Gable vs. Bogart

[Hercule]

I've always thought that Bogart turned in much more nuanced performances than Gable, ...

I think this sums it up for me, though admittedly I'm not as familiar with Gable's roles as I am Bogart. To me Bogart became the character whereas Gable was just Gable acting a part. I see this in so many big name actors today, it ends up being just another movie with so-and-so in it. Rareely do they transcend themselves to become the character they are playing.

 

[m0nk]

I think this sums it up for me, though admittedly I'm not as familiar with Gables roles as I am Bogart. To me Bogart became the character whereas Gable was just Gable acting a part. I see this in so many big name actors today, it ends up being just another movie with so-and-so in it. Rareely do they transcend themselves to become the character they are playing.

I would agree, and yes, we do see this more commonly these days. For a time, I thought that Karl Urban was one of those who just read a script as himself. He has this look where he looks intently in one direction while reading the line, then looks away. I called it the "Karl Urban". Then he surprised me in Star Trek where he actually became Bones. I think that role helped him grow, and now he seems to become the character.

I'm sure that many Golden Era actors/actresses experienced the same growth at some point in their career, and even though I've seen many of both actors performances, I can't say if/when either may have hit that growth. But in my opinion, Bogart definitely had hit it early in his career as all of his performances are in-character.

 

[Hercule]

...Bogart definitely had hit it early in his career as all of his performances are in-character.

In that vein, I like to note Bogart's performance in Casablanca as opposed to Claude Rains. Bogart's characterization is so much deeper, capturing even the most subtle of facial reactions. Rick's reaction to seeing Ilsa again in the cafe is all in his eyes. Rains just seems to wait for his marks so he can say his lines - the dialog at the table outside the cafe.

 

[m0nk]

Interesting tie-in: a thread was just created stating that today is the anniversary of Bogart's passing. And Hercule, as much as I love most Claude Rains performances, I agree 100% on his reading in Casablanca.

 

[Seraph1227]

I prefer Bogie, he looked better in a hat as well

 

[Fading Fast]

I think this sums it up for me, though admittedly I'm not as familiar with Gable's roles as I am Bogart. To me Bogart became the character whereas Gable was just Gable acting a part. I see this in so many big name actors today, it ends up being just another movie with so-and-so in it. Rareely do they transcend themselves to become the character they are playing.

I've never understood how Gable became "the King" as he sometimes seems to me to be overacting like a poor stage actor. Does he have a spark - yes. Can he nail a scene at times - absolutely. Can he deliver some complex dialogue with ease - no doubt. But he never seems to be absorbed in the role - it is, as said better by others above, always Clark Gable playing someone. Whereas, Boogie became the character. I think of Spencer Tracy the same as Boogie and John Wayne as more like Gable. All of these men are talented, but Tracey became a character - with John Wayne, you were always watching him played a character. Tom Cruise is an actor today that is always Tom Cruise playing someone. Phillip Seymour Hoffman was more a Bogie / Tracy actor - he became the character.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The actor in the Era who really captured the sense of "becoming the character" was Paul Muni, the most chameleon-like performer of the time. He could be Robert Burns, the Fugitive From A Chain Gang, and he could be Emile Zola fighting for Dreyfus, and he could be Wang Lung the Chinese farmer in "The Good Earth," and he made you absolutely believe what he was doing. No other actor of the time was as protean as Muni.

 

[Tomasso]

The actor in the Era who really captured the sense of "becoming the character" was Paul Muni, the most chameleon-like performer of the time.

He was given a long leash by Warner Brothers; an aberration in the studio system.

 

[Fading Fast]

The actor in the Era who really captured the sense of "becoming the character" was Paul Muni, the most chameleon-like performer of the time. He could be Robert Burns, the Fugitive From A Chain Gang, and he could be Emile Zola fighting for Dreyfus, and he could be Wang Lung the Chinese farmer in "The Good Earth," and he made you absolutely believe what he was doing. No other actor of the time was as protean as Muni.

This is embarrassing, but I'm going to admit it. I've alway enjoyed Paul Muni - agree with all your comments - and I love "The Good Earth" (book and movie), but never connected him to it. God I feel stupid (even more than usual).

 

[LizzieMaine]

That was Muni's gift -- there was no "Paul Muni" character that the studios thought of when casting him in a part. He could be, within reason, any character -- I don't think he was ever up for Scarlett O'Hara, but I bet if he had done it he'd have given a very credible interpretation.

 

[Tomasso]

There were more than a few actors that could have stretched as Muni and Olivier did but they didn't have the courage to buck the system. Both men retreated to the theater when they felt restricted. Of course many stars didn't have the stage chops to fall back on.

 

[Matt Deckard]

Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse?

 

[emigran]

Bogart. Although I think I would have rather BEEN Gable.

Very well said...
BOgie had the BEST hats, however...

 

[Blackthorn]

The actor in the Era who really captured the sense of "becoming the character" was Paul Muni, the most chameleon-like performer of the time. He could be Robert Burns, the Fugitive From A Chain Gang, and he could be Emile Zola fighting for Dreyfus, and he could be Wang Lung the Chinese farmer in "The Good Earth," and he made you absolutely believe what he was doing. No other actor of the time was as protean as Muni.

I think Charles Laughton was equally good, but that's just my opinion. But Bogart had the most on screen charisma, IMHO

 

[Matt Crunk]

Bogey hands down. Maybe it was because of the roles I associate him with, but I was never able to identify with Gable. I completely relate to Bogart in just about everything I've seen him in.

I also feel the same about Cary Grant. Just can't relate to him at all.

 

[2jakes]

My favorites:

Bogart
Spencer Tracy
John Garfield



My wife's favorites:

Clark Gable
Gary Cooper
Cary Grant

 

[Fading Fast]

My favorites:

Bogart
Spencer Tracy
John Garfield



My wife's favorites:

Clark Gable
Gary Cooper
Cary Grant

Good add - Garfield was another actor who became the role and took on many different personas, all believable. Barbara Stanwych was a female actor who could also do this. Your wife's tastes lean toward classic male pulchritude and maybe there is something to the fact that those men were so good looking that their looks overshadowed their acting or, saying it another way, made it harder for the audience to see them as the character and not as themselves. (Side note, my girlfriend would agree - with passion - with your wife's choice of Cooper and Grant, but would not with Gable - she can hardly tolerate him in a movie - go figure.)

 

[2jakes]

Good add - Garfield was another actor who became the role and took on many different personas, all believable. Barbara Stanwych was a female actor who could also do this. Your wife's tastes lean toward classic male pulchritude and maybe there is something to the fact that those men were so good looking that their looks overshadowed their acting or, saying it another way, made it harder for the audience to see them as the character and not as themselves. (Side note, my girlfriend would agree - with passion - with your wife's choice of Cooper and Grant, but would not with Gable - she can hardly tolerate him in a movie - go figure.)

My wife is from Venus ...

 

[Mr Oldschool]

Cagney, hands down. He didn't have to become the character to portray the character, and before Bogart made anti-heroes the new leading man type, Cagney made sympathetic villains that you would like despite the fact that they were the villains of the piece.

Just rating Bogart against Gable, I've always like Bogart better. Gable just never really clicked with me, but I really haven't made a strong effort to watch his shows either. My interest in old movies started with Bogart in Casablanca. Having spread out into plenty of other classics, I have to say, Bogart has gone down a little in my appreciation. Not that he wasn't talented, but there were many under-appreciated and under-recognized actors that were just as good or better. But one thing I find very interesting about Bogart is that much of his apparent personality was an act too. According to Louise Brooks in her autobiography, she knew Bogart when he was "Humphrey", a polite, well spoken and slightly shy theater actor who was just trying to break into movies. After bouncing around in unremarkable roles for a number of years as a company actor, doing whatever they told him to do, a cheap movie that he was in that wasn't expected to go anywhere struck a chord with audiences and suddenly, this guy who was previously known for playing villains, henchmen, and sniveling sorts, became a sensation portraying Rick Blaine, a drawling cynical anti-hero, who does things his way and doesn't take any guff from anybody. Seizing the opportunity, both the actor and the studio created this image of "Bogart", and actor who is a drawling, cynical loner that doesn't take roles or direction from anybody, and does things his way. As Ms. Brooks put it, you don't become an actor in Hollywood if you are a loner. It was just a studio publicity trick to make him more marketable.

 

[Alex Oviatt]

Bogart. Although I think I would have rather BEEN Gable.

Exactly!