MovieChat Forums > Emperor (2013) Discussion > Tommy Lee Jones as MacArthur

Tommy Lee Jones as MacArthur


I know actors playing historical figures aren't supposed to obsess about total physical resemblance. But from the trailer it doesn't seem to me as if Jones put in more than a token effort to *sound* like MacArthur. (Not Gregory Peck; MacArthur.)

What I saw was Tommy Lee Jones with a corncob pipe. I half expected him to order a hard target search of every warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in in Japan.

MacArthur was world-famous and his voice is recorded in many places, even if few who heard him in person remain among us today. Would you accept a John F. Kennedy portrayal in which Kennedy sounded like Keanu Reeves?

reply

Tommy Lee Jones isn't an impersonator no more than George C. Scott was in Patton, a bad impersonation is more distracting than if they use their own voices.

reply

George C. Scott IS Patton. The real Patton while a badass spoke with a squeaky voice. George C. Scott gave him a massive does of Testosterone.

reply

Tommy Lee Jones as MacArthur is just a bad fit all the way around.



"I like you, Kane... You're normal!" "The Ninth Configuration"

reply

agree with this:

by deerslayer1964
Tommy Lee Jones isn't an impersonator no more than George C. Scott was in Patton, a bad impersonation is more distracting than if they use their own voices.


General Omar Bradley once said, after viewing the movie "Patton" in 1970, that George C. Scott really nailed it, he really captured the essence of Patton, even though he didn't look like him, and his deep, gravelly, scare-you-outta-your-socks voice was actually quite different from the real Patton's voice which was a tad high-pitched. Bradley went on to say that he'd be happy to serve under "General George C. Scott" -- that's how impressed Gen. Bradley was.

What matters to me the most is the acting, the writing and direction... how General MacArthur was portrayed, not so much on how the actor looked like him.
Besides, when Tommy donned the shades, cap and the pipe, he actually did resemble the General.. But thats just a bonus for me.



"Rommel...you magnificent bastard, I read your book!"
-- PATTON

reply

The difference is, people are relatively familiar with the historical MacArthur's voice due to his many famous speeches and sound clips, whereas they aren't with regard to the historical Patton. The previous analogy to JFK is a good one: JFK's Boston accent is so familiar to audiences that any actor playing him has to employ it in order to be credible. So, too, with MacArthur's theatrical style of speech, though obviously not to the same extent.

reply

Hmm, back in the 70s, people were actually quite familiar with the real voice of General Patton, and it didn't bother them one bit about the movie. My granddad at the time who was in his fifties when the film came out in 1970, said he was pleasantly surprised by George C. Scott's bombastic speech in the opening scene. Granted, the voice was not the same, not even remotely similar, but how the actor made the audience felt (mind you, the majority of the audience back then had veterans who served in the ETO and under the Seventh and Third Army), the portrayal that came out of the screen was incredibly reminiscent to Patton's aura and ability to move his men with the use of his colorful language, mannerisms, way of decision-making on the field, in front of the media and interaction with Monty, Ike and Bradley made a solid connection to the audience, regardless of differences in appearance and voice.

For now, I'm not too picky about Tommy Lee Jones's portrayal just yet. After all, there's not too much to judge or be critical about from the trailer. I'll have to wait for the film to arrive in our cinema and assess the entire performance with fairness.

As for the JFK analogy, his accent and speech had been popularized ever since the 60's. From the alleged affair with Marilyn Monroe, the whole media blitz about Camelot, the 'Ich bin ein Berliner' moment, Cuban Missile Crisis, and the fact that JFK is the only assassinated president in living memory, to right now being resuscitated with The Simpsons reruns and biopics, JFK is the perpetual media darling, almost a Hollywood/pop culture icon, just a whole 'nother ball field altogether. The Kennedy family is pretty much comparable to the international fame of the English Royal Family... it goes from one generation to another, decade after decade, as long as the media is there to propagate the images. I wouldn't be surprised if my grandkids knew who JFK was in the year 2050. That's the advantage of a Kennedy, a civilian president. Patton and MacArthur, as 'simple old soldiers', did not have the luxury of that over-bounding popularity long after their deaths. The average young American wouldn't know who those two generals were, but say something about JFK, and he'd instantly get what you're talking about.




"Rommel...you magnificent bastard, I read your book!"
-- PATTON

reply

I was hoping that Tommy Lee Jones was going to play Douglas MacArthur like Two Face from Batman Forever.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ef6lo-1oJ9o/T_2kD_A7jbI/AAAAAAAAB_o/g4jVoyRi oeU/s1600/Batman+Forever+-+The+Terrible+Two+Face.jpg

reply

To amplify this answer a bit -- the reason we are much more so familiar with MacArthur's voice than with Patton's or Bradley's is that MacArthur never missed a chance to be seen, filmed, recorded, quoted -- he was a ham, pure and simple (I think Truman referred to him that way more than once). When he was in public with the microphones turned on, his delivery was going to be different than when he was sitting at home with his wife or in his office with his staff.

People say Patton's voice was so high pitched that it sounded almost effeminate. Not really -- it was definitely higher-pitched than George C. Scott's, but Patton's voice would carry on the parade ground or the battlefield with a whole lot less strain than George C. Scott's would have. Scott would have lost his voice after a few days of repeating Patton's famous apology to the troops after the slapping incident (we only see it once in the film; actually he did it several times). OTOH, you never see MacArthur speaking without a microphone in front of him.

reply

MacArthur was an over rated pompous ass, who *beep* up more than he succeeded. Frankly if he had any self respect or any respect for the men he had command over he would have refused his MoH (an insult to every soldier that actually did something while he sat on his ass), not to mention pointlessly throwing away 10,000 lives on peleliu for absolutely nothing.

I agree he was a ham, or a whore more like, but then thats even more reason why he shouldn't get as much recognition while all the men who fought bled and died are forgotten, and far more worthy of battle honours

reply

I think MacArthur has faded a bit in the public consciousness over the last few decades. Older people remember what he sounded like for sure. Personally, I am more concerned about whether Jones captured the overall spirit and personality of the man than his voice. I have only seen a few clips of the movie, so I'm going to reserve judgement.

As for the last comment, sure MacArthur was arrogant but overrated? Hardly. He is consistently rated by military historians as one of the most brilliant field generals in American history. Not a political general like Ike, although there is certainly a place for that.

He was actually very caring about sacrificing his men's lives. Manchester points this out in his biography of Mac, 'American Caesar'. For example, he could have returned to the Phillipines MUCH sooner than he did, but he deliberately conserved his men's lives by island-hopping over enemy strong points, instead of stupidly hammering those strong points as another branch of the military did. "Hit 'em where they AIN'T" he called the strategy.

Even his supposed "f-ups" like his withdrawal from the Phillipines was executed masterfully. And don't forget the Inchon landing, which is one of the most brilliant military manuevers in all of history. Every time I see someone criticize MacArthur the field commander, they always rave on and on about his "pomposity". You can get hung up on his personality, but don't let it bias you against the accomplishments of a military genius.

reply

MacArthur's record speaks for itself. No other military officer in modern history comes close to his accomplishments and successes. He was a true warrior and earned the battle scars and decorations to substantiate so and was never afraid to risk his life and limb. Thank god he was a pompous ass and a ham because his messages and bold leadership inspired the allies and brought fear to the enemy. His ego illuminated his personality and his intelligence and expertise led to his sound strategy and execution. He respected his troops and the enemy as well. He had a huge staff and listened to sound advice. He made informed decisions and often gained success by brilliant unexpected moves that saved lives and shortened wars. He was not perfect. No leader is. As for Peleliu MacArthur insisted that the island be taken to protect his flank. Admiral Nimitz agreed. MacArthur had nothing to do with the planning nor the execution of the Peleliu invasion. Initially the USMC with naval support attacked the island. Bad intelligence, overconfidence, and underestimation of geography and enemy defenses as well as a change of tactics by the Japanese led to a deadly battle of attrition. The marine general in charge refused to acknowledge the tenuous situation and ordered the marines on. The marines fought with uncommon valor and eventually the island was taken with grievous casualties. Was the battle necessary? MacArthur critics say no. Was it sound strategy? Yes. Many lessons were learned from Peleliu and paid for dearly in the lives of soldiers, sailors and marines. Macarthur was instrumental in winning the war and the peace with Japan, even if he was a pompous ass. And Tommy Lee Jones got his image right, to hell with the sound of his voice.






reply

At the time of Pearl Harbor, a war warning had been issued, specifically listing the Philippines as a possible point of attack. General Brereton,head of the Air Forces under MacArthur, had his B-17s fueled, loaded with bombs, and his navigators had the course plotted to bomb the Japanese bombers on Formosa. MacArthur later claimed that his chief of staff had prevented Brereton from seeing him at the time, but that is just revisionist history, which is the one thing MacArthur was really good at. According to Brereton, MacArthur sat there wringing his hands and saying "I am not supposed to attack Japan until I am attacked". After many hours of this, and NINE HOURS after the Pearl Harbor attack was reported, the Japanese air force appeared and destroyed most of Brereton's airplanes on the ground. MacArthur should rightly have been court martialed for that.

I once knew a guy who had personally watched Mrs. MacArthur's antique furniture loaded onto a B-17 to Australia - there was certainly another 15-20 guys who could have avoided the Bataan death march.

The concept of bypassing many of the South Pacific islands, and just letting them "wither on the vine" for lack of support, was entirely the idea of Admiral Nimitz, and he had to argue strongly with MacArthur, who wanted to capture every Japanese held island along the way. After the war, MacArthur claimed this was entirely his idea and that he had thereby saved thousands of lives.

Many years later when he was commander in Korea, and several hundred Chinese soldiers were reported fighting south of the Yalu river, MacArther forbade his intelligence people from reporting this to Washington, because he had told reporters "Mao would never dare to attack me". By the time the Chinese involvement could no longer be covered up, many American soldiers died because they were totally unprepared.

It is probably a little known fact that during MacArthur's command in Korea, he never spent the night with his troops - he flew to Japan every night and stayed in a fancy hotel. Can anyone picture Patton doing that?


reply

He was great as Macarthur.
Dont care what anyone says, i think the pic of him and the emporer for the famous pic was perfect.

reply

Tommy Lee Jones is too distinctive a personality to be a bonafide character actor, and when I say that, I'm thinking of people like Ben Kingsley, Tom Wilkinson, and even Meryl Streep, who completely disappear into their roles. TLJ is a very talented actor, but he just isn't that guy.

A friend of mine commented after we had seen Lincoln, "Well, he did a good job of playing a Pennsylvania congressman with an East Texas accent."

After reading the OP, I'm kinda looking forward to seeing him order a "hard target search of every ***house" in Japan. (just picked it up from Redbox a couple of minutes ago).

(Edit) Just finished seeing it. I think the OP was funny, but a little unfair to Jones, though not completely. Jones is Jones, but I think he represented MacArthur, a blustery man in his own right, fairly well. But there's no way you can't say he's from Texas.

reply

For the record, many regions of Pennsylvania have a southern dialect. I looked it up because I thought the same thing. His accent was just fine for Lincoln. I also have a friend from Pittsburgh who I thought was from the South until she told me.

reply

Well, son, ah've lived in the Sayouth and ah've lived in Texas, and they just ain't the same thang, pardner...an' jus' fer the record, Slick, ah thought he done a mahty fahn job...Texas twang or not...an', Junior, yew kin fahnd a Texas accent in Brass Monkeys, Minnesota, if yew've a mahnd to...

reply

Well....I've seen John Wayne play both a Swedish sailor, and a Hun-like barbarian...so anything is possible.

There are two-types of actors: Character, and Method. Method actors mostly just try to portray the essence of the character without losing themselves in the part. Good examples would be John Wayne, Tom Cruise, Cary Grant, and yes, Tommy Lee Jones. Character actors, on the other hand, do the best they can to actually become the character they are portraying, down to the smallest mannerisms and details. Good examples would be Keven Costner, Robert Duval, Rip Torn, Robert Shaw, and Michael Ansara. Casting Directors usually decide what type of actor they want for a particular movie, depending on whether they want to focus on the character, or the situation. In this case, the obvious focus is on the events leading to the final disposition of Hirohito, and the consequences both before and after the fact, rather than the character of Gen MacArthur, who was not even the principle character.

All in all, I think they did a good job on this movie. I'd give it a 9 out of 10 rating.

reply

For all of the above and jellric -- yes, I thought Jones nailed the role -- we in the audience don't often forget that it is a film and not real life. Tommy Lee wss spot on, as the Brits say. However, I'd like to add that Laurence Olivier portrayed MacArthur in INCHON, a Moonie produced film which deserves more showings, with Ben Gazzara as a U.S. Colonel caught in the juggernaut of North Korea's forces sweeping the ROK and US forces down to Pusan (these days spelled Busan). I'd like to see it again. I'm open-minded about why money is put into making movies. Whoever wrote the script has Olivier overhearing hype about how MacArthur's oratory is going to knock them off their feet, and then steps to the mike and ... well, you need to see it.

I miss Big Band music and talented singers. Leonard Cohen is my idol. Civility, harmony, unity!

reply

Why mention only good examples for character actors when you can mention the very finest example: Benicio del Toro.


"People get it wrong, but in today's world we don't live longer, we just die harder." -Bruce Willis

reply

Because I have never heard of Benicio del Toro. Who the heck is he, and what's he done that was so great? We're talking about Hollywood...you know?, Where they make world-class movies (sometimes, at least)?

reply

Can't be an honest question.


"People get it wrong, but in today's world we don't live longer, we just die harder." -Bruce Willis

reply

In this story that was not a big deal.

reply

Mr. Jones, who is a fine actor, failed to depict General MacArthur's "imperial" persona. The General believe4 himself to be the savior of the Pacific, the man who won WWII. That little fracas on the European continent was a distraction which got in his way as was Admiral Nimitz' war in the northern Pacific. My father served on his staff and I heard many stories about General MacArthur.

I thought the movie "Emperor" was going to be about the General as that is surely how he thought of himself.

reply

I agree that Jones' MacArthur did not act like an emperor and did not sound like an emperor. Jones' MacArthur was too human. The real MacArthur acted like Klaatu in "The Day The Earth Stood Still" - I am from another world and have come to save you from yourselves. Furthermore, MacArthur always spoke "for effect" like he was in a stage play. In addition, there were two scenes that did not ring true. In the film, when MacArthur is about to land in Japan he asks some of his officers what to expect when he lands. There was no reason for this. MacArthur considered himself - and was considered - an expert on the Oriental mind. In another scene, MacArthur speaks privately to Takahashi, General Fellers' driver. MacArthur never would have stooped to converse with a common Japanese citizen. The Japanese belief that MacArthur was godlike might have been endangered.

reply

I don't know or care what the real MacArthur looked like or sounded like. Tommy Lee Jones was amazing in the role of MacArthur. He brought his own humanity to the film and portrayed him as a man of military might, but also reasonable with a certain amount of compassion as was shown in the last scene with the Emperor.

reply