Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Station Wagon Discussions' started by Courtship1, Aug 12, 2017.
Does any member know how I could obtain a window sticker for my wagon.
A window sticker saying what? Maybe, one of these?:
( I have not even read the web page, so i really don't know if this is relevant to you....)
Too bad, GMs can't get looked up. I still've got my title from my stolen Starfire.
As far the movie version, I always thought that Glenn Ford was too old for the role. He looked old in the movie as Eddie's father, and he wasn't convincing. In real life, at the time the movie was made in 1963, Shirley Jones was 29 and Ford was 47, old enough to be her father, and that's how the movie comes across to me, a little creepy. The TV version with Bill Bixby was much more convincing.
Women didn't start families at 40 years old back then, like they do today. They were mostly still homemakers. That's probably why they offered Glenn Ford the role. He wasn't really good for anything else, except trash films of this sort. He never was a convincing cowboy, a convincing crook, Cassanova type etc... He was just a second rate actor like Ronald Reagan was. I wouldn't even have had Glenn Ford co-starring in Bedtime with Bonzo. I can't think of any 29 year old male actors who would've been available for doing that film: I don't know. Maybe, Bob Crane or Bob Denver? Nahh.
On the other hand, it could be an intentional set-up to get older men fantasizing about getting hooked up with younger ladies. It wouldn't be the first time eroticism was used to sell movie theater tickets.
Right. Vladimir Nabokov, an entomologist by trade, writes a book about an older man purportedly seduced by a beautiful teen girl. "Lolita" certainly sold tickets, never minding that James Mason was the headlining actor.
The actor didn't have to be the exact same age as Shirley Jones was at the time, just closer in age. I think Jack Lemmon, for example, would have been perfect in the role. He had already had good success, especially in the movie "The Apartment," which had come out three year earlier. He had the right look, the right personality, and he would have generated the right kind of sympathy from the viewing audience. He was in his late 30s at the time, a much better, more convincing age for someone with a young boy and pursuing a 30-ish woman. Another actor who would have done well is Tony Curtis, who was also in his late 30s at the time. Heck, Paul Newman would have been great, too, not that he would have done it. He was also in his late 30s at the time. In fact all three of Lemmon, Curtis, and Newman were born in 1925, making all of them 38 at the time the movie was made.
Clint Eastwood and Michael Langdon were too young, at the time. Or, at least, they could pass for being younger than Doris Day, giving the impression she was a young Cougar.
Come to think of it, Glenn Ford had a typical sad face like a widower would have. The first-rate actors you mentioned had the option of turning down the role and they were surely too busy, anyway, doing other films. Who's that other actor who played a widower along side Sebastian Cabot? He also had an overly serious demeanor which made him suitable for the part. He also took on mainly co-starring roles.
That was Brian Keith. Hella funny in "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming," and the TV show "Hardcastle and McCormick."
Bingo! He also played some General or other higher up, in a film where German P.O.W.s broke out of an Allied internment camp and then got recaptured.
Clint Eastwood was certainly the right age. He was 33 at the time the movie was made. But I doubt he would have done it, and I doubt the producers would have wanted him. At the time, he was in the midst of "Rawhide" which ran from 1959 to 1966 and with which he was developing his tough guy persona with the spaghetti westerns to come later that decade and the Dirty Harry era which followed that. I think the last thing he would have wanted at the stage his career was at in 1963 was to play a role where he was a sympathetic, sad, weak father-figure to a small boy. It would have gone totally against type. Maybe later, when he was an established actor and could venture into different types of roles, but by then, of course, he would have been too old.
Michael Landon (not Langdon) was probably too young. He was only 27 at the time, but, more importantly, he was known at the time only for being Little Joe on Bonanza, hardly a starring role, and 1963 was toward the beginning of his run on that show, which was from 1959 to 1972. I don't think Landon was really well-known enough for a lead role in a movie like this at that stage of his career.
When you get right down to it, the role of Eddie's father was a tough one to cast. They needed someone established enough to take on a sympathetic role like this who was also well-enough known. That typically meant an older actor, not one of the age the character in this movie was supposed to be. An older actor is what they ended up with.
Obviously, you never saw "Paint your Wagon" or "Play Misty For Me."
Not relevant. We're talking 1963 for Eddie's Father. Those two movies came out in 1969 and 1971, respectively, much later in Eastwood's career, image-wise.
It's what Eastwood was doing and what was the stage of his career in 1963 that matters here, not what he was doing or how his career had progressed a half-decade or more later.
Right, but you were stating he was building a tough-guy image for later in his career; those two movies were later in his career, and doing "Courtship" would not have been a stretch for him if "Rawhide" was not a hindrance to doing the movie.