James Stewart

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.

Ron,
An interesting take you have on the subject,James Stewart was first and fourmost a VERY GOOD Actor,if not a brilliant actor,but,I think it,s a bit unfair to say that he could do things that Duke/Randolph couldn,t do,I agree that Stewart was a better actor than Duke/Randolph,but he was in "diffirent" westerns to those two "hero,s",Stewart,imo,was in drama westerns,whereas,Wayne/Scott were,mostly,in "traditional westerns",hero/bad guy,and there,s not a lot of acting needed for these roles,or asked from by the Director,the strong silent hero!!!! Stewart was anything but a strong silent hero in "his" westerns,if you get my meaning Ron.
I,m not disagreeing with you in principle,it,s just that,for me,Wayne/Scott westerns were totally diffirent to Stewart,s westerns.
Davy,westernnut.

Davy, you are absolutely correct. And I think this is the difference: John Wayne's most memorable westerns were directed mostly by John Ford, and Randolph Scott's by Budd Boetticher. And with this 4 pack that has two Anthony Mann westerns and one he left before filming (Night Passage), I can see the type of character that Stewart and Mann created and how that character was different from Wayne and Scott. And Mann had his own list of supporting actors like Robert Wilke, Jack Elam, J.C. Flippen, Harry Morgan, and Royal Dano.


The fourth movie, The Rare Breed, is directed by Andrew V. McLaglen with music by Johnny Williams, yes a young John Williams of Star Wars, Jaws, Indiana Jones, Superman et al. What's interesting is that Stewart's co-star is none other than Maureen O'Hara (she must be on loan from The Duke) and the fact that one of Williams' most exiting scores was for the John Wayne movie The Cowboys six years later. Hal Needham was stunt director and the supporting cast included Brian Keith, Jack Elam, and Harry Carey Jr.


Now, about the video and audio quality of these four movies. They are not BR but someone should take the time to present them in this format. As it is, upscaled by my player the quality is impressive. The aspect ratios are all correct and the images are pristine. The only drawback I can find is with some of the few process shots. These are scenes filmed with the actors in front of a projected image, whether for safety of the actors or ease of filming. The colors are bright and the definition is as good as it gets on DVD. It's maybe even more impressive then some horribly altered BR's.

Ron, I haven't seen Night Passage yet, but I agree with Tom that the Mann/Stewart Westerns of Winchester 73/The Far Country/Bend On The River/The Man From Laramie/The Naked Spur are amongst the finest ever made, and are up there with the best of John Ford.

The Rare Breed however, I thought was truly awful, and is on my list of one of the worst Westerns ever made. It didn't work for me on any level.

As for Stewart, I've always found him to be a compelling actor, and consistently showed a vulnerability that other stars of the time - like John Wayne and Randolph Scott - weren't able to project. The characters that he played, (which are all, in a way, the same), in the Anthony Mann movies, are fairly tortured characters, never quite good, and never quite bad. This IMO was what made them such great films.

Iain, it turns out that Stewart's character in Night Passage is another collaboration with Anthony Mann. There was some event that caused them to have a falling out and Mann was replaced by TV director James Neilson. Most believe that it was over Audy Murphy's participation. It was said that Mann didn't think the audience would believe the shorter Murphy as tall Stewart's brother. I personally never had that thought as I watched the movie.


It has been said that when Stewart came back from WWII, like so many others, he was a different person than he was before his service. If you watch his performance in Destry Rides Again from 1939 and compare it to his first western after the war, Winchester '73, ten years later, there is a level of intensity that I don't see in Destry. Mann was also a WWII vet and their combined war experience may have colored how they perceived heroism.

Thanks Ron, Night Passage is a movie I've always meant to buy but never have. This afternoon I watched The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance again, and I think your earlier comment was a good one; this great movie really shows the differences between Wayne and Stewart; Duke is playing pretty close to type, but Stewart is a far cry from the roles he played in the Anthony Mann films. Imagine the lead roles reversed. Wayne could/would never have played the Stewart part, but the men Stewart played in The Naked Spur and The Man From Laramie probably could have been Tom Donaphon.

Night Passage gets a 10 on my 10 scale. I've often thought about what a movie would be like if the lead actor was replaced by another lead actor just to compare styles, believability, etc. In many cases I thought Jimmy Stewart could get the job done at least at the same level, i.e., Jimmy replaces Randolph Scott in 7 Men From Now. In some cases I thought, no way, this role belongs to this man, plain and simple, i.e., John Wayne in The Searchers. At any rate, Jimmy Stewart ranks very high on my list, not only as a fantastic actor able to adapt to just about any role, but as a first rate, classy without the flash, down to earth, wonderful person, the likes of which I doubt we'll ever see again from Hollywood cesspool. Bullfrog Bill

Pards,
Reading these posts is what our Forum is all about,EXCELLENT DISCUSSION!!!
Nobody is saying "this guy is a better actor than that guy",we,re all agreeing on the fact that there are diffirent westerns,AND,Directors,sometimes I think that gets a little bit lost in the description "wooden",no slight there Iain,wooden is a valid description for some performances,but what has the Director asked off from the lead actor,it,s right to "imagine" another actor in a certain lead role,it,s very hard to "think" what they would be like????
Very interesting comment on James Stewart,"diffirent after coming back from the War",it does make you wonder,take his performances in Man from Laramie and Naked Spur,to me he seemed like an elastic band ready to break,TAUT,and at times seemed a bit "maniacal",in performance,and for me what it adds up to is excellent work/collaboration from Star and Director.
I do agree with Iain,Mann was a first class western Director,even though I still prefer Ford,s westerns there is no denying Mann was UP THERE.
I,ve said this before,John Wayne is recognised as THEE Western Star,but I much prefer him in Ford,s westerns rather than his own,and that,s with no disrespect,I love Shootist/Cowboys/Big Jake,but Ford,s westerns ARE INCOMPARABLE,imo,and TIMELESS.
Now,maybe a wee sidetrack,Ron,I have Man from Laramie/7 Men from Now on dvd,plus a few other Stewart/Scott westerns,and I have to say,the dvd picture quality is excellent,granted it,s upscaled on my blu-ray player,I honestly dont think that a blu-ray transfer of these westerns would show that much of an improvement to the dvd,the PQ is that good!!!!!!!
Just to go back to James Stewart for a moment,I,m almost certain that The Far Country is not a Mann western,but James Stewart play,s a "Mann-like lead role"??so maybe Jimmy was a bit typecast?
Back to blu-ray,I have to admit this,it would be very interesting to see Mann/Stewart westerns on blu-ray,and probably even moreso the Boetticher/Scott westerns,they were gorgeous on dvd.I have the two treble Scott western dvd,s and the picture quality is great.
Great discussion Pards,
Davy,westernnut.

I agree that there will only be one Jimmy Stewart, as well as one John Wayne, one Randolph Scott, one Gary Coper, etc.....unlike most of today's stars that can be put in a dice shaker and shook out on the table and it wouldn't make much difference as to which one was cast in what as they are basically all the same.
Davy, "Far Country" was an Anthony Mann directed western. Another really good
Mann western that did not star Stewart was Man of the West with Gary Cooper. I imagine that if Mann and Stewart didn't part company with Night Passage that Stewart would probably have had the Cooper role. It was somewhat the same type character that Stewart had played in some previous Mann films.

Howdy Tom!!

I just watched Man Of The West again last night, even though I've seen it several times. With Lee.J.Cobb as the mad leader of Cooper's former gang, which included John Dehner, Jack Lord and Royal Dano and Authur O'Connell as the cowardly, conniving conman and The Beautiful Julie London as Billy, the female lead. The scene at the bank in the deserted town of Lasoo, was perfect!! The Mexican woman, whose husband had left for a few minutes, pulls a gun on Cooper and Dano and without a lot of unnecessary dialogue, Dano shoots her and in turn is shot by Cooper. Then Dano runs wildly down the deserted dirt street yelling and holding his stomach and collapses and dies. The director, Mann understood, that's the way violence happens. Sudden and unexpected and without a lot of dialogue. I'm sure Jimmie Stewart could have played the role, but the character would have been a lot more animated, along with that manacial bent that Stewart portrayed so well. against John McIntire in The Far Country and Authur Kennedy in The Man From Laramie. For the film that Mann had in mind, I think he picked the right actor and Cooper played it well, with his usual quite and stoic personality. With Stewart and Wayne, you always knew what you were gonna get, but Cooper pulled you into the character and forced you to try and figure out what he was thinking.

Ed

I thought Cooper was great in that film as well. Just watched another of his films the other day, Garden of Evil, with Susan Hayward, Richard Widmark & Cameron Mitchell. Enjoyed it as well. I don't have Man of the West on DVD yet, but watch my VHS of it quite often. Really like that one. Dano told Jim and I a neat story about Cooper while he was making this film. Will have to share it one of these days.

Howdy Tom!!

I agree!! As many westerns as Gary Cooper made, Garden Of Evil was one of his best. I also never miss Vera Cruz, but simply because of the character that Burt Lancaster played in the film. The performance he gave the night of the Mexican party was unforgettable. With those big white teeth, curly hair and that unmistakeable laugh, with the 2 day growth of beard, the black stetson cinched up under his chin and the champaign running off his face, he was the symbol of the slick western outlaw. Carefree, friendly, easygoing, but somehow, he left you with the impression, that he was a wolf in sheeps clothing and would slit your throat for your moneybelt.
Man Of The West was released in 1958, if memory serves and this would have been about 2-2/12 years before Cooper died from lung cancer. I would love to hear the story Royal Dano told you about Cooper, when you get the time!!

Ed

Tom,
I stand corrected,so The Far Country was a Mann western,that kinda adds to the lead role theory,as in ,that Stewart character was Mann,s "thing",and Stewart played that "hi-strung" role to the limit,a marriage made in heaven kinda.
Garden of Evil has always been a bit of a no-no for me,now dont laugh Guys,it,s kinda where I get my "politically correct" head on,ha!I enjoyed the film up to the point where the Apaches,I think,were shown with MOHICAN hair styles,ha!,I remember thinking,"they,re no Apaches"!!!!!and for that reason alone I,m not a big fan of GOE,I know I,m wrong,I put it down to "a quirk",ha!
Pards,in this James Stewart thread,we find one of the reasons why the western genre has "died",there aint no Ford/Mann out there to carry the mantle!!!!!!Aye,Clint,s still kicking around,I sincerely HOPE that there is one more western from Mr Eastwood,but it,s unlikely,sad to say.
Funny thing,Marie decided,the other night,that we were going to sit down and watch a GOOD film,so,I told her that it was her choice,well,she chose Absolute Power,Clint Eastwood/Gene Hackman,we both love this film,it,s a while since we,ve watched it,excellent choice by Marie,well, in the process of watching Marie made a"statement",her words,"you know Davy,there aint any Clint,s out there anymore,you know,BIG Stars"!!!!!!!!
Well,there,s Denzel/Russell/Tom Hanks,THEN???????this is no disrespect to Meryl Streep,THE QUEEN,I,m talking guys here,Marie,s correct,there isn,t anybody out there just now who even remotely comes close to taking that Star,s throne from Mr Eastwood,he,s the LAST,with no real successor????
Now,if you think in our time,James Stewart/John Wayne/Kirk Douglas/Burt Lancaster/ etc etc;these guys were HUGE Stars,where are they now??????
please dont mention George Clooney,or maybe that,s Marie,s point???
Marie knows who James Stewart is/was,anytime I mention George Clooney she says,"aye,a good looking guy,but that,s all"!!!!!!!is that where we are, George Clooney could possibly be mentioned in the same context as JAMES STEWART?????????
I aint picking on George here,he,s one of "a few" who are "stars"?????
Jimmy/Duke and George/Brad, to mention these guys in the same sentence,or am I getting too OLD!!!!!!!
MAYBE I,m being a bit unfair,well,TOUGH TITTY,there,s no comparison!!!!!and that,s coming from me who likes Brad Pitt,ha!
I haven,t got time today,but I,m definitely gonna start a thread about ACTORS,soon I hope.
Davy,westernnut.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is the whole system is different. In 'The good old days' the studio system directed, nurtured, and protected the stars. Also the 'stars' seemed to be a lot more, I'm struggling for a word, grown up maybe. Many of those actors didn't reach success until they had attained some years and experience. When we discuss the western actors we like, even if they started young, our appreciation of them comes later in life. By the 1950's, the era we talk about the most, many of those stars where in their 40's and 50's and had been through the depression and many had been involved in WWII. Those are character building events and I think it shows in their performances. Even though John Wayne was the poster boy for the military with his war movies, the fact that he never served, for what ever reason, irked many veterans, who responded better to Stewart, Clark Gable, Tyrone Power, Glen Ford and others who had actually seen combat. (The word I was looking for earlier may have been mature.) Also, to get back to the studios, even though the heads wanted to make money, they also were driven by trying to make good movies. As restictive as they were, most of their decisions about roles for the actors were about making movies that would please the audience.


Absolute Power is one of those transitional roles for Clint Eastwood. In it he shows that he really is a talented actor who can do more than fight and shoot. This may be better in it's own thread but I find it interesting that for the early part of his career he was known as an action star only and any other roles he attempted were sub-par. Then came Unforgiven and those critics wondered where his performance came from. They went back and looked at his body of work and realized that they had been missing his point for years. They had said that The Outlaw Josey Wales was too long a movie. But that was Eastwood's point about war. The audience was as ready for the conflict to end as were the characters in the movie. They thought Bronco Billy was a mess but then realized the movie wasn't about a crazy man but about someone living their dreams. You could go back and come up with all sorts of revelations about the themes in his films. Now he's considered a national treasure and rightly so.

Right on, Nightlinger. You got it. And for Marie saying after Absolute Power that there are no more stars like Clint Eastwood, you can say the same thing that there are no more character actors like Gene Hackman. He could do more menace through that little laugh of his than most of today's actors can do with an assault rifle. His treatment of Richard Harris in The Unforgiven is, in my book, right up there with the menace of Jack Palance before he blasts Elisha Cook Jr into the mud in Shane. There are no more stars and character actors like Clint Eastwood or Gene Hackman, or Jimmy Stewart and WAlter Brennan, or Dan Duryea and John Dehner. There are some decent actors out there, but not of the same caliber. Even Peter O'Toole has retired, what's left.....Anthony Hopkins for one, Meryl Streep for another, Christopher Plummer for another (but they are all getting up there in years) and then there are some decent younger actors like Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp or Robert Downey Jr, but not the same as the old days. And, as Nightlinger pointed out, there are not many filmakers still around like the Jack Warners, Darryl ZAnucks and Louis Meyers, that were in the business to make movies (and, yes, make money) unlike most studios today being (outside of Spielberg and some indies) owned by Coca Cola or Gulf Oil or some such trash that are in it to just make money and the heck with the product. I'm not saying there are no good directors today, there are, but the money people who bankroll the films are of most not movie people who have only one thing in mind...big box office and so it boils down to explosions, car hases, blood, sex, profanity and computer graphics in place of acting, character, dialogue, story and location. Tom.

Ron,Tom,
Excellent posts Pards!!!!!!
Ron,that,s as good a description of Clint Eastwood,s talent as I,ve ever read,very well said,Clint has matured into much much much more than "a spaghetti star",he has made some excellent films,and acted in a few too,you,re correct Ron,he was still judged as a "cowboy",even though a film like Bronco Billy had very little to do with cowboys,it was about living your dream,and it never got,or gets,the recognition it deserves,Clint also made a very good journalist drama called True Crime,AGAIN it never gets mentioned,and a serial killer movie called Tightrope,I could actually mention quite a few more,but I,ll leave Ron,s description to take the plaudits,GREAT Call Ron.
Tom,my ole blu-ray Pard.ha!BANG-ON with Gene Hackman,has Mr Hackman ever been below excellent in any movie he,s done??????and he,s done all genre,s,virtually.
Marie,s correct,there are no Clint/Gene out there,for ALL the reasons Ron gave,SAD but very true.
Davy,westernnut.

Ed, here is a bit of what Royal Dano had to say about the character of Gary Cooper when they were filming Man of the West. He obviously didn't have a big head like some stars and just wanted to be one of the cast. Dano told Jim and I:

“Gary Cooper was a marvelous man. He was a real sweetheart,” They put Cooper in one hotel and the rest of the cast were down at White’s Hotel. Cooper asked where the rest of the cast were and said, “I want to be down there.” They answered, “They don’t have the accommodations to give you down there.” “I’m not interested in that,” Cooper said, “I want to be where everybody else is.”

Royal went on to say, “We had a good group: Lee Cobb, Bob Wilke, John Dehner, Julie London; every night we’d get together and have an evening of relaxation. Whenever we went anyplace, if Coop was there and one of us would try to pay the bill, no way; he would just pick it up. One day out on location they called lunch and they all jumped in the cars and left Cooper. Quarter of a mile away, somebody says, ‘Where’s Coop?’ ‘Gee, I don’t know. Isn’t he here?’ And we looked around and we could see this little figure way out there a mile away. The unit manager started screaming at the assistant director, who screamed at the transportation ramrod. I thought somebody would get fired. Well, we got out there and Coop was walking along, peeling off a piece of branch, and he said, ‘I’m fine. A little exercise would do me some good.’ He didn’t make a big deal out of it.”

There's not much that one can disagree with here, but I think we're heading back to an old discussed topic about what constitutes a star. Also, I believe every generation redefines the meaning of "star", and being one doesn't necessarily mean being a good actor. I think the difference today between being a star and an actor lies purely with box office takings, which means that not many members of our forum are going to line up at the theatre to see "stars" today, and the reason why is described by Tom at the end of his last post.

I think we have to be careful however, when we start comparing the stars of the past with those of today. When Gable, Power, Ford, Stewart, Wayne and Cooper made an impact in the 30s, 40s and 50s cinema was young, and the main prerequisite for being a star was to be good looking. Bogart was an exception, but unlike those mentioned above, he was first and foremost an "actor", who through skill and force of personality eventually became a star.

The generation that followed heralded in the age of "method" exampled by the works of Brando, Dean and Clift, and as the 60s took shape the "stars" no longer needed to be particularly good looking. I doubt if McQueen, Hoffman, De Niro and Pacino would have found fame back in the 40s and 50s. Of this generation, Redford and Newman are the only conventional "stars" I can think of who would have fitted into that period.

I feel the generation of today are direct products of the 60s and 70s actor/stars, with one huge exception: today money rules more than ever, and I think I'm right in saying that most of those that I've named above wouldn't have sold themselves out for money when they were at their peaks. Brando and De Niro are sad exceptions in that they did take the big money route; De Niro has made pure rubbish since Heat nearly 20 years ago.

But there are very fine actor/stars today that have to get credit. Leonardo DiCaprio is a superb actor/star and will get even better; Russell Crowe is a great actor/star, and choses his roles with great care, even taking secondary roles if he feels there's merit, not giving a damn about his image. Denzel Washington is a star who is a great actor too; the up-and-coming Michael Fassbender is already being touted as the next Brando, and has the integrity to make mainly small, important films like Shame and Hunger; Daniel Day-Lewis might qualify as the greatest actor on the planet; Ryan Gosling is one of the most interesting talents around today, and hasn't even started to produce his best work yet.

And, just possibly, we now live in an age where there are no stars, only some really great actors. Today we live in the age of "celebrity", and leaving the real actors like I've named above out of the equation, todays "stars" are "stars" only for their 15 minutes, or as long as it takes for their piece of crap in the theatre to make 250 million bucks.

Iain, you said:
'I doubt if McQueen, Hoffman, De Niro and Pacino would have found fame back in the 40s and 50s. Of this generation, Redford and Newman are the only conventional "stars" I can think of who would have fitted into that period.'
I disagree to a certain extent. McQueen started taking off in the late '50's and I believe that under the studio system they all might have done well. As far as DeNiro is concerned I did like Ronin and The Score with one younger actor who seems to do good, interesting work, Edward Norton. And Ben Foster from 3:10 to Yuma (Crowe's right hand man) shows a lot of promise. Like Stewart, and others, these two may not be stars in the same way but they hold your attention in their performances.

Ron, what I was really meaning was that to be a big star back in the 40s and 50s it required a certain conventional good looking, granite faced, slightly pretty profile: Grant, Cooper, Power, Gable, Hudson and Stewart. Suave was in and rugged didn't quite do it back then. I know McQueen made some movies in the 50s but they were the tail-end of the decade. On looks alone I just don't see Hoffman, De Niro and Pacino cutting it in an earlier decade.

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.