Last night, I binge-watched five episodes of The Rockford Files on Netflix in memory of James Garner who died on Saturday. It kept me way past my normal bedtime but it was my way of memorializing someone who gave me, and so many others, hours and hours of pleasure. Unfortunately, Netflix does not have episodes of Maverick or I would have watched those too.
Over at Pharyngula, PZ Myers also mourned the death of Garner but says that he liked him despite his judgment that Garner was a terrible actor because he always played himself in every character he portrayed. Garner himself, ever modest about his talents, promoted the view that he was not a good actor but just someone who drifted into the profession and managed to make a good living at it. He compared himself unfavorably to those actors who had seriously studied the craft.
It is true that Garner was almost always the lovable rogue, the amiable, trouble-avoiding, but right-thinking and good-hearted person who was willing to skirt the law but only in a good cause, and that this seemed to be the kind of person he was in real life too. He did not play the range of characters and types that a Paul Newman or Dustin Hoffman did in their careers. But does that make him a poor actor?
I don’t think so. In fact, I think he was a fine actor because not only is it not easy to ‘be yourself’ when acting, but bringing a light comedic touch to a role is exceedingly hard to pull off. As actor Donald Wolfit is supposed to have said on his deathbed when a friend asked if death was hard to deal with: “Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.”
The late director Robert Altman some years ago paid a tribute to Garner that captured what made him so good, saying, “I have long thought that Jim Garner was one of the best actors around. He is often overlooked because he makes it look so easy and that is not easy to do.”
Comedy requires great skill and timing. I would place Garner in the same class as Cary Grant, another actor who could be accused of playing the same role over and over but each time brought something new to it and did it so well that one never tired of seeing him perform. When watching episode after episode of Rockford last night, one could not help notice that there was a huge difference whenever Garner was in the scene and when he was not. When he appeared, the quality of the show got elevated.
And if that is not what makes a good actor, then what is?
I tend to agree with PZ on this. I would refer to such a person as a “star,” not an “actor.”
I agree with you, Mano. Back in the thirties, people generally expected actors to remain consistent. “I’m going to see the latest Clark Gable movie”, was often how people would refer to movies. If Gable had tried to play Hamlet, people probably would have rioted. Sure, there were actors with wide range, like Lionel Barrymore, and that’s good, too. But to call a guy who delighted audiences for many decades a bad actor seems a bit like snobbery.
Reginald:
OK, that’s probably a fair distinction.
I did not mean my comment as disparagement, and I think, from other comments he made, that he probably would have agreed with it. It depends on what we mean by “actor” — if it means someone who can convincingly inhabit another persona, then he wasn’t. But if we open it up to include people who are comfortable with themselves and can be a great presence on stage or screen, then he was.
And that’s a talent. I can’t do it. My few attempts at ‘acting’ have been terrible, even when I’m just trying to be myself in front of a camera.
Garner did not play a large range of roles, but what he did do, IMHO, he did very well. I have always enjoyed watching Garner despite the limited acting range.
I’d say Paul Newman had less range than Garner. And Garner was more likeable. Terrible star actors? Elizabeth Taylor and James Dean*. Both vastly overrated for over-the-top performances, but photogenic, and in Dean’s case, dying young was a huge boost. I never found any character they played believable, unlike Garner’s roles.
*No Jimmy, you’re tearing me apart. Gag.
For a while (and I have no idea if this is still true), American actors were more concerned with being stars, and did not want to play “bad guy” roles that might hurt them with their fan base, so studios would bring in British actors who were more willing to play them.
Kudos to Garner at least for understanding his limitations, and choosing appropriate roles. Some actors are good at picking parts and others are not.
Why does Hollywood ALWAYS cast English actors as villains?
This is even the theme of a recent Jaguar (the auto) commercial.
There are different ways to classify acting styles and one of them is “personality” vs. “character.” The personality actor plays the same part every time, and usually has a paradoxical combination of stereotyped good looks along with memorable quirkiness. Tom Cruise, Zooey Deschanel, and Denzel Washington are good modern examples.
Character acting is a tradition in stage plays, where one actor might end up playing The Earl of Less than Important, 2nd Clown, and a soldier. Hollywood likes personality actors because they can hire three people for 2 hours each almost as easily as hiring one person for 6 hours, and because personality actors seem more “real” and more vulnerable, especially in close-ups.
It’s common for people to call personality actors “bad” actors because they seem to have such a limited range, but think about it. Could you sustain that slightly befuddled straight man look for seven seasons and still make it look interesting?
I agree that he was a better actor than people gave him credit for. He played a fairly limited type of role. Did you ever see him play a more “dramatic” role poorly? No, you did not. He wasn’t hired to play those types of roles. He left scenery completely un-chewed. All he did was entertain. He did that very well.
Besides, he never made any bones about the fact that he was on his way to Australia.
James Garner was a likeable person who played likeable people. He was playing himself and he was comfortable with himself, which made him convincing as an actor.
Garner, like John Wayne, played pretty much the same character every time. Unlike John Wayne, he was good at it.
I consider James Garner to be a fair actor with good comedy timing and delivery. As far as I can tell he never played rolls that were very far from his own personality. Extreme emoting was not his forte. I never saw him laugh manically, cry uncontrollably, express extreme lust or fear. He was mostly right down the center with only enough range on the high and low sides to show humanity and engagement.
Of course, the style of the time when he was growing up was that men didn’t really show deep emotions. Yes, in the climactic scene there might be an escape tear sliding down the cheek but that was about as emotional as the ideal allowed. Gardner was quite that wooden but you still had to look close to see the emotion being conveyed. It worked for the rolls he took.
I don’t know if he could pull out the stops because I never saw him in a roll that required it. I suspect hat this was a matter of James Gardner only auditioning for certain rolls but it may have also been a matter of type casting.
I always liked Gardner in shows. He always had something of the touch of the common man. I could see myself in his characters.
A lot of people don’t know that Gardner was actually a race car driver and something of a stunt man. He did most of his own driving and stunts.
@otrame,
Your comment reminded me that I should have mentioned that Support Your Local Sheriff was a really funny film.
There are many, many actors who play the same character over and over again. Just think of Clint Eastwood -- the same in A Fistfull of Dollars (1964) as in Million Dollar Baby (40 years later).
There are two questions: how well do they pull off the trick and can you relate with them? I never could with James Garner.
As I don’t know where to post this, but am pretty sure you’re going to like it:
“One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.”
Now ain’t that a smart creationist?
http://smashboards.com/threads/god-or-big-bang-evolution-where-do-we-come-from.56093/page-6#post-1073734
I too enjoyed Garner’s acting. I’m sad to hear he died. Rockford files is one of my favorite old shows. My wife thinks it’s funny that I like watching old shows from the 70’s and 80’s.
I agree with the comments that Garner never appeared to be acting and that that is a difficult thing to do for an actor. Combine that with doing most of his own stunts in Rockford, and I’d say that he was pretty good, as an understatement.
Perhaps it is mostly that he brought me a lot of entertainment through his work, and that is the full measure that I would ask of an actor.
I remember coming across this film (on daytime tv? at home sick from school? I’ve no idea ) but this clip struck me as something more patriotic than flag-waving.
krambc,
Yes, that speech captures why war is perpetuated better than most analyses. Screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky had a knack for biting social commentary.