Kathleen Lloyd + John McLiam

Kathleen Lloyd & John McLiam, two TV actors who did nothing of consequence before or sense, are two glaring weaknesses in this picture. Did they spend so much money on Brando and Nicholson (each of whom earned north of $1 million, a considerable salary at the time) that they couldn't afford first-rate actors for these critical parts? The daughter part needs someone with the intensity -- and neuroticism -- of Faye Dunaway, or a Jane Fonda (both too old for the part when it was filmed), while the father, being an absolutely critical part, could have used James Mason-caliber player (and I'm not even talking about the practical part of the equation in which a Mason would not have put up with Brando's scene-stealing and -destroying crap!).

Why wasn't someone like Rod Steiger cast in the father role? Steiger was on the outs in the mid-70s, after reaching his career peak nearly a decade before (Best Actor Oscar awarded in '68 for IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, which made him the most important actor in the world, according to Steiger himself, for three seconds) and after being hailed as an actors' actor himself in the 1960s had been hurt by the fact that his hot persona had made him prone to caricaturing himself (George C. Scott would suffer the same fate). If director Arthur Penn could have reigned him in (and Steiger respected the top-rate directors), he would have been an interesting counter-balance to both Nicholson but more particularly his "bruddah" from ON THE WATERFRONT days, Marlon Brando. (The fact that Steiger had a personal animosity against Brando for mistreating him during the lensing of that picture could have been put to good use too.)

Why not a Henry Fonda, the great Fonda, an archetype of American cinema? He was alive and appearing in such dreck as ROLLERCOAST at the time. Can you imagine him as the father, with all the implications? He had known Brando as a boy (having acted with his mother while a young man), had problems with his own rebellious daughter, and was -- well, an icon of Americanism and of the western genre (minus the genocidal weight of the genre as he had played Captain January, the racist who is shown up by the Indian, in John Ford's FORT APACHE).

Why not haul out another million and hire the Duke himself (who was getting about $750K at the time and reportedly was in need of cash before his death from cancer)? What a pairing that would have been! Brando v. the Duke! Nicholson playing off the Duke.

I can't imagine Jimmy Stewart in such a role, as he's just too dignified, but my point is there were a variety of first rate, A-list actors that should have been cast in the role. (Burt Lancaster was still very much active. Brando was, in his mind, his great rival. What a pairing that would have been! Or bring in a Brit, a Peter O'Toole or a scenery cheweing Richard Harris, or even a German, like Maximillian Schell.) If you can't go A-list do to budget or schedule, they cold have turned to the B-list, have someone fine like James Whitmore in the role, someone with talent and weight. (Too bad Robert Ryan, the great Robert Ryan, character actor-extraordinaire had died; he would have been perfect for the role.)

But they didn't even go C-list but went to TV, and the lack of an anchor in that role (as well as someone to rein in Brando as Nicholson, of the younger generation, couldn't do it) seriously undermines the film. It skews the dramatic weight.... There is no tension.

Too bad Larry Olivier wasn't yet in his Brando-esque 'ANYTHING FOR A PAYCHECK' mode. He would have been something as the father, with that gaze of his, cutting through Brando.

Damn! With all the great actors of Brando's and the previous generation alive at the time, John McLiam was the best they could do?