tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8014874020674080213.post3206202197923002169..comments2024-03-22T11:43:15.466-07:00Comments on Oscargasms: Laurence Olivier, Henry VAllenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11964977693763983338noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8014874020674080213.post-3854214039367635362015-12-19T20:12:52.051-08:002015-12-19T20:12:52.051-08:00I think what your noticing and hitting upon in you...I think what your noticing and hitting upon in your review is that Olivier was a rather cerebral actor who worked from the outside in ... that is to say, he focused on the appearance, mannerisms, gestures and vocalisms of his characters to create them, which is the antithesis of Method acting. It's more theatrical in its way, but film is a rather intimate medium and requires a more internal, visceral process.<br /><br />You are, in my opinion, completely on target in what you perceive as what is missing in his performance. It's very showy, almost florid at times, yet it lacks true passion and heart. I've always found Olivier to be an extremely chilly performer, i.e., all head and no heart. He's very tactical in how he approaches a role but never truly inhabits the character ... and that is quite true of "Henry V", which was filmed and released in 1944 in England but not released stateside until two years later, hence the nomination in this year's category.<br /><br />I must say, I do like this movie quite a lot and think it is the best Shakespearean film Olivier ever did. It's cleverly framed and has sweep and grandeur, much more cinematic than anything that followed. Still, I find myself admiring his performance more than appreciating and embracing it. I'm impressed, sometimes astonished at his grasp of Shakespearean verse ... and yet in the end, utterly unmoved.<br /><br />By the way, this is another insightful review to add to your roster.Frank/click5https://www.blogger.com/profile/03605293626729520817noreply@blogger.com