MovieChat Forums > Shogun (1980) Discussion > Chamberlain -- WRONG!!!!

Chamberlain -- WRONG!!!!

posted 16 years ago by marjoriem
40 replies | jump to latest

The mini series would have been so much better with a different Blackthorne.

At the time, though, Chamberlain was sort of the King of the Period Mini Series so he always seemed to get these roles despite the fact that, although good-looking enough he was boring and wooden as an actor. He was OK as the priest in Thornbirds -- but not for Shogun.

He was just WRONG as Blackthorne. Blackthorne was basically an Elizabethan buccaneer of the Francis Drake type. Quite a bit more learned than the average buccaneer, of course, because of his training, and could be both silky-smooth and rough-hewn, depending on what was needed, but he needed to have the underlying toughness.

Chamberlain had the smoothness, but little of the sheer toughness and virility needed for the role. Do you see Chamberlain controlling a bunch of restive sailors across thousands of miles of ocean? Or imposing his authority by sheer personality and ingenuity on a violent and militaristic culture, once he reaches Japan?

I remember reading somewhere that Sean Connery was considered for the role. I don't recall whether they decided not to ask him, or whether he turned it down. It would have been so much better with Connery.

[–] turtletommy 16 years ago

I thought Chamberlain was fine but Connery or a number of other actors may very well have been an improvement-but they were importantly much more expensive. The supporting actors were generally better than Chamberlain but I really don't see him as being that bad in the series. If you look at all the American mini-series of the time they all had second-tier leading actors. Chamberlain was very popular with the female audience especially. He was definitely more affordable than a Connery or his like, and the production though the most expensive TV movie of its time and the first U.S. film to be filmed in entirety in Japan it still had a somewhat limited budget when stretched over 10 hours or whatever it was. Maybe they broke the bank getting Mifune which was a coup of sorts. Though to be honest he wasn't a household name in America.

[–] gigantes 16 years ago

> Do you see Chamberlain controlling a bunch of restive sailors across
> thousands of miles of ocean? Or imposing his authority by sheer
> personality and ingenuity on a violent and militaristic culture,
> once he reaches Japan?

uh... yes.

you've left out some glaring facts, ie that they were on a mission from the crown and had (for at least most of the journey) the captain-general's will to deal with as well as the pilot's.

any mission reversing course and limping back into home port, then having to deal with the crown's wrath for failure is a mission worth re-thinking AFAIK.

for your further questions, try checking out clavell's book from the library?

[–] Slade-4 16 years ago

According to the DVD extras and the Trivia here on IMDb, Connery turned down the role.

[–] turtletommy 16 years ago

He would have been a great Blackthorne and brought more of a physical presence and star power but then again seeing him interacting with Japanese (and especially the women) would have seemed like "You Only Live Twice" deja vu. (-:

[–] themill 16 years ago

Connery turned down the role because he had not worked in TV before, and didn't want to get into a TV project this big. I didn't like Chamberlain much as Blackthorne either (should have been a British actor, for one thing), but the interviews provided on the DVD point out the sheer amount of work that went into the role, and the fact that Chamberlain took it all in stride, so I guess he was a good choice. If they had gotten someone that was a bit more wishy-washy or a prima donna, the series might never have been completed.

[–] turtletommy 16 years ago

I've read that after the experience of CUBA (1979) tanking badly after high expectations Connery was a bit picky about his next project. He was looking for a great script (isn't everyone?) and didn't work for 16 months following CUBA. Then roles in TIME BANDITS and OUTLAND (both released in 1981) came along. Connery was executive producer Clavell's first choice for the SHOGUN lead. But then I've read things saying that Connery was unavailable due to being cast in a film and it paid more money. Which would mean TIME BANDITS or OUTLAND. Probably OUTLAND as it was the much larger-budgeted of the two. Ironically OUTLAND didn't do too well and Sean might have been even more of a name for doing the enormous hit that was SHOGUN.

That's interesting about Connery not wanting to do TV and I can believe that especially with the amount of work required for the lead in a 9 hour production. At a website discussing SHOGUN a person remarked that he thought Chamberlain worked nicely as Blackthorne because not being such a "star" or major actor such as Connery he didn't dominate the screen and overshadow the Japanese actors- after all the movie wasn't titled "Blackthorne" it was "Shogun". I know he was onscreen more than anyone but to me it was the Japanese characters that made the series and story so interesting. It could have been turned into some kind of vanity project for Connery etc like Tom Cruise's THE LAST SAMURAI. Though I don't mean to equate Cruise with Connery in any way!

Chamberlain did fine and seeing how he worked his tail off in the part I can respect him even more for it.

[–] mr_cell 15 years ago

Yes, I agree absolutely. I don't recall Time Bandits at all but remember seeing Outland many years ago and not thinking it was anything above pretty average sci-fi fare.

As much I love Connery's performances in other things (e.g. Highlander) I just can't see him being able to portray the sensitivity and introspection that the Blackthorne role required. I think they hit the jackpot with Chamberlain. Maybe the budgeting thing came into the decision to hire him but it ended up being one of those things that just worked. I think he'll go to his grave with Shogun as his greatest performance - Thorn Birds was good (and I am Australian) but his performance in Shogun, and his chemistry with Shimada, were simply magic.

I read a suggestion in another thread that Guy Pierce would do ok in a remake. While that is probably true, the modern capacity for producing epic scale entertainment would not be up to the job and it would be a disaster. Let it stand as is - an incredible production with every characterisation just about as good as it's possible to get.

[–] turtletommy 15 years ago

Time Bandits was a Terry Gilliam (Baron Munchhausen, Brazil, Monty Python & the Holy Grail etc) film. Typical bizarre and uneven though imaginative Gilliam project. Brazil and the Holy Grail films are his best IMO.

Yes Outland was a pretty average sci-fi updating of the western High Noon. Nothing special. I'm with you that Chamberlain had a career peak performance in Shogun and was well cast. I don't think many people today realize how popular he was especially with the ladies back then as well as how huge Shogun was when first telecast in the USA. It wasn't like he was unknown in the states as he had done some movie roles and a lot of TV including Dr. Kildare that had made him a star. The Thorn Birds of course came a few years after Shogun.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mil-Jor 15 years ago

Chamberlain worked nicely as Blackthorne because not being such a "star" or major actor such as Connery he didn't dominate the screen and overshadow the Japanese actors- after all the movie wasn't titled "Blackthorne" it was "Shogun". I know he was onscreen more than anyone but to me it was the Japanese characters that made the series and story so interesting. It could have been turned into some kind of vanity project for Connery etc

Very good point! There's a reason why the book and the mini series are called Shogun. Although the story is told from Blackthorne's perspective, Lord Toranaga is the main character, and Mifune steals every single scene he is in.

That being said, I don't see why people are bashing on Chamberlain so much. I think he did a fine job, and I have a hard time imagining anyone else in the role...

[–] scribe1270 15 years ago

I don't understand why people bash Chamberlain about the role either Mil-Jor. Like you I can't picture anyone else playing the part now, Just like Errol Flynn will always be Robin Hood though James Cagney was to have had the role. He got into a contract dispute and walked off the set. A few yrs later when The Adventures of Robin Hood was made Errol Flynn got the part. Would Cagney have done as well? I don't know, and I don't know that anyone else would have done as well playing Blackthorne either.

[–] scribe1270 15 years ago

Turtletommy said:I've read things saying that Connery was unavailable due to being cast in a film and it paid more money. Which would mean TIME BANDITS or OUTLAND. Probably OUTLAND as it was the much larger-budgeted of the two. Ironically OUTLAND didn't do too well and Sean might have been even more of a name for doing the enormous hit that was SHOGUN.

Their is also the fact that the part Connery played in Outland was the larger of the two. He just has a cameo role in Time Bandits whereas in Outland he's the main character.

[–] turtletommy 15 years ago

Yes very true that Connery had just a cameo in Time Bandits. I saw both of those films when they came out, neither one made much hay. Hindsight being 20/20 him appearing in Shogun would have been one of his career highlights and possibly one of his most memorable roles, but I'm not sure if the mini-series would have been even more of a sensation at the time ratings-wise with him as the lead. It was much-watch TV then anyway.

[–] Suzume-san 15 years ago

It would have been nice to have an English actor, Blackthorne being an Englishman. Not an American, not a Scot. Chamberlain makes no attempt to disguise his accent - perhaps a mercy, it would have been even worse with him doing a Dick Van Dyke - but weren't there any Englishmen around at the time? Who was about the right age in 1980? Who would we have liked to see?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rogerscorpion 13 years ago

Chamberlain, after Dr Kildare, went to the UK & played a well-regarded Hamlet. He'd come back to the States & starred, on TV, in 'The Man in the Iron Mask' & 'The Count of Monte Cristo'. In 74 & 75, he played Athos in the 'The Three' & 'The Four' Musketeers.

As a result, he was one of those actors who, like Chris Plummer, who was considered appropriate to play Trans-Atlantic character.

I loved him in swashbucklers.

BTW, Albert Finney also, apparently, turned down the part.

Carpe Noctem!

[–] Suzume-san 13 years ago

Aramis, I think you'll find, Oliver Reed was Athos. Way the best adaptions ever!

[–] MrAleisterCrowley 12 years ago

I agree with you completely. I think Chamberlain is a weak link in this -- his overacting is atrocious (he so overacts, and says every line in the same booming, hyper voice that he reminds me of Eddie Murphy's "white guy"). Especially now -- the Japanese actors still are remarkable whereas Chamberlain seems extremely dated in his performance (not to mention the silly feathered hair).

[–] verexal 13 years ago

He was perfect for it. Cannot imagine anyone else. And the production stands the test of time.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] verexal 13 years ago

This was not intended to appeal to the [subtle] German style.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] VValkyrie 12 years ago

Totally Agree. Chamberlain was indeed FINE! Watching on Encore this week!

[–] lee1888 12 years ago

Connery did turn it down after he was ask by the director.

[–] lexyladyjax 12 years ago

The series holds up very well and Chamberlain is an excellent Blackthorne. The plethora of accents in the series (John Rhys-Davies as a Spaniard, for example) doesn't detract from the whole.

[–] jmartz11 11 years ago

Yes he was wrong for that part because he was Gay ! they should have cast a actor who can really show what sex was about back then !

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gjordan77 11 years ago

man Connery is soooo overrated. All he's ever done are generic action and sci-fi flicks. Chamberlain did just as well as Connery would have, his only downfall for this role is being American. In any case if you were to cast Connery in a Clavell based mini-series Taipan or Noble House would be a much more obvious fit.

[–] dtenney8054 10 years ago

I thought Chamberlain did a pretty decent job. I am not sure that Connery would have been better, really. I think a British actor might have been able to bring the character some color, but all in all, I really enjoyed the mini series, and would watch it again. I have read all the books in the series, and think that if they made Tai-Pan into a mini series, then the lead role should be Scottish and that would be a good role for Connery.

[–] Kawada_Kira 10 years ago

Connery would have been an awful Blackthorne. And he didn't even like Japan. After he made one of his Bond movies there, he made remarks about not liking the place and not liking Japanese women, and things like that. Why cast a guy who doesn't like Japan in the role of Blackthorne? It would have been a terrible mistake and the series would have suffered for it. They could probably have done better than Chamberlain, but Chamberlain was infinitely better than Connery would have been.

 Sig under construction 