James Stewart

First topic message reminder :

Getting the Stewart 4-pack I mentioned on another thread (Bend of the River, The Far Country, Night Passage, and The Rare Breed) got me to look up the aspect ratio of The Far Country. The blurb states that only Bend is 1.33:1 and the rest are anamorphic wide screen. I know that's true of Night and Rare but I always thought Far was also 1.33:1. Turns out it was presented theatrically at 1.75:1, the shape of the new flat TV's (1.78:1). So it will fill up the screen with no bars.


I don't recall a converstion about James Stewart here before, if there is one, sorry. Anyway, as for the topic description, I think he played those characters that Wayne and Scott couldn't. His didn't start out at the beginning of a film as a hero, he built to it by the final curtain. He seemed to show a side of manhood that Hollywood needed; a man who has to work his way to the heroism that we love. That's even reflected in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

Iain,
As you said,there,s not a lot of disagreement between us,I agree with you about Leonardo,and Norton/Gosling,there are good actors out there today.
I think the "problem" we have is in understanding Marie,s words,
now I aint talking about a women,s take on this,what I am saying is the take of a person who is watching a film/star she likes,and why!!!!!
Us,on this Forum probably pride ourselves in being "film/buffs",and quite rightly so,but Marie has a simple way of watching films,I say that with the greatest respect to her by the way,anyway,she likes Russell,especially,Leonardo,and DENZEL,aye she likes him too,she also likes James Stewart/John Wayne etc etc;but she LIKES Clint Eastwood!!!!!!now this is maybe down to the fact that,she,s just turned 50 and remembers a youngish Clint,so she,s watched him develop into an excellent director,and,as Ron says,an actor who doesn,t get the full credit he deserves,it,s kinda like,for Marie,comparing boys,Norton/Gosling/Clooney especially,to a MAN,CLINT!!!!!!
He,s a STAR,in every way,looks,ability,knowledge,in other words,Clint Eastwood delivers!!!!!!!
Pards,I,m probably using the wrong words to describe Marie,s thought,I know it aint because she,s a woman,and it,s certainly not intellectual,Marie could debate with anybody,it,s just these words she used,"there aint any Clint,s out there today",Iknow what she,s meaning,so do you Guys,there,s a simplicity in what she,s saying that,to me,is lost in the Cinema industry today,we can argue/debate on the quality/ability of some actors of the last 20/30 years,and this throwaway generation today,but the truth is,there aint Clint Eastwood,s out there,or in horizon,somebody who encompasses EVERYTHING.
In fairness,Clint,s been going for 50 years now,and,maybe,some of todays guys,Day Lewis,could do the same,but I think Marie is meaning ? WELL,i,M NOT SURE WHAT mARIE IS MEANING,i JUST KNOW THAT i AGREE WITH HER,sorry guys,cap locks,and I have to go,Liverpool v Hearts on the TV.
sEE WHAT mARIE HAS STArted,ha!it,s HER fault.
Davy,westernnut.

My take on Marie's comment is that there are men and then there are MEN. You, of course, and Clint are MEN. And then there is the crop of male leads today and they are men. No muss, no fuss.


I do think George Clooney could play some of Cary Grant's characters, he seems to be versitile enough to pull it off. He's not Grant, of course, but he would be my first choice to play the lead in a remake of a Grant film. I see Brad Pitt overcoming the 'pretty boy' nickname much like Robert Redford did. He even co-starred with Redford in Spy Game. But it is true that manly MEN have been replaced with mere mortal men. Too bad!

Ron, I agree 100% with you that Clooney is in many ways the modern Cary Grant. What I've always liked about Clooney is that he does have a great sense of humour, and doesn't take himself too seriously. I believe, unlike so many of these celebrities who involve themselves in charity work, that he is very sincere with his work in the Sudan.

Clint is difficult to define, in the same way that John Wayne is. I think of Clint as the man who inherited Duke's mantle, and like Duke, portrayed pretty much the same image in most of his films, an image that appealed to both men and many women. Clint went further than Duke however, by becoming one of the greatest American directors of all time.

I agree with you about Pitt. Underneath that pretty face there lies a great actor, and we've seen glimpses of this in Moneyball and Jesse James.

Ron,Iain,
Fair comment,s Pards,
I particularly like Ron,s reference to ME and Clint being MEN,ha! I,m almost certain Marie would not agree with you Ron,ha! but I do Pard,ha!
Now,Mr Clooney,I agree he has "something",and I can see him in a Cary Grant remake,although,I,ve thought for a while that Hugh Grant has kinda took that mantle,a wee bit of course,AND,I really liked George in Michael Clayton,very good performance,and I do understand/appreciate all the pitfalls in the "studio system" of Today,if the "public" want Oceans,bearing in mind American Pie,well,George has to give them that,but films like The American seem to me like "Clooney fodder",he,s nice to look at,and knows it!!!
The Sudan thing,well,I aint gonna make any comment on that, I hope you,re correct Iain,and that,s said sincerely
My first knowledge of George Clooney was the TV Series ER,and I thought he was very good,real potential,but I,m disappointed in him because he hasn,t improved,imo,and some of the films he,s been in are "not so good/boring/pointless" other than HE is in it!!!! I,m probably being unfair to George because that,s the way Hollywood works these days.
I do believe Brad is trying very hard to rid himself of the "pretty boy tag",I hope he succeeds because,like Iain,I think Brad has a lot of potential in him.
There are very good actors out there Today,it aint their fault that Hollywood has no originality these days,or the fact that it seems like they aint taking a chance on SCRIPTS/STORY,S.
Clint Eastwood
I think we all know,and agree,with what Marie said,we would maybe have used diffirent words,but the meaning is still the same,Clint Eastwood is a LEGEND,in every way,and the main/important part for me is,
he has earned the right to be called a LEGEND.
Davy,westernnut.
ps,I seen,earlier,Clint,s speech at the Republican Convention,I definitely aint getting into politics,and I thought Clint looked well,but his voice seems to be failing a bit,what age is he,mid-80,s????aye,he,s a STAR.

I saw Clint at the Republican convention (went to a friends house to watch it to see what Romney had to say for himself) and thought Clint's speech didn't go so well. Yes, he is in his 80's...I think 82 to be exact, and as he ad-libbed his whole thing, to me (and Jim) he seemed a bit nervous in his delivery. As one of the commentators afterwards stated that Clint is a legend, an icon, and it is too bad that they had him there, that he should be able to go out with dignity, but did a poor job. Too bad. I felt embarrassed for him. He is much better as an actor and director than a speaker at a politician rally. When we got home we watched a much better production, "The Loves of Carmen" with Glenn Ford, Rita Hayworth, Victor Jory and the Alabams at Lone Pine. A very good movie of the downfall of a nonle soldier (Ford) to a robber and murderer because of his love for a woman. Jory was great as the gypsy robber leader.

I agree with you, Tom, there was no place for Clint there. As Davy said, Clint is a MAN, and there are few men these days in the political arena. He's above that kind of thing. It was degrading, I too felt embarrassed.

Pards,
I,m not too keen on movie-stars showing their political allegiance,right or left.
I understand that they have the same democratic rights as you and I but they also have a responsibility,they are in a position of "privilege/power/wealth" and,imo,they should be very careful,people voting for the wrong reasons,again right or left,and I for one do not find that "democratic".
MAYBE Clint,s in a diffirent position,wasn,t he Mayor of a wee County?likewise Shwarzenneger,but in general terms STARS should stay out of "politics" publicly,their own private views are exactly that,PRIVATE,being in the public eye has to be handled with responsibility,there is a "duty of responsibility",after all they are very much in the minority with their wealth/privilege compared to the millions who live week by week,no matter what the result of the Election THEY are not going to be effected the same as the rest of us.
I aint trying to be "serious" here Pards,there,s a HUGE diffirence between supporting the Civil Rights Marches and "hoisting your flag" to a certain candidate,one is most certainly moral,I,m not so sure about the other,but that,s just me,to be fair we have the same thing over here,AND,it,s getting more and MORE!!!!!
The above is only my opinion,I would never insult my American Pards by commenting on HOW they vote or run the great Country that is the United States of America.
Davy,westernnut.

Here's the problem in my eyes. Mr. Eastwood, yes, is listed as a Repuclican but is more centrist because of his social attitudes. I doubt the Republican party would be happy to hear that he supported some of Sean Penn's actions at the time of their making Mystic River. Has the media reported any of that? The media is the problem. They have stopped reporting fact and report only what can be called spin. You have to dig deep to find the truth. This goes for both parties. And any alternate ideas are shuffled off to the side as not having any value. To me, that's where we lose thoughts that may help our country. Most Americans don't know that the organization that puts on our debates is controlled by the Republicans and Democrats and regularly omits other parties with differing view points.


From Wikipedia:


Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a dramatic press release:

'The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.'

The same year the two major political parties assumed control of organizing presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee.

Some have criticized the exclusion of third party and independent candidates as well as the parallel interview format as a minimum of getting 15% in opinion polls is required to be invited. In 2004, the Citizens' Debate Commission (CDC) was formed with the stated mission of returning control of the debates to an independent nonpartisan body rather than a bipartisan body. Nevertheless, the CPD retained control of the debates that year and in 2008.

To get back on target, Stewart had an amazing list of female co-stars including Katherine Hepburn, Marlene Dietrich, Julie Adams, Maureen O'Hara, Kim Novack et al. Any personal favorites?

How about Grace Kelly in Rear Window?