MovieChat Forums > The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) Discussion > Age of actors versus roles

Age of actors versus roles

posted 10 years ago by bob-larrance
33 replies | jump to latest

In 1962 John Wayne was 55 and Jimmy Stewart was 54. For Jimmy and the Duke their ages are really 'showing' in this movie. And, for the period the movie takes place in both of the men are past average life expectancy. In other words, they both would have been considered to be very old, in the old west.

Though I have always appreciated The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance for story and production the ages of the male leads has always been a major negative to me. This isn't a radio play and the way the actors look is important.

Stewart, in particular, had many roles in the the 1950's where a younger actor would have been more appropriate. By 1962 somebody else should have landed the Stoddard part. He was just too old.

[–] cwente2 10 years ago

"He was just too old."

But . . . he was Jimmy Stewart! For me, Stewart's screen persona and performance was enough to suspend my disbelief. Besides, wouldn't a much younger actor have had some difficulty playing the much older Senator Stoddard (and I don't just mean from an appearance standpoint)? Make-up can work both ways, you know. Additionally, who can say what Stoddard's age was supposed to be? Maybe he was an older man who'd tried several other careers before he found the interest and the means to enter law school -- as a last career resort? (I know a guy who entered law school in his 50's.) Anyway, an actor's age means little to me when compared to his ability to convince me "who" he is more than "what" he is.

[–] astockton_uk 9 years ago

Law schools didn't exist in that time period. Lawyers learned their trade by what was called reading for the law. That is, they went to work in a law office, where they read the boss's law books, learned to draft pleadings, and went to court to watch trials.

That was how Abraham Lincoln learned to practice law. Incidentally, he was 33 when he married Mary Todd, so he was older than average for a first marriage. Obviously it took him several years before he felt able to support a family.

Nor was there such a thing as a bar exam. State bar associations that licensed attorneys to practice and enforced ethical standards came later.

[–] pv71989-1 9 years ago

I must object, sir. Harvard founded its law school in 1817, followed by Virginia in 1819 and Yale in 1824. The first state bar exam was in 1738 in Delaware, with most of the original 13 colonies following suit within a few years. Working in law offices was akin to doing an internship in modern times.

[–] Lancer01 8 years ago

i agree they were probably too old to play the roles but nobody cared back then. They knew films were to be flims and make believe. Not like today where it everything isn't perfect there are critics all over the internet piling on.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

If made today it should star Channing Tatum and Chris Pratt. Wouldn't that be a treat?

[–] 398 10 years ago

Both of these posts make good points I think.

Stewart and Wayne were unique casting,

but they would have been more age appropriate about 1939.

The age of the leading men is a weakness, but the movie is still excellent.

*off topic, but I can't remember overage performers being a problem in the 1930's, but by the fifties and sixties, there are a lot of movies in which one notices the age of the leading man.

[–] cwente2 10 years ago

There's also the second word in the term "show business" to be considered. Without the star power of Wayne and Stewart, the picture may never have been made at all.

In addition, the personas of both men (what an audience, after many years of seeing them on film) bring to their characters an "X"+ factor no younger actor could have brought, imo. In short, who gives a dam* how old those actors were when the picture was shot -- considering what they did with the roles (I suspect part of why you "consider the movie excellent")? I certainly didn't, until I visited this thread. . . To each his own, I suppose.

[–] vinidici 10 years ago

bob-larrance, if Wayne at 55 and Stewart at 54 were considered "elderly" by 19th Century standards, wouldn't men in their forties during that era look about as old as Wayne and Stewart actually were? In other words, shouldn't 50-something actors of 20th Century be able to pass for a decade younger if they've portraying men of an era who had aged prematurely and died relatively young by modern standards?

[–] hammer4 10 years ago

It seems apparent that Ransom Stoddard was intended to be much younger than forty, probably twenty something.

He'd just finished law school, plus he refers to himself as a "youngster", during the beginning of the flashback. He also makes reference to taking Horace Greeley's advice to "Go West Young Man".

Also, at least initially he is shown to be rather naive and unrealistically idealistic. These are the traits of a younger man.

Stewart was fifty-three at the time of filming and certainly some suspension of disbelief is a requirement in order to appreciate the film.

[–] KutWrite (1334) a year ago

@vinidici: Even after 9 years, your point is still valid.

[–] 398 10 years ago

One thing, though, it is pure speculation how the movie would have looked if other actors had been cast.

Here is a possible "young" cast for 1962--

Robert Redford---Ranse
Steve McQueen----Tom
Natalie Wood-----Hallie
Charles Bronson--Liberty

Would such a film be remembered as a classic. It is certainly possible.

[–] bob-larrance 10 years ago

interesting cast, I like the possible performances except for Bronson. He didn't have that Lee Marvin 'menance'. And, Marvin's age playing Liberty seems ok to me. An interesting take could have been Monty Clift. Or, maybe John Cassavetes.

[–] hammer4 10 years ago

Do you mean Montgomery Clift as Valance?

[–] bob-larrance 9 years ago

Yes. He would have made an interesting Valance.

[–] hammer4 9 years ago

I don't believe Clift was at all suitable to play Valance (the slimy villain). He might have been considered for Stoddard.

[–] Moscoso1967 10 years ago

The age of the actors also bothered me a bit (though their performances were good, they were both about 30 years too old and I think it showed that they were much older than their characters are supposed to be).

Like you, I had to think of Steve McQueen as Tom when I started to think of a more (age) appropriate cast (I think Marvin was fine). I'm not quite sure who I would have casted as Ranse, maybe Anthony Perkins (a rather odd choice, but I think he would have been able to portray the character as idealistic and also awkward as Stewart).

[–] vinidici 8 years ago

I'm not quite sure who I would have casted as Ranse, maybe Anthony Perkins (a rather odd choice, but I think he would have been able to portray the character as idealistic and also awkward as Stewart).

Though PSYCHO (1960) had a way of afterwards cutting Perkins off from the
shy, sensitive "nice guy" roles he used to play. In fact, I haven't seen much of anything he did after PSYCHO that wasn't played "lurid" and "creepy." So he probably wasn't even remotely considered for the Ranse Stoddard role.

Robert Mitchum was a full decade younger than Wayne, so he'd have made for interesting alternative casting -- and less of a credulity stretch, for the current "age-correct casting" crowd, as Tom Doniphon.

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

[–] lubin-freddy 9 years ago

I think that we often expect too much "reality" in movies. HOWEVER the actors look, they're still professionals, making money to recite lines that someone else wrote. Everything beyond that is a leap of disbelief.

Both Stewart and Wayne were perfect for roles that DEMANDED iconic faces.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[–] bob-larrance 9 years ago

I know what you mean, I respect your opinion and I am really pleased that this thread didn't veer into the sort of garbage that is becoming more and more popular on IMDB. It is great to be part of a solid discussion like this, I really love movies.

[–] jayedr 9 years ago

Netflix. The best and worst of technology. After 40 odd years I was watching this masterpiece for the second time and commented to my better half that it was either a parody, satire or just a reunion project for the monuments of the recent past era. This maybe the first John Wayne movie I ever saw and he was great in it, didn't take himself so seriously and magnify his minimal acting talents.

[–] balthazar_bee 9 years ago

I wouldn't stoop to calling it "parody" or dismiss it as "just a reunion project", but there's no denying the presence of some pronounced bitterness about the West and history generally. So maybe "satire" works here -- not particularly caustic satire, but certainly knowing and jaded.

But I'm always amazed to read that some folks (even those who enjoy it) don't get caught up in the emotion of the story. On an intellectual level I'm completely aware of the rather theatrical performances, the on-the-nose character of the narrative, and the on-paper ludicrousness of the leads' ages, but none of those things -- not in the dozen times I've seen the film -- have gotten in the way of my being moved.

Maybe it comes down to what another poster alluded to -- and this isn't to diminish their performances -- but these actors were so huge, that simply to cast them was already to imbibe their respective characters with palpable life. In that sense, the actors themselves have become part of the poignancy of the story, and the "print the legend" legacy extends to them.

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

Nicely said.

[–] PhineasAppleby 9 years ago

I think finding the right Stoddard would have been the biggest challenge. A great actor but James Garner might be considered too handsome. You don't want ugly but you don't want a guy who would easily get the girl.

[–] vinidici 8 years ago

Audie Murphy probably could have handled playing Ranse Stoddard.

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

[–] vinidici 9 years ago

Glenn Ford could play either Tom or Ranse. On the other hand, while nearly a decade younger than Wayne and Stewart, he also would be considered a bit old for either role.

Charlton Heston as Ranse? Probably about young enough, but his physique would make him better suited as Tom.

George Peppard might have worked as Ranse; someone has already suggested Steve McQueen for Tom and I can see that as a viable casting choice, too.

Jack Weston as Link Appleyard.

Natalie Wood or Debra Paget as Hallie.

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

[–] cmonsalve 9 years ago

Yes, unfortunately James Stewart and John Wayne are both kind of old for their roles. But when considering its theme, perhaps that is okay. Tom Donovan (Wayne) is a metaphor for the old west, so why not be portrayed by an older man. Stoddard (Stewart) is the symbol of the approaching civility of of the west. Perhaps his character could of been better represented by a younger actor, but that would of presented some difficulties.
Stewart's Stoddard and Wayne's Donovan share a mutual respect because they are both honorable brave men who stand up for justice. What younger actor could of motivated the Duke to commit "cold blooded murder" to save his life even though he was taking her girl?

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

This is all pretty amusing. Considering all the principle characters (excluding Doniphon) are quite old at the beginning and end of the picture, I expect some on these boards should be complaining that the actors were all too "old" for their parts... this is "theatre" not reality, folks, and as such the audience has always been expected to contribute a little imagination to the effort.

[–] MAGolding (1240) 6 years ago

I'm not sure whether men 54 and 55 would have been considered very old in the real west. Older than most people around them, but not necessarily very old.

Geronimo (1828 or 1834-1909) surrendered for the last time in 1886, the year he would have turned 52 or 58 depending on his actual birth year.

General George Crook (1828-1890) led a military expedition in 1883, the year he turned 55.

Victorio (c. 1825-1880) was about 55 when he was killed while on the warpath.

Mangas Coloradas (c. 1793-1863) was wounded at the Battle of Apache Pass in 1862, aged about 69.

Washakie (1798/1810-1900) defeated Crow chief Big Robber in a duel in 1866 and participated in a military expedition in 1876 aged 66 to 78.

Nana (1800?-1896) surrendered for the last time in 1886 when he was about 86.

[–] whynotwriteme (7817) 6 years ago

Exactly. When we hear about low average life expectancy in historical periods, that meant the the infant and child mortality rate was high. Once they grew up many people lived into their 70s and 80s. Low life expectancy does NOT mean everyone kicked the bucket at 40 or 50.