Gleason got all the high praise in this film too early. It was before his far superior role in the great "Requiem For a Heavyweight" (1962). In that magnificent Serling inspired film all four (Quinn,Gleason,Harris,Rooney) of the main performances were brilliant. That was the performance he should have got nominated for, not this one. His role in this one was tiny in comparison.
he didn't have much screen time,but i find his performance as fats to be much more rewarding. but it's two completely different kinds of performances,and i don't blame anyone for preferring requiem. it's certainly meatier,and i do love his "go home" speech at the end.
shareHe is better in The Hustler. Less dialogue but spot on expressions and emotion. He is great in this and deserving of the nomination. As an addendum i think this is movie has one of the finest screenplays in movie history.
share"Requiem" was a superior film with four great performances and a brilliant Rod Serling screenplay. There's no way Gleason's performance was as good in "Hustler". As I said, it was more like a cameo in comparison to his "catalyst" role in "Requiem".
shareGleason acted inRequiem.In the Hustler he was just playing himself....
shareYou're confusing "role" and "performance". Gleason's role in Requiem was more complex than in Hustler, but his performance was just as good in both.
shareHis "performance" in The Hustler was not as good BECAUSE IT WAS both SMALLER and MORE SIMPLE. Those are two of the main things which differentiate the level of film "performances".
shareGleason had a smaller role in The Hustler, but played it to near perfection with his facial expressions. With a large role in Requiem, Gleason again was excellent.
I guess you could argue for either one.