There has been talk on this board and a lot off this board about John Wayne, the actor. While most of the talk off the board who don't really like Duke said he was not an actor, there are many people here on the board who said he is a great actor.

Duke had to work from the bottom up with many obstacles in his way from directors like John Ford, his college career including football, bit parts that didn't let him shine, to his confidence level at the time. Duke put out a lot of "B" pictures around 1928 to 1939 around 70 pictures in that time frame. But he persevered until he got his big break, and that almost didn't happen when WWII broke out.

I'd like to hear productive comments about your opinion of John Wayne's acting ability. Wheather or not you think of him as an actor, what are your comments about that. What picture do you think was his best performance as an actor, and what do you think made him into a legend?

We have a lot to talk about, but name calling will not be tolerated. Agree or disagree, but stay with the topic.

I think we can all agree that John Wayne stood as a legend. And he was one of the greatest people who stood up for all people.

Cheers, Hondo B)

There has been some debate as to whether John Wayne was a good actor or just John Wayne in his portrayals in movies.

A wise person once said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." I think this pretty well explains the popularity of actors in the movie business. John Wayne definitely had a large following for many years running, and continues to be popular almost 25 years after his death. An awful lot of people spent an awful lot of money going to his movies, and still spend money acquiring his films on VHS and DVD. If he wasn't a good actor, this wouldn't be happening.

In all the different roles that he played, he was believable (well, maybe except for Genghis Kahn); he was believable as a soldier, he was believable as a cowboy, he was believable as an airplane pilot or a retired prizefighter. He wasn't all those things, so maybe he was a good actor. Or maybe he was believable in all those roles because there was an underlying personality or character, someone who was principled, just as the man John Wayne was, and maybe that's what we all loved. I personally feel he was chiseled out of 4 or 5 Oscars that he should have won. I suspect the politically motivated folks that prevented him from winning this honor are probably surprised and dismayed that he still commands such an audience, world wide, to this day.

Then there are those who criticize his B movies from the thirties. That's pretty easy to do, especially when comparing them to the technology that is part of the industry today. Yeah, they are pretty hokey in comparison, but the movie industry was still in its youth then; they were breaking ground for what was to come later. That is not a fair comparison, really. And as hokey as they are, I still enjoy them for what they are, over and over again (especially if they are colorized :D ).

Just my two cent's worth,

Chester :newyear:

"Do you think you're a good actor?"
"Yes... I mean... 50 years! I must have learned SOMETHING."

Unquote: John Wayne in his very last interview (with Barbara Walters). Still thinking, still unsure about his acting ability. But at least answering "Yes". I'd say he was a modest man. Maybe too modest. He often said: "I don't act. I re-act". He lived to regret that quote. In fact, years later he added: "What I SHOULD have said is that it's one hell of a job to do!"

Re-Acting - that means, not acting at all, react, even improvise. He was a great reacter. Famous director Hawks said for him that he was underrated a great deal. In "Hatari" they could not write dialogue in advance for game catching. Wayne just went in and improvised. He was a natural. In that, most everybody agreed.

But WHAT THEN is great acting???

John Wayne never could have played HAMLET, that essential part that measures all "great actors". But Laurence Olivier never could have played Rooster or Ethan.
Why? Every actor has his own range. Personally, I believe Gary Cooper had a wider range than Wayne. McQueen for one was somebody who knew very well about his range (and was frightend): "I have a very limited range of characters I can play... so I must choose very careful." He did indeed choose careful. And played characters that fit his pistol.

A great star is not always also a great actor. For that, we must define first what an actor is. We probably all agree that the caliber of DeNiro or Brando - the Method Actors who actually change personality when preparing and playing a part - are considered "great actors". But these actors NEED great material. Imagine DeNiro - or any other Method Actor - in one of the blankest parts Wayne ever played, even the name of the character was borrowed from another film: Lane. Just plain Lane, not even a first name given: in The Train Robbers. A film that just used Wayne for what he was able to portray without character development in the script. Without great lines. Without great support. Wayne could pull it off. A method actor would have been a babe in the woods.

So a STAR ist not always what we generally consider to be A GREAT ACTOR. (and vice versa!)

But what is Star-quality? All the great stars have always been accused of not being good actors. BOGART - he more or less played the same tough guy, no matter what the plot. The same goes for Gable. Gary Crant - he made a certain part and image his own - and played it from then on. McQueen: the rebel. Mitchum: the self-assured brawler. And Monroe? Accusing her that she always played the same drove her mad. She took acting lessons when she already was a star, became insecure, etc. etc.
The great American Star brings his own to his part, no matter what the role. Actors come an go. But only the stars could endure decade after decade. Because the audience wanted to see just that. Luckily, Wayne found out very early. When he was still experimenting, when he was still hungry to test himself as an actor, in the early Forties which resulted in some films that even his fans don't care about today, he took the advise of his mentor's wife, Ollie Carey (they were working on Shepherd of the Hills then): "The American public wants to see you in a certain part."

Normally, the actors would get the prizes, the oscars. The stars would get one if they would - just once - step out of character, do something a little different. Wayne as Rooster. Bogart as Charlie Alnutt (nomen est omen: Rooster! All nut!) McQueen was nominated just once, playing a soft-hearted mechanic instead of the cool guys he normally portrayed. Grant never got one. Yet these are the names that dominated the box-office.

Did John Wayne always play himself? To believe that, you would have to believe that the man on the screen was the man in private life. His son Michael said: "He wasn't a cowboy. He wasn't a sheriff." But he had in private those qualities that we came to believe cowboys or sheriffs should have. He had sincerity. "And I've been selling the hell out of that ever since I got here."

So, in closing, I'd like to say: Wayne had charisma. Wayne knew about acting. And he knew what part would work for him. Only seldom did he forget but even then we can see why he choose to do it: the first US ambassador in Japan. Or that gunslinger and outlaw of the East, The Khan.

Probably Germany's most noted film historian, Joe Hembus, said: "It's true he always played John Wayne. But it's also true that this was a very difficult part to play." He invented this image himself. If you watch him in his first part as Breck Coleman and then watch J.B. Books you see what he did as an actor along this Big Trail.

Nobody walks down a dusty western street like John T. Chance.

I don't have as much time to spend on this as I'd like. Maybe I'll come back to it at another time.

But for my money, John Wayne was a good actor. The thing is this, though: he didn't even really need to be a good actor. He just was, and that was enough.

Originally posted by A Girl Named Jen@Feb 19 2004, 09:17 AM
He just was, and that was enough.
Amen, Jen. As our Saskatchewan friend said in another thread, he didn't need to act - he just had to be himself for people to be drawn to him.

I won't participate in this discussion. As the Man himself might have said, "I've said my piece".

John Wayne played the parts that many American boys wanted to play. The soldier, the cowboy, the fighter, the person who wouldn't put up with anything. American girls loved his spirit, his charm, his height, and his of getting the point across. That is what John Wayne is. And he now has crossed all over the world to many who view America, and include the personality of John Wayne.

He had big shoes to fill. Very big shoes. He didn't play Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Fred Astaire, Clark Gable or Henry Fonda. He played a part of the America he was proud of. And that is what he did. He played John Wayne, and he lived for it as well. He became more and more comfortable in front of the camera as time went on. He tried to expand in his abilities, but always came back to where the audience wanted to see him. On a horse or in a war field fighting the fights worth fighting, either for the girl, a community, or just self respect. No one can argue that. We all want that for the betterment of out world.

Since Duke left us almost 25 years ago, it's been hard to get a clear direction in life, but since the take home movies appeared, Duke has given us a way to go and fight for what we believe today. The war is the same, just different characters. Duke knew that our heritage is important. That's why he did the things he did. And I am thankful for that.

Now if you want to know in my opinion who the greatest actor of all time. I will tell you, and I mean it! John Wayne is the greatest actor of all time. He has changed public opinion, and has us fighting for what's right in this country and the world. There is good among all the evil and you have to get tough with it to defeat it. Duke has showed that in life and his movies. That is a mark of a great actor. Even movies of today still refer to a John Wayne movie. It may be negative or positive, but it's there for the masses to judge. Sorry, I don't hear movies refer to Henry Fonda, Clark Gable, Jimmy Stewart, Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant or Fred Astaire.

John Wayne; There's Something About That Name

Cheers, Hondo B)

Originally posted by itdo@Feb 19 2004, 05:13 AM
But WHAT THEN is great acting???

John Wayne never could have played HAMLET, that essential part that measures all "great actors". But Laurence Olivier never could have played Rooster or Ethan.


Of course you are probably right and I would agree with this statement however when Duke was at school he was president of the Shakespeare club which would have meant that he has at least attempted it, it would be interesting to find any old school reports on this issue.

:agent:

Yes, I AM probably right with that statement, Robbie. Hamlet just wasn't John Wayne's cup of tea! Robin William's impersonification in Dead Poet's Society - doing JW as Hamlet with a western drawl - could be accurate. I DON'T want to talk about where he COULD have been good. He just spent 50 years defining his range, that should say something about what he knew himself as an actor.
I'd like to discuss important scenes, how he tackled them, where he failed, and where he was at the peak of his profession. Again we're talking about the American symbol he has become (I don't think that was his intention when he started out as an actor, he became aware of that in the Forties, when propaganda became important in movies). Symbols have nothing to do with acting abilities.

Maybe I should have added that not being an American, I could always look at that from a completely objective point of view. After 25 years of collecting and studying that body of work, I feel I have no problems to make a distinction between his good and bad acting and don't have to defend my hero against anybody who just says he "always played himself".
Stumpy, don't shy away from it now. I really figgered this could be interesting.

Roland, you mention how not being an American helps you to be more objective about Duke. I think I have some of that objectivity too. I am an American but as a female I think I have a different take on Duke's mystique than the fellows do. I know he's an icon and a hero but I also know he was just another human being. What I mean is that I don't look up to him or want to be like him in the way that some of the others around here clearly do. I just appreciate his craft and everything that he brought to his films. That's not to say that I find any fault in people looking up to him, naturally.

Anyway, I too would like to talk about specific scenes. That could make for a fun and enlightening discussion.

This is a silly question. If someone has a 50 year career, in any field, ending up at the top it and is still considered the mark to aim for over 20 years after his death; would you ask if he was any good at it?

lonewadhi,

Welcome to the site!! I hope you bookmark us and keep coming back!

This is a silly question. If someone has a 50 year career, in any field, ending up at the top it and is still considered the mark to aim for over 20 years after his death; would you ask if he was any good at it?

It's not a silly question. IMHO, it's hard to dispute his abilities when he is still in the Harris poll's top 10 favorite stars 22 years after his death.

The Duke was doing something right!!

Kevin

lonewadhi,

Let me add my welcome to that of others! Glad to have you here on the John Wayne message board, the best of it's kind on the 'Net!

Happy reading, and we hope you'll be back again and again!

Chester :newyear: and the Mrs. :angel1:

lonewadhi,

Welcome to the greatest message board in the world that talks about one great American, John Wayne. I tend to agree with you, but you must admit that Duke is often criticized for not being able to act, but according to AFI's greatest actors of all time, John Wayne was voted #13 of the best actor's of all time. Of course they say that the critical is not accurate. The requirements are you must have been in a movie before 1950, or have died when this poll came out. The critics say that eliminates the greatest actors like Kevin Costner, Jim Carey, Sean Penn, Keanu Reeves, Ben Affack and of course who can forget Steve Martin.

I mean these guys can act circles around the likes of John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, James Cagney or Clark Gable. I guess we need these guys if we are going to poke fun, because they didn't know what they were doing. Just ask Costner.

Welcome to the board, lonewadhi.

Cheers, Hondo B)

Ah Jimmy Stewart, now there was a great man too. He was not a John Wayne , but a great actor and person as I know it. I've haven't had much success finding info about him on the web either.
I remember seeing him on the Johnny Carson show one night, he was reading a poem he wrote. He was older then, he was talking even slower than he normally did. I don't remember what the poem was about, but he started tearing up as he read it. I've always heard he was a very nice person. If I remember right he was a pilot in WW II .

I consider John Wayne to be a Great Actor myself. I don't think he could fit into every kind of role there is in the movies, but very few actors can do comedy. drama and action type movies well. I've seen good actors in bad roles and bad actors in good roles. For me what makes a good acting job is when you totaly believe the actor is the character he is playing, and Wayne has done that many times over. I've seen many list's here in the forums about movies he shouldn't have done, perhaps most agreed upon was "The Barbarian and the Geisha". Not so bad a movie, but not an exciting story and NOT the John Wayne we all want to see. That character didn't fit very well into John's abilities, but there has been NONE better at being a Cowboy than he.
There are actors that can do multiple roles pretty darn well, and there's John Wayne that took being a Cowboy or Soldier to a whole new level ! No other Actor has or ever will be a better Cowboy than him in my opinion.
He was totaly believable as a hero and tough guy. So I don't really understand how anyone can say he was a bad actor. Some may not like his movies, but he cannot be denied his acting abilities.

I am Clint Eastwood fan also. I like his cowboy movies and dirty harry movies, but not much else he has made. He was great at being a tuff guy, but not much else. But I also see alot of difference in the cowboy he was verses John Wayne as a cowboy. Eastwood was mainly a tuff guy , usually not much depth to his characters. I enjoyed his movies , but didnt look up to him or want to be like him.
Now John Wayne as a Cowboy really had a lot of depth, he was MUCH more than a tough guy. He would always tell us where he stood on things, he always portrayed a man of CHARACTER as well as being tuff as nails, someone that I could look up to and have respect for when I was kid. Not just a cold blooded killer, he was a defender of JUSTICE, of the American Way.

Originally posted by Hondo Duke Lane@Feb 22 2004, 11:16 PM
I mean these guys can act circles around the likes of John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, James Cagney or Clark Gable.* I guess we need these guys if we are going to poke fun, because they didn't know what they were doing.* Just ask Costner.
Hondo,

I assume your remarks are made with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

:headbonk:

At what point will they change their requirements, do you suppose? I think there are some good actors out there (Tom Hanks comes to mind), who are up there with those from the golden age of Hollywood.

Chester :newyear:

Sorry,

I'm just tired of hearing these people think acting didn't come into being until the 1980's. I guess hearing Costner put down the classic westerns ticked me off, and I express my anger by giving us great examples of actors of today.

I know there are good ones out there, and I like Tom Hanks, Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Kevin Klein, and others that I can't think of at the moment (it's late). I'm not sure when the requirements will change, or if they will list a second top 100 actor's and actress's from AFI's list. There are quiet a few that should be considered, but to cut down, the best, well I will take no prisoners, they are not worth the spit on Duke's boots.

Maybe I am carrying this a little far, but why attack those who can not defend themselves because of death. If they have so much courage, why don't they go after today's actors?

I know that you might like some of those people I listed, and they really didn't do anything to harm, the reputation of the great ones of the past, but you can't tell me that today's actor are anything like those of the past, and attacking Duke and the western gerne just gets to me.

Cheers, Hondo B)

OK, let's see if we can drag this topic in line again.

JOHN WAYNE - WAS HE A GOOD ACTOR?
That's got nothing to do with him becoming a big box-office draw, a national symbol, a western icon, etc. This is simply a discussion about acting abilities.
To make it even more simple:

An UFO lands in 1951. Aliens go to the movies. At this time THE WILD ONE with Marlon Brando and THE QUIET MAN (with guess-who?) are shown. They watch them both. Now those Aliens know noting about Wayne's B-movie-days, know nothing about him being Republican, haven't seen The Green Berets. They just see an actor, playing a straight role as everybody else in this movie is obviously having a very good time, over-acting (even Maureen O'Hara is allowed some broad scenes). Everybody is blessed with a great character-part that allows him or her to spell out in dialouge what bothers him/her. Wayne acts with very few lines given to him, his face showing the agony of the kill in the ring and the hope for a better life. Wayne is a natural actor. He just steps into his role, and with John Ford's print-the-first-take-method he probably was very spontaneous. He is re-acting in several scenes, being passiv, answering not asking, not acting at all it seems, just standing there, doing nothing, like a rock when confronted by bully Will Danaher. I'd say that's oscar caliber.

Now in the case of Brando those Aliens do not know that he's the hottest actor around, the toast of Broadway, coming to Tinseltown to show what acting means these days: method acting. Becoming the character he plays, a ruthless youngster who eventually is held for murder. One of the angry young men of the early Fifties. They do not know that in time Brando will lead the way for others like James Dean, that this performance breaks new ground. But they also don't know that in time he will become a complete prick, grow fat and bald, delivers lots of stinkers and that he refuses to come get his oscar.

As the Aliens re-enter their ship, they talk about the actors they saw. How will they compare Brando and Wayne on an acting scale? "Johnny", the rebel on a bike, played by a METHOD ACTOR who probably lived with a gang of bike-riders to get the right feeling for it, and "Sean Thornton", the ex-boxer in Ireland, played by A NATURAL who probably didn't do much research at all to play a boxer or a farmer.

Silly question? Go ahead and try to answer it.

:headbonk:

John Wayne the star, the patriot, the hero, the great man, the upholder of humane ideals, all things associated with the Duke however rarely is he considered an actor and even more rarely is he considered a great actor.

To consider John Wayne a great actor cynics would claim you were naive, stupid, lying or blinded by your admiration for the man but rarely would people say you are correct. A common thing people point out about the Duke is his so called limited range. Are these critics blinded as to some of his movies what about the diversity between a racist man driven by impure motives to a man with respect for others teaching a young band of boys how to be men. The differentiation between a passive retired boxer whom avoids confrontation to that of a ruthless cattle baron whom will stop at nothing to get his cattle to market. A naive kid whom hunts the men responsible for the death of family members to that of a man dieing of cancer whom is knowledgeable and smart but unable to adapt to a modern society. John Wayne did have a range a significant range it may not have been the widest range ever but it was very substantial and more than most others had or have. Via these characters and many others John Wayne successfully translated to the screen characters whom had different motives, who acted differently some were pillars of the community, some were outlaws some were anti-heroes all these characters required a substantial change of acting styles in order to successfully play them which John Wayne was able to apply and implement very successfully.
I know what your thinking Roland this doesn’t answer your question but it does illustrate the fact that John Wayne was able to portray different characters successfully, just because many of them were cowboys doesn’t mean they were the same characters that is an important point to remember.

Now onto these UFO's landing in 1951 I presume they are futuristic Aliens as they were able to watch 'The Quiet Man' in 1951 when it wasn’t released until 1952 :D (I know that I am going to be got back for that one.)

Criticism has again fallen on Duke because of his own claim that he is a 'reactor' well all I can say to this is I'm glad he was. Reacting is mainly what everything in acting and life in general is about, this post of mine is a reaction to Roland’s question, Jimmy Stewart contemplating suicide in 'Its a wonderful Life' is a 'reaction' to events that happened earlier if an actor cannot react then they are not an actor as everything a person does on-screen is a reaction to an event that has happened earlier.
Within 'The Quiet Man' there are scenes in which Dukes acting simply shines, when he and Maureen are gazing into the fire look into his eyes one can see that this is a man uncomfortable whom knows his marriage is in trouble and who also is guilt ridden because of an accidental death of another man. Here duke’s silent acting power is astonishing in that we can see and realise all these emotions but yet not a word is said from the big man. Earlier in the movie Duke is sitting on a bridge (I was there and it is as beautiful now as it ever was) looking over at an old cottage look into his eyes now as the voiceover is speaking and one can see the look of reflection of happiness as he remembers happy days of the past. Now from these two scenes the viewer (simply by Dukes acting and via no words being spoken) can understand what duke is feeling and on the two occasions it is something completely different how many actors can portray this. Now how good is he at delivering dialogue while acting at the same time you might ask well the answer is he's awesome. Remember the highly charged scene when Maureen locks him out of their bedroom he kicks open the door delivers the dialogue and throws her on the bed. His eyes at this stage are mad, his delivery of the dialogue is classic + very powerful and his actions are perfect. In a later scene and one that 'Araner' picked up on in an earlier post when Duke gives Maureen a little flower, 'She says it is a pretty cottage isn’t it' Duke softly replies 'I think so' his eyes look so relaxed and in line with the entire scene. There are many other scenes of great acting within the Quiet Man but I think the ones above are undisputedly superb.

People who criticise Duke and his acting always litter their comments with contradictions e.g. he always plays himself in his movies while on the other hand they claim that the John Wayne we see on screen is nothing like the John Wayne off-screen. It is extremely unfair to simply say he was an natural actor, I feel it is not so much natural as so good is looks natural and if Dukes looks natural on-screen as he often did then he is part of the way there to successfully playing the character thus he is portraying good acting skills.

Duke is a very skilled and accomplished actor, who played a significant variety of roles. (how come Morgan Freeman the great actor that he is never gets criticised for playing the same role?) The fact that John Wayne was able to act via his eyes, his delivery of lines as well as his actions is truly unique. Here is one example of many possible examples when these three powerful attributes came together in perfect harmony in 'She Wore A Yellow Ribbon' duke is about to retire when his men hand him his watch.

1. His actions - he removes the spectacles from his pocket and puts them on and holds up the watch so he can read the inscription.

2. He reads the inscription his voice breaking with heartache'

3. His eyes are in such sentimental pain and close to tears.

4. He takes of his spectacles again and places them into his pocket.

This is such a well acted scene so poignant and we the viewer feel some of Dukes pain as he retires from the army something which he doesn't want to do as he has always been in the army and loved it.

In my opinion John Wayne is not just an actor and a very good actor but he is one of the best to ever grace the silver screen.

I also feel these aliens will have good things to say about Mr. Wayne.

I submit my post to you all and anticipate it being completely torn apart by views to the contrary. ;)

:agent:

I'm not going to spend as much time as Robbie did, but I will say that you have to like the character or hate the character to enjoy the type movie. If that is what the actor accomplishes, then he fulfilled his goal as an actor. I personally do not like Brando at all, and have never watched all of any of his movies, including The Wild Ones or The Godfather series, so I don't think I could conclude an answer you want, but I understand what you are getting at. What makes John Wayne an actor is the fact that his character is believable. He wants you to pull for him or hope he gets his due. Duke did that in his movies. In 3 Godfathers, you kinda hate Duke's character for what he did by robbing a bank, but as the character developed, and was put through a different circumstance having to take care of an infant, you begin to pull for him, and hope he gets to safety with the baby. You are feeling his pain when he sees his partners die on the desert. But you are still pulling for Duke's character as he pushes on to get that baby to where it is safe. You want his character to be acquitted for the crime he committed. You want him to get that baby and live happily ever after.

This was accomplished by John Wayne, and that is what makes him an actor. He didn't over do it, he play a real man.

Cheers, Hondo B)

Originally posted by itdo@Feb 23 2004, 09:21 AM
An UFO lands in 1951. Aliens go to the movies. At this time THE WILD ONE with Marlon Brando and THE QUIET MAN (with guess-who?) are shown.
First of all, an awful lot of the aliens' opinions would depend on what planet they come from. If they were from Venus, I suspect they would admire the strong individual in The Quiet Man, who's basically a good guy. Venutians are generally very individualistic and conservative in their outlook on things, and appreciate individuals who have those strong traits. The Venutians would appreciate the goodness of the character that John Wayne portrays :rolleyes: .

Now if these aliens were from the planet Mars, the Red planet, they generally do not admire anyone or anything that tends to have an individualistic outlook on life. To them, John Wayne would be the antithesis of what they would appreciate in a movie star. Marlon Brandon would be much closer to their collectivist "cup of tea."

What I am trying to say here is that to people who value the individualistic outlook, John Wayne was a great actor, and they like him. To Commies, Leftists, and Socialists who believe that collective good is great, John Wayne is an enemy, and of course they don't think he can act worth a dime, and they hate him :angry: !

Seriously, given your examples, and being completely objective, both men are good actors. Different styles, but apparently both good. Personally, I am with Hondo in that I don't really care for Marlon Brando (or is it that I don't care for the characters he plays, and his persona off screen isn't too appealing, either?).

Chester :newyear:

B) Loooong posts, worthwile reading, thank you! And keep them coming. I totally agree with Robbie about Wayne's "silent" acting in scenes where he communicates simply with his eyes (the fireplace scene in Quiet Man), which is the highest achievment in acting. Doing nothing really - no acting is visible - but transporting the inner feelings through the windows of the soul.

Some of Wayne's strongest moments in films came in situations like that: The eyes of Tom Dunson, looking back on the treck when he knows Fen got killed. The eyes of Ethan Edwards, looking out on the desert land when he knows Martha could be killed. The eyes of Vandervoodt, seeing his boys hanging dead from their own parachutes. (I could include the same moment from Cast A Giant Shadow, but I think the Zoom overdid the acting).
Moments without dialogue for an actor to work with. No "to be or not to be" to deliver, to hold on. Yes, he WAS pretty good, wasn't he?

I just wanted to echo Roland's sentiments in that Robbie pointed out some amazing scenes where JW doesn't need to say a word. The fact that we can feel the depth and complexity of his emotions simply by looking at his face astounds me. This puts him on par with the greats, IMO: Bogart, Stewart, Tracy.

Hi Roland

Those three examples you give would be the definition of the word actor and it would be almost impossible to name a better piece of acting by anyone.

In some of Dukes lesser performance well when I say lesser I mean acting performances in which he does nothing special one can still see his gift. Take for example the great movie 'Big Jake', when Duke first sees his grandson look at the sentiment in his eyes and then the complete change when his eyes become disgusted with the company and what could happen and the viewer can see that within his eyes he is planning something, all in one scene without a camera cut back even Richard Boone states 'I saw a look in your eyes I don't like, I saw a foolish thought', great stuff.

Eyes are crucial to acting as this is where real emotions come from but its hard to know how he ever reached the depth of acting which he did in 'Red River'. At the start his eyes are relaxed and calm and the viewer can identify he is more or less the good guy but at the film progresses his eyes get darker and meaner looking and with this comes the meaner actions that Dunson performs. If this is not acting of the highest calibre what on earth is. Along with Duke being able to project his inner emotions via his eyes his delivery of dialogue is truly amazing. The emotions coming from him when he lays into Harry Carrey in the 'Draw you a picture scene' in 'The Searchers' the emotions coming from him there via eyes and voice are a significant contrast to just prior as the viewer and Harry are told what happened to Lucy his voice is choking and his eyes hurting.

The delivery of 'I'm gonna kill you Matt' line in 'Red River' is delivered powerfully yet quietly and and his eyes look blank.

And what about in the Shootist when he tell Mrs. Rodgers he has cancer his eyes are sad and the delivery of the dialogue sounds like the man is consigned to his fate.

I really don't know what other so called great actors had that Duke didn't all I can say is he could be a very deep actor displaying a range of emotions powerfully more so than Brando I feel although thats just my opinion, I can seriously say that Duke was in the top five bracket of greatest actors of all time, I really don't know what else I can say to prove this point, I hope this answers your question Roland.

:agent:

Robbie,

That's a good point about Duke and the eyes. He has that persona that seems to come natural. Even in real life he has that look in his eyes that gives him the passion that I've never seen in any one. I look at your avatars, and signatures, and look at John Wayne and see those eyes that tell a story.

That was good, I knew there was something and you pointed out something I've never thought of before.

Cheers, Hondo B)

To conclude the comparing JW/Brando, let me add this:

Brando is quoted of having said about his profession, when asked what an actor is:
"I make faces".
True enough. He re-arranges his expression as a method-actor with every new role.
Wayne, on the other hand, said about his acting: "I don't act, I re-act." In his long Playboy-interview (which is well worth reading) he reveals some of his techniques. He talks about the "trick" in his speech - stopping in mid-sentence. But apart from that, he said, "I don't have many tricks."

JW never "made faces". In fact, except for some broad humor scenes, he never over-acted. He was a natural. He felt the emotions of a scene.

I think it diminishes this ability by stating (and that's a statement we hear on this board, too) that he was on screen exactly what he was off-screen. Meaning: He played himself. I don't think so. He certainly had in private life the qualities of the men he often portrayed: honest, brave, strong. But saying that he was just the same would mean that he just stood in front of a camera, doing nothin. Well, he sure didn't.

Hi

I have just spent the last few minutes reading the various posts. The long discussions are very pointed,and full of insights into the aspects of a man who grew up to be a legend in both his own lifetime and long after his death. I think that is the worth of a man how he is remembered by the world. if you set your parameters for example BC (Before Cinema) and TD (Todays Date) the list of truly GREAT actors would I think, not take up much room. Personalities probably more so. Richard Burton would look out of place as Rooster Cogburn, but then so would John Wayne as Jimmy Porter as you have rightly pointed out with Olivier.

However if you ignore the western genre and come back to modern (20th Century stories) or even 19th Century sea faring tales then John Wayne coul probably have competed with the best of them.
Gregory Peck as a demented Ahab in Moby Dick is more of a martinet than Captain Ralls in Wake of the Red Witch but Wayne I would argue comes across better. Playing second lead to Ray Milland in Reap the Wild Wind it is still remembered as a John Wayne picture rather than Milland's.

In two incidencies certain films have been pointed out and the Quiet Man has been qquoted quite often. Along with The Barbarian and the Geisha, The Quiet Man was a film that at the earliest stages appeared most unhappy with and completely lost in. He could not understand what Ford was doing and he did not understand his role in the picture. His unease was not helped by a scene later cut out where he was supposed to burn his boxing gloves in the fire. It was not until the scene where he says there will be no locked doors in this house Mary Kate, that he sought confirmation of his role from Ford and said that if he were a proper man he would kicke the door open, and Ford obviously sensing Wayne's fraustration said "that's right John kick the F****** door door.
With the Barbarian and the Geisha he was neither at home with the plot or the director and not a lot would have saved the film.

The point I guess I am trying to make is that if you have faith in the director and if you can turn a film that you are carrying into an oscar winning picture, and if we take Dukes politics as a reason why he never made the nominations let alone the winners podium, then it must say something about your ability.

Taking your point about the aliens and Marlon Brando and John Wayne. even today comparisons are still being made.

One of which is you are in the middle of a lake drowning. On one bank stands John Wayne, and on the other side of the bank stands Dustin Hoffman, ho would you rely on to save your life.


Regards

Arthur

Well, Dustin can hold his breath very long, as demonstrated in THE GRADUATE. ;)

New Acting Question.
So it's Oscar night, 1970.
And nominated for Best Actor are...

DUSTIN HOFMANN! If that Graduate wouldn't have been his first movie, they would have given him the oscar right then. He's got a death scene in this one, truly magnificent acting job in MIDNIGHT COWBOY.

Same goes for his co-star JON VOIGHT. Another member of the so-called NEW HOLLYWOOD, and a very popular one with his peers. He will get nominated a couple of times more, finally winning in the year JW makes his final appearence, 1979.

PETER O'TOOLE: If LAWRENCE wouldn't have been almost his first starring role, they should've, would've given him that statuette back then - still one of the most outstanding performances in motion picture history. Academy's waiting to make up for that mistake ever since. With GOOD-BYE MISTER CHIPS, here's the chance to do it.

RICHARD BURTON - he was nominated eight times (as far as I recall), never won. It would be about time to give him one. He represents the great stage actors who discovered that screen work pays better (Burton in his biography states that he never saw True Grit but that he was told Wayne just walked through, and he believed it to be true - as always).

And that old saddle-tramp himself, last time he was nominated was almost 10 years ago, as a producer of that ultra-patriotic Alamo-picture. Last time nominated as an actor: 20 years ago.

Tough competition!

Here's the question:
Of course one could argue they gave him the oscar because it was overdue.
But WHY did Rooster outshine those other great performances? What do YOU think?

Let me rephrase that:
If YOU would have been a voting Academy member in 1970 (and let's say you're not a Wayne-fan per se) how would you have made up your mind on WHO DID THE BEST ACTING JOB?

Hi Roland,

Just to stir the pot and being an anglophile.

Burton and O'Toole wouldn't have got a look in because they we Brits and at that time we only occasionally won Oscars and two on the same bill would have blown the average American mind.

Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight - Midnight Cowboy 1970 just coming out of Flower power and a controversial subject.

Has to be Duke he was safe, and as you say the others turn would come.

Incidentally I believe O'Toole was up for an honourary award this year and has told them to poke it.

Regards

Arthur

Given acting ability listed above. I haven't seen all the movies that these actors were in. My problem with the academy awards is they are political. Duke may have been award that oscar for his life achievement, and I won't argue that point, but he was turned away for great performances due to political differences. Not a fair system, and I still see that today.

They are not awarded for their performance in the movie they were nominated in, but for their achievement in their careers. Example is Sean Penn will more than likely get the award for his performance in this year's awards; I haven't seen the movie or even know the title, but according to some out there, he is due. Bill Murrary's performance in his movie might give him the award. Occasionally there is a surprise winner, but not always.

John Wayne, in my opinion had better films, but he was awarded for True Grit. Is he a better actor than the others, I can't say, but I know he delivered a great performance as Rooster Cogburn, and no one and I mean no one could do the job that Duke did in that movie.

Cheers, Hondo B)

Originally posted by Hondo Duke Lane@Feb 25 2004, 03:39 PM
I know he delivered a great performance as Rooster Cogburn, and no one and I mean no one could do the job that Duke did in that movie.


I couldn't agree more, Hondo.

I also agree with the premise that politics plays a large role in those awards.

I said this in another thread but it bears repeating. I personally think that by now, Paul Newman should have won at least seven or eight Oscars for best actor. Beginning with "The Hustler" through "Hud", "Cool Hand Luke", "The Sting", "Absence of Malice", "The Verdict" and "Nobody's Fool". There are two or three other Newman movies that rank among my personal favorites, but were perhaps not good enough to win the Oscar, such as "Butch Cassidy", "Sometimes a Great Notion" and "The Towering Inferno".

Stumpy, I agree with you that Paul Newman is another amazing talent. I think what is somewhat unfortunate in his case is that he is so unbelievably good-looking it almost distracts from his talent.

Yes, Peter O'Toole turned down his honorary Oscar. Good for him, I say... It's just their way of trying to make up for not having given him one when he was deserving of it, for playing Lawrence of Arabia.

Stumps

Yip Newman is brilliant and Duke himself said that he was one of the best actors around, you named a considerable number of movies to which you claim he should have won an oscar for well Duke has an equally impressive list that he should have won an oscar for.

1. The Shootist
2. Red River
3. The Searchers
4. She Wore A Yellow Ribbon(Duke wanted this movie nominated instead of 'Sands of Iwo Jima')
5. The Cowboys
6. The Quiet Man
7. Winds from the Wasteland

Only joking on the last one but the others deserved at least an oscar nomination, it is very ironic that his skill was acting via his eyes but in 'True Grit' one of his eyes is covered so we dont get to see the full force of his acting. This movie should not have garnered him an oscar as it was not his best performance it was a very good performance however that only he could have displayed.

:agent:

Hey Jen, you must've fallen asleep at last year's oscars! OF COURSE Peter O'Toole came out to get his honorary Oscar! There was talk about him not wanting it - yet -because he still thinks he can get a "real" one, one of these days.
The Brits better get them when they're offered one or maybe they go home empty-handed :P Think about HITCH or CARY GRANT.

Back to topic: JW's oscar-winning Rooster. I believe the night scene with Kim Darby (she'll attend a western convention soon, just forgot which one, but pretty soon in the US) on top of the hill, the night before Ned Pepper arrives, is one of the best bits of acting he ever did. He knew so, too. It was then that it became to dawn on him and the crew that there might be an oscar in it this time (applause after he finished the take). They way he (ROOSTER, not John Wayne) tells about his life, tells about what's wrong with the west, admits that he acted like a criminal... that's 40 years of training to "just be", don't act. Wonderful.

Oops... actually I didn't watch the Oscars last year, Roland. Some years I don't bother to tune in.

I feel reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllly stupid now. :rolleyes: I thought he had pulled a Brando.

Only I agree with you that in Brando's case he SHOULD have accepted it.

Hey, I wanted to add this good acting moment that someone else told me about on another message board. And I quote:

"I'm not usually a big John Wayne fan, but there's a scene in "The Longest Day" (about D-Day during WWII) where his character looks up to see all the dead paratroopers who had the misfortune to land in the middle of a German-occupied town, and the expression on his face says it all."

Duke's last performance in a black and white film, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance had a lot of classic acting with Jimmy Stewart. I really liked the scene where he stood up to Valance when his food was drop, and made him pick it up. He showed determination in his expressions, and delivered a line that is a classic. I can't help say that he could interact with such great ones like Stewart, Lee Marvin and Vera Miles.

Duke is one who can perform with the best and be the best. What a great performance.

Cheers, Hondo B)

Aliens and Oscars???....Wow you guys are getting out there. John Wayne's long list of films and tv appearances show that his Star status and acting abilities were second to none. He could play almost any roll with conviction (I said almost). He proved to the world that winning an Oscar didn't make you a star and he never let the Hollywood politcs change his ideals or his convictions. What other actor that has been dead for 25 years can draw as much intrest as the Big Guy does. I've said before that Wayne was a natural actor. He played for the simple man. I glad he never played Shakespeare because frankly it SUCKS. That comes from a simple man with simple tastse. John Wayne has usually satisfied my hunger for entertainment. Why else would I (we) watch his movies over and over. The man could ACT. Just go on E-BAY and pick any famous movie star living or dead and see how many videos or dvd's are on sale. The Duke will top the list. Not bad for a man who been dead for 25 years. It is also nice to see that some of our members are the younger generation. Obviosly the actors of the day aren't filling their needs either and it is GREAT to see them putting a bit of Duke in their lives too. My hat goes off to the younger people. Wayne was always like the older brother we never had or the favorite uncle who when we needed him came to bail us out. I think this is what endears him to most fans because you could always depend on him. Solid as a rock, our island in a stormy sea. Semper Fi, Do or Die. yes there are other actors that had greater performances and took the Oscars home in buckets but they still don't have the appeal or longevity that the Duke still has. Could he act??? If he couldn't we wouldn't be here discussing this right now. ( Thats more than I've said in all the time you've known me. Bruce Cabot...Big Jake) ....SaddleTramp...

Hey SaddleTramp, thanks for joining the discussion.
I think there probably isn't anyone on the board that would disagree that the man COULD act. And that's excactly the point: If he COULD act, there also is an acting technique. That's to explore. And it's not as easy as one might think from a first impression. With DeNiro, you SEE a man ACT. With Wayne (or with Cooper who was envied for making it look so effortlessy by his peers) it's different: you don't necessarily see it. Rather it's a feeling that comes out of the character. So I tried to approach this from another side (ergo: Aliens and Academy voters): try to compare and judge by other acting techniques.
I once had the oppurtunity to ask Harrison Ford (another one who's blamed for "always playing the same part - himself) about acting. He said:
"I don't use a technique. When I see somebody pulling a gun and holding it to my child's head, I try to just react to that." (that was on the occasion of Air Force One). Interesting? A method actor would go and ask people traumatized by such on occasion, trying to learn how somebody who experienced that feels.

Hi -

Looks like I'm picking topics that haven't had any posts in a while. On the Duke's acting ability, I think he was just very natural and, above all, had a very unique screen presence. This is something that just IS. I have read a number of times that an actor won't make an impression on site for a screen test or what have you. But somehow, the camera picks up a certain unidentifiable something that contributes a special aura to the scene. As to what the Duke said about his reacting to others in a scene, that is very true. If you watch his expressions, his reactions are logical and add to the character he is portraying at the time.

All these things contribute to John Wayne being a great actor - Amen!

One more thing to note - I have not really seen anyone make a solid attempt to do a biopic on the Duke - I don't think anyone could really characterize him.

^_^