MovieChat Forums > Moby Dick (1956) Discussion > If not Peck in 1956 then who?

If not Peck in 1956 then who?


The board continually criticizes Peck as Ahab. I agree D Day-Lewis would be outstanding today. But in 1956 who would have been better cast as Ahab? I really can't place any actor in the role except for maybe Robert Ryan, Edward G. Robinson, or Orson Welles. Perhaps Michael Rennie if he could sport a mean streak. I say no to Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster, James Stewart, Humphrey Bogart, C. Heston, Yul Brenner, C. Grant, Clark Gable. The list goes on and on. Maybe Harry Andrews who played Stubbs would have been a good fit.

Who then for Ahab?

reply

If we're going to cast a younger actor like they did with Peck, Ryan would have been outstanding. So would Eddie G. or Orson. And despite your nay, I think Kirk Douglas could have done a good job. And let me add Robert Mitchum. How about Charles Laughton?

Burt Lancaster could have made a great Ahab... about 20 years later. Back in 1956 he was still in his happy-go-lucky acrobat phase, so nay. Bogart would have made certain sense actually, check his obsessed captain in The Caine Mutiny. Absolute NO's for Stewart, Heston, Grant, and Gable, and a maybe for Brynner. Almost anyone could have done better than Peck, though. I love the guy, but he's terrible here.

And a left field choice: John Wayne. Before you mock the idea, go watch his performance in The Searchers again. Quite Ahab-like in a way. Better him than Peck, fo' sho'.

This is not my signature. This is IMDb's automatic translation of my signature.

reply

Interesting you should mention Robert Ryan. About five years later, he played a despicable, diabolical and mysterious character, Claggart, in Billy Budd, based on another Melville work (famously, a Christ allegory) as the "Satan" personification. He was wonderful in it and so, I think, would have been fine as Ahab -- as Welles would have been (my favorite actor for the part). Then, again, I think Peck did much better than he, himself, thought he did.

reply

Huston did not want Welles to play Ahab, claiming he "didn't want two whales in the picture." In fact, Huston pictured himself in the role, but he was not a bankable actor. Another actor that Warner's purportedly mentioned, but Huston nixed was Fredric March, which might very well have worked, but as my bud, cwente2 (Farley) writes, Peck does a fine job, and a dis-service to himself claiming he did not.

reply

Must be true. Farleys are never wrong!

reply

I've never understood the hate on Peck's performance. When he's giving his speeches to the crew to motivate them--especially the one where he asks them to give their blood to temper the new lances--his eyeball to eyeball stares and low, crazed voice is awesome. You can see why his crew is willing to follow this madman. Even Starbuck gives in, after having fought him throughout.

reply

Peck's best performance only exceeded by To Kill a Mockingbird.

reply

Gotta weigh in here too. Since this is one of my favorite films of all times, (really, would there have been a JAWS without MOBY DICK?), I just can't imagine anyone else playing Ahab...and I can't imagine why anyone would want to try to improve on a masterpiece such as this...

reply

Ahab is a larger than life character. The white whale is too. Peck, with his 6ft2 and a half height, powerful resonant voice, and intensity was perfect. I saw the Patrick Stewart version. Patrick Stewart is a great actor but Peck is Ahab. I read the book and Pecks age is not an issue. Peck was a method trained actor with a commanding presence. See him in 12 O'clock high. See him in Pork Chop Hill. See him in Gentlemans Agreement. And of course To Kill a Mockingbird. He won an Oscar for that. This was a great actor.

reply

I agree that Peck gave a good performance and in my opinion "Moby Dick" (1956) is a good, not great, film. Might it have been better with a different Ahab? Perhaps, but it could have been worse.

I've not read the book but I'm speculating that some of the criticism towards Peck is because the book "purists" feel that he wasn't the correct "type".

Personally, I generally feel that any film adaptation should be looked at as a separate entity and should stand or fall solely on its own merits.





reply

It seems to me that in 1956 Ahab was a role perfectly fitted to Sterling Hayden. With a good actor, biographical details are secondary, but if there's a relevant real-life background it rarely hurts, and there sure was for Hayden, the Wanderer. Eg http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001330/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken.

reply

Yeah, Sterling Hayden would have been a good choice.

reply

I could definitely see Hayden doing a good job with the part of Ahab. My first thought was that he was a little young in 1956, but then so was Peck.

Interestingly, Hayden was on the short list to play Quint in Jaws.

reply

Orson Welles is too heavy set for the gaunt, sinewy Ahab. Welles is a great actor with a commanding voice and screen presence, but his rotund physique and baby face runs counter to just about everyone's mental picture of Ahab.

Harry Andrews would have been great in the role, but unfortunately he just didn't have the name recognition to be a big draw. The same is probably true for Trevor Howard, who I think would be perfect otherwise.

Robert Ryan is an interesting choice, probably the best one on your suggested list.

reply

Trevor Howard

He would have been good... funny enough, a few years later he did attain the captaincy of HMS Bounty in the Brando version of Mutiny on the Bounty...

reply

He would have been good... funny enough, a few years later he did attain the captaincy of HMS Bounty in the Brando version of Mutiny on the Bounty...


I've always hated that movie, because it turns Christian into a one dimensional hero and Bligh into a cartoon villain. It was much more the fault of the writing than the acting, but Howard's Bligh bordered on the ridiculous (which is a shame after seeing how good Trevor Howard could be in The Third Man).

The 1984 Bounty with Anthony Hopkins as Bligh is much better and by all rights mostly historically accurate.

reply

. . . with Charlton Heston and he was asked what one part he wanted to play but didn't. He said, "Ahab." (quoting from memory) "Greg Peck was wonderful in the role, but too much of his natural goodness showed through. There was no goodness in Ahab."

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra

reply

Ronald Reagan ;)

reply

Oddly enough, I was just discussing this a couple of days ago with a friend who also agrees Peck was miscast and severely out of his depth. Most of the alternative choices we came up with (like Robert Ryan, Trevor Howard, Harry Andrews) have been mentioned in the other responses. We also considered Raymond Massey, Paul Scofield, Peter Finch and Jack Palance, all of whom I think could've been splendid. My friend and I split on Kirk Douglas; he nixed him, possibly feeling too familiar with Douglas' particular bag of tricks. I feel differently. The actor was peaking artistically and commercially at the time. Much praised in the concurrent "Lust for Life", terrific in "Paths of Glory" and "The Vikings", both released within a year or two of "Moby Dick". With "Spartacus" and "Lonely are the Brave" still ahead of him. Ahab's an intense role and I'd say intensity was something Douglas never had a problem conveying. Though it would've been unexpected casting, I think Dana Andrews had it in him to be a fine Ahab. Basil Rathbone could've dazzled with the dialogue. And certainly it's no stretch to imagine John Huston himself jumping off the screen in the role. Henry Fonda could be quite chilling when he wanted to - and was pretty bankable in the mid-fifties. So I'd add his name to the list of Ahabs that could have been.

reply