work. I wouldn't care about Cary Grant if he hadn't been in Arsenic and Old Lace or Charade or North by Northwest or Notorious or The Bishop's Wife or any number of enjoyable movies enlivened by his talents. I honestly don't know anything about Grant's personal life-- and I don't really want to.

I was once reading Alan Arkin's 2012 memoir "An Improvised Life" and was stunned by the negative reviews complaining that he didn't discuss his personal life enough. Instead, he dared to write about why he wanted to act, his early development as an actor, and how he ties in improvisation to his technique-- you know, things related to why anyone would be interested in him to start with: because he's a famous actor whose made movies we enjoy. These people complaining wouldn't care who he slept with, when he got his first car, his theories on the meaning of life if he was just some guy-- so why does it matter if he's a famous actor?

Then again, this is probably the pot calling the kettle black-- I do read a few star biographies (though I prefer learning how people got into their professions and what they were like on the set more than about their love lives)... so I'm not immune to the desire to see what's behind the star persona. But what makes us that way, I wonder?

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

A rule I've always personally followed is "the movie, not the movie star." In other words, I place my highest serious value on good movies in which movie stars do their best work.
--
I've often felt this way too, mainly because the greatest part of the reason why we care about any movie star to begin with is that we LIKE their work. I wouldn't care about Cary Grant if he hadn't been in Arsenic and Old Lace or Charade or North by Northwest or Notorious or The Bishop's Wife or any number of enjoyable movies enlivened by his talents.

---

Absolutely. Though I reeled off some Grant movies that weren't very big deals -- even if he was IN them - - Grant is among those Golden Age stars who became legends because they made so MANY classics. Stewart was that way; Tracy too(often with Hepburn.) And though he died "young" at 57, I think Bogart has the greatest classics list of any movie star.

Jack Nicholson's long superstar career reflects a LOT of great movies. He said that his friend John Huston told him "You must never start making movies that don't MATTER." So Jack stayed picky and turned down a lot of movies and took some fine supporting roles and stayed bankable forever. Burt Reynolds was a good actor and a good star...but he chose too much dreck and failed.

--

I honestly don't know anything about Grant's personal life-- and I don't really want to.

---

It was a bit on the messy side -- five wives -- and WORSE, in real life he was evidently a rather grouchy neurotic man, not the cool cat of his films. Better NOT to know.

That said, I was in Cary Grant's presence for about three hours (by accident) at the Magic Castle bar, restaurant and showroom in Hollywood, in 1980 and I'm here to tell you -- he WAS a big deal. His presence. His voice. And, for me, knowing I was sitting near the man who had been on Mount Rushmore for Hitchcock, and i The Philadelphia Story with Stewart and Hepburn, etc.

CONT
r

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I was once reading Alan Arkin's 2012 memoir "An Improvised Life" and was stunned by the negative reviews complaining that he didn't discuss his personal life enough. Instead, he dared to write about why he wanted to act, his early development as an actor, and how he ties in improvisation to his technique-- you know, things related to why anyone would be interested in him to start with: because he's a famous actor whose made movies we enjoy. These people complaining wouldn't care who he slept with, when he got his first car, his theories on the meaning of life if he was just some guy-- so why does it matter if he's a famous actor?

---

I dunno. I believe that most major movie stars lead lives of travel and fine food and fine wines but....they can't be THAT much different from us.

With many of the male stars, their claim to fame is...all those women they get. I read the autobiographies of Kirk Douglas, Marlon Brando, and Tony Curtis, and those three fellahs just could not STOP talking about all the women they had -- even during their marriages. A perk of stardom that , frankly, the wives of these stars just basically put up with(they got to be "the Queen Bees" and the mothers of a star's children.) At least Douglas was funny enough to note that one day he got old and -- even as a movie star -- "the girls stopped looking at me."

--

In the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial, Amber has corroborated what Hitchcock said: leading men and leading ladies on movies fall in love. Amber said "I kissed Johnny in a scene and suddenly, it wasn't an acting kiss...it was a real kiss. And I fell in love."

Hitch could have told her...