|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Nov 25, 2023 13:57:21 GMT
According to producer Christine Vachon's book, Haynes wrote the role of Frank Whitaker (Dennis Quaid) with Gandolfini in mind - Gandolfini wanted to make the film, but scheduling conflicts with The Sopranos prevented him from doing so... What do you think? Can you imagine him in this role? Are you surprised to learn he was Haynes' first choice*? *Before Quaid was eventually cast, Russell Crowe and Jeff Bridges were offered the role, but both declined - Crowe because it wasn't the lead character, Bridges because the salary was too low.  |
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Nov 25, 2023 14:29:10 GMT
He'd have been perfect - far better than Quaid, at any rate
|
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Nov 25, 2023 14:30:22 GMT
I can absolutely see him in the role (Crowe too, less so Bridges). Haynes must have really loved The Mexican. I feel like he'd have gotten more out of it than Quaid did, fine as he was.
|
|
|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Nov 25, 2023 14:42:44 GMT
I can absolutely see him in the role (Crowe too, less so Bridges). Haynes must have really loved The Mexican. I feel like he'd have gotten more out of it than Quaid did, fine as he was. I'm surprised by your and Martin Stett 's assessment of Quaid's work here! I think he's completely brilliant... he makes a quite unlikeable character incredibly sympathetic. As for Gandolfini, I suppose it's hard for me to imagine him as a sort of patrician, old money type? Also, (and don't get me wrong, I found Gandolfini attractive), but I'm not sure his unconventional looks would've fit the "picture perfect" façade... particularly opposite the beautiful Moore. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 25, 2023 15:10:52 GMT
I dunno what Haynes was smoking when he thought of Gandolfini in that role, but thank goodness fate intervened and Quaid got cast instead.
Far From Heaven is an outright homage to Douglas Sirk melodramas of the 1950's. The male leads in those films were usually played by some idealised handsome guy (often Rock Hudson, adding more subtext to Sirk's work), for that picture perfect facade. Gandolfini makes no sense if you are trying to homage Sirk. Quaid works perfectly as the handsome all-American guy next door like Hudson, that turns out to be repressed and in the closet. Gandolfini would just come across as a heavy from the start and it doesn't fit aesthetically with Sirk's casting. It would have made the film seem muddled and confused.
Gandolfini would have been perfect in the Broderick Crawford role in the misbegotten remake of All The Kong's Men though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Nov 25, 2023 17:50:41 GMT
I dunno what Haynes was smoking when he thought of Gandolfini in that role, but thank goodness fate intervened and Quaid got cast instead. Far From Heaven is an outright homage to Douglas Sirk melodramas of the 1950's. The male leads in those films were usually played by some idealised handsome guy (often Rock Hudson, adding more subtext to Sirk's work), for that picture perfect facade. Gandolfini makes no sense if you are trying to homage Sirk. Quaid works perfectly as the handsome all-American guy next door like Hudson, that turns out to be repressed and in the closet. Gandolfini would just come across as a heavy from the start and it doesn't fit aesthetically with Sirk's casting. It would have made the film seem muddled and confused. Gandolfini would have been perfect in the Broderick Crawford role in the misbegotten remake of All The Kong's Men though. I feel that Gandolfini wouldn't fit the storybook setting of the movie at first glance, but he is such a sensitive actor that he could overcome that - the other point where I think he'd be better is that the casting of an idealized handsome guy is distancing if an audience isn't perfectly on the filmmaker's wavelength (I didn't like the movie because I don't like movies, but another reason is that the film is so storybook and mannered that I emotionally shut off). The real problem lies more with Haynes making a movie that is so intent on its facade that it can't create anything real when it attempts to rip the facade apart. I don't think any actor could have made the movie good, but James Gandolfini would have made it better on account of just being such a great actor that he could elevate things past "standard, average" actors like Quaid. |
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Nov 25, 2023 18:04:31 GMT
Yes, I can see it now. Dennis Quaid turned out to do a fine job, but I'm sorry, the film would have been far more exciting with Gandolfini in that role. It's interesting even to know it was written for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Nov 25, 2023 18:30:07 GMT
I can absolutely see him in the role (Crowe too, less so Bridges). Haynes must have really loved The Mexican. I feel like he'd have gotten more out of it than Quaid did, fine as he was. I'm surprised by your and Martin Stett 's assessment of Quaid's work here! I think he's completely brilliant... he makes a quite unlikeable character incredibly sympathetic. As for Gandolfini, I suppose it's hard for me to imagine him as a sort of patrician, old money type? Also, (and don't get me wrong, I found Gandolfini attractive), but I'm not sure his unconventional looks would've fit the "picture perfect" façade... particularly opposite the beautiful Moore. It would have made it a very different movie, sure. Subtextually probably a lesser one, certainly less of a Sirkian pastiche, but I still think it would have been a better one to actually watch. He's a much better actor, and he was a superstar at the time and would have probably made the movie a much bigger deal, maybe more of a comment on its own time too rather than going into the Leyendecker stuff from a hundred years ago. To me, by far the best of the three versions of All That Heaven Allows is Fear Eats the Soul, which shares the least in common with it  Embrace change. |
|
Embrace change.