Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson" data-source="post: 438753" data-attributes="member: 5079">I&#039;ve often waivered on whether Olivia or Joan was the better choice for CHARLOTTE.&nbsp; As my appreciation of Joan has risen through the years, I lean towards wishing she had finished the movie.No disrespect to Olivia, who I love.&nbsp; I think a couple of her best performances are even better than the best of Davis and Crawford; although her career as a whole wasn&#039;t as good as either.&nbsp; The argument in favor of Olivia is that the &#039;reveal&#039; was a bigger surprise.&nbsp; Fair.&nbsp; After all, De Havilland had rarely played villains.&nbsp; But a surprise lasts for about 5 minutes; quality is eternal.&nbsp; There is nothing technically wrong with De Havilland&#039;s performance in CHARLOTTE -- she&#039;s quite effective -- but she didn&#039;t seem to be having that much fun with such a meaty role.&nbsp; I think Crawford -- or, for that matter, Fontaine -- would have sank their teeth and claws into that role, while Olivia just ran her fingers along the contours.I don&#039;t know if Crawford would have been as surprising in the role.&nbsp; Did audiences in the mid-60s associate her with villain parts?&nbsp; Sure she played bitches more often than Olivia, but not nearly as often as people think.&nbsp; I guess her monstrous roles of the early 50s would still be lingering, but Joan had switched back to victim mode in the subsequent years.&nbsp; Hardly anyone seems to remember that Blanche was the actual villain of BABY JANE.&nbsp; I also don&#039;t really buy Davis&#039; apparent complaints that Crawford was being too heavy handed.&nbsp; Whatever flaws Joan had as an actress, being hammy was rarely one.&nbsp; After all the main reason she was so often disregarded as an actress is that her work was too subtle in an age when &#039;great&#039; acting equaled &#039;big&#039; acting.So, yeah, I think I&#039;d prefer Crawford in CHARLOTTE.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson, post: 438753, member: 5079"] I've often waivered on whether Olivia or Joan was the better choice for CHARLOTTE. As my appreciation of Joan has risen through the years, I lean towards wishing she had finished the movie. No disrespect to Olivia, who I love. I think a couple of her best performances are even better than the best of Davis and Crawford; although her career as a whole wasn't as good as either. The argument in favor of Olivia is that the 'reveal' was a bigger surprise. Fair. After all, De Havilland had rarely played villains. But a surprise lasts for about 5 minutes; quality is eternal. There is nothing technically wrong with De Havilland's performance in CHARLOTTE -- she's quite effective -- but she didn't seem to be having that much fun with such a meaty role. I think Crawford -- or, for that matter, Fontaine -- would have sank their teeth and claws into that role, while Olivia just ran her fingers along the contours. I don't know if Crawford would have been as surprising in the role. Did audiences in the mid-60s associate her with villain parts? Sure she played bitches more often than Olivia, but not nearly as often as people think. I guess her monstrous roles of the early 50s would still be lingering, but Joan had switched back to victim mode in the subsequent years. Hardly anyone seems to remember that Blanche was the actual villain of BABY JANE. I also don't really buy Davis' apparent complaints that Crawford was being too heavy handed. Whatever flaws Joan had as an actress, being hammy was rarely one. After all the main reason she was so often disregarded as an actress is that her work was too subtle in an age when 'great' acting equaled 'big' acting. So, yeah, I think I'd prefer Crawford in CHARLOTTE. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played JR Ewing?