MovieChat Forums > The Missouri Breaks (1976) Discussion > Film hobbled by Brando + Indifferent Lea...

Film hobbled by Brando + Indifferent Leading Players


I used to think, like the majority of the people on this board, that Brando was the best thing in it. It certainly wasn't Nicholson, who frankly looks stoned at times (he reportedly had a whopping cocaine problem that hurt his performances post-Cuckoo's nest, according to Woodward's WIRED). After watching it again two nights ago, I came to the inescapable conclusion: BRANDO'S PEFORMANCE IS ATROCIOUS. It is not only atrocious, but it undermines and then destroys the film. (Certainly, Brando's performance destroyed the estimable director Arthur Penn's career. His inability to rein-in Brando and get a semblance of a real performance from him caused backlash in Hollywood.)
The acting kudos in this film go to Harry Dean Stanton, who -- as always -- is right-on and superb.

I could only think, in Brando's scene with Stanton, what a lack of respect Brando had for this fine actor, as well as the others. In fact, I am sure that that is the reason behind what I take as Nicholson's improvised "There's nothign there" in the bathtub scene with Moby Brando, after Nich takes a swipe at the soap suds. As Francis Coppola knew, Brando was the godfather to the generation of actors that came after him. As Nicholson said, there is acting pre-Brando and after-Brando. So, these actors, including Nicholson and Stanton, are there to work with what it is fair to assume is their idol, and he is undermining them at every opportunity.

At the beginning of the picture, Brando asked Penn if they could inject a commentary on the plight of the American Indian (with his character being a half-breed, thus explaining his being an outsider, and his obessional character vis a vis the rustlers, who are symbols of the widemen predators who despoil the Indian's patrimony). Penn responded, "Gee Marlon, not at these prices. (Brando was getting a million and a half and Nicholson something close.)

So, obviously Brando decided to ham it up; he was not going to give ANYTHING (including the Irish accent in the last part of the film). As Sidney Lumet explains about actors in his book about making films, every actor to give a true performance has to give something of himnself. (He talks about Brando in this context.) They have to REVEAL themselves to REVEAL aspects of their character. It is a kind of emotional rape, and drains an actor. (As Brando said about LAST TANGO IN PARIS, it exhausted him; he claimed he would never give again as much as he gave to that film, which he was co-auteur of.)

Brando decided to give NOTHING. (Pauline Kael, commenting on Brando in her famous TANGO review, said that like Barrymore, another great actor's actor who was better than his material, he played the fool when forced to prostitute his talent). However, rather than give the nothing he gave in THE APPALOOSA (the worst Brando performance in that it is the only one in which he walked through; even in films you think Brando is walking through, he still gives a performance, still gives his money's worth), he gave us this clownish act.

The thing was, he gives NOTHING to his fellow actors. This is particularly evident when he is in scenes with the father and the daughter, who are mediocre performers. Harry Dean Stanton can create a performance (like his close buddy Nicholson, they came up through the ranks and had to survive admidst among the relative nothingness of low-budget pictures -- and they did, and thrived) without the support of his co-star, and Nicholson -- who is off here, probably because of Brando's antics -- can always fall back on his bag of actorly tricks -- but for the daughter and father, there is nothing there to react to except to keep a straight face during Brando's outrageous antics.

Brando kicks his fellow actors in the face, disgraced his director, and disappointed audiences and critics alike. The heralded meeting of two generations of actors' actors fizzled out rather than sizzled.

Truly, when considered in the context of the film it destroys and his failure to support his colleagues (actors, and director), this is Brando's lowest moment.

Then again, it is fun to watch him, isn't it? ;-)


reply

[deleted]

right on....your comment was well said and I agree with it whole heartedly. Brando should have been embarrassed by his conduct and his acting. It was probably after this when he ballooned up. Losing all his sex appeal that once radiated from his passionate performances in earlier days. I am a huge fan of Brando anyway. I enjoyed this film becuase I enjoy westerns and it was unique. Not a 10 but I liked it anyway.

reply

I pretty much agree with you, jonchopwood. Mr. Brando is in my top five favorite American film actors (probably # 1). I saw this movie at a theater when it was first released and had such high expectations knowing it was directed by Arthur Penn and couldn't wait to see Brando and Nicholson on the screen together. I walked away thinking, "What the hell was that?!". I could only give it a rating of 1 on this site. Having said that, I must admit I watch it everytime it's on TV and wish I had a copy of it. It's so unbelievably bad. It's sort of like a train wreck you can't help but watch. It has a couple of shining moments but I think Mr. Brando was just playing a joke at everyone else's expense.

reply

I remember seeing this when it first came out. I have, for good reason, not seen it since.
It came with a lot of negative baggage. Firstly Brando was in one of his " I am God and do not have to do anything like act" act and reports were that he was totally insane while shooting. The critics loathed it and everything about it. For me it was one of the more boring films I have seen but I do remember the whacko Brando and the tub scene.
In retrospect it had some very good and authentic scenes of hard family living in a god awful area.
Who knows, maybe it is now considered to be a black comedy because of Brando.

reply

I disagree. I think Marlon Brando's eccentric performance in The Missouri Breaks is very entertaining. The character he was playing was a psychopath, hunting down and killing the rustlers was a game to him so his put-ons with the different accents and such fits in with the role. Brando's method acting was interesting in every role he did and I consider him the best actor ever.

reply

brando was brilliant

"Im just a bum sitting in a motor home on a film set, BRANDO said, and they come looking for ZEUS".

reply

I felt that Brando's scenes were very entertaining.

but ...

They did not work at all in correlation with the rest of the movie.

I mean, lets face it the movie is a mess, albeit an entertaining mess, and it's mostly Brando's fault.

reply

Thank God somebody got it!

reply

I actually disagree. I don't think Brando's performance had to destroy the movie, in fact it could have greatly added to the movie. The real problem with the film for me was the writing. It was nothing short of ridiculous. Characters were poorly sketched, check the female lead. Motivations were woolly and poorly developed. The plotline shifted and shook in a very unclear, sometimes confusing way. Scenes went by half-boiled, such as the whole Canada scene. Nothing really developed satisfactorily from a plot point of view, and the writing, not Brando, is to blame for that. I mean tell me why Nicholson didn't kill Brando, knowing what Brando was up to. And tell me why Brando didn't secure himself against a Nicholson counter-attack having just destroyed all his gang.

Everything in this film was just so random, and that's why Brando's performance works. It suits the script. There is a real randomness, an anarchy in the way the film develops and that is perfectly represented and made sense of in Brando's performance. It wouldn't have worked if everyone tried to play it straight, it was a laughable movie and it worked because it looked as if the cast, particularly Brando, might have been in on the joke.

In conclusion, without Brando this would have flopped big time, with Brando the film has a resonance that makes it worth watching even today.

So I guess I'm a hipster ?

reply

I suppose I can see your point of view, although I think just the opposite. Brando's take on the character is truly unique. I'm not going to say brilliant, because that is thrown around far too often for far too little. As an artist, his job is to take the written words and make a character out of it. It would have been so very simple to play this character "straight" or the usual western tough guy, which he had already done in "One Eyed Jacks". Instead he simply put his own artistic spin on it. This is his art. Creating a character out of nothing, giving it life and it's own passions and obsessions is not an easy job. Making choices creatively and putting them all out there for the world to see and judge. That takes balls. Turning a tough cowboy into a feminine, sloppy, Irish man wearing a dress... Those are some serious balls! His character is unique and truly alive. Complete with obsessive tendencies and his own view of the world. That's a lot to work with. All the actors need to do is listen and react to what was happening.

reply

That's great analysis from the original poster. Clearly, this is Brando at his most self-indulgent. Brando had a love-hate affair with acting and his self loathing manifested itself in destructive impulses. If left to his own devices, you would get crazy performances like this or Col. Kurtz. But the thing is, he's so good and interesting that I STILL enjoy these performances.

Right off the top of my head I can think of some memorable scenes from this movie.

1. Brando and Jack in the cabbage patch. I think Brando actually sort of took this scene seriously.

2. Brando taunting his horse with a carrot. So bizarre but funny.

3. Brando and Jack in the tub.

4. Brando putting a grasshopper in Randy Quaid's mouth.


He's Brando. Without him this movie is a total bore.

reply

brando is an original. As wacky you may think this character he invented it's actually brilliant. And if you look closely at johnny Depps charatcer in Pirates of the Carribean i see similarities.

the problem with the film is not brando.. but the script..
the script is weak! boring, and doesn't go anywhere..
It was a pay day for jack and marlon and thats it..
the movie was garbage. the actors coasted through it.

reply

[deleted]

stanton never wanted to hit brando - they were life long pals...stanton had only good things to say about brando - if you doubt that read all the books and see all the documentaries about Brando and Harry is saying only good things

reply

[deleted]

I miss the days when Hollywood could make films which condemned the system, rather than relying on a baddie with an English accent.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

reply