I’ve always liked William Holden, but the older I’ve gotten and the more I’ve seen of his work, I’ve changed my opinion of him.I now think he is one of the movies’ finest, most versatile and most underrated actors.
While this is a purely subjective list, here are William Holden films I consider masterpieces, and some of the greatest movies ever made.
“Our Town” (1940); “Sunset Blvd.” (1950); “Stalag 17” (1953); “The Country Girl” (1954); “The Bridge on the River Kwai” (1957); “The Wild Bunch” (1969); and “Network” (1976).
Just below that are a remarkable list of films that almost made inclusion into the above list, several of which just missed by the taddiest of tads: “Texas” (1941); “Born Yesterday” (1950); “Executive Suite” (1954); “Sabrina” (1954): “The Bridges at Toko-Ri (1954); “Picnic” (1955); “The Horse Soldiers” (1959); “The Counterfeit Traitor” (1962); “The Towering Inferno” (1974, and no, I’m not joking) and his final film, “S.O.B.” (1981).
Here's what’s key: Many actors and actresses have an equally long list of distinguished work, but I’m hard pressed to think of another actor who hit so many home runs in so many different genres and types of movies.
From comedy to drama, from western to war, and from social satire to romance, Holden boasts one of Hollywood’s most impressive and all-encompassing filmographies, one that many actors would kill to possess. .
Oh, William Holden made more than his fair share of average movies and quite a few out and out clunkers, including a couple of titles that re-define the term “unwatchable.” I mean have you ever swum through the syrupy morass of “The Christmas Tree” (1969)? Or prayed for death while watching “When Time Ran Out” (1978)? The less said about the hideous “Satan Never Sleeps” (1962) the better.
But that’s OK. Even superstars have to eat. Still, Holden is always worth watching, and I don’t think he gets the credit he should. Like Cary Grant, he makes it look so easy.
In his book “William Holden” (Pyramid Illustrated History of the Movies, 1976), Will Holtzman astutely points out, “Holden was never a sacred image, and was rarely predictable. He had no tricks or trademarks to tote from picture to picture as an instant index to his character. He was a half generation off pace, too late for the studio-spawned superstars, too early for the stage-trained method actors.
“So Holden followed his own instincts, battled typecasting, and hit up on a blend of technique and repertoire that sired several of the finest performances in motion picture history.”
Looking at the above list, it’s obvious that the 1950s was William Holden’s decade. He fit the image well. As Holtzman suggests, it was probably the perfect decade for him. Not for him the matinee idol heroics of a Flynn or Tyrone Power of preceding decades, Holden’s characters were often cynical and always seeking an edge, giving an audience of what to come in the following decades. Think of his roles in “Stalag 17” or “The Bridge on the River Kwai.”
But Holden could also play sincere with the best of them. There’s a reason Robert Wise cast him as an idealistic architect in “Executive Suite” and Sidney Lumet made him the conscience of “Network.”
.
Smack in the middle of the 1950s Holden had one of his biggest hits, Twentieth Century Fox’s decidedly uncynical “Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing” (1955).
From comedy to drama, from western to war, and from social satire to romance, Holden boasts one of Hollywood’s most impressive and all-encompassing filmographies, one that many actors would kill to possess. .
Oh, William Holden made more than his fair share of average movies and quite a few out and out clunkers, including a couple of titles that re-define the term “unwatchable.” I mean have you ever swum through the syrupy morass of “The Christmas Tree” (1969)? Or prayed for death while watching “When Time Ran Out” (1978)? The less said about the hideous “Satan Never Sleeps” (1962) the better.
But that’s OK. Even superstars have to eat. Still, Holden is always worth watching, and I don’t think he gets the credit he should. Like Cary Grant, he makes it look so easy.
In his book “William Holden” (Pyramid Illustrated History of the Movies, 1976), Will Holtzman astutely points out, “Holden was never a sacred image, and was rarely predictable. He had no tricks or trademarks to tote from picture to picture as an instant index to his character. He was a half generation off pace, too late for the studio-spawned superstars, too early for the stage-trained method actors.
“So Holden followed his own instincts, battled typecasting, and hit up on a blend of technique and repertoire that sired several of the finest performances in motion picture history.”
Looking at the above list, it’s obvious that the 1950s was William Holden’s decade. He fit the image well. As Holtzman suggests, it was probably the perfect decade for him. Not for him the matinee idol heroics of a Flynn or Tyrone Power of preceding decades, Holden’s characters were often cynical and always seeking an edge, giving an audience of what to come in the following decades. Think of his roles in “Stalag 17” or “The Bridge on the River Kwai.”
But Holden could also play sincere with the best of them. There’s a reason Robert Wise cast him as an idealistic architect in “Executive Suite” and Sidney Lumet made him the conscience of “Network.”
.
Smack in the middle of the 1950s Holden had one of his biggest hits, Twentieth Century Fox’s decidedly uncynical “Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing” (1955).
I watched it the other night and enjoyed myself, though, for me, it would not make the above list of great Holden titles. Still, it’s compulsively watchable.
This movie made oodles and oodles of 1955 coinage, with women in droves likely dragging unwilling husbands and boyfriends with them. But I’d be surprised if they weren’t equally entertained by this love story set in Hong Kong between married, though separated, foreign correspondent Mark Elliott (Holden) and the beautiful Eurasian doctor Hun Suyin (Jennifer Jones, in an Oscar-nominated performance).
This movie made oodles and oodles of 1955 coinage, with women in droves likely dragging unwilling husbands and boyfriends with them. But I’d be surprised if they weren’t equally entertained by this love story set in Hong Kong between married, though separated, foreign correspondent Mark Elliott (Holden) and the beautiful Eurasian doctor Hun Suyin (Jennifer Jones, in an Oscar-nominated performance).
It helps enormously that Holden and Jones are both magnificent physical specimens, which we see when they both strip down to their bathing suits and decide to swim across Hong Kong Harbor to drop in on some friends on the other side. The house on the other side looks like something Dr. No would live in, and I think this scene illustrates one of the reasons the film was such a big hit.
Cinemascope cameras allowed new wide screen vistas of exotic cities like Hong Kong. Foreign tourism was still fairly rare. One might never make it to Hong Kong, but audiences could go to their local movie house and experience Hong Kong in all its Technicolor, Cinemascope glory.
And with two stars like Holden and Jones holding center court, few audience members could resist. This is no backlot reproduction of Hong Kong, but the real thing.
A winning title song also helped. Played throughout as underscore, the famous Sammy Fain and Paul Webster song won a deserving Best Song Oscar that year. Alfred Newman took home the Oscar that year too for Best Original Score, though I suspect Academy members were voting for the song there too. No one ever said Academy members are the most musically literate people in the world.
Director is Henry King, who I’ve also always liked and also consider underrated. His is a lengthy filmography which dates back to silent cinema, but his films are often full of warm, human touches. One of these days I’ll get around to writing about a small jewel of a film called “I’d Climb the Highest Mountain” (1951) with Susan Hayward.
Despite my fondness for King, I wish he had paid a little more attention to possibilities here. There’s a memorable scene with cigarettes which rivals that of Bette Davis and Paul Henreid.
Cinemascope cameras allowed new wide screen vistas of exotic cities like Hong Kong. Foreign tourism was still fairly rare. One might never make it to Hong Kong, but audiences could go to their local movie house and experience Hong Kong in all its Technicolor, Cinemascope glory.
And with two stars like Holden and Jones holding center court, few audience members could resist. This is no backlot reproduction of Hong Kong, but the real thing.
A winning title song also helped. Played throughout as underscore, the famous Sammy Fain and Paul Webster song won a deserving Best Song Oscar that year. Alfred Newman took home the Oscar that year too for Best Original Score, though I suspect Academy members were voting for the song there too. No one ever said Academy members are the most musically literate people in the world.
Director is Henry King, who I’ve also always liked and also consider underrated. His is a lengthy filmography which dates back to silent cinema, but his films are often full of warm, human touches. One of these days I’ll get around to writing about a small jewel of a film called “I’d Climb the Highest Mountain” (1951) with Susan Hayward.
Despite my fondness for King, I wish he had paid a little more attention to possibilities here. There’s a memorable scene with cigarettes which rivals that of Bette Davis and Paul Henreid.
Still attired in their bathing suits, Holden has a cigarette in his mouth and Jones takes one and puts in her mouth. She needs a light. Holden leans over and lights her cigarette in her mouth using his cigarette in his mouth. It’s a pretty erotic scene, but King doesn’t linger on it. Once that cigarette is lit he fades out to a scene of the two of them driving home. It’s a beautifully played scene but I wish King had allowed it to linger a bit longer.
Without spoiling the movie for anyone, Jennifer Jones’s big emotional scene towards the end first struck me as curiously underplayed, but on thinking about it I can appreciate where Jones is going. Her Eurasian background is at odds here – wanting to let her emotions go but also reining them in so she doesn’t make a scene. She deserved the Oscar nomination she received.
Without spoiling the movie for anyone, Jennifer Jones’s big emotional scene towards the end first struck me as curiously underplayed, but on thinking about it I can appreciate where Jones is going. Her Eurasian background is at odds here – wanting to let her emotions go but also reining them in so she doesn’t make a scene. She deserved the Oscar nomination she received.
(Jones’s exotic looks are such that I think little make-up was required to make her Eurasian. Maybe a Jones authority would know more about that)
There’s good support to by Torin Thatcher and Isobel Elsom as a spoiled couple who think their every wish should supersede everyone else’s. They’re the personifications of the Ugly Americans.
Holden’s performance is fine, but to be fair he doesn’t do much. His Mark Elliott is not one to show feelings, but we do see him relax after falling in love with Hun Suyin. Their cultural differences are brought up, but not much is made of them. Her being Eurasian probably helps, but the film (based on the book by the real Hun Suyin) shows what is changing during these post-war years. We still have a long ways to go, but in the 1950s the initial steps are there.
The final scenes are quite moving and no doubt sent many audience members out weeping into their handkerchiefs. Let the cynics scoff, but there’s something to be said about a film willing to go full throttle on an audience’s emotions and not be ashamed of it. Some may think such an ending could not work today, but they’re wrong. Just think back on a movie like “Ghost” (1990). Audiences like this type of material, but it has to be done right, not contrived and it has to be earned. “Ghost” accomplished this, and so does “Love Is A Many-Splendored Thing”.
Back to Holden. Today, we do have a couple of actors like him: Kurt Russell and Dennis Quaid. They’ve both been around for decades and I’m afraid audiences take them for granted. Never flashy or drawing attention to themselves, they consistently turn in good performances in every conceivable genre. Russell especially can switch from comedy to drama to action with the beautiful dexterity of a tightrope walker.
But they’re rarely recognized come awards season and I suspect that when they’re gone audiences will realize how much they’ve been missed.
I remember reading an interview with William Holden while he was filming “Damien – Omen II” (1978) in Chicago. The interviewer asked him why he was starring in an Omen movie. Holden said in his long career he had done everything but horror and porn. He wasn’t about to do porn, so a horror movie it was.
When you think of it, William Holden really did do everything in his career. And nobody did it better.
(Note to readers: I’ve been having tremendous computer problems of late. Aargh! I'm trying my hardest not to use language that would have been prohibited by the Production Code. Even placing the pictures here took twice as long as usual. And, the problems are even preventing me from leaving comments on other's bloggers. (Don't worry, I'm still reading my fellow bloggers.) It's likely I may not be able to moderate comments until the evening. I thank everyone for their patience and understanding until this fixed).
There’s good support to by Torin Thatcher and Isobel Elsom as a spoiled couple who think their every wish should supersede everyone else’s. They’re the personifications of the Ugly Americans.
Holden’s performance is fine, but to be fair he doesn’t do much. His Mark Elliott is not one to show feelings, but we do see him relax after falling in love with Hun Suyin. Their cultural differences are brought up, but not much is made of them. Her being Eurasian probably helps, but the film (based on the book by the real Hun Suyin) shows what is changing during these post-war years. We still have a long ways to go, but in the 1950s the initial steps are there.
The final scenes are quite moving and no doubt sent many audience members out weeping into their handkerchiefs. Let the cynics scoff, but there’s something to be said about a film willing to go full throttle on an audience’s emotions and not be ashamed of it. Some may think such an ending could not work today, but they’re wrong. Just think back on a movie like “Ghost” (1990). Audiences like this type of material, but it has to be done right, not contrived and it has to be earned. “Ghost” accomplished this, and so does “Love Is A Many-Splendored Thing”.
Back to Holden. Today, we do have a couple of actors like him: Kurt Russell and Dennis Quaid. They’ve both been around for decades and I’m afraid audiences take them for granted. Never flashy or drawing attention to themselves, they consistently turn in good performances in every conceivable genre. Russell especially can switch from comedy to drama to action with the beautiful dexterity of a tightrope walker.
But they’re rarely recognized come awards season and I suspect that when they’re gone audiences will realize how much they’ve been missed.
I remember reading an interview with William Holden while he was filming “Damien – Omen II” (1978) in Chicago. The interviewer asked him why he was starring in an Omen movie. Holden said in his long career he had done everything but horror and porn. He wasn’t about to do porn, so a horror movie it was.
When you think of it, William Holden really did do everything in his career. And nobody did it better.
(Note to readers: I’ve been having tremendous computer problems of late. Aargh! I'm trying my hardest not to use language that would have been prohibited by the Production Code. Even placing the pictures here took twice as long as usual. And, the problems are even preventing me from leaving comments on other's bloggers. (Don't worry, I'm still reading my fellow bloggers.) It's likely I may not be able to moderate comments until the evening. I thank everyone for their patience and understanding until this fixed).
No comments:
Post a Comment