I agree with the last poster. I saw the "Wilder" doc as well, it was good stuff.
What I would add (or maybe just further explain?) is the cartoonish nature of the Swanson perf. It was baroque by intention. It sort of reminds me of a trick that I recognise often in films by Stanley Kubrick, although in Kubricks films, almost all cast members show it.
In 'Sunset Blvd', a gritty realism of post WWII cinema pervades: except, in the case of Norma Desmonds world. She EXISTS as a silent movie....all is surreal.
She is a grotesque exxageration. She's baroque...a cartoon, a caricature. She's supposed to be as subtle as a sledgehammer. She's supposed to clash with everything around her, just by being herself.
I would venture to guess that the performance was supposed to be 'irritating' of some sort. And I believe that 'monotonous' was part of that choice.
Nothing more irritating than a grotesque 'one-trick pony' staying right in your face, commanding your attention, when you'd rather be looking at something (anything!) else.
I think Swanson took a helluva risk parodying her style of acting, as did Wilder for choosing it. The OP 'proves' the risk, over 50 years later.
It's certainly acceptable that one doesn't like the monotonous performance. It could've been done differently, and I'm sure everyone involved had at least some doubts.
But, the proof IS in the pudding. The film is iconic.
One last thing....the most iconic moment of course is the "My Close-up" line, with the mock grotesque "face" that the OP describes. I would say the whole perf is a setup to it. Turned out to be a huge payoff, indeed.
reply
share
Dreamsincolour
16 years ago
I haven't seen the Wilder documentary. I would like to though. But albeit from without the benefit of that, I do agree with the last poster pretty much. That was a good post! And the OP, for all he said he understood that Gloria was playing "Norma" (as in someone who lived her life as if she was playing a part in a silent movie), kept contradicting that supposed understanding. It isn't just a question of having a different opinion, what he said just wasn't congruent, and he wasn't looking past a very fixed and rather simplistic perception of what acting is supposed to appear to be. He wasn't really attempting to look at who the character was who was being portrayed. And for Wilder and Swanson to have deliberately played it down (rather than as per explained by the last poster) would have been, in effect, to play to the perceived need to pander to a lowest common denominator. That they didn't go down that road, that they didn't lose integrity, is part of what makes the film one of the greatest ever!
reply
share
Piewackett1
16 years ago
Insightful comment that made me think. Thanks. Have you read "Conversations with Wilder?" It's an incredibly disorganized book, but it has it's moments.
reply
share
mickeeteeze
16 years ago
No, I haven't, but I might check it out. He DID come off as a bit of a scatterbrain in the doc....not in a bad way, but in a 'stream of consciousness' kind of way.
reply
share
Locomotiva1
16 years ago
I found Swanson's acting monotonous, too.
But I agree that's exactly what the script wanted.
The border between the woman and the diva blurred: she is acting her entire life not knowing that her "silver screen" lifestyle annoyed the real people around.
There are many other cinema-in-cinema movies around, and many give you a hint of the Jekill-and-Hyde of an actor: you see when the character is "acting" and when he/she is the real gritty/stupid person.
But all those movie-in-movies don't deal with the diva's heydays.
Today we have few hints about real life of actors: we have no photos of Angelina Jolie's or Julia Rpoberts bedrooms, of Madonna's NYC apartments.
Nor any of those feel the need to have a swan-like bed or bad-taste ornamentations in their homes.
We may even guess that Nicole Kidman woke up in the morning in a cotton flanell pijiama with a teddy bear printed on and padded around home in slippers without make up and fussy hairs - ok, it's a bit difficult to imagine.
But, it's not impossible there may be an unknown real Nicole Kidman that's not the shiny and perfect Kidman we all can enjoy in public.
Not in those days.
The silent-movie divas were always neat and glamorous, wrapped in breathtaking silky gowns 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days/year.
And people supposedly known everything about the divas.
And this movie was exactly on this.
reply
share
LetThemEatCake01
9 years ago
I seriously doubt anyone, then or now would consider Gloria's acting as a one trick monotonous annoying pony from hell that one wants to escape from as you point out. Quite the contrary. The movie is a masterpiece but let's not kid ourselves, this movie is iconic because of Norma Desmond, and Gloria Swanson made Norma Desmond and people love it. She is not annoying in the least.
reply
share