Who is better as an action star, Eastwood or Bronson?

[Greg]

I am a big Eastwood fan and have only just found this site.  

I don't know how many people know this, but I heard (few years back) from an old friend of mind, that Bronson was actually offered the part of the man with no name in the spaghetti westerns above Clint Eastwood, but turned them down.

If this is true, what a mistake!!!!!


Greg.

[Conan]

Here's the picture:


(Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone & Steven Segal at  ShoWest '95 in Las Vegas. 1995 ShoWest, Circa 1995)

  In order of talent, from left to right...

[Perry]

hi Guys:
                 I think Bronson was very good until he started making Death Wish 95 times. I think by then he became a caricature of himself which was a shame. I always liked Bronson. He certainly had a stoic intensity to his films. I thought he was great in Once Upon a Time in The West, though I rather have seen Eastwood in the role without the harmonica. Its funny, I dont think people today see Eastwood as a action star anymore because He certainly has diversified his roles the past 15 years and Bronson really didnt change much in his acting choices which I think was his demise as well as Burt Reynolds, but thats another story. I think they both were effective.

[Agent]

...I heard (few years back) from an old friend of mind, that Bronson was actually offered the part of the man with no name in the spaghetti westerns above Clint Eastwood, but turned them down.

I thought it was Frank Sinatra that was first offered the part. Oh wait...it must be Dirty Harry I'm thinking of.  

Oh well - Sinatra would have looked pretty silly wearing that poncho with his trademark brim hat.

[mgk]

Hi, Greg - welcome to the Clint Eastwood Web Board.  Hope you enjoy dropping by and adding to our discussions.  

According to Cllint Eastwood, a Biography by Richard Schickel:

The Italian-German-Spanish coproducers of a low-budget western with the working title of El Magnifico Stragnero (The Magnificient Stranger), to be directed by one Sergio Leone, had for some time been looking for an American actor to play its leading role -- an inexpensive American actor, someone who did not command a major star's salary, but who was well enough known to bolster international sales.

(Clint Eastwood, a Biography by Richard Schickel, pp. 128-129)

Two men who would work for Leone later, when they were all better known, Charles Bronson and James Coburn, also rejected it.

(Clint Eastwood, a Biography by Richard Schickel, p. 130)


So.....what you heard from an old friend a few years back appears to be true.

[KC]

Thanks, mgk ... this is confirmed by Christopher Frayling in his definitive Leone biography, Sergio Leone: Something to Do with Death (2000), p. 134:

Leone originally had Henry Fonda in mind as his Stranger. He envisaged this as a great piece of casting against type ... So the script was sent to Hollywood, in an English-language version; but Fonda's agent didn't even bother to show it to him, replying by return that his client "couldn't possibly do it." Next, Leone thought of two younger actors of the strong, silent type who had made their mark as "specialists" in The Magificent Seven: James Coburn and Charles Bronson. Coburn agreed to play the part for $25,000, "which was too much for the producers." Bronson thought the script was "just about the worst I'd ever seen," and turned Leone down flat. ("What I didn't understand," Bronson later admitted, "was that the script didn't make any difference. It was the way Leone was going to direct it that would make the difference.")

[Lin Sunderland]

It is difficult to say which is the better actor as they themselves are so different.  Clint Eastwood has a quality I have never seen in another actor.  He can be tough, funny, deep and gentle, however Bronson strikes me as being only tough and rather rough.  In my opinion, for what it's worth, Mr. Eastwood is by FAR the better actor.

[Yardie]

As has already been said, you can be a fan of both. I'm a big Eastwood and Bronson fan.

[bdc28]

Id like to speak in on this one too.

Bronson is only as good as the people he is working with in his movies...in other words, he is a captivating supporting actor. If his co actors suck, then he sucks..which is why his later movies tanked.

Basically Bronson carried to movies on his own, HARD TIMES and THE MECHANIC, both of which are due to who he was working with.

The difference between he and an Eastwood, or even a Stallone for that matter, is that Eastwood and Stallone DEMAND you be watching their characters...they are very captivating. Those that will say "That applies to Eastwood but not Stallone" please remember that a JUST BARELY out of his teens Stallone wrote Rocky, and think of the complexity of those characters and relationships..Rocky, Adrianne, Paulie, Apollo Creed...thats alot to shoulder for a youngun.

Bronson was a one dimensional guy, and eventually got dated.

[ajay]

two greats of all time

[Philo Beddoe Jr]

I just watched My Majestyk, and I didn't really enjoy it that much.  I know some people here have said they think it is a good flick, and I'd like to hear their point of view on why they like it...

Considering that it had such a great production team, I was really expecting a lot more than it delivered.

WKC.

[Hemlock]

I`ve always enjoyed Charles Bronson films even though he made lots of bad ones.

Biggest mistake Bronson made was that he let his wife Jill Ireland to act in so many of his movies.Have you seen film Love And Bullets :oTruly a horrible film.Thanks to Jill Ireland.
Jill Ireland was Bronson`s Sondra Locke

Bronson showed in The Indian Runner that he can really act but it`s not unfair to say that he was more of an action star than anything else.

Eastwood has always been better actor than Bronson but as an actionstar...well that`s difficult to say since they both hit the man or killed the man so efficiently

[mugsy]

Bronson was a great actor and a cracking role model to everyone who comes from a less than privileged background.He has given some great performances and real characters,however he has never been the best at diversifying his roles whereas Eastwood although similar in some ways can provide a broader range of emotion in his characters.

[Philo Beddoe Jr]

however he has never been the best at diversifying his roles whereas Eastwood although similar in some ways can provide a broader range of emotion in his characters.

You can say that again.  Getting back to my previous comment on Mr Majestyk, I don't think he had more than one expression on his face for the whole film, and that was the same expression he has used in many of his other roles...

WKC.

[Americanbeauty]

Well ... I wouldn't be here if I wasn't a BIG Eastwood fan, soooo ....

Definitely EASTWOOD !!