I really didn't like the Garbo's performance. I think she was overacting almost all the time [too obvious], whereas Crawford did a GREAT JOB. Her beauty in it was absolutely stunning, and her performance was indeed terrific, for me, even better than in Mildred Pierce.
To err is human, but it feels divine.
-Mae West-
I completely agree and she was so beautiful, it was unbelievable!
shareGlad to know you agree! Her face was simply magical in the early '30s, and so was her acting.
Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop
I agree with those here who say that Joan Crawford stole the movie. She was also absolutely stunning. Garbo was also beautiful, and still pics of her show that to great advantage. But it seems to me that films, capturing movements and showing the actors from different angles, in this period of Crawford's career show her to great advantage. She literally looked great from every angle. I sense that she knew it, too, and this gave her the great confidence that oozes out of her portrayal in this star studded cast (as TCM noted the other night, itself a credit to the film).
But yes, Crawford was both awesome in her performance and in the way she looked.
Glad to know you agree. Joan was simply amazing in Grand Hotel -even better than in some of her most acclaimed performances such as Mildred Pierce or Humoresque, at least for me-, and should have gotten at least an Academy Award nomination. Her acting was terrific, "modern" and -like you mentioned- full of self-confidence, whereas Garbo's seems terribly theatrical and dated nowadays. Of course both ladies were stunning, but when it comes to acting, Joan is far superior to Garbo in Grand Hotel.
Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop
Greta Garbo's character probably had manic depressive psychosis. She was so depressed, she was ready to take her life. Her thinking was distorted when she said that nobody applauded her performance. After talking to the Baron for just a few hours she was suddenly madly in love and making plans to go away with him. She had extreme highs and lows and was losing her grip on reality. Being that she was a prima ballerina in a profession of high strung divas, her illness was not detected. Garbo was correct to play her over the top. I have seen Garbo in other films where she gives finally nuanced performances. I think she played Grusinskaya over dramatically for this reason.
Joan Crawford was extremely good as the stenographer. After WWI, most Germans had very little. She would have grown up with nothing and tried to learn a trade to keep out of the gutter. But jobs were hard to find and one had to eat so if a man was willing to keep her for awhile that was OK by her. She played Flaemmchen as a no nonsense girl who could dream about loving the Baron but knew that Preysing had the money. She had to be wary, steady, and pragmatic and Joan played her exactly like that. This was an ensemble piece where everyone contributed and gave wonderful performances IMO.
I agree with everyone else who thinks Crawford stole the movie. From the moment they introduced Garbo's character right after Flem, I thought she paled in comparison. So far the ultimate Garbo film is Ninotchka for me. Seeing her play an exuberant character, as in Two Faced Woman is fun because it seems novel but seeing her do it for the whole film as in Grand Hotel, it just seems one note. And I thought it was a terrible choice to do all those monologues in close up. It made her seem even more over-the-top.
shareJoan Crawford's performance was brilliant, but it stands out partly because it's a naturalist *movie* performance of a believable and interesting character.
Most of the other performances are melodramatic stage performances -- a style would have been familiar to audiences of the time. To be fair, the characters they play are more cartoonish (one dimensional).
John Barrymore seems melodramatic *except* when he's with Crawford when he matches her naturalism. They work well together.
> Garbo's performance. I think she was overacting almost all the time
Her performance may seem ridiculous to modern eyes, but the reasons are partly historical, and partly character based.
Her performance seems more appropriate to a stage melodrama than a film -- but Grand Hotel was a play before it was a film (and a novel before that).
Audiences would also have known stories about dancers who were famous for flamboyant eccentric whimsical personalities. In other words -- Garbo's performance was a lot more believable at the time and (since the novel was based on author Vicki Baum's experiences) perhaps more genuinely realistic that modern audiences believe.
I agree with what you said. Garbo was ridiculously over the top where Joan nailed the character and was completely believable and very moving in her performance. I enjoyed both the Barrymores too.
shareThank you! I was watching "Grand Hotel" the other night once more, and I really wanted to like and understand Garbo's perfomance, which I did to a certain extent, at least a bit more than previous viewings, but I found it hard to justify her overacting. Yes, I'm aware her character was extremely depressed, bohemian and had lost any interest in life, but even when she fell in love -and got happy- it was kind of too much and hard to bear.
On the other hand, once more I found Crawford's performance to be absolutely delightful, refreshing and "modern". I strongly think she should have been at least nominated for an Oscar that year. I think her performance in "Grand Hotel" is even better than in "Mildred Pierce" or "Humoresque", which is saying something.
Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop
Joan Crawford is breezy and delightful, with no evidence of the harridan she was to become later in her career.
I really didn't like the Garbo's performance. I think she was overacting almost all the time [too obvious]
[deleted]