The Songs of Johnny Go

GOD-FUCKING-DAMMIT!!!

I go on one date last night, shunning the usually-abysmal Sunday night Fox line-up, and what oh what do I miss??



I WILL NEVER GO OUT ON A DATE AGAIN.

Oh who am I kidding, I want to meet a girl whose purse is a lunchbox.

Although Lisa identifying with the GHOST WORLD girls? She's alienated, but she's also still idealistic and isn't a selfish jerk. But thankfully, all of that was forgotten by the time we got to "Watchmen Babies: V for Vacation" and "Maus is in the Haus!"

Sir Laurence Olivier gets a lot of crap these days.

Whether it's how over-the-top he seems to our post-Method cinematic sensibilities, or just sour grapes over his choke-hold on British Shakespeare culture for, what, forty years (until Branagh came along with HENRY V, not to mention what was happening on stage at the time), "Olivier" is often a dirty word in dramatic circles. That's certainly been my impression.

Part of it is also that I was raised to believe Olivier was God. My father was agnostic at best, but he outright worshiped men like Mozart and Olivier, and no Hamlet could ever, ever, ever match up with the Olivier/Jean Simmons film version. "It was good, but it wasn't Olivier's! THAT annoying shrew is meant to be Ophelia? Jean Simmons was heartbreaking and tender!" In my father's mind, as well as British theatre for all those years, all other actors were living in the shadow of Laurence Olivier.

Olivier's HAMLET, upon recent viewing, is fascinating for how surprisingly underplayed it often is; this is the only time I've ever seen soliloquies performed as voice-overs, which you might think would be natural for transition to film. He's really not over-the-top, as many still accuse him of being, and the bits I've seen hold up today.

But then, I grew up to find that I was far more interested in the Branagh/American styles of Shakespeare performance. Of speaking the lines not as some grand, holy text, letting the language speak for itself, but rather like actual dialogue. I used to dream of studying classical acting in London, but now... I don't know. If for nothing else, do I really need to be bigger?

All that said... I still find myself defending Olivier.

I used to think that it was just left-over brainwashing from my father, coupled with sympathy of seeing a man--regarded by the world as the single greatest actor alive--watch helplessly as the world moved on, leaving him thoroughly respected while increasingly mocked in private, reduced to overact in B-movies (from directors terrified to give him direction*) and Kodak commercials.

Then, for the first time in ten years, I rewatched this:



(from a strictly screenwriting standpoint: it was a stroke of genius to incorporate Richard's speeches from HENRY VI PART III, some of which are on par with--and sometimes even surpass--those in his own play)

Now, from a modern standpoint, are those five minutes a daring new take on Shakespeare? Is it subversive? Is it saying anything particularly new or post-modern or ironic? No. It's pretty much as standard a Richard III as you can get.

That's just the thing. Watching this again... it's not just a standard; even today, it's the standard. There's a reason for that.

He can be allowed and even forgiven for being too big sometimes. After all... he was a giant.




And to think, I originally was going to post that video simply so I could post this:



Peter Sellers + The Beatles x RICHARD III ÷ Olivier = awesome.



*Until MARATHON MAN, where Olivier--ill and having gone without acting work for years--played a Nazi dentist. The director finally got up the courage to hint around telling Olivier to tone it down. Olivier was frankly grateful that someone was actually giving him direction again. His performance in MARATHON MAN is subsequently understated and nothing less than chilling