MovieChat Forums > Beyond the Poseidon Adventure (1979) Discussion > Sally Field's acting -- why was it so ho...

Sally Field's acting -- why was it so horrible?

posted 17 years ago by nigelfans
34 replies | jump to latest

I have a serious question regarding the absolutely attrocious performance given by Sally Field in this film.

As is well documented, her acting in this film is just mind-bogglingly bad. Its so terrible that I actually get angry whenever Im subjected to it during the occassional tv broadcast. Some of the other cast members also give horrible performances, but Sally Field's is so over-the-top bad that it seems like shes trying to give a horrible performance.

So why was this allowed to go on? Why didnt the director or one of the co-stars step in and tell her how awful it is? Was screeching your lines considered cute or avant garde at the time? I can't say that I'm familiar with her work, so is she like this in other films and tv shows she's done? If so, how does she have such a prolific body of work?

Basically, was this considered to be an acceptable performance to 1979 audiences?

[–] TonyDood 12 years ago

"Monkey--you call me me monkey, that's cute...I HATE TO BE CALLED MONKEEEEEEEE!"

My brother and I watched this as kids just to hear that whole rant, and laugh our heads off, the rest of the movie was pretty dull.

I think it's interesting that Sally Field always does a "cry with no tears then abruptly change moods" in all her movies (including Lincoln!). It's sort of like how Renee Zelwegger goes, "Ok....Ok...OK..." in some of her movies to convey stress.

Nilbog! It's goblin spelled backwards! This is their kingdom!

[–] sjbradford 12 years ago

She was terrible. She thought the movie was called "Gidget Goes Underwater".

[–] milliefan 12 years ago

Or maybe "The Sinking Nun"?! Actually it's only in this film I think Sally stinks ... usually I like her, I really like her, especially in Soapdish. Just goes to show that even a fairly talented actress can somtimes badly misjudge a performance.

[–] jztzt 12 years ago

She has acted a lot better in other films, such as in Not Without My Daughter (1991). However, I don't think the problem should be entirely faulted on her acting ability. In this case, her role was very badly written and underdeveloped (not that the other roles were written better). Her role was reduced to that of a bumbling and wisecracking sidekick (comic relief), who got into many annoying and unnecessary arguments with Michael Caine's character. She talks too much, and her dialogues are contrived, groan-inducing, and laughable. We hardly get to know her character's life story. Even when she does reveal something intimate, her stories are scarce, uninteresting, incomplete, and unclear. Field's performance didn't help either, it's embarrassing and a wasted effort as she delivered her dialogue in a shrill, whiny, snobbish, over-the-top, grating, rapid, and non-stop manner. The role is analogous to that of Kate Capshaw's in Temple of Doom. It's a
demeaning parody of women. Even Michael Caine's character insults her by calling her "monkey".

"...sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.” ~ Cool Hand Luke

[–] jackthemack 12 years ago

In an interview with her that was published in the August 1979 issue of LOOK Magazine (the very last issue of the famous pop-culture picture magazine), she said that her agent encouraged her to take the role. Reading the article, it is clear that she did not want to do the picture but coerced into doing it. The film shoot was very physical and draining; she did not enjoy the experience. It probably translated into her mediocre performance.

[–] RRPounder 11 years ago

I just think that nobody told her it wasn't a comedy until after halfway through shooting.

[–] CaptainTerrific 10 years ago

I don't care how bad her acting was; her rear end turned in a well-rounded performance. 😀

[–] mbell-14 10 years ago

Wow! How right you are. Her performance is hard to take. Irwin Allen could not direct actors, only action. He never wrote a scene that wasn't contrived drivel. She had no chance to be good in it, but she was good to look at, particularly from the rear. Prior posters talked about how this was her agent's fault, when actually she was taking career advice from her lover Burt Reynolds at this time. He's the one who convinced her to do it and said it would be a good career move to balance the more serious things she had just done. She discussed this with Carson on The Tonight Show back then. She even rolled her eyes and laughed about it. Unlike Burt, whom she left not long after, she kept her head on straight and went on to significant movie success.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (33407653) 10 years ago

I have to say I was surprised when I read the trivia on this film. It says that they wanted Burt Reynolds but he turned down the role after he read the script. I remember back then, when the film was being made, that Field was urged by Reynolds to take the her role as a change from the more serious parts that she was used to doing. So Burt turns down the film but urges his then-girlfriend to take the film? Maybe that is why they broke up.

By the way, I don't understand the hate for Field. It's not an award-winning performance for sure, but she is as good as anyone else in the film.

[–] hammer4 10 years ago

I've not seen this movie, but you've convinced me to put it on my "must see" list.

[–] nameismike69 9 years ago

I was waiting for someone to describe her appearance in the film. The camera " follows " her because she just looked yummy. I'm watching it now and she's coked out but hot to look at. Which during this era Sally was at her sexual peak.