 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Fernandel posted by Victor Khomenko on December 17, 2003 at 12:00:18:
seeing his work.That is one of the very good and hard question seldom posed.
I, like most of us has a certain idea who could fit in a particular role, take as an exemple who would have fit in..say, James Bond...we did not knew at the time Sean Connery...should it have been David Niven ?
No way back, now but at the time we may have been deceived with the choice of a working class nobody. It would have been so much easyer to respond to " as a bad fit, and did NOT make you change your mind! But it was never really easy to discuss easy issue with our friend Victor! I do not want to topsy-survy his question any longer so here is my answer....In not particulary order of course!
-A Bout de Souffle: Jean-Luc Godard choice of Belmondo, I would never had then nor today, but he was a perfect match ( Think of what Richard did! But so lovely Valerie..)
-Jules et Jim: Oscar Werner, the German actor was first a curious choice in my mind but it did work 100% thanks to the Great Francois.
-Barry Lyndon: My GOD Ryan 0`Neal, NO....but there too he did work out fine...
-Wild Strawberries: I wanted Max von Sydow...I got Victor ( ! ) Sjöström who was the perfect match.Only a few in so many, but nothing more comes to my mind right now...But as we are more than one on this board..keeps them rolling.....
Follow Ups:
Except, I want to change the category.I thought he was gonna surprise me, when Kubrick selected him... expecting another Ryan... so I was really looking forward... only to be grossly disappointed. Not in Tom, mind you, but in old man Stanley.
Talk about shattered hopes!
I did not like the film anyway a kind of intellectual " Story of O "
This film grows on you over time. The DVD is not in the correct aspect ratio but serviceable. The colors just POP out at you. YOu may have seen it at its release when all the hooppla over it ands Kubrick's death may have made everyone expect more. Certainly not his greatest but still very well done.
No one dispute that it was well done!
But it is not my cup of tea.
Maybe it would make some sense in 1960, but not any later. I was shocked the master took that idiotic story - it was like he was reliving his puberty.
A Spanish actor, who has played at ninety-something movies, most of them extremely bad, with him acting as a cheap Spanish Donjuan to foreign girls (mainly French, and Swedish), and in many bad taste pictures of similar concern, so much that I never thought of him as an actor... until the day he came to the screen in "El Crack", playing a very credible detective, and then "Los Santos Inocentes", and my God, what a change!: he played an incredibly difficult role as a peasant, a serf to a bastard of a landowner, with exquisite sensitivity, giving the right measure, never overacting, never short..., simply superb! That dwarf became a true giant, and that film could never be so good with any other actor.Later to that, he has done some other good ones, just to prove it was not pure chance: look at his filmography, and try to find "Los Santos Inocentes", "El Bosque Animado", "El Rio que nos lleva", and then, just to check the change, any of his shitty 60 first pictures...
Regards
BF
I had prefered an international star ( or do they call them ) as Mr.Landa is not on the Amazon map....
Try harder.
You know, he's got so much charm that somehow he didn't seem out of place... and of course you are forgetting Bondarchuk as Pierre.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
