 |
| Won: Golden Globe (Drama) - Best Actor |
20 years after receiving his first Academy Award-nominated performance in the film adaptation of The Royal Family, it is apt that Fredric March would receive his last under similar circumstances. This time, he closes out his Oscar run leading a stage-to-film adaptation of one of the greatest American plays, taking on a part that any consummate, veteran actor would desire. It is interesting then that both actor and film have been forgotten over time; one does not usually think of March when they harken back to this era of film history, and, Salesman, like The Glass Menagerie, is one of those quintessential plays that did not - and likely will not ever - result in a de-facto screen translation.
The film is a creaky one to say the least, but I believe that in spite of its flaws, Salesman is a tale that inherently guarantees a base amount of dramatic irresistibility; it's the drama and the acting from the broader cast (I adored Kevin McCarthy and Mildred Dunnock) which drives the film forward and at the very least, is what makes it pretty watchable.
March, who has a tendency to be a little loud (see: The Royal Family of Broadway, The Affairs of Cellini) spends much of the picture bellowing on the top of his lungs, for what I can only assume was to ensure that everyone on the Columbia Pictures payroll could hear him. It is jarring; after awhile, March's endless screaming (at everyone and everything) and lack of an actual inside voice pervades into the overall viewing experience. His Willy comes across as a literal nutjob rather than a tragic character - sort of like the types you encounter on the street: completely out of their minds, wherein you're a bit more inclined to feel exasperation towards them as opposed to pity. Whether this approach to Willy was March's choice or the preference of director László Benedek is unclear. My one wish would be that March approach the role more subtly and practiced some more restraint - Arthur Miller allegedly felt March's rendering was too "psychotic" and I wholly agree.
A raucous performance like this would've worked better had it have been on stage; perhaps March's boisterous energy is a result of his pent-up regret from declining the part on Broadway. That said, there are some real moments of greatness peppered between March's histrionics. He is at his best when he produces silent reactions - his firing by Howard Wagner, Biff's recounting of his meeting with Bill Oliver, that shot when Biff hugs Willy - all intensely profound acting moments by March that reminded me how I'd become so fond of him as I made my way through the performances of the 1930s. 20 years later - March is visibly tattered and less of the Movie Star he was when he reaped his first few nominations. Yet however brief, these are moments that come from a seasoned actor who knows how to work his way around an emotive close-up; together, they help to ground and cohere an otherwise turbulent acting showcase.
It's not my favorite performance of March's, and the end result is ultimately disappointing given the breadth of the part, but it's still solid in spite of its flaws. It's evident that March is giving the role is all. I'd rather close out my time with March viewing a meaty performance that didn't quite work than a thankless, simpler performance.
March has never been a favorite of mine because of his tendency to be a bit hammy. I find this performance to be 'presentational' in the most obvious way. He knows how to do it, mind you, but it's mostly surface stuff with little of the pensive reflection that can make this role devastating. There's lots of yelling (not ever a fan of this) and I found myself thinking early on 'he's acting with a capital A'. I prefer "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde".
ReplyDeleteI just watched this film version of the play and found March's performance worthy of his Academy Award nomination. I would replace the description of his performance as "psychotic" with "intense". It was the type of intensity found in a man who has reached Willy's point of desperation. I think what is important about this is that the play basically occurs over a 24 hour period. This is what makes March's interpretation not seemed out of place, particularly since it occurs in a stream of consciousness state. An exploration of the mind in this state would be closer to the character's repressed emotions, which would deviate from what would be expected in the minds of viewers.
ReplyDeleteIt is surprising Miller did not approve of this film version of his play. If an adaptation is an interpretation, this version accomplishes what it sets out to do; it creates a compelling character irresistible to watch and relate to. I feel it is hard to argue whatever your opinion of March's performance in this role, it is impossible to take your eyes off of him. He makes a connection with a part of our consciousness, we are all hesitant to admit exists within us all. This is a rare film that I felt connected as cinematic art on many levels, which I agree deserved more acclaim.
I didn't see it that way, but that's just one opinion and I can see why someone might fully enjoy this performance. March is a good actor and I think he's absolutely great in 'Jekyll & Hyde', where he deservedly won the Oscar. If you haven't seen it you should check it out.
DeleteFor what it's worth, a three score is the threshold for me in terms of whether or not an actor deserved their nomination :)
DeleteIt's nice to read differing perspectives on the same performance, so I'm glad you shared your assessment. I thought his work was solid, it was just a wee over the top for me. Per Click5's comment, his work in Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde is fantastic, and he's far less exaggerated there even in spite of the fact that he dons wolf monster drag.