Fatality Five: Best Actor Who Died Too Soon?

Clift had already staked his claim as one of the zeniths of his generation, and even though Brando had the added benefit of his machismo to boost him as a screen icon, Clift could match him beat for beat in terms of talent and versatility. His long, slow, sad decline is one of the most devastating things to happen to the acting scene just simply because we saw so many people borne out of Brando’s success, but I think if Clift hadn’t gotten in that accident, we might’ve seen Brando avoid his fallow period and pursue honing his craft, which might’ve opened up the ‘60s in a different way entirely.

Cazale’s filmography is unimpeachable and I think there was an awful lot of Clift’s sensitivity in him—I think if Cazale hadn’t died so young, he might’ve secured some major roles once people had keyed in on his power and skill set. I think the only thing that works against him is that in all of his performances, he never exhibited the masculine vitality that would’ve made him an instant screen favorite as well as a critical darling. I can’t see Cazale in many of the major roles his peers and contemporaries played—at least, not in the way they played it—but I think his talent was too undeniable to let slip.

Ledger, I think, was probably the most well-rounded of these gentlemen. He had the hunk era, he proved his bona fides with his Oscar-nominated performances, showed insane versatility between the silent and introspective Ennis and the volatile and mercurial Joker, and he seemed like he was only getting started. I mean, to accomplish what he had all before he was thirty, and poised to jump to directing already? I think Ledger probably could’ve owned the 2010s and might even have challenged DiCaprio for the crown when all is said and done.

Phoenix obviously is probably the biggest example from this group in terms of actors whose passing probably affected others’ careers in a major way. With him out of the running, does DiCaprio get that early traction needed to catapult him to super-stardom? The cinematic landscape of the 1990s and especially the 2000s might look very different if River is leading the charge. Furthermore, one wonders if Joaquin would ever have been able to shake off his big brother’s shadow the way that he did.

And then there’s James Dean, the biggest question mark of them all. His streak was so bright and yet so short, and while he exhibited some versatility, I don’t think we got enough of him to really make a judgment call on how much of his talent we truly missed out on. Obviously his death helped pave the way for Paul Newman, as we discussed elsewhere, but would Dean have been able to live up to that early promise?

Clift easily has the saddest career trajectory of them, especially since he was already washed-up by the time he died. It's hard to say, if he could have worked his way up to a comeback, had he passed away. I agree that if he hadn't died though, it probably wouldn't have led Brando to become a bit of a fat parody later in his life. You could tell he was never the same after Clift died.

Cazale is one of the greatest "what if?" Who's to say he would have kept up that quality had he had died so tragically, but also he could have gotten more substantially even larger leading type roles, and might have even won an Oscar. His filmography is almost unheard, and hasn't been topped since then.

Ledger would have become an even greater regarded actor and icon then he is already, and probably would have had a run as an actor that might have challenged someone like DiCaprio as the defining actor of his generation. His death bums me out so much out of the most too, we lost a genuinely great talent when he died, and it felt like just before he passed that his career was only going to up from where it was already.

Phoenix is another huge question mark. It's hard to say if he would have picked consistently great projects had he lived longer then 23. His last two films were not especially noteworthy, but at the same time, it might mean that other actors of his generation like Leo or Matt Damon would have had to fight even more to get great roles.

James Dean is probably the biggest question mark of them all, especially since his tragic death is probably linked more to him as a performer then any of the actors, since he only did three major films. Would he have became one of the great actors of his generation, or would he have faded away, it's really hard to say.

Ledger. Nobody ever died right after giving such an insanely brilliant and iconic performance like that. We really lost something, like Keats and Shelley's premature deaths in poetry.

Cazale and Clift. Their filmographies were impressive!

Oh honey, I love Monty Clift and his work, but the tragedy is that he was already addicted to pills as early as 1950 when he made A Place in The Sun. Addiction is a terrible thing. If he hadn't died at aged 45, it would have been horrific to see him in old age, as by then he was beset with so many medical problems. It's pretty much like when you see last photos of Judy Garland in 1969 ravaged by drug addiction and pretty much anorexic. It just makes you wanna cry.

James Dean, really showed his genius in Giant. I think he could have given Brando a run for his money. His scenes as the aged Jett Rink (he was only 24) are very impressive.

Great observations.

I always liked Phoenix, maybe it was because he was in Stand By Me which was one of my favorite films when I was younger, and in all those teeny bopper magazines, but and I hope this doesn't sound mean because he did was capable of greatness but generally, imo, he was just fine. I mean he had extraordinary highs, but like in some movies like Sneakers, I Love You to Death, A Night in the Life of Jimmy Reardon, or Little Nikita, he's fine but I wouldn't say extraordinary or memorable in those films. Even in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, I thought he was good, but I don't know that he brought anything special to the role like most young actors probably could have done just as well. Of course, I know there were likely other factors involved like writing, directing, and like Sneakers might be a bad film to judge him by because I don't think he really does anything in it except have a few one liners. 

Thinking back over that time I know he had Interview With the Vampire coming up, I think that he would have done better sticking to indies and smaller fare like My Own Private Idaho because I think that's where his talent really shined. I don't know maybe he would have gotten more comfortable in bigger roles later on, but even at a younger age, I feel like Leo, his brother Joaquin, his replacement in Interview With a Vampire, Christian Slater, not because Slater was a better actor but in terms of blockbusters I think he was always more comfortable in them and leading them, and Keanu Reeves although to be fair Reeves was a little bit older when he started to do more leading man roles.  This is not to say that the landscape wouldn't be incredibly different had he lived, but I still think that Leo and then Joaquin and then Matt still go onto incredible heights because I feel like they would have been more bankable because to me they felt comfortable right away in leading big movies. 

Also hopefully this isn't too controversial or come across too mean, but even back then, I feel like his demons were starting to hurt his work and career. Like I know a lot of actors have or have had substance abuse problems, but generally until it gets to a certain point, they're still able to do the work and have the skill, but sometimes it gets to a point where it affects their talent level. Of course, maybe if that night happens but this time he doesn't die too soon, that could have been his rock bottom, and he would have gotten clean. In that scenario, I could definitely see the film landscape being a lot different. If he continues to have serious problems though, then it goes back to me thinking that probably not much would have changed until he got clean or at least clean enough where he could still put in the work. 

Like Ledger and PSH, who wasn't on the poll, certainly had their demons, but I feel like it didn't show in their work or at least hadn't at that point, maybe it would have later if they continued on the same path. So I definitely feel that had Ledger not died too soon, the film landscape would be totally different because he would have gotten a lot of big roles that went to other actors. Then they probably would have taken other roles, and then maybe someone like Bradley Cooper who has a lot of ambition still misses his window because he never gets the chance to do Silver Linings Playbook. Or maybe Christian Bale misses his chance with The Fighter? Or Jared Leto doesn't win the Oscar because someone else is cast in Dallas Buyers Club. 

Oh honey, wow, that is amazing!  I didn't realise it had happened then. On Clift's 4 year absence. Clift was one of the first actors to be freelance and was never bound to a studio contract (Dean signed with Warner Bros).  By all accounts, Clift was fiercely independent as well as snobbish in the early days of his career about theatre vs movies.   During that hiatus he returned to theatre for his production of The Seagull, which wasn't a success.  It was the last thing he ever did in theatre.  He was also heavily involved with Libby Holman at the time, who was a hedonistic multi-millionairess, who also wasn't a fan of Hollywood. In reality, they probably were East coast snobbish, pseudo-intellectuals who considered the West coast banal and trite and preferred getting wasted on a cocktail of white wine and pharmaceuticals (predates the hippies) by the pool of Libby's mansion - which is understandable. Unfortunately, it didn't leave much of a filmography for Clift film fans.

You are right about Dean. I don't think he would have had any trouble crossing over culturally into the 60s and 70s and beyond.  I could definitely see him going full Easy Rider.  He was much more of a free spirit than Clift who has been described as 'neurotic' and 'fussy'. Clift had already developed a reputation for being difficult as he liked to rewrite scripts and insisted on bringing his acting coach on set, which drove directors crazy.  Clift's press was also not good during his lifetime as he was often attacked for being too aloof, non cooperative with the press and not part of the establishment. Giant proves that Dean had potential to go far, as well as willing to go full Hollywood.

You are right also about Brando.  Clift was a very, very gifted actor but never versatile: Of his 17 movies, he played a soldier 4 times, a cowboy x 2, a doctor x 2, and then 9 assorted roles, including priest.  He never did comedy, which is a shame as Jack Larson said his offscreen personality was closer to Jerry Lewis, than his onscreen image and persona.  He loved slapstick and jokes.

 

Who would've been the best? Cazale def, I'm thinking. He would've acted in more projects with Pacino and Streep. We never got to see him in play adaptations or as leading man. pacinoyes once mentioned him as Poe, just imagine that. We already know he could play pathetic and scared and hilarious. And we sense he could've played intellectual wits or romantic parts or twisted parts too. He could've played across era and ethnicity..... and he would've stood out in his own way bc he wasn't a dreamy handsome dude like the other guys here.

Next up, I'd go Ledger (Joker next to Brokeback suggests a virtuoso) or James Dean who probably woulda been interesting no matter what role he took. I like all these guys a lot but I'll be the bastard who says Clift is overrated - he's nowhere near Brando. Besides The Misfits (which I love) his perfs don't really wow or throw me.

I might add that I would possibly take Patrick Dewaere over all of them.