|
Post by spiderwort on Oct 25, 2019 20:34:15 GMT
Elia Kazan is commonly recognized as the best actor's director since Constantine Stanislavsky. His films (with the exception of a few "studio" films where he got stuck with stars he didn't cast) always contain performances of extraordinary depth, sensitivity, and emotional truth. He revolutionized film acting by introducing the Stanislavsky "method" and demanding psychological continuity and naturalism from his actors. And he was a genius at subtext. He set the standard, which has never been surpassed. All fine actor's directors since Kazan, indeed, flow out of his lineage and benefit from his legacy. He started The Actor's Studio in 1947 -- along with Cheryl Crawford, and Robert Lewis. Lee Strasberg took the reins later when Kazan decided he preferred directing to teaching. If you're interested in film acting or the directing of film actors, you must study the films of Kazan, especially A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, East of Eden, Viva Zapata, A Face in the Crowd, America, America, Wild River, and Splendor in the Grass.
And one more thing: on Broadway, he directed these award winning plays, among others (only one of which he chose to direct on the screen): A Streetcar Named Desire, Death of a Salesman, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Tea and Sympathy, Sweet Bird of Youth, and The Dark at the Top of the Stairs.
Oh, and I forgot to add that he's also famous for discovering stars like Marlon Brando, James Dean, Warren Beatty, Eva Marie Saint, Lee Remick, and Andy Griffith, among others.
And many actors won or were nominated for Oscars for their performances in his films, including winners: Marlon Brando (multiple Kazan nominee), Vivian Leigh, Eva Marie Saint, Anthony Quinn, Karl Malden (multiple Kazan nominee), Kim Hunter, Jo Van Fleet, Celeste Holm, James Dunn, and nominees: James Dean, Natalie Wood, Gregory Peck, Dorothy McGuire, Carroll Baker, Jeanne Crain, Lee J. Cobb, Rod Steiger, Ethel Waters, and Mildred Dunnock.
Kazan himself was nominated for seven Oscars, won two, and received an Academy Lifetime Achievement Award.
What a master he was.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 25, 2019 22:12:21 GMT
Great post spiderwort! Kazan is so fascinating because you can assess him in a lot of ways - his immigrant experience that then became very specifically "American" films....his theater background and the fact that he himself was an actor too and what he learned at the Group theater. He had remarkable patience and love of actors. I have often spoken about his relationship with Arthur Miller, their friendship, falling out, eventual reconciliation over the HUAC situation and in the 2 links below is the PBS documentary that brilliantly examines that - particularly how Kazan created On The Waterfront from "his" POV (the "hero" IS the whistleblower/person who testifies like Kazan etc) and how Miller created "The Crucible" from his (the "hero", like Miller refuses to testify etc). If anyone thinks they know Elia Kazan and what he went through and hasn't seen this, trust me, watch this and then make up your mind. This is one of the great documentaries on film that everybody (here especially) should see and think about - a lot of the great art in Kazan's era and thereafter comes from the material specifically covered here.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on Oct 26, 2019 14:06:38 GMT
Thank you, pacinoyes . And, yes, I’ve seen that American Masters episode, and it is indeed wonderful, capturing so well not only the spirits of those two great artistic collaborators, but also the tenor of the times that drove them apart. I’ve always been glad that they reunited creatively in the early sixties when Kazan directed Miller’s semi-autobiographical play, After the Fall. And I’m glad that you mentioned the Group Theatre, not something I see referenced often, despite it’s great significance. So for those who aren’t familiar with it, permit me a few comments/thoughts about it. The Group Theatre was a collective theater group based in New York City that was formed in 1931 by Harold Clurman, Cheryl Crawford and Lee Strasberg, who invited 29 actors to join. It is responsible for formally introducing the Stanislavski system to the American theatre and films. From 1931 to 1941 they produced some outstanding Broadway productions, including Golden Boy, Awake and Sing!, and Waiting for Lefty. L-R: Cheryl Crawford, Lee Strasberg, Harold Clurman, ca. 1931 The Group founders and members, ca. 1933, too many to identify Elia Kazan (arms raised high) in the Group Theatre production of member Clifford Odet’s Waiting for Lefty (1935) Group member Franchot Tone was the first to appear in a film, The Wiser Sex (1932). Fellow member John Garfield's first film was Four Daughters (1938). But a number of other Group Theatre actors (Luther Adler, Stella Adler, Howard Da Silva, Morris Carnovsky, Lee J. Cobb and Elia Kazan, among others) also appeared in films around the time John Garfield did. Luther Adler and his sister, Stella (later the great acting teacher), and Morris Carnovsky first appeared in films in 1937. Cobb's first film was in 1934, but his first major role was Golden Boy in 1939 (at 28 playing much older). Kazan's first film acting role was with James Cagney in City For Conquest (1940). Frances Farmer, who had visited the Moscow Art Theatre (run by Constantin Stanislavski) before her Hollywood career began, made four films in 1936 that made her a star. After that she joined the Group Theatre and starred on Broadway in, among other productions, Golden Boy (1937), produced by The Group (and written by Clifford Odets). Francis Farmer as Lorna Moon and Luther Adler as Joe Bonaparte in Golden Boy (1938) on Broadway. Frances Farmer and then husband and Group member, Leif Erickson ca. 1936 When it comes to the kind of actor thought of as a true "method" actor who was also a film star before the 1950s, I think most people would choose John Garfield (probably rightly so) - though anyone who studies Franchot Tone's work carefully can see the Group's influence on him throughout his film career. Other notable members of the Group Theatre who came to films slightly later were Harry Morgan, Canada Lee, Will Geer, and John Randolph, among others. The Group was a profoundly influential and important organization. When it ended in 1941, Kazan missed it and was inspired to start the Actors Studio in 1947, along with original Group members Cheryl Crawford and Robert Lewis. But Kazan preferred directing, so he turned the reins of the Studio over to Lee Strasberg in 1951. Although it only lasted ten years, I think the influence of the Group on theatre and film acting and directing was unquestionably monumental.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 26, 2019 16:16:36 GMT
Fantastic Group Theatre photos and it's amazing how many strands of American acting come out of it (and the National Theatre led by Olivier in the UK too). The work that each theater group did over decades of political, social and cultural upheaval made the actors (and writers, directors) very unique and better because they were forged by not only that upheaval but a mad sort of creative competition in that time that was cultivated by it. In America we are almost seeing the end of it now, sadly - there's a huge difference imo between the actors in their 70s/80s and those in their 60s and younger imo. Part of that is because the generation in their 70s/80s now - through sheer luck of their birth date to some extent - in the US is more connected and in the fabric of the Actors Studio and Kazan traditions, they are more versed in that whole historical tapestry.....heck Kazan himself even directed two of them - Nicholson and De Niro together on film.........Stella Adler taught De Niro........Lee Strasberg was in Godfather II etc. the depth of connection drops off after that 70s acting class........it can still be good acting now of course but it will never be replicated quite the same way as what came out of that for those performers. It's one of the tragedies of American film that Kazan didn't work more in the 70s to work with that last great class of actors - he was marginalized after faltering on a few 60s/70s films
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Oct 27, 2019 19:39:42 GMT
Great write-up. Elia Kazan was certainly a director who knew how to get a strong performance out of an actor. His stage background really helped him when he started filming movies.
Even with his first film A Tree Grows in Brooklyn he managed to get some great performances out of actors like James Dunn. Probably my favorite performance he ever directed was Andy Griffith in A Face In The Crowd. As someone who only knew him as Andy Taylor, it was amazing to watch him as a loudmouth host, who slowly self destruct over the course of the film. Powerful stuff!
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Oct 28, 2019 2:16:30 GMT
Thank you, therealcomicman117 . And, yes, Griffith's performance was a wonder. And what a prescient film A Face in the Crowd, predating Network by two decades, but beautifully illustrating how the cult of the celebrity and the power of the media can cause such harm to society. Powerful stuff, indeed. Though I loved the ending. All was/is not lost or doesn't have to be under those circumstances. I take some comfort from that. It's insane and scary how relevant A Face in The Crowd is. Honestly it might be the most precident Hollywood film made in the 1950s. It still applies to the crazy media these days.
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Nov 12, 2019 10:02:03 GMT
Only seen 7 of his movies and while I didn't care for Splendor in the Grass, there wasn't a bad one among them.
It's true that the acting is outstanding in all of his films, but what I also like is, that he often has an important moralic message to tell. Not at least in his best film On the Waterfront. Obviously a huge issue is how he used this film to justify his testimonies in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee and this is maybe the only blemish of the film for me. Cause the comparison just doesn't work. He testified against colleagues, which hadn't done any crimes, it was just their opinions and convictions, while his hero was rightfully testifying against gangsters. This doesn't make the film worse for me though, cause when you just look at it, it's a marvellous film about moral and courage to do the right thing. There's a tricky question within: There are guys, who are your friends or even family. But if they do something that terrible wrong you'd never have expected from them, doesn't this betray themselves of the qualities which made you like them? And are you supposed to act on that terms you view as the moralic right ones, even if that means to act against your "friends"? I love about that film that it has so many great and well-executed scenes, where everything works perfectly together. The dialogue, the camera work, the setting, the acting: There's Father Barry's speech on the ship, the scene with Marlon and Eve in the park, the famous "contender" scene in the car, of course the fantastic ending and many more. And to me making such scenes and put them together fluently for one whole film is one of the essences of great directing. And on top of that and to confirm what is said in the opening post: On the Waterfront is on my very short list of the best acted films I've ever seen. I think it's the only film that gets five acting nominations with three wins among them from me.
That's the one film that stands out of his oeuvre (or of that 37 percent I've seen). But I like some others as well. The very underrated Gentleman's Agreement, that offers a timeless moralic tale as well, though it's much, much simpler in context as well as in orchestration. Viva Zapata is again a highly fascinating study of character set in an interesting historical background and a difficult situation, again acted brillantly by Marlon Brando. And A Streetcar Named Desire is another acting show of the highest class.
|
|