Replies

How nasty you are on a thread that is simply about Jackie Gleason. Frighteningly so. If you so disdain actors and opera singers why do you even bother coming on a thread about acting?? You obviously know nothing about this fine art.

I can’t change your mind (because you have none)

but to those who also don’t understand this performance: it is about the art of stillness, mostly. It is about internal, subtle acting - much like what Garbo did when the camera was on her but she said nothing. It is about thinking, not speaking. In that, his performance is wonderful. His character is there in the snap of a finger because, somehow, Mr. Gleason, brought forth all those dark qualities that were in his own persona.

Much different than Gigot, which I differ with from my friends here. I do not think that’s a good performance.

If you so disdain actors and opera singers why do you even bother coming on a thread about acting??

Perhaps to express an opinion about that which he disdains.

You obviously know nothing about this fine art.

Sniff them tights, grandma.

I posted an opinion that you disagreed with. Instead of discussing the topic you chose condescension. You don't like being treated like an a-hole? Don't act like one.

The “art of stillness” is just another name for his appropriately understated performance. We have no way to know if that writer choose that, or the director, or him. It may have been a collaboration. So what? None of that changes the situation. The best you have done is rename what I had already offered.

“Ok, Jackie, that was good. This time I want you to dial it down a little more. Let's see how that looks.” OH MY GOSH! ROLL IN A WHEELBARROW FULL OF OSCARS!

Dark qualities? Exactly what dark qualities? Give specific examples. He played pool. He wore a suit. He chalked a cue. He was not tied into any of what transpired between the principles. It seems you have confused his part with those of Newman, Scott and Laurie. You want to believe it was an amazing performance so you have added what isn't there.

I'm not trying to take anything away from him. He was an amazing, incredibly talented performer, and one of my favorites. His physical and acting stature were used perfectly in the film. But the credit goes to those who were smart enough to select him. He and the rest were smart enough to understand that while key parts of the story hinged on Fats, his was not a big performance; it couldn't be. You know this is true. You are unwilling to admit it.

Now go somewhere else and try to act smart. Your performance isn't working here.

BTW - you also show that you have poor ability in reading comprehension, reason/logic, or both. There is nothing in what I wrote that should reasonably lead someone to conclude that I disdain actors and opera singers. Quite the contrary. (You claim conservatism yet your replies suggest you think like a liberal. More is the shame.)

Puccini operas are generally my favorites, and Kiri Te Kanawa my favorite soprano. Others are excellent, but for me at least, her voice had a quality unmatched. Similarly, I prefer the quality of Andrea Bocelli’s voice above that of the late great Pavarotti. But there is no question that Pavarotti was the superior tenor. His clarity and accuracy were wonderful, imo.

OTOH, I do disdain arrogant jerks who imagine no one else’s opinion can possibly be as “important” as theirs. Hopefully you have managed to absorb that.