Yuku free message boards

There's no accounting for taste. Dana Andrews is in some of my all-time favorite films, and certainly doesn't ruin them for me -- CURSE OF THE DEMON, LAURA, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, THE OX-BOW INCIDENT, etc. Perhaps one strong reason his performance leaves a bad impression in DEMON is related to the thing some critics bitch about -- the appearance of the demon in the opening (or at all). This makes Dana's character seem like a pigheaded twit for the rest of the film, since we KNOW he's dead wrong to doubt the existence of the creature. No audience sympathy whatsoever.

If Alan Ladd had only made SHANE and THIS GUN FOR HIRE I'd be a big fan, but he did a lot of other films I like too (his great bit as the hardboiled detective in Bob Hope's MY FAVORITE BRUNETTE, for instance). IMO he had good looks, strong presence and a terrific voice.

Give me Hollywood studio-system stalwarts like Andrews and Ladd over the vast majority that pass for great movie actors these days. I'm particularly down on the breed who have made vicious mafiosi goombahs so appealing and attractive in our decadent, self-serving culture.

I'm with todmichel on this one. If anything, I believe it's the taste of the audience that has deteriorated over the years. In a world where everyone wants their 15 minutes of celebrity NOW, aesthetic standards have steadily been lowered to accommodate those expectations, and the result is that we now routinely worship artists of every sort who have limited, if any, credentials for the job. Though there are still plenty of serious, dedicated professional actors around, there are also lots of highly-visible "performers" with little or no experience, training or other qualifications.

In the "Golden Age" of Hollywood things were different. Though there were certainly many novice "actors" who started their careers with little more than looks, they were usually brought along carefully with appropriate coaching and tutoring, and with lots of small parts before they were ready to take lead roles in anything. Unless, of course, they were already seasoned stage performers before they came to films.

Last week TCM ran an early Doug Fairbanks Jr. talkie called THE LIFE OF JIMMIE DOLAN (1933). John Wayne had a small part as a worried amateur boxer waiting to get his brains bashed out by a brutal champ in hopes of winning some prize money. By this time, he'd been kicking around in Hollywood for 7 or 8 years, had starred in a handful of Poverty Row serials and westerns, and had even had a chance at stardom in a big-budget "A" picture, THE BIG TRAIL, that didn't click (though it's a great film in many ways, and Wayne is very good in it). It would be another 5 or 6 years of bits and B-westerns before he got another big break in John Ford's STAGECOACH -- but even after that he went back to the "Three Mesquiteers" series oaters at Republic for a while. He worked steadfastly in lead roles in scores of films for nearly 40 more years before he died in 1979. And today he's one of the major old-time stars most often discredited for his limited acting abilities (usually by people who dislike his politics, and who haven't really watched his best films objectively).

But back on track, Worst Popular Actor, etc.:
I don't understand the appeal of EL BRENDEL, the Swedish-dialect comedian who was apparently well-known and very popular in silent films and early talkies, and had substantial parts in films like WINGS, JUST IMAGINE and THE BIG TRAIL. He's mildly amusing, I suppose, but it's hard to account for the sort of lead roles he sometimes got. The (now) unPC antics of other ethnic comedians of that period seem a lot funnier to me. I wonder what Swedish-Americans thought (or think) of this guy?