Micheal Sacks is weak as the lead
A better actor would have sold this movie better. I simply did not buy him as an old man.
--
"Surrender Dorothy!"
I think when this movie was being cast, the director wanted someone unknown and unglamorous playing Billy, like Kubrick did with 2001. I think he did a great job of playing a passive dullard just observing life and accepting it.
Today he does not look anything like the 40-something Billy Pilgrim in the movie and he's in his 60's. Found this on the internet.
http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/electronic-trading/bondscom-hires-ind ustry-veteran-to-head/240005854
The 40-ish Billy Pilgrim did look rather goofy in the movie, especially with that obviously fake receding hairline and makeup on his face. And the 80 year old one at the end even more laughable.
George Roy Hill did an odd bit of casting for this movie, considering most of the actors were unknowns at the time and most are still unknowns! And the actors playing Billy Pilgrim, Valencia, his daughter Barbara, father-in-law Lionel, and Paul Lazzaro are all Jewish
" I think he did a great job of playing a passive dullard just observing life and accepting it."
So great, it's hard to stay interested in him.
I wonder whether he was typecast by this role, as have heard little of him since S-5.
I agree GRH's casting was unusual; not sure if it could be said to be ultimately successful.
I just thought it was odd casting for such a big budget movie. Casting unknowns in lead roles and familiar character actors in supporting ones. Coincidentally, some of the supporting actors were guest stars in All in the Family. The Edgar Derby character was Archie's buddy Pinky, Billy's daughter Barbara was a friend of Gloria's in the episode she lost the baby, and Lionel Merble was Archie's boss and an outspoken anti-gun advocate and Boss J.D. Hogg later on
shareI agree. The casting almost seems like a throwback to his fifties TV show roots and appears at odds with most of his other cinema work. I personally don't reckon it worked, but can probably understand why Kurt Vonnegut was fulsome in his praise for the film.
share