Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2018 2:46:27 GMT
From Wikipedia: "...the relationship between Kubrick and O'Neal was especially fraught and difficult. O'Neal's performance and perceived lack of on-screen depth and ability to portray a character arc have been repeatedly criticised, even by those who consider the film as one of the director's major successes."
Ouch. What do you think? Is the hollowness of the performance not the point?
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 15, 2018 2:51:56 GMT
He really is the film's primary weak point. I have seen what people have said about trying to excuse O'Neal's performance as something that was intended by Kubrick, but so much of that feels like revisionism. Redmond Barry is a vapid man, but casting a vapid actor doesn't make the performance work, because O'Neal has absolutely no screen presence or natural charisma for us to view his work in the film as anything other than a detriment to the film as a whole. I think of actors like Albert Finney or Paul Newman or even Robert Redford who would've made much more effective castings for Barry, as they have presence and could also play a good screen heel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2018 3:20:13 GMT
He really is the film's primary weak point. I have seen what people have said about trying to excuse O'Neal's performance as something that was intended by Kubrick, but so much of that feels like revisionism. Redmond Barry is a vapid man, but casting a vapid actor doesn't make the performance work, because O'Neal has absolutely no screen presence or natural charisma for us to view his work in the film as anything other than a detriment to the film as a whole. I think of actors like Albert Finney or Paul Newman or even Robert Redford who would've made much more effective castings for Barry, as they have presence and could also play a good screen heel. Kubrick reportedly envisioned Richard Harris... Redford was his choice of the Warner Bros.-approved actors, though, and he turned it down. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 15, 2018 3:25:54 GMT
He really is the film's primary weak point. I have seen what people have said about trying to excuse O'Neal's performance as something that was intended by Kubrick, but so much of that feels like revisionism. Redmond Barry is a vapid man, but casting a vapid actor doesn't make the performance work, because O'Neal has absolutely no screen presence or natural charisma for us to view his work in the film as anything other than a detriment to the film as a whole. I think of actors like Albert Finney or Paul Newman or even Robert Redford who would've made much more effective castings for Barry, as they have presence and could also play a good screen heel. Kubrick reportedly envisioned Richard Harris... Redford was his choice of the Warner Bros.-approved actors, though, and he turned it down. '70s Richard Harris would've been good as well, and I could buy him as more of a rough 'n' tumble-type like Redmond Barry should've been than O'Neal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2018 3:36:23 GMT
I think he fits the film perfectly fine.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212 
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Jan 15, 2018 12:10:14 GMT
I Didn't have a problem with him tbh. Actually liked him in his last scene with his dying son.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 16, 2018 16:41:25 GMT
'70s Richard Harris would've been good as well, and I could buy him as more of a rough 'n' tumble-type like Redmond Barry should've been than O'Neal. What about Warren Beatty or a younger Richard Burton perhaps? I do love the Finney call. Ryan O'Neal was pretty much a cut-rate Beatty (who was himself a cut-rate Redford), so Beatty would've certainly been an improvement, but that's like settling for salisbury steak over a sloppy joe. Why not go for the prime rib or the sirloin? Burton in his My Cousin Rachel years might've been a strong pick. Hell, if you wanted to go that far back and stick to an American lead, Burt Lancaster might've had the winning charm and sleazy edge perfect for Barry. |
|
|
|
Post by pickpocket on Jan 17, 2018 3:43:35 GMT
He barely registers as all, and the film often works around him to somehow make up for his shortcomings. The performance isn't completely out of place, given that the film is not heavily invested in dialogue, and has a penchant for majestic, wide shots with elaborate mise-en-scene. I do wonder if he were a stronger actor, and Kubrick had much better footage to work with, if the editing would have been significantly different. But given what it is, it's difficult to eliminate O'Neal from the other elements of the film that do work on an exquisite level.
|
|
