Re: Framed (1947)
Posted: August 28th, 2009, 1:53 pm
Well, Judith, I know we all have different reactions to various actors, but perhaps others see things in Glenn Ford's performances that you don't respond to positively. I used to dismiss his work regularly too, but then started to notice the physical traits he imbues his best characters with, doing bits of business such as I described in Framed that seem to indicate some inner turmoil, as well as a hesitancy, a flash of anger, and a hardness that belies his appearance initially.
As I mentioned in my original post in this thread, I don't think that Glenn Ford gave consistently good performances but, he did some excellent, nearly seamless ones in several films. He also worked in too many movies--and would have been better off being more selective, particularly after 1960 and he never really mastered a light touch in comedy. He did not have a broad range, and sometimes he tried to play characters who were more sophisticated than he was capable of playing effectively, but when a role suited him, he could often be incredibly naturalistic and quite memorable.
In a time when flashy techniques and endless discussions about "the work" were in fashion, his acting style could often go unnoticed when it was subject to the material, rather than to a star turn. He always claimed that he was never acting; he was just playing himself. His place, particularly in film noir, is the regular guy you see getting on the train everyday or nod to in the hall at work, though you rarely know his name. Suitably masculine, affable, presentable and decent looking, beneath his somewhat bland exterior could be a streak of hard cynicism and banked idealism that might easily lead to his self-destruction before THE END scrolls by. Often his characters would be startled by those moments in a film when he becomes aware of what he is truly capable of feeling and doing. You see it in his better Westerns, such as the very interesting psychological Western The Man From Colorado (1948-Henry Levin), Jubal (1956-Delmer Daves), and even in a comedic Western such as the laconic The Rounders (1965-Burt Kennedy). His everyman quality grounded noirs such as The Undercover Man (1949-Joseph Lewis), The Big Heat (1954-Fritz Lang), Convicted (1950-Henry Levin), and Framed, making the moral and physical dangers he finds himself in quite engrossing. Sometimes he plays characters in these Noirs and Westerns whose development has a strong streak of masochism in them. He seems to deliberately, for some stated but often hollow sounding principle, or because he just can't help himself; put himself through hell to try to right things in his own peculiar way. He is not necessarily likable or admirable in the process, (especially in Gilda, in which he was a real stinker, even if he was caught up--once again--in the erotic thrall of a femme fatale). The fact that he plays these characters without winking at the audience and saying, as many movie stars might, "Oh, well, that's not really me" seems to me to make him a good actor.
But heck, to each his own, right? Sorry to go on so long...
As I mentioned in my original post in this thread, I don't think that Glenn Ford gave consistently good performances but, he did some excellent, nearly seamless ones in several films. He also worked in too many movies--and would have been better off being more selective, particularly after 1960 and he never really mastered a light touch in comedy. He did not have a broad range, and sometimes he tried to play characters who were more sophisticated than he was capable of playing effectively, but when a role suited him, he could often be incredibly naturalistic and quite memorable.
In a time when flashy techniques and endless discussions about "the work" were in fashion, his acting style could often go unnoticed when it was subject to the material, rather than to a star turn. He always claimed that he was never acting; he was just playing himself. His place, particularly in film noir, is the regular guy you see getting on the train everyday or nod to in the hall at work, though you rarely know his name. Suitably masculine, affable, presentable and decent looking, beneath his somewhat bland exterior could be a streak of hard cynicism and banked idealism that might easily lead to his self-destruction before THE END scrolls by. Often his characters would be startled by those moments in a film when he becomes aware of what he is truly capable of feeling and doing. You see it in his better Westerns, such as the very interesting psychological Western The Man From Colorado (1948-Henry Levin), Jubal (1956-Delmer Daves), and even in a comedic Western such as the laconic The Rounders (1965-Burt Kennedy). His everyman quality grounded noirs such as The Undercover Man (1949-Joseph Lewis), The Big Heat (1954-Fritz Lang), Convicted (1950-Henry Levin), and Framed, making the moral and physical dangers he finds himself in quite engrossing. Sometimes he plays characters in these Noirs and Westerns whose development has a strong streak of masochism in them. He seems to deliberately, for some stated but often hollow sounding principle, or because he just can't help himself; put himself through hell to try to right things in his own peculiar way. He is not necessarily likable or admirable in the process, (especially in Gilda, in which he was a real stinker, even if he was caught up--once again--in the erotic thrall of a femme fatale). The fact that he plays these characters without winking at the audience and saying, as many movie stars might, "Oh, well, that's not really me" seems to me to make him a good actor.
But heck, to each his own, right? Sorry to go on so long...