Brando Was Terrible - Mutiny on the Bounty (1962) Discussion

[–] shandy8 17 years ago

I agree with you about Trevor Howard; he was just amazing. What a complex character he created. I wish there had been more of the post-mutiny scenes. I don't agree that Brando was terrible, but maybe it was just the fact that Brando portrayed him as a fop. This was a bit jarring to me at first, as I'd only ever imagined Clark Gable's stalwart and sturdy Fletcher Christian, but, as the film progressed, I really appreciated Brando's creativity and was intrigued by the choices he made.

reply

[–] arjunkaul 13 years ago

I thought Marlon was BRILLIANT. His performance was funny, compelling and moving.

I personally feel that this is one of his BEST performances. I haven't seen a better rendition of Fletcher Christian by any other actor.

That's just my $.02

reply

[–] jakester (4) 6 years ago

Agreed on Brando's brilliance in this film.

reply

[–] jbrandonhall 17 years ago

Marlon Brando was nothing more than a pain in the ass to everyone involved in the making of this film... no surprise. But with that said, he still managed to act at a level that we consider acceptable; thank God for editing.

Krimson Cing

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] boll-weavil 17 years ago

Personally, I'd rather watch the film without him. I'm not convinced by him finding his inner self.I suspect that, like the rest of the crew, six months on a sun-drenched island in the sea surrounded by half-naked women was more of a motivating force to his character than any kind of inner issues.His performance seems at odds with Howard's own dignified professionalism.

reply

[–] kbrai 17 years ago

brando is exquisite to watch and mesmeric..

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joeparkson 17 years ago

There are Brando fans who think his every fart and belch bear the stamp of genius.

I like Brando when he did his professional best, as he did in " On The Waterfront", "A Streetcar Named Desire", "The Godfather", "Last Tango In Paris" & "The Ugly American". I even think he was hilarious in "Bedtime Story". I think they should have cast someone who could sing in "Guys And Dolls", but apart from his singing, Brando played the part well.

Leaving aside Brando's antics in this movie which led to cost overruns, I think he simply played the character wrong with his "creative" interpretation of Christian.

An aristrocratic dandy simply is not going to inspire a shipload of tough seamen to risk hanging. Why would they choose him to lead their mutiny? Even though Clark Gable made no attempt to be British, at least he was convincing as a leader of men.

Brando pulled a similar stunt in "Missouri Breaks" when he got "creative" with the part of a western regulator by playing him as a fat, cross dressing weirdo.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 17 years ago

In the film, by the time of the mutiny, Brando's Christian was no longer an aristocratic dandy, nor did he "inspire" the crew to mutiny. The crew was already primed for mutiny, and the Richard Harris character, Mills, was the real catalyst because it was he who acted as Christian's conscience. When Christian takes the ship from Bligh, it is from a sense of frustrated justice and a sensitivity to Bligh's insulting behavior toward him - but it is not the action of an aristocratic dandy. By this time, the character has evolved and learned some new things about himself and his place in the ship's society.

The beauty of Brando's portrayal is the change his character went through. He began the story as a dandified fop, then became a conscience-stricken officer (though goaded by Mills and affronted by Bligh's mistreatment of him), then became a resolute mutineer outraged by Bligh's injustice and meanness. And through all these changes, Brando's Christian remained true to his values as a loyal British subject of the Crown, trying to convince the mutineers on Pitcairn Island that they should return to England and turn themselves in. (This is not historical, nor was most of the movie. Pitcairn was a nightmare of murder, alcoholism - and child abuse which has lasted into recent times.)

People who focus on Brando's mannerisms in the first third of the film tend to overlook his creativity in depicting Christian's transformation. Linguists have commented that his Manx accent was fairly authentic. Overall, a good job by Brando.

reply

[–] Cooke_Fann 17 years ago

Very well said ! I love to imitate Brando when He Yells "Ships Company" He was so cool !

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Edward_de_Vere 16 years ago

The problem with this movie wasn't the acting but the way in which the characters were written. Christian's "transformation" isn't believable, and Bligh is portrayed as a cartoon villain. It wasn't the fault of either Howard or Brando, but of the script.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wiseowlfortheages 16 years ago

The film was a study in class conflict as much as anything else, the aristocrat Fletcher Christian vs. the middle class William Bligh, in the 18th century, the gulf between them was wide and deep, Bligh resented the fact that he had to work for his advancement, while Christian's was simply given to him at birth. This set the stage for the conflict between them, as much as Bligh's brutality toward his men.

reply

[–] beresfordjd 15 years ago

Brando could be and sometimes was awful in movies. I never felt at home with him in comedy, for instance.He was never less than watchable though. He was a towering presence in The Godfather and wonderful in Waterfront and Streetcar. In Mutiny he played Christian as an upperclass aristocratic fop and that was probably near to the truth.

reply

[–] sfwmson 15 years ago

pad264...brilliant...

reply

[–] TheGoodMan19 14 years ago

Jesus Christ, get Brando's d!ck out of your mouth.

What exactly was so damn special about him? The imbecilic look on his face? His laughable accent? His gigantic azz? People think that just because he was BRANDO everything he touched turned to gold. He was a damn joke in Mutiny on the Bounty, he was a damn joke in The Missouri Breaks and he was a damn joke in Apocalypse Now.

He couldn't lick Trevor Howard's boots.

Pavlov was this science guy and every time his dog would ring a bell, Pavlov would eat

reply

[–] mediathreat 14 years ago

Brando is sooooooo good in this.
He is the benchmark

reply

[–] fluffchop 8 years ago

and he was a damn joke in Apocalypse Now

I think everyone was a joke in Apocalypse Now. It's really one of the stupidest films about the Vietnam War that's ever been made. Take away the line "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" and nobody would give it another thought.

---
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.

reply

[–] jakester (4) 6 years ago

Re "It's really one of the stupidest films about the Vietnam War that's ever been made." Peter Arnett, who was there for years, would disagree. In an interview in the San Jose Mercury News circal 1995 he described A.N. as easily the best of the Vietnam films.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8855) 6 years ago

I agree, but "Apocalypse Now" has way more on its plate than the Vietnam War. That infamous conflict was just the setting.

reply

[–] gerrywos 14 years ago

Excellent post bastasch,I'm not a Brando fan but I thought he was very good in his portrayal and your post couldnt analyse it any better

reply

[–] bastasch8647 13 years ago

gerry, thanks for the nice words, and sorry for this late reply :)

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jakester (4) 6 years ago

The whole point of the movie is that he WASN'T an aristocratic dandy by the time he led the mutiny. He was a man of substance and a natural leader (cf the barrel sequence, the pivot point in his development).

reply

[–] kbrai 15 years ago

snooze alarm, u went back on your opinion 2 days later, so what does that say about u...u hate his act one day and then say u cant take your eyes of him...isnt that uneven

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pad264 15 years ago

Very true. A talented actor, but quite uneven. Contrast with a De Niro or a Denzel Washington or a Kevin Spacey, who seem to get it right in nearly every performance they're in.

If you are older than 17, I pity your parents.

Not only is it possible, it is essential
http://paulopicks.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pad264 15 years ago

Sure, but my argument, while simple, will take several years to be effective. What I need you to do is print out this statement:

[Brando is] a talented actor, but quite uneven. Contrast with a De Niro or a Denzel Washington or a Kevin Spacey, who seem to get it right in nearly every performance they're in.

Then, I need you to hide it away somewhere -- maybe you could put it in an envelope and ask your parents to give it back to you when you graduate college. The beauty of my argument is that you don't need to do anything special -- just live your life. Your presence on these forums is proof enough that you have an interest in film, so, just let your life play out normally.

Then, in several years, look at the statement you wrote. In the interim time, you will have seen more films from Brando, DeNiro, Washington and Spacey (as well as many other actors of a wide range in talent). You'll realize how naive and ignorant you are at this moment and laugh. Due to how terribly conceded I'm being, you'll feel no remorse for my wasted time, but nonetheless, you'll have a good laugh. You'll spend a few moments smiling ear to ear, just as I am now.

Not only is it possible, it is essential
http://paulopicks.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] dalbrech 13 years ago

Brando is] a talented actor, but quite uneven. Contrast with a De Niro or a Denzel Washington or a Kevin Spacey, who seem to get it right in nearly every performance they're in.

Wow, he has not seen a lot of the junk that De Niro has been in lately.
I'll Teach You To Laugh At Something's That's Funny
Homer Simpson

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] heyuactor 13 years ago

...ridiculously foppish and totally disappointing...

Not quite. I too was disappointed but I admire the performance, a long stretch from, say, Stanley in A Streetcar Named Desire.

"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.

reply

[–] dalbrech 13 years ago

Brando does overdue the foppish in the first half, but is very good in the second half ,particularly in the Mutiny scene and after.

I'll Teach You To Laugh At Something's That's Funny
Homer Simpson

reply

[–] Jason_Radley 13 years ago

I'm not sure if he actually gets better as the film goes on but one's tolerance threashold for his accent and mannerisms definitely increases. Man is a scoundrel, he'll get used to anything. Any self-respecting Englishman would have walked out of the cinema in the first five minutes.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nbreyfogle-1 13 years ago

Huh. For me, Brando's performance was the best thing about this movie and what makes it my favorite filmed version of this story!

reply

[–] Mayesgwtw39 13 years ago

He was the best thing about it. he played perfectly the man Bligh describes as being aboe it all and laughing at everyone else out of superority.

But it was a crummy self-indulgent film on the whole.

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

Once I settled into the film I thought Brando was very good as Christian and delivered an equally compelling performance. He and Howard were the perfect duelling partners.

Away with the manners of withered virgins

reply

[–] skep8 12 years ago

Marlon's Fletcher Christian is one of the truly heroic and moving portrayals in film history. Comparing this to his "bad" characterization in "The Missouri Breaks" is ridiculous; here he evolves from a self-centered prig to sublime redemption at the moment of the mutiny, and onward to his awareness and ultimate self sacrifice at the end of the film. It's amazing that many viewers are so threatened by his so-called "foppishness" (a common American misperception of British gentlemen, making his characterization valid) at the beginning of the film, that they cannot appreciate his powerful transformation.

reply