Bette and Joan

Discussion of the actors, directors and film-makers who 'made it all happen'
User avatar
silentscreen
Posts: 701
Joined: March 9th, 2008, 3:47 pm

Post by silentscreen »

I didn't say it was true, only that Bette believed Joan influenced certain ones, not all. Calm down, twas just a story that I heard in a documentary. As with many such stories, you have to take them with a grain of salt. 8)

:D As for mental health, I wouldn't care to comment on that about either of those ladies, LOL! They both seemed to have their share of neurosis.

Neurosis:

A relatively mild personality disorder typified by excessive anxiety or indecision and a degree of social or interpersonal maladjustment.

Bette could be prickly and she was very high strung. I think they both had their issues.
"Humor is nothing less than a sense of the fitness of things." Carole Lombard
User avatar
silentscreen
Posts: 701
Joined: March 9th, 2008, 3:47 pm

Post by silentscreen »

JohnM wrote:If I were anymore calm, I'd be asleep. I wasn't claiming that you were saying it was true, just at how ridiculous it would be for Bette to believe it were true. That would be just one in a series of many ridiculous things that can be attributed to both Bette and Joan! :D
Amen to that! :D
"Humor is nothing less than a sense of the fitness of things." Carole Lombard
User avatar
moira finnie
Administrator
Posts: 8024
Joined: April 9th, 2007, 6:34 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Post by moira finnie »

Just when you think that there couldn't possibly be one more thing to write about Bette Davis as her centennial approaches, Terence Rafferty writes this in the NYTimes. Enjoy, (and you might like the links at the end of the article too.)
Avatar: Frank McHugh (1898-1981)

The Skeins
TCM Movie Morlocks
jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

It's an interesting article from an obvious fan, Moira. However, I'd take exception: I think Davis was a great actress, but not the greatest, and that's because I think the one thing she was not, notwithstanding this article, was versatile. She played "Bette Davis" roles, period. Nothing wrong with that; that's what we paid to see.

It's just that my definition of a truly great actor is an actor who can play anything, and credibly so. That's the reason I can't reconcile my feelings to AFI's placement of Bogart as the screen's greatest actor; I love Bogart, but I think he, too, was not particularly versatile, although he played many variations of "Bogie." To my mind a versatile actor is James Stewart, Walter Brennan, or today's Johnny Depp. I think there are dozens of more versatile actresses than Bette Davis. Versatility is not what made her great -- being Bette Davis onscreen is what made her great.
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Post by charliechaplinfan »

The AFI has rated Bogie as the greatest actor :roll: . I can't agree for the reasons you say Judith. He was very good at playing a type, extremely good, I like to watch him. James Stewart, Henry Fonda, Cary Grant and Brando when he put his mind to it have more versatilty.

My vote would go to the best actor of them all, Charlie Chaplin. He proved his versatility in his later roles.

Does anyone have a link? I'd be fascinated to see. I've tried looking at the AFI site I can find a list called 100 stars but not greatest actors/actresses.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

I agree with Judith about Bogie. He was good but I don't think he had the range of the others listed. Hardly any comedies. He wasn't terribly comfortable in westerns. Did he even attempt a musical? I'm not knocking his talent but it just wasn't that broad. And I like the guy.

Thinking about Bogie made me think of Cagney and his last two films before he retired, the first time, are a good example. "The Gallant Hours" where he played Admiral Halsey was a stoic, meditative, subdued and solid performance. Then comes the manic wildness of "One, Two, Three." Throw in "Yankee Doodle Dandy" and "Man of A Thousand Faces" and you have range. Even he may not be the best but it's an example that may have it over Bogart.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

My feeling is that if an actor can't comfortably and successfully play comedy, then he/she isn't really "versatile," but that's just a personal preference. I think Bogart was a little better at comedy than was Davis (African Queen was a serio-comic role, after all, and he was very good in that), but still not all that great or all that believable. Stewart, Brennan, Cagney, even Robinson were, to me, credible in comedic roles. I even like a mannered Method Man like Brando in comedies -- in fact, I think he had a flair for it.

As we all know, comedy ain't pretty, and playing comedy ain't easy.
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Post by charliechaplinfan »

James Cagney is someone I'd put in my personal top ten. He really was an all rounder.

Humphrey Bogart was dreadfully miscast in Sabrina that role belonged to Cary Grant or Gary Cooper who was wonderful if not a little old in Love In The Afternoon
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
Post Reply