From Here to Eternity was a good movie, but Shane is far superior. I think they were just too hesitant to give a Western the award at the time.
And of course Frank Sinatra beat out Jack Palance...figures. If Palance had put out a few hit tunes maybe he'd have had a chance.
Nope, From Here to Eternity is the better film. Shane is incredible, though, and it's my 2nd favorite of '53.
And of course Frank Sinatra beat out Jack Palance...figures. If Palance had put out a few hit tunes maybe he'd have had a chance.
Hi
But to be fair to Palance, what lines he did have - true, not many - were said in the most menacing manner I've ever heard delivered on film.
But I do remember reading years ago that he himself didn't rate his part as "acting" - having spent most of his time before filming practicing "taking off and putting on that pair of black gloves". (Mind you, I think if I had been Torrey, having to stand there in the mud watching that little performance with the gloves, I would have got through at least three toilet rolls before the bullet hit me!)
Happy trails pardner.
edp
Sinatra eventually becamse a good actor, but look stilted in the role of Maggio. At 38 he was nothing like Maggio was at age 19 in the book. I thought Franks's perfromance was overrated in FHTE. Palance had a more significnat part and was the villain of all western villains.
Shane has grown in stature as the years have paased, while FHTE has declined. But a the time, I'm assuming FHTE was considered a blockbuster, while Shane was considered an understaed western.
But a the time, I'm assuming FHTE was considered a blockbuster, while Shane was considered an understaed western.
No, it didn't deserve to win. Zinnemann's film is more weighty, resonant and all-around superior.
----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/
I wouldn't be unhappy at all if SHANE had won Best Picture- it was certainly worthy of being considered one of the best pictures of that year. Jack Palance deserved his supporting actor nomination as his performance and screen presence was riveting and so memorable. It speaks well of how much an (menacing) impression he made with relatively little screen time and dialog. Though I think it a better picture, I equate FROM HERE TO ETERNITY with GIANT in that both to me have lost something over time as best picture winners and being presumably "great" films, while SHANE hasn't. I'd rate SHANE best picture of 1953 over ETERNITY with THE ROBE trailing ROMAN HOLIDAY in fourth place!
shareFHTE deserved to win but I like Shane better. I think it should be in the Top 250 in place of LOTR tripe.
If you put me on ignore, then how can I notify you when I win the lottery?
Slight correction: Giant didn't win Best Picture, Around the World in Eighty Days did. Stevens won for Best Director, however.
shareYou are correct, and it was a travesty. At least Stevens won.
If you put me on ignore, then how can I notify you when I win the lottery?
[deleted]
kurtm7-586-811627
I disagree with much of what you wrote, but that's just my opinion.
I would like to take issue with your comment: "any man who fools around with a married woman is pretty low on my list". Again I respect your opinion, but wouldn't it make sense to think a little further through the situation. Milton fooled around with his superior's wife, so he knew very well what the situation was: the husband was a monumental sleaseball who completely neglected his military duties and his wife and spent most of his tame chasing skirts in Honolulu. We find out later in the film the extent to which he actually neglects his wife and the tragic consequences that entails. So Milton took up with someone whom he judged to be a fine woman, who had been treated like last week's trash and was being woefully neglected. I see that alot different from the situation of where a man goes out and seduces the wife of a man who treasures her and treats her correctly. Evidently Milton meant it in earnest, otherwise why would he take the awful risk that being with his superior's wife entailed.