Errol Flynn

[ClassyCo]

Errol Flynn (who I just learned died on my birthday, October 14, way back in 1959) was famous for his swashbuckler roles that brought him an international level of fame during the Golden Age of Hollywood. Aside from his film career, he was well-known for his womanizing and his pleasure-seeking lifestyle.

Flynn's most famous film might be THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1938), but he had many other box office hits, starting with CAPTAIN BLOOD (1935), which paired him with frequent screen partner Olivia de Havilland. The two made for a popular couple on the screen, and appeared together in eight films, such as THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE (1936) and DODGE CITY (1939).

Bette Davis, who co-starred with Flynn in THE SISTERS (1938) and THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX (1939), praised Flynn's beauty, but frankly admitted that he had no talent as an actor, which is apparently an opinion that Flynn himself shared. Sometime around 1938, there was a deal on David O. Selznick's table from Warner Brothers to use Davis and Flynn for the lead roles in GONE WITH THE WIND. Davis, as she says, wouldn't make the film with Flynn, so neither of them got the job.

I must admit that I haven't had much exposure to Flynn or his work as an actor. Of course, I know the swashbuckler "image" he was well-known for, but I haven't seen him in action that much.

Any fans lingering around?

 

[Crimson]

I'd have to stop short of calling myself a fan, but I like Erroll Flynn. I personally favor Tyrone Power as a swashbuckler, but Flynn is pretty much the archetype. He was handsome, athletic and slightly roguish even when playing a hero. I don't think I've see any of this non-swashbucklers -- well, maybe a western or two -- so I don't know if he was as charismatic in non-adventure films.

Davis' snobby attitude towards Flynn was the same as towards Crawford. From my perspective, the acting of Crawford and Flynn has aged very well because their work was generally so unfussy, so lacking in theatricality. They look natural on screen.

 

[ClassyCo]

I'd have to stop short of calling myself a fan, but I like Erroll Flynn. I personally favor Tyrone Power as a swashbuckler, but Flynn is pretty much the archetype. He was handsome, athletic and slightly roguish even when playing a hero. I don't think I've see any of this non-swashbucklers -- well, maybe a western or two -- so I don't know if he was as charismatic in non-adventure films.

In my mind, there's only one image of Errol Flynn, and it's this:



As for Tyrone Power, I haven't seen any of his swashbucklers, only his romances.

Davis' snobby attitude towards Flynn was the same as towards Crawford. From my perspective, the acting of Crawford and Flynn has aged very well because their work was generally so unfussy, so lacking in theatricality. They look natural on screen.

In her later years, Davis spent a lot of time fussing about certain people in the industry, but she also praised some of them. She admired talent, discipline, and professionalism. For her, Flynn possessed nothing but an "image", and on that alone, she was complimentary. I'd have to skim through the Dick Cavett interview where she discusses Flynn to get an exact quote.

As for Crawford and Flynn (or the clips I've seen anyway of the latter), their style of acting does seem to have aged better, while the theatricality of Davis and Claude Rains seems dated and old-fashioned. However, I must side with Davis as I have done in the past, I like some theatricality in a performance. That's one reason why I like older movies. To paraphrase Davis -- the actors should look like they're doing something to get credit for their craft.

But that's just me. To each their own.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I've also seen Davis defend being "a little theatrical" in her performances, and I can't really disagree with her reasoning. Yet I've always found it interesting that I'd collected more DVDs of Crawford's films than of Davis').

I dunno. Maybe it's Joan's practiced baritone voice-lowering (which she preached to younger actresses), rather than Davis sharp, nasal "bitchy" intonations, which wound up resonation better and longer.

Bette's competitive assertions that "Joan-can't-act!" probably come from a different place than her comments about Errol Flynn... There were just some stars who were considered "the personality people," ones with faces and a persona but were viewed by their peers to be meager actors. When today, you wonder what the detractors were talking about.

And Bette's assertions that Joan "has slept with every male at MGM other than Lassie" was never paired with any chidings on Errol's infamous "in like Flynn" sexual conquests. (She supposedly wanted Gable for ELIZABETH & ESSEX, but would that really have turned out well, had she gotten her preferred casting?)

Although I like Davis in numerous roles, her stature as Queen of Hollywood for a decade was based predominantly on her playing electrifying bitches in an era when that was considered shocking, risky, and majestically impressive. Even today, the fastest way to critical praise and audience fascination is to convey unrestrained rage --- which is not, in fact, the best way to assess an actor's thespianic skill. But, shorter term, it encodes a memory in the viewer.

This may also be why Kate Hepburn's dignified "just-get-on-with-it" approach kept her relevant longer, in contrast to Bette's crusty bitterness encircled in cigarette smoke --- Hepburn's tortoise to Bette's hare (although Kate's Galapagos speech in SUDDENLY, LAST SUMMER doesn't support that theory).

But then, there's the issue of those pencil mustaches of the era: they make everybody look ugly and smarmy -- perhaps except for Errol Flynn. (Everybody talks about how "beautiful" Robert Taylor, Stanwyck's occasional hubby was, but if that thin line of hair appears under his nose, I just can't see it).

And sometimes it doesn't even work on Flynn.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Whaddayamean "not theatrical enough"?

 

[Crimson]

actors should look like they're doing something to get credit for their craft

Sure one doesn't want actors to be bumps on logs; that 80s style of TV acting where they just stood rigid and read dialogue isn't an ideal. But I also kind of disagree with Davis' assessment. If one is too aware of a performance, then the performance has probably failed. Acting -- like editing and the musical score -- shouldn't draw too much attention to itself. A movie should suck you in, not have you thinking about its components. If I'm thinking, "Man, Norma Shearer sure flutters her hands a lot" then I've been taken out of the film.

And while I think Davis' acting does look, to my eye, more antiquated than Crawford's, that isn't inherently a bad thing. I mean old style acting in old movies isn't a shock. I think most of Davis' performance, in her prime years, are great and since she mostly starred in soapy melodramas anyway they didn't call for subtlety. Mostly I just find it interesting that actors of the day who were disregarded for not ACTING often now look so natural.

ones with faces and a persona but were viewed by their peers to be meager actors. When today, you wonder what the detractors were talking about.

A point Kim Novak made in one of her later interviews, in defense of her own career. Her point being that in an age when great acting was seen as flamboyant or histrionic (i.e., the age of Method), her own attempts at subtle, nuanced acting were overlooked. I haven't rewatched any of her films to know if I agree with her self-assessment, even if I do agree with the basic premise.

there's the issue of those pencil mustaches of the era: they make everybody look ugly and smarmy -- perhaps except for Errol Flynn.

The male equivalent of the pencil thin, arched eyebrows of the 30s; which looked good on no actress except Dietrich and sometimes not even her.

And since these discussions always veer wildly away from the topic, I watched SANTA FE TRAIL last night. I don't believe I've seen it before. I think Flynn and DeHavilland had even better chemistry here than in ROBIN HOOD; both immensely charming and charismatic, with breezy, easygoing performances. Even here, at Flynn's peak, I can see why his career didn't have the same durability as Gable or Cooper. Even if he hadn't become a drunk, that kind of boyish charm tends to fade fast. Even Tyrone Power wasn't as interesting in the 50s as in the 40s.

 

[ClassyCo]

Sure one doesn't want actors to be bumps on logs; that 80s style of TV acting where they just stood rigid and read dialogue isn't an ideal. But I also kind of disagree with Davis' assessment. If one is too aware of a performance, then the performance has probably failed. Acting -- like editing and the musical score -- shouldn't draw too much attention to itself. A movie should suck you in, not have you thinking about its components. If I'm thinking, "Man, Norma Shearer sure flutters her hands a lot" then I've been taken out of the film.

I agree with what you're saying here. A performance shouldn't be distracting, even if it does have you glued to the screen.

And while I think Davis' acting does look, to my eye, more antiquated than Crawford's, that isn't inherently a bad thing. I mean old style acting in old movies isn't a shock. I think most of Davis' performance, in her prime years, are great and since she mostly starred in soapy melodramas anyway they didn't call for subtlety. Mostly I just find it interesting that actors of the day who were disregarded for not ACTING often now look so natural.

That's a testament to the changing styles of acting in the decades since the dawn of the film industry. I'd agree that people like Flynn and Crawford seem less "dated" today in their acting styles when compared to someone like Davis.

A point Kim Novak made in one of her later interviews, in defense of her own career. Her point being that in an age when great acting was seen as flamboyant or histrionic (i.e., the age of Method), her own attempts at subtle, nuanced acting were overlooked. I haven't rewatched any of her films to know if I agree with her self-assessment, even if I do agree with the basic premise.

Although I do like her, Kim Novak can certainly by hit-or-miss for me. However, I do agree that she at least attempted a subtlety at a time when showy Method actors dominated the screen and raked in all the attention and awards. That's probably why Novak's reputation has improved over the years. She gets more positive feedback from critics today than she did when she was in her prime.

The male equivalent of the pencil thin, arched eyebrows of the 30s; which looked good on no actress except Dietrich and sometimes not even her.

I despise those pencil thin eyebrows. They looked terrible. Dietrich, Harlow, Colbert, West, Garbo, Crawford, Davis. Every living actress in the 1930s seemed to have them. Even poor Alice Faye, one of my favorite Fox musical stars, started out with the pencil eyebrows. It was Darryl F. Zanuck who finally allowed her to ditch them and adopt a more natural look.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

"Flynn's roles include Robin Hood in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), which was later named by the American Film Institute as the 18th-greatest hero in American film history; the lead role in Captain Blood (1935); Major Geoffrey Vickers in The Charge of the Light Brigade (1936); and as the hero in a number of Westerns such as Dodge City (1939), Santa Fe Trail, Virginia City (both 1940) and San Antonio (1945)."

Forever Classics

Errol Flynn - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ClassyCo]

 

[ginnyfan]

I like Errol Flynn and enjoy his movies and performances. He had a more laid back approach, which was probably seen as '' not trying'' back then, and this is probably why Bette was so needlessly critical of is acting. IMO it gives his performances a certain charm and certainly goes well with the dynamic, fast paced flow of Warner movies in 30s and 40s.

Errol was at the peak of his looks in 1939, as showcased in Elizabeth & Essex and Dodge City, which is such a fun western that I always enjoy rewatching.






























By the end of his life and career, Errol gave two performances that finally got him some critical acclaim, sadly both of them playing drunks, in The Sun Also Rises (1957) and his take on John Barrymore in Too Much, Too Soon (1957) , the latter one I haven't seen.

 

[Toni]

I like Errol Flynn and enjoy his movies and performances. He had a more laid back approach, which was probably seen as '' not trying'' back then, and this is probably why Bette was so needlessly critical of is acting. IMO it gives his performances a certain charm and certainly goes well with the dynamic, fast paced flow of Warner movies in 30s and 40s.

Errol was at the peak of his looks in 1939, as showcased in Elizabeth & Essex and Dodge City, which is such a fun western that I always enjoy rewatching.






























By the end of his life and career, Errol gave two performances that finally got him some critical acclaim, sadly both of them playing drunks, in The Sun Also Rises (1957) and his take on John Barrymore in Too Much, Too Soon (1957) , the latter one I haven't seen.

I think Errol didn´t need to be an Oscar-winner type of actor, he was good at what he used to do, and "Robin Hood" is my favorite movie of his. Nobody ever looked as masculine and hot in tights than him, and Olivia was lovely. But the real winners here are the supporting cast: each one is absolutely irreplaceable, and later versions (even Disney´s) look back at them for inspiration.