|
|
|
|
AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
    
Offline
Posts: 3617

|
 |
« Reply #64 on: May 23, 2003, 04:09:43 PM » |
|
Well, okay Philo, but I don't WANT to support Pardner. What was good about that character? Maybe you can convince me.
D'Amb, it's an interesting point that you are making here. I don't have a firm view on this, but generally, I would think that if you felt the movie wasn't that great, then the character can't be that great either. If it isn't executed well, if it doesn't all connect, it's really very difficult to separate the actual "character" from the overall film, and the manner in which that character was portrayed on film. If it's a good character, then the film should be decent, and the character should work to enrich the film as a whole. If that isn't the case, then I don't think its a good character. I understand your separation of performance v. character, but I have a hard time separating the two. In order for it to be a good character in my mind, I have to enjoy the film that the character is in, the acting and the performance has to bring the character to life for me, it all has to come together. That's my opinion at least.
I know what you are saying though. For instance, I'd place Luther Whitney as a very interesting character, I happen to like the film, etc..but I'm sure many of our board members, not having liked the film, may overlook Luther Whitney as being a good character, when in fact, it's in my mind a very interesting, multi-layered Eastwood performance.
|
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
    
Offline
Posts: 14885

|
 |
« Reply #65 on: May 23, 2003, 05:54:36 PM » |
|
There's a few characters that I think stand out as being far better than the movie they're in. One example is Ben Shockley in The Gauntlet. The film is good but the character is one of the best Eastwood's ever portrayed.
I actually think Mitchell Gant is a good character, but Firefox is one of my least favorite Eastwood films. It's a good performance, and he's got some interesting characteristics and flaws that make him better than the film... which seemed very dull, to me.
In this case, I'd also say that Philo Beddoe is a better character than both of the Which Way films. That's not a knock on the films (don't get on me for that, Philo), it's just that I think his character is really the best part of the film, and if I were to grade the film, it would get maybe a C, but the Beddoe character might get a B.
I can separate great characters from the films they're in, but I do have a little trouble separating great performances from great characters. If a character is really written poorly, then no matter how great the performance is, there's just not gonna be much to be done with it. However, for the most part, I think that Eastwood has chosen to play characters that are really interesting and multi-faceted, so then it really comes down to a combination of performance and the depth of the character.
|
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conan
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
    
Offline
Posts: 2943

JP
|
 |
« Reply #78 on: May 24, 2003, 12:16:07 AM » |
|
|
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|