Acting for Two: Playing 'Doubles' Onscreen

There's often a very fine line between the similarities and distinctions not only the actor, but the script and direction, has to take with regards to cinematic instances of 'acting for two'. The thespian is effectively playing two completely distinctive persons, yet the whole way the film is structured must also allow for the similarities to seep through, lest the actor be accused of must doing two roles without mending any links in between, the auteur be accused of tonal indifference (which can sometimes happen when the 'twins' seem to be coming from entirely different genres), or the screenwriter lambasted for treating the two figures with unequal emphasis.

It can sometimes come across as quite gimmicky, then, to cast the same actor in two (and sometimes, more) roles with similar, and sometimes exactly the same, features. I've heard similar reservations expressed with casting actors to play multiple roles in entirely different styles and guises in the same film (see: Cloud Atlas, Kind Hearts and Coronets), and in the case of the former I can kind of see where they're coming from as the best performances in the film, by Ben Whishaw and Doona Bae, did have their strengths stem largely from the power of a singular character. But I digress; we're here to look at how onscreen twins, or 'doubles', have been portrayed over the course of cinematic history.

NOTE: I have not seen Tatsuya Nakadai in Kagemusha, which some would view as making this whole article null and entirely void. My apologies; I will definitely do so at some point as Nakadai is a great actor, and one of Japan's great cinematic national treasures.

There are also spoilers for a certain Christopher Nolan film ahead; read at your own risk...

Robert Donat in The Ghost Goes West

One of perhaps the earliest examples of an actor 'acting for two'. The incredibly underrated Donat stars  as both a down-on-his luck Scottish castle owner, and his ancestor, an 18th-Century nobleman who is haunted and haunts, by the tainting of his family name. It's a breezy, inconsequential little film that's nevertheless quite a bit of fun to watch, and though Donat struggles a bit with the accent at certain points, he's effortlessly charming and lovable as the standard love interest Donald, but really shines as the titular ghost, merging both the light and dark aspects of his screen persona into one very compelling spirit.

Elsa Lancaster in Bride of Frankenstein

Another interesting choice in that Lancaster plays both creator and creation; to be exact, in the opening scene of the film she plays Mary Shelley with a cool blend of mystique and intellect; I certainly could've gone for a lot more of her portrayal of Shelley, and can't help but think how good she would've been leading a Paul Muni-esque biopic of the author. The main meat of her performance though, comes as the titular Bride. Lancaster plays the role with  aplomb; never uttering a single word but through her incredible physical command, conveying the allure firstly to entice Boris Karloff's Creature, then the ghastly and heartbreaking rejection through her seething disgust and hatred.

Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator

Charlie Chaplin's always been a favourite of mine both as an auteur and actor. His whole style of performance is unimitable; no one can do what he does, as well as him, nor can they pinpoint exactly why it works so well. In 'The Great Dictator' he so seamlessly blends together comedy and pathos, slapstick and social commentary, largely due to his terrifically differentiated performance as the titular dictator, a Hitler parody who is stupendously entertaining with his gibberish German, and immaculately 'imposing' but hilarious physical comedy; and his quietly moving depiction of a downtrodden barber who finds, loses love but in the end, gains the will the stand up in defiance of tyranny. It's terrific work that finds such differences between the two figures, and yet giving them both such distinctly Chaplin-esque flavours.

Deborah Kerr in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp

Kerr's performance here is one I cannot praise enough. Three different character, three different stages of the lives of Roger Livesey's and Anton Walbrook's characters. Could've come across as a gimmicky motif, but Kerr finds such subtle differences between the three figures in terms of accent, posture, airs and somehow, managing to find in them all that same magnetic energy and presence that attracts our heroes to the fair dame. It's brilliant work that shows exactly why she became such a big star after this breakthrough performance.

Olivia de Havilland in The Dark Mirror

A flawed and not particularly well-made thriller, this is one of those films where the sub-par production is saved by the performances of its cast. Thomas Mitchell brings his usual gravitas to the role of the detective investigating a murder case, Lew Ayres bring his solid straight leading man credidentials to the proceedings, but this really is de Havilland's show. Playing both of a pair of very different sisters, one domineering and malevolent, the other soft-spoken and kindly, de Havilland pays such careful attention to the pitches of her voice, the way each sister moves her hands and body in accordance with their behaviours, showing audiences the promise she unleashed to its full potential in 'The Heiress' three years later.  Had she won her 1947 Oscar for this film instead of her uninteresting motherly performance in 'To Each His Own', I would perhaps be more forgiving of the Academy's failure to reward Celia Johnson.

Lee Marvin in Cat Ballou

I think, the first Academy Award given to an actor playing dual roles? The always solid Lee Marvin won a Best Actor gong for playing both Kid Shelleen, a drunkard cowboy, and his villanous brother Tim Strawn. Well, what can I say about this performance apart from it's a joy to watch. As Strawn Marvin is his usual menacing, imposing self, which contrasts hilariously with his bigger role as the lovable oaf Shelleen whose inebriated pratfalls are the stuff of comedic gold. Nothing particularly complex here, but in my opinion a thoroughly deserving win (I thought Burton and Steiger in the same year were great too, and Oskar Werner terrific, but Marvin's comic brilliance should not be chastitised for winning).

Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers

The perfect depiction of a set of twins. Irons from start to finish just masterfully paints a portrait of not only two siblings but also their strange, twisted and yet oddly moving relationship with one another. The film itself is one of David Cronenberg's most understated and it's testament to Irons' brilliant performance that it sticks in one's mind as long as it does. I would write more but I'm not sure how; this, for once, is a performance that has been almost unanimously praised. I have not read one snippet of anyone, anywhere, who finds Irons here anything less than great, and the only thing holding him off my top 30 list here is a re-watch.

Lindsay Lohan in The Parent Trap

A deceptively simple performance by Lohan pre-Mean Girls. The film itself is just a sweet little family flick, but Lohan's achievement here is nothing to be sniffed at. She perfectly bridges together the comedic and dramatic aspects of the film and really makes us root for the both of the separated twins to get back together, since Lohan is just so good at generating chemistry with...herself. Her best work as an actress, definitely.


Leonardo DiCaprio in The Man in the Iron Mask

Now here's an interesting one. DiCaprio, fresh off the boat (pun intended) from his Titanic success, plays both the very very very very very evil (all five verys necessary) King Louis XIV and his secret twin, the man in the iron mask. I don't find his performance as the imprisoned, rightful king very interesting and frankly, a bit bland, but as the evil Louis I actually quite enjoyed some of his histronics and hissy fits. It's far from his best work, and it's clear DiCaprio needed some more time to properly hone his skills (which didn't take too long, fast forward to Catch Me If You Can in 2002, and not a hint of inexperience can be detected), but all in all still sterling work.

Nicolas Cage and John Travolta in Face/Off

How's this for a brain wracker? Nicolas Cage playing a terrorist who goes into a coma, whose identity John Travolta's FBI agent takes on by operating his face off; then Nicolas Cage taking Travolta's own face and making it his own...confused much? Don't overthink it. This is just one big, dumb action film by John Woo and I love it for what it is. I will say that I would have personally cast the film the other way round so we could have more of Cage's deliciously hammy Castor Troy, but both actors do well in both roles, and have a great deal of fun in taking on the mannerisms of each other.

Nicolas Cage in Adaptation

Cage again. Wonder what it'd be like to have Nicolas Cage as a brother? Wonder no more. 2002's terrific comedy-drama 'Adaptation' stars Cage as the screenwriter of the film, Charlie Kaufman, and his doofus brother Donald. I love this performance a great deal because it's just so, so, so entertaining. He is great as both the eccentric, endearing stupidity of Donald, and is surprisingly good in grounding Charlie as just a normal, albeit incredibly neurotic, guy. Their scenes together, or rather Cage's scenes with himself, are nothing but constant hilarity and at the end, genuinely heartfelt. I felt like I'd actually gotten to know both men incredibly well throughout the course of this performance, showing just how terrific it is.

Jesse Eisenberg in The Double

I think Eisenberg gets a lot of undeserved shit from the press for being a 'one-note' actor. Okay, so maybe he does do the same sort of schtick too often. But hey, it works, doesn't it? Maybe he did implement quite a lot of himself into his portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg, but that doesn't make his performance in that any less impressive. Anyway in this surrealist effort from Richard Ayoade Eisenberg plays an average joe infatuated with a co-worker (a fantastic Mia Wasikowska) only to have her attentions vied for by...a dead ringer for himself who's incredibly charismatic, and also a complete ass. Eisenberg is of course excellent at playing the incosiderate, fast-talking douchebag, but also very sweet and loveable as the sadsack lonely guy looking for love. It's very strong work which shows depths to Eisenberg hitherto unknown.

SPOILERS

Christian Bale in The Prestige

Simply put, a magnificent piece of an actor enshrouding himself in mystery on the go, and yet finding, somehow finding, time to stop and throw in hints here and there of what the character's true nature is. As both Bordens Bale just finds the perfect balance between showing their contrasting personalities, but also making sure to keep the mystery alive, and never giving the game away. I will need to watch and re-watch this performance over and over again to pinpoint which scene is which twin, on account of his variations of voice, intonation, how those eyes of his work and move, the amount of charisma and intensity he imbudes into a scene etc., and what more I can say about this performance apart from it being a beautiful, beautifully nuanced piece of work.

www.horreur.com

drmarco.com

scifist.files.wordpress.com

enwikipedia.org

imgur.com

musicboxtheatre.com

actorblogspot.com

standbyformindcontrol.com

popsugar.com

darrenjameseeley.wordpress.com

giphy.com

filmschoolrejects.com

gossipbrunch.com

hotflick.net

Head-to-Head: 'The End of the Affair', Deborah Kerr v.s. Julianne Moore (1955/1999)

Deborah Kerr (right) and Julianne Moore (left) both played Sarah Miles in 'The End of the Affair' in 1955 and 1999, respectively

                    

'The End of the Affair' is one of my favourite novels of all time. 'For every lie I would magnify into a betrayal, and even in the most open statement I would read hidden meanings' is one of my favourite lines ever, and perfectly encompasses the scope of the book: a fascinating look into so many different themes--the art of writing, the distinctions beteern wartime and post-WWII London, the very 'beginning' and 'ends' with which we subconsciously mould our perceptions of life, the very essence of love itself, all with the overarching presence of Graham Greene's Catholic anxiety permeating the beautifully written prose. I could write all day about how amazing the novel is so I think I'll stop there--but really it's a romance where the tip of the iceberg is the affair, which soon unravels depths of unparalleled mastery.

With the character of Sarah Miles (one of Greene's greatest creations), I can think of no two better choices than Deborah Kerr and Julianne Moore, two of my favourite actresses of all time. Kerr was just simply one of the classiest, most refined screen presences ever; from her outstanding breakout role in 'The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp', to her wonderful carrying of the lead roles in 'I See a Dark Stranger' (where she succesfully navigated the tricky waters of comedy and thriller terrifically Robert Donat in 'The 39 Steps'-esque in her sheer ease at doing so), her ability to transform herself into a homelier, yet no less powerful screen presence in the likes of 'The Sundowners' and 'Separate Tables', her magnificent recreation of the snarky nurse in 1982's televised 'Witness for the Prosecution' alongside Ralph Richardson (a version I actually prefer to the 1957 original, which I do really like as well), and even more straightforward romantic leads ('An Affair to Remember') and as a facilitator for more overt characters ('Black Narcissus'), she brought such incredible strength to each and every one of her roles with her distinctive yet chameleon-esque style. Moore, I do think is an actress who rarely, if ever, falters. She finally won a very well-deserved Oscar this year for her stellar work in 'Still Alice', but really she should have won it multiple times before for her great performances as a sultry yet motherly porn star in 'Boogie Nights', her heartbreaking work in 'Far From Heaven' and 'The Hours', her wonderful, one-scene wonder in 'A Single Man', or even 'lighter' fare in the likes of 'The English Teacher'. She really is a consistently great actress. What about the films around them, though?

The 1955 film version is primarily problematic because it eschews the flashback structure of the novel; the nested narrative brilliance of Greene's tale is gone, replaced by a decidedly more conventional narrative framework which really lessens a lot of the novel's power which hinged upon retrospective insight of the events of the affair. It chooses to focus a bit more on the investigation of the affair and kind of foresakes some of the more intense emotional beats of the source material, which is an interesting take, but it also nullifies the overall impact of one of the performances. The 1999 Neil Jordan adaptation is a fine interpretation of the novel. It's far from perfect, as I do feel the medium of film simply cannot convey the internalised mode of perception of the affair from Bendrix/Greene's mindset. Nevertheless Neil Jordan, who dealt with an equally daunting number of scattershot themes in the terrific 'The Crying Game', directs this with a very nuanced sense of place and and time, and if some of the trimming of the plot and character diminishments do significantly remove much of the source material's power, it's still very well made and quietly moving.

Moore's British accent she uses for the character of Sarah Miles seems to be going for a Celia Johnson, 1940's-esque diction, and it is not flawless but it never slips up noticeably, and it very nicely accentuates the very nature of her character: sweet, soft and tender, she just immediately makes a very pleasant impression on the viewer. Moore has always been masterful at immersing her characters into a very precise period of time (see 'The Hours' and 'Far From Heaven' where she evokes suburban melodrama of the 1940s -1950s). It's easy firstly on a surface level, to see why Bendrix would fall for her, and more importantly how he could grow to be so obsessed with her, going so far as to craft a 'diary of hate' around her. She is just so lovely that the very loss of her love, as Bendrix sees it, would plausibly create such a void in emotions to be filled with anger, despair, and hatred. Kerr's mellifluous voice and diction is pitch perfect already for the role, but she goes beyond the call of duty by adding to it and her overall physical performance, a sense of weariness with the world underneath her exterior loveliness. The hints of her self awareness as a 'bitch and a fake' are laid out here as Kerr marvelously plays with her usual type of the prim and proper English lady by laying seeds of doubt in the viewer of her frustrations in her relationship and willingness to be brought into an affair, but also with another side that seems to have some higher, divine motive.

Moore's approach here is one of gradually stripping down (both metaphorically and literally) the lendings of propriety and prim properness. She places more emphasis on the overwhelming lust and passion that drives her into the affair, and it works extremely well, whereas Kerr sets up her portrayal to be simultaneously both subdued in her emotions and conflicted in her actions. It's an arc not dissimilar to that of Celia Johnson in 'Brief Encounter' except Sarah here takes it a step further by actually delving into the affair. Moore is very good in showing how deeply she throws herself into an overwhelming love for Bendrix. I quite like the diametric oppositions in Moore and Kerr's techniques, since the more overt, rawly emotional approach of Moore contrasts with the more melodramatic yet mysterious approach of kerr, where it's really difficult for me to pinpoint exactly what makes Kerr's performance work so well; I think a scene which best reflects this quality is when, in conversation with Bendrix, she turns to a mirror and says 'trust is a variable quality'. In a few seconds she expresses a character who may or may not be what she seems in Bendrix's eyes.

When she begins the affair with Henry it is not as passionately all-encompassing, possibly due to the censorship of the time limiting the sexuality of Sarah Miles as a character; Kerr does not let this become a limitation, however, by kind of sidestepping the reservations I had with the crisp, somewhat blunt take on the story the film uses. A problem I do have with the 1955 version is that the brisker pace and chronological order means Kerr kind of has to run through the tumult of passionate playfulness and distancing cool rather quickly, without the advantage of retrospective flashbacks to develop character, but in fact this major flaw (I feel) in the film's structure is one amazingly avoided by Kerr as she keeps the enigma alive while still being properly enticing and exemplifies the sort of character Greene was hoping to convey his message through: one who appears from the very start this unobtainable, yet paradoxically also very earthly being. Kerr is wonderful in mending these two sides together. And where Van Johnson is somewhat lacking in showing the internal conflict in Bendrix, Kerr delivers in spades; Graham Greene himself remarked that watching the two perform love scenes together onscreen, that Kerr's 'extremely good performance' helped to nullify the lack of impact by Van Johnson. Moore and Fiennes never quite frisson together, but I don't think that was ever the intention by Jordan. To an extent, the affair is somewhat superficially presented in both adaptations, at least initially, and Moore and Kerr do well to fall in line with it, till the greater, more divine revelations come into play.

With Henry Miles, the cuckolded husband, the tricky thing for the actress playing Sarah is how to generate just the right amount of chemistry that's not at all attraction of the sexual sort, but rather a sort of unwitting bond the two can't really understand or comprehend. I will say that both actors playing Henry take (I won't say more at this point) interesting approaches to the role. Kerr and Cushing have a sort of frostiness in their scenes together yet it's not altogether off-putting, like much of the film their performances hinge much upon implication and Kerr does well in showing their history together as unfufilling but yet not wholly unpleasant. With Moore, I will say that she remains fairly constant and doesn't dig as deep into the relationship beyond her underlying love and care for Henry of the metaphysical sort, it may not be as complex as Kerr's work but it's still very resonant. I will admit Moore's performance is one which I am almost constantly moved by, not necessarily because her character's inherently sympathetic, but rather

Kerr's performance is not a manipulative performance as there seems to be no malice behind it, it just seems to be very natural to her, and is just the way she is. It certainly works incredibly well in setting Sarah up to be SPOILERS 'a bride in Christ'. Her transition to this stage is considerably more rushed and less well built up than Moore's transition, which is beautifully handled. I won't talk too much about the climactic scene (s) of Sarah devoting her life and love to the 'third man', so to speak in detail, but I will go about describing the different approaches Kerr and Moore take. Moore is viscerally devastating in showing how her character maintains that loveliness about her, but with a tinge of unwilling sadness about her; when she prays, you really feel the impact hit at you. Kerr I will say still keeps her true feelings more of a mystery, while gradually becoming much more overt about them; Moore, as I have mentioned repeatedly now, plays it very close to the chest, I could possibly say she kind of gives the game away early (?) but still I think it is very sterling work from her. Their respective reactions to Bendrix's survival of a bombing are quite distinct in that Moore shows much more while Kerr still keeps a distance.

The gradual conversion of Sarah into a saintly figure, I would say, is earnt more by Moore's portrayal in that you can very easily see how her emotions, having taken hold of her, would propel her into such actions. But Kerr is also very good in showing Sarah's confrontation with Mr Smythe concerning the existence of God, as we slowly get to know more about her secrets Kerr does remarkably well in removing herself of her lendings. I find it very interesting how from the perspective of the private eye/Bendrix reading her journals she presents a rather different figure from what we've seen so far in the way she basically covers the same sort of emotions but with subtle little differences, for example her passion and Bendrix's perceived lust turning into a sort of intense care and kindness. Moore's performance in this respect, again, is a bit less complex but I appreciate how she does not go for the obvious route of making her overly saintly, rather she makes her so in Bendrix's eyes but, in the 'present' interactions makes her essentially the same figure Bendrix knew and desired before.

I will say that after SPOILERS Sarah's death, I felt more of an emotional punch from the 1999 version, but I can't quite attest it as being a strength of Moore over Kerr since my reading of the novel has always been that the final revelations' power does indeed come more from the two men, Sarah in my view has always been a somewhat looming figure whose death is not what lingers on in our minds, but her omnipresence. In this respect I think Kerr's performance works better in generating this effect, all the more impressive seeing as how the film works against her, but that isn't to say that Moore is any slouch, just that her exit from the film has an altogether different impact for me. I must confess, neither of these film versions come even close to the hard-hitting power of the novel's ending but that's not really the fault of either Kerr or Moore, rather the blame lies on someone else.

The 1999 version of the film does stay much more faithfully to the novel in most respects, and therefore Moore's performance more easily falls in line with the various turns the novel takes, and therefore makes a (technically) more substantial performance insofar as conveying the lovely grace and earthly love of Sarah in Bendrix's eyes. Her performance hits me harder but still I always felt there was potential for a bit more, which is a nitpicky reservation since really, to try and convey all the emotions the novel brims in the reader would be nigh impossible and may well have distanced Moore to much. This is a difficulty that Kerr definitely faced with her performance as the film almost tries to keep her at a distance for too long due to the chronological structure, but she somehow manages to make her way around it and delivers an incredibly fascinating, deep performance.


Kerr makes a lot out of not nothing, but with some seriously misguided structural errors in the film. It's not quite her best performance (but I mean, she's my favourite actress of all time, so yeah), but it's still incredibly strong work from a great actress in creating this fascinating enigma which slowly opens up. Moore is equally praiseworthy in following along the lines of a more effective structure, following the book Sarah extremely well, and generating the intended sort of emotional impact for the ending, I guess I should mention that I do believe the character of Sarah Miles is one who best works on paper, literally on the page and nurtured by the imagination as Bendrix does. In the end, though Moore technically speaking gives the more 'impactful' performance, I will for the time-being give the win to the performance I feel was more of a technical feat.

1. Kerr (4.5/5)
2. Moore (4.5/5)


thefilmexperience.net
youtube.com