Head-to-Head: Sherlock Holmes Part 1 (Basil Rathbone v.s. Peter Cushing v.s. Ian Richardson)

Before I get into the reviews, I should note that each and every actor who's played Sherlock Holmes not only has to make the detective his very own creation, but also must contend with the film itself in the right way, and fit in with the thematic and structural approach. The following five portrayals all approach the character of Holmes in very distinctive, different ways, and are all equally interesting to talk about. For the timebeing I'll be getting into 3 performances of Holmes I am perhaps most well-acquainted with due to recent re-watches...

Basil Rathbone played Sherlock Holmes in 1939's 'The Hound of the Baskervilles', as well as in 13 subsequent films in the series.

 



The 1939 version of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' is, fitting in with the general stratosphere of filmdom in that particular year, an excellent and highly influential adaptation of perhaps Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous Holmes story, centered on the deerstalker donning detective's investigation of a most unusual case of attempted murder on the moors of Devon, and the possible supernatural connotations of a mysterious local legend in the mix. Sidney Lanfield's direction is incredibly assured, with some very effectively held moments of tension, and the Devon moors are made good use of by the superb cinematography and lighting generating a simultaneously oppressive yet expansive setting for the characters to inhabit. Some of the writing is fairly on the nose in terms of exposition, admittedly, but that can be forgiven as the script is otherwise very flowing and well-written.

There were many more films released for this series by 20th Century Fox and Universal Studios, a few of which I've seen and are decidedly hit and miss in terms of entertainment value and storytelling quality; one constant throughout them all were Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and his (in this incarnation) bumbling, jovial sidekick Dr Watson. Before getting into this particular series I'd always envisaged Leslie Howard as being the perfect Holmes for this time period, owing to the fact that I'd always been a massive fan of Howard's cool, calculating and slyly charismatic presence in films like 'Pygmalion', and also my less than favourable opinion of Rathbone from what I'd seen in him thus far. Though possessing an undeniably mellifluous, beautiful speaking voice I'd always found his acting in the likes of 'Romeo and Juliet' and 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' to be, if not particularly bad, not very interesting, a bit on the stiff side, imbuding the right amount of menace for Tybalt and Guy of Gisbourne, but not much beyond that.

Which is precisely why his portrayal of Holmes proved to be such a pleasant surprise for me. In fact, I may well have to revisit some of his other performances now that I've become so enamoured of his Holmes. Rathbone, like Leslie Howard, seems to have hidden depths hitherto unknown in some of his earlier, more stoic performances and when allowed to relax and have fun in a role, actually becomes an incredibly charismatic, fascinating and most importantly, incredibly intelligent incarnation of Sherlock. Some have raised contention with Rathbone, reservations I will address over the course of this review, but I must say personally that from the very moment he's presented to us presiding over the case and bantering with Dr Watson and Mortimer, Rathbone is just pitch perfect as Holmes. Graham Greene's description of Rathbone as the man with a 'knife-edge face and the snapping mouth' is spot on in showing just how perfectly attuned Rathbone's features intrinsically were to visually embodying Holmes. But he doesn't leave it at that--no, Rathbone goes far beyond just the aesthetic to make his Holmes an unforgettable creation.

Unlike some later incarnations, Rathbone's Holmes is actually fairly lighthearted, despite his aquiline features and posh manner, and yet interestingly enough not really that quirky. Now that might be a problem for some, but not for me, for I thoroughly loved that goodnatured humour and affability he instilled into his Holmes' intention. It makes him approachable, and makes sense as to why other characters feel so at ease to entrust their cases to his care. Is it somewhat paradoxical to fuse a mind of mechanically astute logic with such a breeziness of characterization? Perhaps, but Rathbone makes it work so well with his charisma and above all, his masterful intertwining of this charm with intellect. This Holmes has a genuine interest in not only solving crimes but also the whole process of it, and it's just a great deal of fun watching him go about doing his thing even when it''s not really all that consequential to the plot.

Nigel Bruce's Watson has been retrospectively chastitised by some Holmesian scholars for taking too avuncular an approach to Dr Watson, who in the novels is every bit as resourceful if not nearly as intelligent a figure as Holmes. Well to this I say: what works for the books, works for the books, but what works for the film works for the film. What I mean to say is that Bruce's idiotic performances in some of the later films do nothing to diminsih his lovable portrayal of the ideal friend Watson here, which works wonders in merging with Rathbone's portrayal as the two have such excellent chemistry together. I particularly like the scene where they discuss the intricacies of a cane left behind by Dr Mortimer, and the comic payoff of Watson completely fluffing his guess up; Rathbone's reaction in this scene is priceless. I also love their brief but very funny arguments over Holmes' affinity for the violin; really these little comic interludes could have come across as extraneous but instead, they're always thoroughly fun to watch. Although I must say the best comedic touch to this portrayal of Holmes is the peddler disguise he takes on to sneak around the moors. Rathbone is not only hilarious but also utterly convincing in playing this doddering, raspy voiced, country accented fellow, and the payoff of this particular joke is marvellous by just how seamlessly Rathbone slips back into his usual pedantic, intelligent self, cheerfully mocking Watson.

Now I like Rathbone's lighthearted side of his portrayal a great deal, but that's not to say he keeps Sherlock on this one note throughout. When the going gets serious Rathbone wisely tones down the humour and becomes more incisive and contemplative in his portrayal. What I love about his portrayal is that he's never downright calculating or overtly manipulative, and yet he shows these aspects of his persona just by very fleeting glimpses and the precision with which he makes with every movement. And yes, while my favourite parts of his performance are indeed his banter with Nigel Bruce's Watson, I also think he does a great deal to lend weight to the proceedings of the mystery, infusing his investigations with the suitable mystery they require, while retaining that analytic precision to each and every delivery to show that he's always on the ball. He even manages to make the central romance between the lackluster Richard Greene as Sir Henry Baskerville and the okay but not particularly noteworthy Wendy Barrie as his love interest, resonate a lot more than it really deserved to by the conviction he and Bruce give to rescuing them from their predicament. This is a performance I thoroughly enjoyed watching throughout, carrying the film so very well and embodying the sleuth so vividly that even when he's not onscreen, you feel like Holmes is just around the corner, waiting to pounce or perhaps, just jovially banter awhile with you.

I was torn between a 4.5 and a 5 because it's not really the most complex of characters, and he's actually only onscreen for just barely over half of the film's running time, but in the end I decided, I love this performance in the same way I love William Holden in 'Stalag 17', he brings Holmes out to his fullest, he dominates the screen with every second of his performance, so why deny him what is rightfully his?

Basil Rathbone in 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' (1939): 5/5

Peter Cushing played Sherlock Holmes in 1959's 'The Hound of the Baskervilles', as well as in Season 2 of 'Sherlock Holmes' (1965-1968) and 'The Masks of Death' (1984) with John Mills as Dr. Watson.

This particular version of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' is a Hammer Films production, thus naturally it places far more emphasis on the Gothic/Horror elements than the 1939 version. It's certainly incredibly beautiful to look at with its Technicolor cinematography and overall it's a very compelling experience, in particular the opening prologue is incredibly viscreal and unnerving. Baskerville Hall is, in particular, a marvel of foreboding colours and masterful design, and have I mentioned how beautiful the film is to look at? I enjoyed watching it even if I never really loved it, so to speak.

One thing I do rather like about this adaptation is that it in no way tries to ape the original elements of the 1939 version. Cushing's performance and indeed, Andre Morell as Watson (funny to note I've just covered the two of them for their performances in '1984') are rather indicative of this. Morell, particularly, seems rather keen from the outset to distance himself from Nigel Bruce's portrayal by portraying Watson as quite a capable, clever and rather dashing figure (forming a bit of an early precursor to Jude Law actually), charming and certainly more so than Cushing's Holmes actually who's rather stoic and for the most part, a bit charmless. There's two ways of looking at this performance, either that Cushing is playing Holmes as a priggish stiff who goes about tasks mechanically, or a grumpy sort who distances himself from warmth and amicability in order to focus on the case at hand. I personally go with the latter, though there is a streak of priggishness, Cushing's Holmes is predominately an irritable, arrogant sociopath. Like Rathbone, Cushing's lean and mean features were born to play Holmes, and he certainly makes good use of it by having his performance falling in the same vein. His Holmes is has much waspish energy and dynamic to his interactions with other characters as Cushing mostly stays on this one note of subtle condescension and self-assuredness, not very charming yes, but entirely in line with the film's depiction of the character as a blunt but brilliant sort of chap.

His fast-paced delivery as Holmes certainly takes a bit more getting used to than Rathbone's equally quick but perhaps more languid approach to Conan Doyle's language, I have no reservations with it however as it very nicely accentuates the innate intelligence of Cushing's Holmes. Indeed the main meat of Cushing's performance resides in character creation. The way he smokes his pipe, sits in a chair, the manner in which he contorts his body when listening and speaking showing that he's always on the lookout for clues, may be distracting to some and even overly mannered, but I personally found them to be quite effective. A less towering presence than Rathbone, it makes perfect sense for Cushing to approach his role with more in the way of tics and mannerisms and it certainly does do its job, I can't say I loved them (well no, I actually do love the way he smokes his pipe, it's so damn classy), but I liked them all.

One thing remarkable about this particular adaptation is the depth it gives to Henry Baskerville. Not so much the writing itself really, but rather the performance of Christopher Lee who in my opinion, kind of steals the show with his intriguing performance as a romantic lead, with a twist. Lee and Cushing have a cool but effective rapport between the two that was rarely ever explored in the other Hammer films where the two were perenially at each others' necks, so to speak. Lee does have the more interesting arc to explore, for once he's not some hulking monster to be ridden off but instead, a slowly warming up presence who has some nice romantic chemistry with Cecile Stapleton (played well by Marla Landi). In this sense Lee kind of steals the show away from Cushing a bit, though I must emphasise Cushing is still very good, it's just that Lee is there to make up for his momentary disappearance from the middle. I should also note that unlike Rathbone he doesn't get a comic re-entrance into the proceedings, that probably wouldn't make much sense and be a bit tonally jarring with the rest of the film because Cushing's Holmes is also particularly badass, I mean he kills a poisonous taurantala, Dracula's life is in his hands, he slinks around with a cape, he makes looking through a magnifying glass akin to a cold stare of death (Cushing's piercing blue eyes were made to bare down into the souls of men), I'm not taking the piss you really would not want to mess around with Cushing's Mr Holmes.

The final moments of the film where the who of the whodunnit is revealed is probably one of the louder sections of the film but it works, however, due to the work of Lee and Landi. The two actors develop their relationship far better than Greene and Barrie and it all sets up a very satisfying yet heartbreaking final denouement. I can't help but wish Cushing had a bit more of a role in these moments as Cushing is most certainly sidelined, he doesn't really get a hand in any of these dramatic beats. I do love what Cushing does within these restraints though as his calm and collected reaction shots do a lot to add to the overall flavour of the disconcerting tone of these final scenes. I mentioned that Cushing is a badass, well none more so than when he fires a perfect point blank shot at the Hound itself, though Watson gunning down a certain someone else is very close on the badassery scale. All in all this is a very good performance by Peter Cushing, who's gradually rising up on my list of underrated actors, the true power of the film lies elsewhere, but it's still an incredibly effective portrayal of Holmes.

Peter Cushing in 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' (1959): 4/5

Ian Richardson played Sherlock Holmes in 'The Sign of Four' (1983), and in the same year 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'

I have indeed seen the Ian Richardson version of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' but it's been a while, and have not been very succesful in salvaging a copy of it anywhere. From what I can recall Richardson gave an effective performance as Holmes, with that usual sort of playful omniscience and calculation, nothing incredibly groundbreaking and treading on somewhat similar ground of both Cushing and Rathbone, in fact I'd go so far to say as mending the two portrayals together. I'd give him a 4 in that from what I remember, though a re-watch will most certainly be needed in the near future. Donald Churchill's Watson wasn't much to speak of from what I remember, not much more than just a faint impersenation of Nigel Bruce, and I can't remember much about Brian Blessed, Martin Shaw, and Denholm Elliot though I'm sure they were fine, as always.

Instead of just relying upon a wavering memory, I thought instead, why not look at the other Ian Richardson performance as Holmes in 'The Sign of Four', a decidedly different story. I would not call this a great adaptation of a Holmes story as is certainly lacks the distinctiveness of the previous two I'd described. I do like the Columbo-esque procedural approach it takes throughout though as for once we get a separate perspective of the case not from Holmes/Watson's POV, as well as additional insight into how exactly Holmes goes about picking up the pieces. There's some questionable scenes and writing throughout, especially how it adds a lot more in the way of setpieces and thrills and romance, at the risk of completely diminishing the novel's original impact, but it's largely forgiveable due to the intrinsic strength of the story. In short: not a very faithful adaptation, but good nevertheless. It's centered around some valuable jewels which intertwine murder and malice amongst a one-legged prisoner and his cahoots, a lovely daughter of a murdered Captain, a strange man named Tonga and overall just a whole cast of oddities and bestial malice.

As aforementioned, Richardson's character creation hinges a lot on what Tim Prasil on 'In the Shadow of Basil Rathbone' (https://timprasil.wordpress.com/) calls the 'impish mischievousness at odds with Watson’s description of a man more machine than human'. Richardson is by no means the classical embodiment of Holmes because he's just too spry and fun-loving, but I can definitely see where he's coming from. Speaking to the press about taking on the role of Holmes, he described his depiction as consisting of a 'kind of cool irony'; that's the crucial point here. Richardson's Holmes has a ball with his investigation but remains cool and collected, and whenever the going gets dark (which it does an awful lot here), he follows accordingly with a more sombre approach, like Holmes is deliberately toning himself down. I particularly like it when he begins differentiating between the concept of an 'abstract' and 'real' problem, jumping between his serious and playful persona and showing there's a different side to Holmes for every choice moment.

He maintains an acrebic, intelligent bent even with the easygoing side of Holmes, a talent Richardson showed in many of his roles from 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' to 'House of Cards'. This is a Holmes who takes genuine pleasure in playing around with science, chemicals and facts, and Richardson makes this work through his performance. I find this to add quite a bit of flavour to the structure of the film which is essentially an extended car-and-mouse chase, I made that 'Columbo' comparison early on because really it's a rather nice way of surmising the whole performance of Richardson: weighty when necessary, but mostly just a nicely attuned, pleasant to watch Peter Falk-esque rendition of a brilliant man who isn't too fussed about too much, and only wishes to complete the game at hand. Now in terms of my reservations towards the film as a whole one of them is the complete neglect of Holmes' drug habit, which was a significant plot point in the novel. Now on one hand, drug addictions often form the crux of many a gratuitous overacting display, on the other hand it's Ian Richardson we're talking about here. He would have probably found some way to parlay it into even more depth for the performance; but this is a massive 'if'. Anyway, regardless, Richardson gives a very good characterization of Holmes that works well, even if not fulfilled to its full potential.

Much of the story centres around Holmes tackling an assortment of oddballs who've been somewhat downsized from the original. I won't go into too much detail about the finer points, but I will say that amongst this sometimes rather messy structure of the proceedings, Richardson is always completely at home no matter how outrageous some of the scenarios get. Unlike most of the cast, Richardson maintains a very consistent characterization throughout the film so that even when it falters, he keeps his head above the water. I really like that he resisted the temptation to go as broad/OTT as the likes of Joe Melia as Jonathan Small, one of the more obvious portrayals of a Sherlockian villain (but it does work for the film), and instead with his continually quiet and subdued approach makes it all work astoundingly well. And though Holmes never really gets big showboating moments like the villains in this tale, Richardson makes good on each opportunity to steal the scene. A brief but memorable moment that really stands out for me is him asking Inspector Layton (played by Terrence Rigby, them Tinker Tailor connections though) 'found something?', only to put a damp on the inspector's parade by revealing that he'd discovered the trap door Layton had prided himself on finding 'first'. That small shit-eating grin just speaks volumes; wonderful, wonderful stuff.

Though I do enjoy the film and performance of Richardson a great deal, I can't help but feel they're slightly at odds at certain points. For instance a long middle stretch involving Richardson v.s. a circus dwarf strikes me as being a bit of a waste of Richardson's talents, as he spends a while esentially doing  a 'man on the run' routine without any real fun to be had. It's interesting to watch and clearly director Desmond Davis had a hell of a time recreating scenes from films like 'The Lady from Shanghai' in the 'hall of mirrors' scene, but I do wish they'd instead spent a bit more time just letting Richardson control the film, instead of having the film's setpieces control him. Although he more than makes up for these lapses by his silent but always incredible reactions to the chaos around him. I often have reservations if a Sherlock is sidelined for too long by action setpieces but hey, Richardson finds a way to get around this here so I guess I shouldn't begrudge the film too much. The ending of the film is a bit lacking for the likes of Watson (no, he doesn't get the girl here) but Richardson is excellent in his final explanation. He lends it the appropriate amount of seriousness, but his best moment is perhaps his laughter at another character's explanation, over where the jewels have gone. 'Oh what a very pretty tale' he smillingly says as he completely tears apart that explanation, and I thought it was the perfect end to a performance that doesn't take itself too seriously and has quite a bit of fun (further emphasised by his final clin d'oeil breaking the fourth wall), and yet works equally well, effectively and astutely when necessary. Far from being Richardson's best performance or most complex role (though it would have been interesting to see his take on say, Nicol Williamson's role in 'The Seven Per Cent Solution'), but still a very solid, occasionally brilliant, performance.

Ian Richardson in 'The Sign of Four' (1983): 4/5



Sherlock Holmes Part 2 will feature: Benedict Cumberbatch, Robert Downey Jr., and Ian McKellen. Stay tuned!



gonemovies.com
maruda3.wordpress.com
timprasil.wordpress.com

Head-to-Head: Winston Smith in 1984 (Peter Cushing v.s. Edmond O'Brien v.s. John Hurt)

Peter Cushing, Edmond O'Brien and John Hurt all played Winston Smith in the 1954, 1956 and 1984 versions of '1984', respectively.

Before going any further, I have to say that while '1984' is most certainly a dystopian masterpiece, its themes of oppression and limiting of autonomy, the singularities of human purpose, still prevalent nowadays, to make a film of those themes in a very precise, culturally relevant manner runs the risk of making it very, very quickly dated. While the novel's power is never lessened by context, the films inadvertently lend themselves to this inevitable fault.

I will say that of all 3, the 1956 American version has dated the most horrendously; especially in the way it tries to mould Orwell's war-torn Britain into a frankly rather cheesy-looking 1954 setting. Many of the deeper psychological elements of the source material are briskly skimmed over and there's plenty of miscasting all round. It's not without merit though as there are several good performances that help to overcome some of the weaker material. The 1954 version in my view is a fine version, bit dated in terms of setting but with good performances all round and quite a palatable sense of dread in the atmosphere it generates. It was deemed fairly shocking and provocative for its day but nowadays seems relatively tame; I can definitely see how it had such a tremendous impact and elicited such protests and even a House of Commons debate. The 1984 version is not flawless but is perhaps, the best; it perhaps best shows the vision Orwell was trying to convey with its blend of the viscerally haunting, and the unnerving implications of them. The grimy, tolitarian state is very effectively conveyed and pretty hard to watch, and if the film's direction lacks a bit of subtletly at times it's aided in this respect by the very naturalistic performances all round. It's also the most emotionally involving of the three adaptations, though I'm not so sure Orwell would've liked that himself (or the ending...)

In terms of character creation I'll mention O'Brien first because he stands out; rather than play Winston as envisaged by Orwell, an intellectual but passive man, O'Brien plays him as a bit of an oaf who's stringing himself along, rather than being strung along, to the chords of Big Brother's regime. It's not a disastrous approach and not without merit, but I can't say that it works nearly as well as the quiet retiring quality Cushing and Hurt give their roles. O'Brien was perhaps slightly miscast from the very outset as, even though he's accustomed to playing impartial observer/straight men characters, he usually gave these avatars a rough edge and charismatic bent to them. This characterisation goes against the norm but I must insist, it's not bad at all, just takes some getting used to. Always a good, solid presence to lend a bit of sanity to films, I like O'Brien's screen presence but do think he could've toned it down a bit here, something he was perfectly capable of doing as can be seen by his very understated turns in 'White Heat' and 'The Killers'.

In some ways, Hurt and Cushing give the more conventional sort of dystopian leading man performances, and are all the more effective for them. In particular Hurt seems particularly attuned to the character and his surroundings; I don't think there are many actors as well-versed in playing the victimized individual than Hurt, and here he does that without overplaying the character's weaknesses, by showing it to be a by-product of the oppressive environment he lives in. Cushing takes a similar approach, nullifying his usually rather dominant screen presence into a rather meek, unassuming fellow who seems keen to just let things be as they are. He really is very effective in making his Winston just another face in the crowd. The main problem I feel, and the only glaring one, of O'Brien's performance is that by making Winston a bit too rough and slightly cynical from the outset, the transition into a man willing to fight against Big Brother for what he sees as right lacks the same arc and power that Hurt and Cushing instill.

Cushing displays a growing distaste and discontent to his performance, especially in his interactions with Donald Pleasance's Syme (incidentally, Pleasance plays roles in both the 1954 and 1956 version and is just about equally as effective in both at making their smaller stories resonate with the Party). Pleasance is a terrific foil to Cushing in that he provides the audience with a counterbalance to Cushing's listlessness; O'Brien also works well with the various other cast members of the 1956 version to show just where his character's convictions are coming from, somewhat rectifying some of the initial problems of his portrayal. Hurt, I will say, has a bit less to work with besides Cyril Cusack's brief but memorable turn as the duplicitous Mr Carrington, actually, so his performance in the initial stages, is one mostly conveyed through many silent glances, particularly in the scenes where he begins to feel the unsettling glimpses of hatred for Big Brother. Equally effective in this respect is Cushing who merges the disconnect of his character with the fear he feels at slowly being pulled into  Hurt is great in that he both takes centre stage and yet always remains quietly, rightly so, in character, by no means an achievement to be sniffed at.

The love affair with Julia is also the best conveyed by Hurt, and he alongside Suzannah Hamilton make for a not incredibly passionate but instead, wonderfully sweet, coupling. Hurt conveyes the brimming love for Julia so wonderfully, providing a bright spark amidst all the bleak darkness of the film; something to root for in a world without roots, so to speak. With Cushing this love is more gradually conveyed first with a sense of inquisitiveness, and interest in Julia, before merging it with his newfound passion for radicalism. I find that Cushing and Yvonne Mitchell have a very effective, low-key chemistry that works well in subduing some of the more jarringly unpleasant incidents of the third act like Syme's arrest; with O'Brien and his co-star Jan Sterling the relationship is far colder and yet still retaining that tinge of affection on both sides. As Winston develops in confidence, so does O'Brien begin to settle more nicely into the role; I've always thought O'Brien an incredibly adept straightforward leading man with charm to spare, and he makes good use of that here, 'Hunchback of Notre Dame'-style, where he helps to gradually immerse the audience into this very esoteric crapsack world.

All three actors lend the romantic subplot the weight it requires to make it resonate with the story, but I'll give Cushing extra points here for really imbuding his growing sense of paranoia into the portrayal. The frequent use of disorientating closeups allows Cushing to convey his inner torment with such power, showing that perhaps had he taken a different career route, Cushing may have been heralded in equal standing as the likes of Richard Burton and other contemporaries. It's a subtle and moving character creation of a man being brought out of his shell that's so well conveyed by that gradually more assertive posture and voice that Cushing takes on; wonderful work, indeed. Hurt and O'Brien though are no slouches either in showing how their inner convictions bring vibrancy to their lives, which they show by the increasing liveliness of their performances.

I won't get too much into the character of O'Brien/O'Connor yet as I may well be doing a future Head-to-Head on them, but suffice to say each actor mends his portrayal in the right way, in right accordance, with the domineering performances of the actors playing O'Brien/O'Connor. O'Brien I would say is quite overshadowed by Michael Redgrave's brilliant portrayal overall, but does well enough to show the eagerness and initial enthusiasm Winston has for the cause, and concern and fear when he gets captured. In the torture scenes I will say that he, perhaps, underplays his reactions a bit too much for his own good, particularly when juxtaposed against Redgrave's threats to have him squeezed 'empty' to the 'point of no return', but his emotional breakdown at the prospect of Room 101 is well done. Cushing is even better in showing the gradual breakdown of the man by Andre Morell's O'Brien (another interesting performance) into a complete, utter wreck, removing all of the qualities built up within him that makes his final scenes all the more unsettling and heartbreaking. His final form as a lifeless, huffing and grunting, broken man is just so difficult to watch, and that final reaction shot of his, a soulless grin professing love to Big Brother, is pitch perfect.

In the end though, I'll have to go with Hurt as the victor, as his final few scenes as Winston are what makes this a truly great performance by him. The fear and anguish of Winston is portrayed most vividly by Hurt's physical performance as he really singlehandedly conveys the sheer pain and suffering he's enduring not just by his gaunt physique but also, by the ways his eyes swivel in fear, the way his voice breaks into a fearful frenzy, and finally that quiet but devestating note of resignation he consigns his life and soul to Big Brother. Also his final scene as he sits by the chessboard and watches Julia walk out of his life, is the pinnacle of his performance even though Orwell would probably be rolling around in his grave at it. Unlike the other two versions where Winston has most explicitly been brought under complete control by Big Brother, Hurt ends his performance on a note of ambiguity. His final 'I love you' could be to Julia, could be to Big Brother, it doesn't matter; it might be the moving strings of music or just my partiality to Hurt as an actor, but that ending, though inaccurate to the source material, entirely works for Hurt's more emotional performance and makes this in my opinion, the best portrayal of Winston Smith of all.

1. John Hurt (4.5/5, VERY close to a 5; I will need a re-watch)
2. Peter Cushing (4.5/5)
3. Edmond O'Brien (3/5)



pleasance.com
youtube.com

Head-to-Head: 'The End of the Affair', Van Johnson v.s. Ralph Fiennes, (1955/1999), Peter Cushing v.s. Stephen Rea (1955/1999)

These will be a very short set of reviews; apologies (it's pretty much just my own way of taking a break)

I suppose I should mention that it'd be almost impossible for me to ever, EVER be entirely satisfied with any portrayal of Maurice Bendrix. He's just one of my favourite literary characters of all-time, and so much of his complexities lies in the way Greene presents his narrative voice: a subversion of  Greene's usual mode of third-person narration, turning this on its head by driving the story through the characters, rather than characters through the stories as he did in many of his 'entertainments'. The narrative digressions of Bendrix to various details, many intricate and seemingly minor (and fitting to his authorial outlook on life), as a metanarrator whose authorial presence repeatedly intrudes both his ongoing narration of the past as well his participation in the events of the present, and trying to overcome both God and Greene’s overbearing authorial voice through a parallel God complex,  this antithetical conflict is really what provides the very core of Bendrix's brilliant conception by Greene. The medium of film cannot possibly incorporate the sheer complexity of the character and therefore, both Johnson and Fiennes have an incredibly large obstacle to overcome with their performances from the very outset.  

There's really not that much I can discuss about the two performances except that they're servicable. Van Johnson, I was surprised to find out, was not the train-wreck I expected him to be, he is bad make no mistake about that, but he's not godawful. He was very much miscast (Peter Finch, methinks, would've been a perfect choice, or Trevor Howard), but he fares better than I think original choice Gregory Peck would've (Peck can be amazing but his star presence alone would've probably been incredibly distracting); Johnson actually does well enough as the straightforward 'romantic hero', which Bendrix isn't really, but it works for the film. I've always found Van Johnson to be a fairly charming, if not particularly exceptional actor. He was certainly very good in 'The Caine Mutiny' and I think here he is alright at differentiating from that performance as a kind-hearted, honest man by the sorta mean streak he imbudes into Bendrix, even if it is a bit lacking for the whole complexity of Bendrix's character. He is very much overshadowed by Kerr, and she's left to do pretty much all the heavy lifting in her scenes, but then again so is Fiennes by Moore; don't get me wrong, in many respects Van Johnson's performance is sorely lacking, but he's also never really bad.

Fiennes is fine as Bendrix, but he's also fairly...predictable, shall I say. Like Moore, he's very well cast in the role of the mysterious romantic, but I'm not quite sure that's what Bendrix is either. Fiennes is an actor I've always preferred when he really relaxes into a lead role like he does in 'The Grand Budapest Hotel', 'In Bruges', and 'Spider'; all performances where he really lets loose, I guess there is 'Schindler's List' where he is a pretty unforgettable face of inhumanity, the problem is with many of his 'repressed', mysterious leading man roles I get the exact same vibe from them. I might not be making much sense here, but hear me out,  Fiennes works well as Bendrix, but only just well enough, as a brooding lover to Moore. The problem I have with his performance is that he never really goes beyond that. He's spiteful, passionate, but he never really shows much of Bendrix beyond that, thus making Maurice Bendrix fairly one-note. As I said, Moore takes at first a similar approach to Fiennes by showing one note to her character, but she does I think slowly show hints and different sides, while Fiennes till the very end always has that same expression of hateful longing on his face, I mean even in his romantic scenes with Moore there is a bit of that stiffness to him which is rather uncharacteristic of Fiennes. It's not a bad performance by any means, but it could have certainly been so much more had Fiennes chosen to 'relax' into the role a bit more, and not be afraid to show off more sides to the character than his God-hating persona; perhaps then he could've brought more to the finale of the film. Both Fiennes and Van Johnson really don't do that much to bring the film to an emotionally satisfying juncture, instead that lies in the hands of others; for Van Johnson, it's Kerr (although that too is somewhat diminished by the film), for Fiennes it's someone I'll get onto now.

1. Fiennes (3/5)
2. Van Johnson (2.5/5)

Stephen Rea and Neil Jordan working together on a film is never a bad thing, quite often a very good thing. I love Rea's performance in 'The Crying Game', an incredibly display of subtlety that really requires repeat viewings in order to truly comprehend the power he instills into the role. I'll be the first to admit though that he really doesn't have much range as an actor, really, as most roles I've seen him in, he does always play the rather mopey, tragic sort, from 'V for Vendetta' to 'Citizen X'. That does not really matter though as he's incredibly good at what he does, and this is put to use wonderfully here by Mr Jordan. Neil Jordan clearly understood the tragic gravity of the cuckold Henry Miles, and Rea delivers accordingly. He has the difficult task of being both a figure to root against and sympathise with, and while he doesn't quite match up perfectly with the original conception of Henry Miles by Greene, his performance is a wonderfully sympathetic one, attuned perfectly to the very precise characterisation Jordan is going for. More importantly, in his scenes with Moore the chemistry between the two is deeply moving, and I would even go so far as to say he helps to bring out even more out of Moore's performance than Fiennes. It is he who gives the ending the necessary levity and emotional impact, and while it's hardly a perfect performance (like Fiennes he's rather one-note, though a much more effective note) I cannot fault him at all for the emotional impact he brings to the cuckold.

Cushing, known nowadays as the (in) famous Van Helsing to Christopher Lee's Dracula, is an actor I am unfortunately not much familiar with besides his Hammer films, where he is incredibly good at making something out of  'nothingness' of characterisation. In the 1955 version, the role of Henry is incredibly thankless and has some rather poorly acted scenes by Van Johnson to contend with (in fact, I think I will deduct another .5 from Johnson's performance for his failure to bring any gravity to those confrontational scenes about the affair), but Cushing is good enough in giving a straightforward and intelligent performance as the cuckold. He is quite moving when he expresses his repressed love for Kerr; I don't think he ever quite reaches the heights of Rea though, simply because the film really undercuts him with it's lack of focus on him. It's a good performance all in all, but simply good.

1. Rea (4)
2. Cushing (3.5)

I shall be taking a break off the blog for about a week or two now...exams coming up :S
[1] Ronald G.. Walker, “World without End: An Approach to Narrative Structure in Greene’s The End of the Affair”, Texas: University of Texas Press, summer 1984, p. 218

thecliffedge.com
explore.bfi.org.uk
movie-dude.co.uk
stephenrea.net