Tag Archives: Laurence Olivier

Scene Stealers in ‘Rebecca’

Rebecca:  Original Poster.

Rebecca: Original Poster.

What I like most about Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rebecca” (Selznick International, 1940) are the performances by the half dozen character actors in the smaller roles. Pauline Kael complained that it was one of Laurence Olivier’s rare bad performances; I think he’s actually better than he was in a lot of his other pictures (he’s best in “Henry V” and “Richard III”). He doesn’t have much to work with as Maxim de Winter, but he looks good and sounds right — he’s just not terribly interesting. Joan Fontaine plays awkwardness quite well, but she can’t resist the urge to telegraph emotions as a sort of semaphore (e.g., Quizzical Look 6(a): raise left eyebrow, cast eyes downward, count one, then cock head) — once you crack her simple code, she’s rather touching. Later on in her career, she hardened up and was no fun to watch, except as an object of ridicule: her by-the-numbers acting made the Method seem a breath of fresh air, when it came along about a decade later.

Fontaine, Laurence Olivier

Joan Fontaine, Laurence Olivier:  Mr and Mrs Maxim de Winter of Cornwall.

Judith Anderson’s sepulchral housekeeper, Mrs Danvers, is the character most people remember, and with good reason. I doubt Miss Anderson ever was better suited to a role, but I find that the character practically plays itself: it’s to Anderson’s credit that she stays out of the way, neither over-emphasizing Mrs Danvers’ creepiness nor commenting on her apparent lesbianism and necrophilia. She plays her as a blank, with her cards close to her chest, as it were. In those scenes where she tips her hand and we see her malevolence, her words betray her cruelty, not Anderson’s performance.

Joan Fontaine, Judith Anderson:  'You've nothing to stay for. You've nothing to live for really, have you?'

Joan Fontaine (sporting Quizzical Look 6(a)), Judith Anderson: ‘You’ve nothing to stay for. You’ve nothing to live for really, have you?’

Florence Bates, in the small, but important role of Edythe Van Hopper, gives a truly great performance. The dreadful Mrs Van Hopper is a cartoon of the selfish, overfed society matron who treats her servants badly and fawns on her social betters. It takes great skill to play this sort of character. Mrs Van Hopper is hateful in every conceivable way: she’s suspicious, venomous, gluttonous, dishonest, vain, bad-tempered, and perhaps worst of all, a cracking bore. Yet her nastiness must do more than merely appall us: it must also make us laugh. She must horrify us, but we shouldn’t be anxious to be rid of her before she has served her purpose in the story’s clockwork. We must enjoy hating her. Florence Bates has no equal when it comes to this sort of battleaxe. Her trick is always to be as imaginative as possible. She’s never a generalized harridan: she’s always specific. Look at her in this scene:

It helps that the scene is so cleverly written, but a lesser actress would miss the hints of humanity in the old gorgon’s reactions to the coldness of Maxim de Winter’s replies to her maddening chatter and especially to his abrupt retreat. At the end of the scene, when she scolds Fontaine (“By the way, my dear, don’t think that I mean to be unkind, but you were just a teeny-weenie bit forward with Mr de Winter: Your effort to enter the conversation quite embarrassed me, as I’m sure it did him”), it is obvious that Mrs Van Hopper is in the process of shifting the blame from herself to her innocent, pretty, young paid companion.  It’s a nasty thing to do, but Mrs Van Hopper is wretched and lonely and though she is wealthy, she knows the world has passed her by. I’m particularly taken with the way Bates phrases the line: she begins in her lower register and rattles off the first several words — the preface — as quickly as possible. Then she draws a breath, fixes Fontaine with a “sneer of cold command” and draws out “teeny-weenie” while shaking her wattles imperiously. This is no accident:  Bates knows exactly what she’s doing. Those wattles remind us of the dragon’s beefiness and age, and by lingering over “teeny-weenie,” she makes her rebuke more intolerable, because it suggests that she feels she must use baby-talk vocabulary to ensure her companion will understand the criticism. Moreover, her mid-sentence change of tempo adds variety and renews our interest in what the old bitch has to say. This is the sort of attention to detail that makes Florence Bates so funny and infuriating in battleaxe roles.

Here are two other shorter examples of Florence Bates in full sail. Notice in both clips how clever she is about changing tempo and vocal register. When she goes into her head voice — like an elderly opera singer — she’s particularly peremptory and exasperating. All Bates lets you know in advance is that Edythe Van Hopper is going to be extremely unpleasant, but she keeps you guessing about how she’ll do it. You can never predict what new angle she’ll swoop in from.

Again, the writing gives her a lot to work with, but the point is she brings the good material fully to life. Also, as hateful as the old bitch is, she doesn’t know she’s hateful. It’s clear that she believes she’s a charming woman of the world: she describes the de Winters as old friends, but in the earlier clip, we know he endures the garrulous old parlor snake only to be close to her young companion — and even then, he lasts only a minute before the barrage of her loquacity drives him off. The self-delusion that runs through her performance grounds the character in reality; it doesn’t make her any less abominable, but it does arouse a little pity.

Her putting out her cigarette in the cold cream is in the book. It’s one of the few details about the novel that stayed with me. It’s wonderfully vivid. You can practically extrapolate the rest of Mrs Van Hopper’s character from that one piece of damning evidence.

Also in a small role is the legendary former beauty, Gladys Cooper, who would go on to play a succession of imperious old cats herself. In “Rebecca,” she plays the no-nonsense, but kindly sister of Maxim de Winter, Beatrice Lacy. She had nothing like the imagination and resourcefulness of Florence Bates, but she had style and authority. This was her first Hollywood picture. Miss Cooper knew when Hitchcock cast her in the part that she was no longer a young woman, but she was horrified by her appearance on film, completely unprepared for how she looked. It must be said that neither Hitch nor his director of photography, the great George Barnes, did anything to light her in a flattering way. She was, after all, in a small role and served an almost entirely expository function. Yet she does well with the little bit of humor that she is given to do. She has a nice exchange with Robert, the footman, who serves luncheon, while helping herself and never once looking in his direction.

Gladys Cooper, Philip Winter, Olivier:  'How are you, Robert?'

Gladys Cooper, Philip Winter, Olivier: ‘How are you, Robert?’

Beatrice:  How are you, Robert?

Robert:  Quite well, thank you, madam.

Beatrice:  Still having trouble with your teeth?

Robert:  Unfortunately yes, madam.

Beatrice:  You should have them out.  All of them.  Wretched nuisances, teeth.

Robert:  Yes, madam.  (She finishes helping herself and he moves off.)

Beatrice:  Ooh, what a plateful.

Cooper, Olivier:  'Ooh, what a plateful.'

Cooper, Olivier: ‘Ooh, what a plateful.’

Nigel Bruce is also along (as Cooper’s husband, Major Giles Lacy), harrumphing and doing his bumptious, befuddled country squire bit. Hitchcock allows him to be a bit broader than is really necessary or advisable, but it’s hard to dislike him. Like Cooper, he’s there mostly for purposes of exposition, which generally come in the form of his putting his foot in his mouth, usually after he has just stepped into another cow-pie.  He gets the job done, though not with much wit or imagination.

And then there is the incomparable professional cad, George Sanders, who gives the most George Sandersesque performance of them all. If the word insouciant had not existed before Sanders grew to manhood, it would have to have been invented to describe his droll presence and deft handling of a witty line. His range was extremely limited; he’s ill-served in serious roles, but he plays suave bounders with as much authority and imagination as Florence Bates plays bejeweled scolds. Everything Sanders does, including the way he eats a chicken leg, is hilarious. He has one of the most mellifluous bass baritone voices in pictures. (At one point, he was invited to play the Ezio Pinza role in the National Tour of “South Pacific,” but he backed out at the last minute. What a shame.  He played the romantic foil to Ethel Merman in the movie version of “Call Me Madam,” and sang beautifully. A friend asked me to describe his sound. After some thought, I answered, “Ezio Pinza without the garlic.”)

In “Rebecca,” Sanders is not only a cad, but a blackmailer as well, and he’s unbelievably funny every second he’s onscreen.

George Sanders:  'You know old boy, I have the strong feeling that before the day is out, someone is going to make use of that expressive, but rather old-fashioned term, "foul play" . . . '

George Sanders: ‘You know old boy, I have the strong feeling that before the day is out, someone is going to make use of that expressive, but rather old-fashioned term, “foul play” . . . ‘

 

The Greatest

The single greatest performance I ever saw an actor give was Christopher Plummer‘s Iago, which he played, not as a human being, but as the embodiment of unadulterated, fathomless Evil.  This was back in 1982 at the Winter Garden Theatre on Broadway.  James Earl Jones was a fine Othello, but it was Iago’s show from start to finish.  Plummer didn’t win the Tony for his miraculous performance, however.  That year, the Tony went to the actor who gave the second greatest performance I ever saw:  Roger Rees’ star turn in “The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby.”  Rees was so great in that monumental play (eight and a half hours long!) — the greatest theatrical experience of my life — that I doubt even Christopher Plummer could have resented losing the award to so excellent a performance.  1982 was a good year for Broadway.

Plummer as Iago: So will I turn her virtue into pitch, And out of her own goodness make the net That shall enmesh them all.

Plummer as Iago:
So will I turn her virtue into pitch,
And out of her own goodness make the net
That shall enmesh them all.

I’ll never forget the way Plummer delivered the lines quoted above:  his clarion voice brayed out the words in an accelerating, but even, rhythm and the notes ascended the scale until he arrived at the word “enmesh,” when he startled the audience by lingering on the “shhhhhh.” Such nerve!  And so thrilling!  A lesser actor would have sounded ridiculous.  In his black leather, Plummer already looked like a reticulated snake — one with porcupine quills bristling on his head.  The “shhhhhh” clinched the look:  the most villainous snake-in-the-grass of all time.  I remember the Sunday matinee crowd I saw it with audibly gasped at his audacity.  But his whole performance was like that:  surprises everywhere, but always completely in service of the story.  Plummer was so diabolically funny and entertaining, you couldn’t help rooting for him . . . until his plans started to pay off with tragic results.  He made Iago irresistibly entertaining — a wise choice, since it happens to be the third longest role in Shakespeare.  (And perhaps the longest, since Hamlet’s and Richard III’s lines are often heavily abridged.)

That was the first time I saw Plummer on stage.  Before then, I only knew his work from the pictures he’d been in.  Until the mid 70s, he wasn’t much good in pictures, to be quite frank.  Certainly, it wasn’t entirely his fault:  he was in a lot of dogs.  “Inside Daisy Clover” is a fantastically bad picture:  nobody in it emerged with his dignity intact.  And in the famous musical from 1965, which Plummer likes to call “S and M,” he wasn’t good.  In most of the pictures he made before the the 70s, he seemed anxious to make it clear that he knew how crummy the material was — “Don’t blame me, folks:  I didn’t write this crap.”  The result was that he often came off worse than those who did their best to do elevate the second- and third-rate stuff.  At his best, he was very good — as, for example, when he played Rudyard Kipling in John Huston’s “The Man Who Would Be King” (1975).  But nothing prepared me for the sensational Iago he played in 1982.

Plummer:  The Man Who Would Be Kipling.

Plummer: The Man Who Would Be Kipling.

In recent years, he has become one of the most reliably entertaining character actors in pictures, but Christopher Plummer’s natural habitat is the theatre, in front of a large, adoring crowd.  In the theatre, he’s stunning, even in the worst crap.  A revival of “Inherit the Wind,” for instance, back in 2007.  I found something I wrote to a friend right after coming home from seeing it:

Plummer was wonderful as always, but gee whiz, what a terrible, turgid piece of agitprop!  It’s amazing that it keeps getting revived.  From first to last, it’s utterly false — & the platitudes rain down in torrents.  My expectations weren’t high:  I’ve seen the movie, which is pedantic & dull & preaches nosily & clumsily to the choir . . . but I hoped that seeing it live might make at least parts of it crackle.  Alas, no.  The whole thing is so smug & one-sided — nobody opposed to the Darrow character is allowed to have a flicker of intelligence or humanity — Darrow is saintly & sagacious & everyone else is a prating fool or hypocrite or both.

In some ways just as bad is the quasi-one-man show, “Barrymore.”  I saw that idiotic show twice.  Plummer made it worth seeing, but it’s awfully thin porridge.

Plummer as Barrymore:  'The rain beats at the door with the persistence of an unpaid madam.'

Plummer as Barrymore: ‘The rain beats at the door with the persistence of an unpaid madam.’ That line, alas, is not in the show: it’s a paraphrase from Gene Fowler’s biography, ‘Good Night, Sweet Prince.’

As Barrymore, Plummer is wonderful wonderful wonderful.  The moment he enters, wheeling a cocktail tray ahead of him and with an inebriate glint in his eye, you know you’re in for a high old time.  He looks amazingly like the Great Profile himself.  (Poor old Jack Barrymore was so haggard from alcohol that Plummer, who was 67 when he played the role on Broadway, looked younger than Barrymore did when he was 40.  Barrymore was only 60 when he died, but looked decades older.)

Plummer as Barrymore:  I'll have Manhattan . . .

Plummer as Barrymore: Lush Life.

Plummer richly deserved the Tony he won for that performance, but the script is far beneath his talents.  The writing, especially as it gets toward the middle, is hopeless.  Barrymore’s actual words are marvellous, but when the playwright has to invent . . . well, it’s roughly the equivalent of what it would sound like if Neil Simon tried to write Shakespearean verse:  impossible.  Somewhere I read that the movie of “Barrymore” is an unholy mess, but of course I read it online, so who knows?  The DVD is to be released on May 7, 2013, and I’ve already ordered a copy.  There’s at least an hour of Plummer at his Plummiest, but the play stinks.  The writing is so incompetent that it’s not even really a one man show:  half way through, when the playwright runs out of invention, he has an offstage voice converse with Barrymore. On Broadway, the offstage voice spoke the lines so amateurishly, I felt more compassion for Plummer than I did for poor, doomed Jack:  why should such an artist be forced to work with such a piss-poor co-star?  Both times I saw the show, I was distressed to see so much talent lavished on such drivel, but now I remember only the extraordinary wit of the performance.

Happily, the other plays he has done on Broadway have been better than “Inherit the Wind” and “Barrymore.”  He was the greatest King Lear I ever saw, and the wittiest.  Indeed, his performance made a deep impression on me because, to date, he’s the only actor who ever made it clear why Cordelia, Gloucester and Kent are faithful to him, while his other two daughters hate him.  And it all has to do with his venomous wit.  As Plummer played him, Lear’s rages aren’t nearly so terrible as his acid tongue.  Goneril and Regan didn’t spring from the womb as villainesses; they were driven to it by their hateful old father, who never loved them.  Cordelia gets the shaft in the first scene, but it’s the first time she ever incurred Lear’s disfavor.  She loves him because he always loved her best.  Gloucester and Kent are faithful to him because he had been a very great king until he made the disastrous decision to retire from the cares of the throne.  Plummer’s interpretation made this absolutely clear.

Plummer as Lear:  More sinned against than sinning, and very, very funny.

Plummer as Lear: More sinned against than sinning, and very, very funny.

In interviews, Plummer has said that he, like Olivier, lacks pathos.  His Lear wasn’t as moving in the final act as others I’ve seen, probably because one doesn’t easily feel sorry for Christopher Plummer.  But he was refreshingly unsentimental and he spoke the lines beautifully.  He explains some of his thinking about the role in the clip below.

[To be continued . . . ]