The Silver Screen Oasis

feaito wrote:On the other hand, don't you think that the hairy actor Mike Henry had a more close physical resemblance to an "ape man"?

I'm fine with Mike Henry's casting. Yes he was a good choice to play Tarzan.
But I don't think much of the films he was put in.

feaito wrote:And what about George of the Jungle with Brendan Fraser? Awful, isn't it?

Perhaps George of the Jungle has merit as some kind of comedy, I don't know.
I do know, however, that ridicule is easy and the laziest of creative endeavors.
Creating a story that is dramatically viable, and that endures for nearly a century now, takes genuine talent, and is much harder.

Richard

Hi Richard, Thanks for your feedback.

I mentioned Mike Henry, because it always bothered me a bit, notwithstanding Weissmüller's charisma, his excessive clean-cut looks, very combed hair, perectly shaved face, absolutely hairless physique, etc...whereas he was playing an "ape man", I'd expected a more rugged, wilder type of physical appearance....which Mike Henry did fit much more in my opinion. This is only concerning physical appearance, not acting ability, nor charisma. I know that men's hairy chests and bodies were an issue for the Production Code -i.e. Bill Holden had to shave his chest for "Pic Nic" (1955), because his hairy torso came across as too sexual for the times.

We had to wait until Greystoke and Christopher Lambert to have really rough and wild Tarzan.

Creating a story that is dramatically viable, and that endures for nearly a century now, takes genuine talent, and is much harder.

I agree 100%, spoofs are much easier.

You can see a recent topic about Tarzan and His Mate (1934) at the link below. Enjoy!:

http://silverscreenoasis.com/oasis3/vie ... 63&start=0