I saw this film on its release and everyone in the audience laughed whenever Brando was on screen, I'm pretty sure they were aware from the beginning that he wasn't serious about this role. He was a genius, and constantly hearing this probably muted his inner critic, hence the weirdness of this role and the one in Apocalpyse Now. Watching it again tonight after forty years, I'm struck again by his screen presence, which was every bit as sharply-defined as that of fellow geniuses Peter Sellars or Jonathan Winters. But geniuses eventually go mad, and I feel that's what we're seeing on the screen, the last vestiges of sanity slipping away, even as we struggle to convince ourselves that he possessed the same faculties that gave us the brilliance of his role in the godfather.
In this film, when Brando is in a scene with other actors, it's amusing to see them roll with the punches, after having been up all night carefully learning their lines, they get handed some wild, unpredictable behavior from a veteran actor who wants to keep them guessing what's going to come out of his mouth next. This is especially evident in the scene where Braxton confronts him in the dining room, the dialogue from both characters doesn't match, it's like they're in two different scenes...same thing when Braxton is on the porch scolding his hired gunman, as the actor who plays Braxton gamely delivers his lines and hopes for the best. In the end the focus isn't on the film, it's on the weirdness of Brando, and I'm sure he wanted to be remembered that way.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
4 years ago
This movie was an interesting misfire.
It was released only a month or so after Jack Nicholson had won the Best Actor Oscar for Cuckoo's Nest, which, coupled with the classic success of Chinatown, made Nicholson very "hot" indeed.
Brando had spent the 60's working every year, but rarely in memorable films. Came 1972/1973, Brando had that amazing "one two punch" comeback of The Godfather(and a Best Actor Oscar for HIM) and Last Tango in Paris. And The Missouri Breaks was HIS first film after those.
So everybody was expecting something very, very special.
What was pretty clear when the movie came out were these things: the movie wasn't very special at all; Brando's role wasn't nearly as big as Nicholson's -- and yet Brando, because of his crazy antics both on screen(those accents, that Chinese hat, that Old Lady garb) and off(delaying production days, not following the script, making one actor wear Brando's lines on a piece of paper taped to his FACE)...became a "magnet of mystery."
Having come back with The Godfather and Last Tango (and being rather humiliated in having to audition for The Godfather), Brando in The Missouri Breaks began his "new deal": short parts for big money. He would do even shorter parts in Superman(at the beginning of the movie) and Apocalypse Now(at the end of the movie), but The Missouri Breaks set the pace.
And yet...you can't keep your eyes off him, and I found it interesting to watch when Brando "behaved" and just did what the script asked him to do (like watching someone through binoculars and smiling). It was as if when BRANDO deigned to "just act" -- it was something special anyway.
Nicholson gets more of the movie to be in, but the script fails him. After Cuckoo's Nest, Chinatown, The Last Detail...he's just not very interesting. And he's paired romantically on screen with a rather amateurish new young actress who never much worked again. She brings Nicholson's work down a bit. And then Brando comes sweeping in and wins his scenes with that funny Irish brogue. (CONT)
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
4 years ago
CONT
Missouri Breaks is not a bad movie; Nicholson and Brando are too interesting for that. But it is a flat and rather listless film; there isn't the level of commitment that Newman and Redford brought to The Sting, for instance. I lay this to the rather arty and listless script of Thomas McGuane(lionized as an author; not so good as a screenwriter.)
Trivia: while appearing at a seminar in Spring 1976 in Los Angeles, Jack Nicholson made the mistake of saying he didn't think his upcoming movie -- The Missouri Breaks -- was very good. This comment got out into some student newspapers and caused a minor controversy. The seminar appearance was not officially open to the press.
reply
share
Wuchak (8826)
4 years ago
It's a well-made Western with top-of-the-line directing, cinematography, actors, locations, costuming, sets, realism and, perhaps most of all, it leaves the viewer pondering the experience afterward with a few puzzling questions. The inclusion of acting giants Brando and Nicholson propel the picture to greatness.
The film has great re-watchable merit; every time I see it I'm captivated and get more out of it. This is a sign of a great (or deep) film. The polarized reviews also show that it's a love it or hate it piece.
As for the ending, it ends the only way I guess it could *** MINOR SPOILER *** with one man redeemed and another finally released from his misery or getting his comeuppance, whichever you prefer.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
4 years ago
I will certainly accept that analysis of the picture. The two stars will always make it interesting to me -- Nicholson and Brando were neighbors in the Hollywood Hills and I think that Nicholson was always pursuing Brando to do a film together. This granted Nicholson's wish...and Nicholson was willing to subordinate his performance to Brando's.
I like it less than you do, but I certainly believe that it is an A-list, serious film.
The film's poster set up curiosity about that ending: "One steals. One kills. One dies."
PS. I've always rather liked the fact that Marlon Brando (as the "great actor" of his generation) agreed to anchor Superman and that Jack Nicholson (as the "great actor" of his generation) agreed to anchor Batman. It was as if those two "first movies" needed exactly those two stars to establish maximum credibility.
reply
share