Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 0:14:31 GMT
I'd like for this to be a space where we share our love for Monty! "The true originator of the rebellious twentieth-century antihero was Montgomery Clift. Not Marlon Brando or James Dean…[but] the restrained performer with the inner tension and those ancient, melancholy eyes…his presence so unobtrusively strong that it lingered even when he was off-camera.” - Marcello Mastroianni “Clift [was] a kind of unacknowledged leader. His performances heralded in a new acting style. After Clift came Brando and after Brando, James Dean. But Clift was the purest, the least mannered of these actors, perhaps the most sensitive, certainly the most poetic.” - Peter Bogdanovich
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 20, 2018 1:35:05 GMT
Well I certainly love him but I majorly disagree with Bogdanavich there - I don't find him that poetic at all in comparison to Brando - I think that's overly linking the word "sensitive" to "poetic" - they're related certainly yes but its more than that to me. Rather it's an unknowable characteristic within him that excites and confounds.
The thing that blows my mind about Clift is he took basically 4 years off from film at the peak of his career - that is, just insane, no one did that then - not even a year. Brando won an Oscar and James Dean emerged and died all in the time Clift was away - I mean it really is astonishing to do that at, at that time.
He is one of the few great American actors with a genuine mysterious quality - everyone knows he's major but sometimes its hard to know how special he was, what he was truly capable of. So much so its also a mythic quality, you know great bands write great songs about that quality in the great actor - you just can't imitate that or replicate it. That's what I think of about him, he was and is still inimitable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 1:40:02 GMT
Well I certainly love him but I majorly disagree with Bogdanavich there - I don't find him that poetic at all in comparison to Brando - I think that's overly linking the word "sensitive" to "poetic" - they're related certainly yes but its more than that to me. Rather it's an unknowable characteristic within him that excites and confounds. I really like this definition of "poetic." I'd add the idea of sexual allure and emotional depth... Charlotte Rampling basically embodies it. It's generally not an adjective I'd use to describe male actors.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Dec 20, 2018 4:35:01 GMT
I'm not too big on any of the actors in this vein, but Clift speaks to me more than the others. He had a quiet, haunting something that Dean could never dream of and that Brando could only hint at. It seemed that there were depths behind those eyes that we could never know. I can't think of another actor that could do I Confess or The Misfits like Clift did.
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Dec 20, 2018 17:34:38 GMT
IMO the finest actor America has ever produced.
I wrote this elsewhere reference to Clift turning down Sunset Blvd., and am reposting here because I think it gets at our current perception of him and his place in cinema's actor hierarchy:
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Dec 20, 2018 18:46:00 GMT
It seemed that there were depths behind those eyes that we could never know. I can't think of another actor that could do I Confess or The Misfits like Clift did. No other actor has such a built-in arrow of anguish behind the eyes. The Misfits and I Confess are probably my two favs from Clift - though there's still some I haven't seen. He perfectly embodies a "lost soul" in The Misfits, where he has a very loose, guileless quality mixed with a deeper discomfort. Discomfort is actually a good word for him, how he gets that across so accurately and achingly in his performances, like A Place in the Sun, Judgment at Nuremberg, and the other two mentioned. @tyler pacinoyes I barely remember The Young Lions - what're your thoughts on the movie and performances? And has anyone seen Lonelyhearts? I think it's his lowest voted movie on IMDb...?
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Dec 20, 2018 18:55:52 GMT
Lonelyhearts is far from his lowest-rated film on IMDb; that would go to his final one, The Defector.
As for Lonelyhearts, it's a bit disjointed but is overall a fine film, boasting genuine performances from Clift, Maureen Stapleton (nominated) and the inimitable Robert Ryan. It's never had an official home video release, but I'd welcome it.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Dec 20, 2018 19:12:55 GMT
Lonelyhearts is far from his lowest-rated film on IMDb; that would go to his final one, The Defector. As for Lonelyhearts, it's a bit disjointed but is overall a fine film, boasting genuine performances from Clift, Maureen Stapleton (nominated) and the inimitable Robert Ryan. It's never had an official home video release, but I'd welcome it. Ah that's my bad. Bad wording. I meant lowest amount of votes. I think the movie is floating around online, so I'll check it out soon. Lotta interesting actors in the cast.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Dec 20, 2018 19:27:00 GMT
The Heiress was my introduction to Monty. The ending still gives me goosebumps. I can post my fave pic cause I'm on phone.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 20, 2018 20:05:09 GMT
Lonelyhearts is a misdirected film or at least a flatly directed film - I haven't seen it in a long while but I remember not really knowing the director and thinking that while good it seemed somewhat static. It is well worth seeing though and well acted all around and Clift is aces as usual. The Young Lions is a fascinating piece of work but moreso for Brando imo. Clift is good and focused here too and does a fine job shaping that character - his story arc is good too (he is perversely kept away from Brando the entire film ala Heat - grrrrrr) but Brando is a revelation in this film. I used this as an example in "Poetic Actors" thread - he's playing a Nazi poetically - and Clift who has the poetic, sensitive role on paper is instead prosaic and grounded (not a put down, but his acting isn't poetic, just his role is). The Brando death scene is one of his greatest moments - that scene is flat out acting genius stuff. Clift in some ways to tie into what Sean said lacks the "mega-classic" role but also he doesn't have a lot of "centerpiece" roles in film (and he disappeared for 4 years which makes that even more noticeable than if he had kept working) - ie Brando got to be the glitter in a lot of stuff but Clift less so - he is always sharing the screen with De Havilland, Wayne, Taylor the cast of Nuremberg and Misfits etc. That is his acting style anyway, he reacts, recedes and shares - he's a tremendously generous actor - but that's another reason he is remembered in a different way than most great actors. It's another reason he's hard to imitate too - a lot of actors, good actors even were flat out mimicking Brando is the 50s, but Clift is harder to do in that way, it's almost like sleight of hand in an acting sense.
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Dec 20, 2018 20:44:59 GMT
The Young Lions is such an interesting film for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that it's Brando and Clift's sole (after Brando had to coax Clift out of retirement) collaboration, and yet they don't even share a scene. I mean, what?! I wonder if Dmytryk pulled his hair out figuring how to get the two best actors of their generation in the same shot before ultimately giving up. Curiously enough, I think their joint casting paradoxically helps and hurts the film. There's no doubt they lend considerable gravitas to it, but at the same time I don't think it ever fully lives up to the expectations that intrinsically come with a "Brando/Clift" vehicle. Dean Martin is impressive in his foray into dramatic territory, and the movie gets points for being a reasonably faithful adaptation of Shaw's work while applying shades of gray to Nazism (one of the major departures from the source.) But at the same time the movie never really "opens up" despite clocking in at over 3 hours and featuring scenes all around the globe. The African desert scenes seem stagey, while we barely get a glimpse of Paris. As for the two major performances, Clift is committed and does some real effective work, but let's face it, he's playing a refried Prewitt and he's far too old for the role. Brando is pretty good, but if the accent and platinum blonde hair aren't a little "too much", then the 'disillusioned Nazi' is a bit of a tough pill to swallow. Almost more interesting than the movie itself are the behind-the-scenes stories. Clift, as he always did, really tried to help Martin along (ironically Dean got the role of 'Dude' in Rio Bravo after Clift turned the " Red River reunion" down.) Brando would apparently be on set for every one of Clift's scenes, watching in the background ("Tell Marlon he doesn't have to hide" Clift was reported to tell Dmytryk.) Clift couldn't be bothered to return the favor. And when it came time to shoot Marlon's "poetic" death scene, Brando suggested he die with his arms out to the sides in a Christ-like repose. Clift threatened to quit the movie if they did that and later accused Brando of creating a "fucking Nazi pacifist."
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 20, 2018 21:50:32 GMT
In terms of pure talent and capability, the greatest American actor of his generation and perhaps the most uniquely electrifying American performer there has ever been.
When talking about Clift, you have no choice but to talk about Brando. The two of them were inextricably linked, not just because of their enduring statures as the great titans of post-1950 cinema that they were, but because they seemingly fed off of each other's success and used that to juice their own work. Clift's work in the late '40s is strong, very strong indeed, but those performances feel generally reminiscent of the work of John Garfield (who really could've been considered the prototypical Brando/Clift if it weren't for his blacklisting and untimely death). For me, Clift didn't hit his true greatness until 1951 with A Place in the Sun. That, coupled with Brando's breakthrough as Stanley Kowalski, made them instant rivals for the crown. And since that point, Clift only got better, and while I still think Streetcar remains Brando's finest hour, the rest of his '50s streak is powerful and speaks to his incredible versatility.
It's easy to see why Brando became such an enduring fixture, creating legions of followers and imitators, whereas Clift remains a melancholy figure more or less cemented in the 1950s (even his '60s work still feels rooted in that earlier decade). Brando oozed sensuality and masculinity in a way no one had done before (or, really, since), making him an instant icon that men and women alike fawned over. Clift, in stark contrast, was much more of the sensitive, pensive soul. Where Marlon was all about raw machismo, there was something of the dark, brooding romantic in Monty (which made him well-suited for period pieces; it's easy to imagine Clift playing Edgar Allan Poe if he'd lived long enough). Brando could effect the inner torment of his characters by lashing out, whereas Clift would percolate and bear the anguish in his eyes and gait rather than in explosive fury, and it's easy to see which tactic fledgling actors would find more appealing.
The discussion of generosity in regards to acting is always a compelling one, because I feel like a lot of great actors can sometimes be accused of failing to be generous to their screen partners (either because of ego or selecting projects that don't cater to other strong roles aside from their own), while a lot of strong actors are often overlooked because they are so generous and eager to share the limelight. Case in point: Tom Hanks. Clift is certainly one of the most generous actors there has ever been, and he almost always elevated the actors he worked with, making him one of the best screen partners one could have, really. I don't think that makes him a lesser actor because he didn't dominate screens the way that Brando did; it's merely a different approach to get the same great result.
I've also posited that Clift's long slow suicide is the most heartbreaking tragedy of that era in Hollywood. You see a lot of great talents go out early in that period (Garfield, James Dean), but as tragic as their deaths were, they were largely quick. Clift took almost a decade to die, and seeing that star slowly languish while still being able to turn in incredible, indelible work is agonizing. That car accident really did more than just cut the legs out from under Clift; I firmly believe it affected Brando as well, to the point he stopped giving a shit when he realized that his chief rival and acting yardstick was unable to continue his meteoric rise. Perhaps the young guns of the '70s helped to bring him back from the brink for a while, but not to the extent that I think he would've been had Clift been healthy to keep working.
There have been countless actors to rise in esteem over the years where you can see Brando in their stylings, but in terms of sheer greatness, only two men have ever felt like true spiritual successors to Clift. One was John Cazale (tragically taken down before his time). The other is Joaquin Phoenix, particularly after his I'm Still Here sabbatical.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 20, 2018 22:19:01 GMT
Good post stephen but PSH reminds me of Clift far more than Phoenix does - I see that particular line of actors as Clift/Cazale/PSH - maybe Phoenix eventually will fit more, hard to say (and other lines of acting are things like Brando/De Niro/Penn etc.) But I suppose it's how you tilt your head and raise certain attributes in them at a certain point. It's an acting branch with many tentacles.......
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 20, 2018 22:34:16 GMT
Good post stephen but PSH reminds me of Clift far more than Phoenix does - I see that particular line of actors as Clift/Cazale/PSH - maybe Phoenix eventually will fit more, hard to say (and other lines of acting are things like Brando/De Niro/Penn etc.) But I suppose it's how you tilt your head and raise certain attributes in them at a certain point. It's an acting branch with many tentacles....... Philip Seymour Hoffman was more of his own beast. It's hard for me to really put him in that vaunted company, not because he wasn't as talented (at his peak, he could tango with anyone) but because I feel like there's something more original to him. I think you may see Hoffman imitators in the future, but I can't think of many antecedents to Phil.
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Dec 20, 2018 22:43:21 GMT
Eh, nothing Clift did in the 40s really feels anything like the traditional Garfield character, which was the blue-collar, tough outsider from the streets with a sensitive side. He feels much more like a forerunner to Brando than Clift, especially with his work in stuff like Body and Soul and Force of Evil.
I've always tried to pare it down to their respective approaches; Clift simmered, Brando smoldered. Clift internalized, Brando externalized. For me they were so different as performers that the comparison is sometimes silly. Brando's tremendous gift was his spontaneity and "devil-may-care" impulsiveness; his famed improvisations made you realize how intuitive a guy he was and how easy acting came to him. It reminds me of Matt Damon trying to explain to Minnie Driver his genius in Good Will Hunting; he can just "play". Clift meanwhile would essentially painstakingly create an entire character just from what he read on the page. He'd conceive backstories and motivations so that his performance was as "lived-in" and organic as anything we've ever seen.
That's why I've always preferred Clift to Brando; in general, there just seems to be so much more going on in a Clift performance than a Brando one. The latter's is rife with superficiality and obviousness, while the former requires far more introspection and analysis. That's not to say that Brando, at the top of his game, wasn't immaculate (I'd still say that Last Tango in Paris is probably the greatest leading male performance in the English language.) Clift's "ground up" approach though just resonates with me more and makes me in awe of what he was doing/capable of.
By the way, the more time goes on the more the deification of Brando's 50s filmography seems silly. I'll give you his Big 2, but the rest of it is mostly puerile and risible. Anybody in 2018 give a damn about Brando's "vanity" projects, i.e. where he tried convincing us that he could play a Mexican peasant, French dictator or Japanese interpreter? While he once appeared progressive and ahead-of-his-time, the majority of Brando's 50s output is, frankly, embarrassing. His nomination for Sayonara is the textbook example of an "of its time" nomination while history has been kinder to performances like Andy Griffith in A Face in the Crowd, Burt Lancaster in Sweet Smell of Success and Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 20, 2018 23:11:45 GMT
Well..........this is a praise Montgomery Clift thread not a why Brando is better than Clift thread but just in Brando's defense the way to look at his 50s is in the totality aside from the 2 biggies - Sayonara is him moving into a traditional leading man role, Teahouse of the August Moon is an imaginative and playful and creative piece of work, dissing Viva Zapata as a "Mexican peasant" is grossly unfair to say the least, and he's great in The Men and The Young Lions - and crucially he's a terrific (as an American!) Marc Antony.
My point is, no matter where you come down on those specific performances - only Brando did them or could or even tried - no one can match the totality of his work in the 50s.
Kirk Douglas say couldn't play Teahouse of the August Moon, William Holden couldn't play The Young Lions, Clift couldn't really play Stanley (and again didn't play Shakespeare on film) but Brando could have played anything in the 50s that they or anybody else did - anything - he could have gone into any type of project and stood with anyone. That's the whole thing that was revolutionary about him (heck he even sang!).
Brando could do anything in the 50s and Clift not only didn't, he did nothing for almost 4 years of the decade.........I love him but I don't think comparisons with Brando, which are inevitable, serve him too well when you assess Brando the right way.
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Dec 20, 2018 23:30:18 GMT
Brando doesn't get brownie points simply for doing or "trying" to do those performances. They're artistically disingenuous vanity projects that haven't lived on and suffer when assessing them with a modern critical eye.
As for "not matching the totality of his 50s work", I think that Kirk Douglas thrashes him that decade to the point where it isn't a discussion (I also think several American actors did much stronger work too but I'll keep that to myself.)
Clift's 4-year respite was indeed a tragedy. We were robbed of some truly special work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2019 15:56:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Mar 17, 2019 14:54:05 GMT
Oh honeys, there's a new documentary coming out called 'Making Montgomery Clift' produced by his nephew which is supposed to re-address the myth that he was a deeply unhappy, tortured man, featuring lots of family home movies showing Monty having fun, as well as focussing on his achievements. I've often wondered if the Academy had shown a little more love to both Monty Clift and Judy Garland (maybe Marilyn too), perhaps they both wouldn't have reached so readily for the booze and pills. Nobody has directly linked their self destruction to their professional careers and lack of Oscar. Both Clift & Garland were both supremely talented and both had a love/hate relationship with Hollywood. Their refusal to kiss ass cost them dearly.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Sept 26, 2019 20:45:45 GMT
I've often wondered if the Academy had shown a little more love to both Monty Clift and Judy Garland (maybe Marilyn too), perhaps they both wouldn't have reached so readily for the booze and pills.
While I know this is not true for Clift, I do want to say that Judy Garland's life was destroyed by MGM from the time she was 13 years old when they shoved pills down her to make her capable of working harder, pills down her to put her to sleep, and pills down her to help her lose weight, which they did for years and years. Her early demise was a tragedy in the making from the day she signed her contract with that studio.
Oh honey, a lot of stars from that era were on the same pharmaceutical regime but with much less tragic results: Lana Turner; Mickey Rooney, Hedy Lamar, Marilyn, and Carmen Miranda (we should make a list)... I suspect that's also where Clift got it. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on Clift and why you think this wouldn't be true... it is conjecture.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Sept 27, 2019 9:22:18 GMT
Oh honey, I misunderstood. What I meant is that we only have the information that is given to us and sometimes it is contradictory. Allegedly it was Garland's mother who gave her pills first, which is the reason why Garland later completely cut her out of her life. Mickey Rooney, disputes that MGM had been responsible for destroying Garland and that she chose that path herself. Her MGM career was over by the time she was 28, and there were periods over next two decades when she was drug free.
I really need to see more of John Garfield's work. Any recommendations?
Back to the subject of mothers, have you heard that recording of Clift's mother saying that she'd been advised by a doctor to take Monty out of the theatre because he didn't have the emotional strength and would breakdown by the age of forty - That's so chilling, to hear her say that.
I think my favorite Clift performance is From Here to Eternity.
I'm still hung up about Bosworth and the accusations that she framed Monty's life too much to her own emotional baggage and generation's perspective.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Sept 27, 2019 17:08:37 GMT
I really need to see more of John Garfield's work. Any recommendations? Back to the subject of mothers, have you heard that recording of Clift's mother saying that she'd been advised by a doctor to take Monty out of the theatre because he didn't have the emotional strength and would breakdown by the age of forty - That's so chilling, to hear her say that. I think my favorite Clift performance is From Here to Eternity. I'm still hung up about Bosworth and the accusations that she framed Monty's life too much to her own emotional baggage and generation's perspective. For Garfield, I'd suggest The Postman Always Rings Twice, Body and Soul, The Sea Wolf, and maybe Out of the Fog. They probably best reflect his realistic acting style. I would have loved to have seen him play Golden Boy on Broadway, originating the role William Holden played in the film.
And, no, I haven't heard the recording that you reference, but it does sound chilling. It's clear that Clift was a sensitive soul whose sensitivity made his work easy but his life hard. And I haven't read the Bosworth bio, so I really can't comment on that. Sorry.
Thanks honey, I love Postman! Garfield & Turner made such a good onscreen team, although off screen they didn't get on. I need to see Body & Soul. Garland & Clift haunt me: So much talent and beauty ended in such a self destructive tragic way. Their lives are like a Chinese puzzle, like some horrible whodunnit or whatdidit!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2020 15:35:57 GMT
Did you know that Monty was meant for the starring role in The Angel Wore Red opposite Ava Gardner, but dropped out before production began and was replaced by Sir Dirk Bogarde? I love Bogarde, but I do wish Clift and Gardner would have gotten the chance to work together...
The film was not successful financially or critically upon its 1960 release, but has since been reevaluated with particular attention paid to the nuances of Gardner's performance.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 17, 2020 11:43:50 GMT
Happy Birthday to Montgomery Clift born 100 years ago today, October 17, 1920
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Oct 17, 2020 13:15:25 GMT
We've said it before in here, he could have been one of the greatest actors in history.
|
|