The sudden,
saddening death of Sopranos star James Gandolfini has inspired rolling waves
of tributes from all over. Many have been deep-dish pieces on the place of Tony
Soprano and the show in art and pop culture, the larger society, and the secret
compartments of ourselves (mostly the ones in the basement, toward the rear,
where the wolves and lizards live, that only God really knows about).
For those
of us for whom movies are a pleasure beyond analysis, and whose viewing devices
may be locked on to Turner Classic Movies, the 1999 debut of The Sopranos and the rise of James
Gandolfini and his equally homely fellow goombahs, family, and friends,
represented something else—the happy resurrection of a film tradition that
seemed to be rapidly fading into irrelevance, sliding toward extinction.
The
tradition of the character actor.
BY THAT
WE MEAN . . . .
If you
regularly watch any movie or TV show made before 1980—or even earlier—you know
whom I’m talking about: those faces in the background, the men and women standing
around or behind the handsome sturdy star.
They were
snaggle-toothed
sidekicks, wise aunts, wisecracking best girlfriends, gold-heart hookers, poncy
servants, bumbling uncles, fussy bankers, drunken doctors,
or, often best of all, the Bad Guys and their grizzled, snaky armies of thugs
and murderers.
If you’re
like me, you probably have a few favorites. Off the top of my head leap Frank
Morgan, Una
O’Connor, Edward Everett Horton, Harry Davenport, Edna May Oliver, Basil
Rathbone, Peter Lorre, Vincent Price, Elisha Cook, Whit Bissell (I’ll explain someday), and
Lee Van Cleef. There are many more; you likely have your own list.
They very
rarely ever became stars, or stars in major A pictures (though Humphrey Bogart did),
though they won supporting actor awards. Some, like Edward G. Robinson,
actually started out as major stars, but as they aged, they accumulated greater
texture—wrinkles and gray hairs, a gleam of experience in the eyes—that mark
the best character actors. Their sex appeal dwindled, but another spirit, often
a better one, twinkled to life in that empty space.
Each
actor played within a narrow range of strongly identifiable types. They were
rarely versatile chameleons in the manner of say, Robert de Niro or so
impossibly dominating, you couldn’t imagine (or want) them in the background of
anything, such as John Wayne.
Ordinary
looking—even homely--they were often less than the stars, more like the man and
woman on the street, or down the road; meaning, like you and me, lumpen proles.
Sometimes, they acted as witnesses, providing a bridge between the movie and
the audience. They were stand-ins for us. They made for comic relief and
charming, homey familiarity, a family of sorts.
They
were also, too often, the only things worthwhile about otherwise bad, boring
movies. (This is notable, to me at least, in villainous Lee Van Cleef’s
appearances, where my interest in the movie often slumps once he takes the Big
Bullet and the danger to the hero dies with him.)
HISTORY,
WITH DECLINE
The
heyday of the character actor started when the movies began and lasted until
the big studios did their slow dissolve in the late 1960s. These studios,
Warner Brothers, MGM, Twentieth-Century Fox, and others, employed large stables
of them and kept them busy year around, often for decades; for example, MGM’s Frank Morgan was kept so
busy (playing among other things, The Wizard of Oz), he even earned his own
large fan base. Character actors didn’t get rich in Hollywood, but if they found
a niche, they could make a living.
But
with the studios gone, those faces, those personalities, lost their means of
support and began to disappear. The old ones faded away and no one rose in
their place—the old factories to employ them were no longer there.
Many,
like Lee Van Cleef, became “gypsy actors” overseas, often hustling for whatever
scraps they could find to support their families. (This relates, I suspect, to
the general hollowing out of Hollywood movies over the last four decades; that
feeling they give of being rolled down a steep, rocky hill inside a loud and
empty drum.)
The
faces in the background became blander and scripts started making less room for
that rich palette (and the movies became dull, too). If they appeared at all,
it was mostly in the films of Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino, two true
believers in the canonical history of the movies.
RESURRECTION
Then I
saw David Chase’s The Sopranos. In
addition to my joy at its skill, imagination, and artistry, my thoughts flashed
on the 1930s Warner Brothers genre movies, especially the musicals and gangster
pictures. Behind Tony Soprano, Christopher, Paulie Walnuts, Big Pussy, Silvio, and
many others, mugs and molls both, lurked those doughy ugly faces of the past like
great ancient ghosts: not only Robinson, Cagney, and Bogie, but Aline McMahon, Ned
Sparks, Hugh Herbert, and many others.
And one
of the best and the most exciting things about The Sopranos was that these “supporting actors” and their
characters were no longer pushed to the edge of the screen to lug the hero’s
water—they were now front and center. Character and actor got their moment in
the lights, often many moments. Thanks to the expansive format of the long-form
series, they were given the time and space to shine in ways they rarely could
before, even in the best Golden Age movies.
They
were, collectively, the Stars.
My
favorite Sopranos moments? The beatific shine from Tony
Soprano’s face as the ducks fly away from his backyard pond, an unhappy thug seeing
beauty for the first time in his life; the “Pine Barrens” antics of Christopher
(Michael Imperioli) and Paulie Walnuts (Tony Sirico) bumbling
around the freezing New Jersey backwoods like a psychopathic Laurel and Hardy;
not even Walter Brennan
had that much fun.
Since
then, cable TV series have brought us a new era that can be rightly called
“golden.” And it includes some broad galleries of faces and performers.
For
another example, you could have set the best supporting actors from any western
made from the 1930s to the 1960s in David Milch’s Deadwood and have a great show (one that John Ford, Anthony Mann, Budd
Boetticher, and Sam Peckinpah all might have been proud to helm, cussin’ and all).
We
didn’t get those guys, but what we got was also perfect: a tremendous and
tortured villain in Ian McShane; fine complicated heroes in Timothy Olyphant
and John Hawkes; pungent portraits of frontier shit-birds and gnarly
prospectors, as played by William Sanderson and Jim Beaver; and foul-mouthed
female gunslingers and tough-minded hookers, as played by Robin Weigert and Kim
Dickens. They gave life to every word and gesture. As actors, they’d roped in
the roles of their lives and rode them for all they’re worth.
Time
forbids elaboration here, but take a look at everything from Veep to Breaking Bad to Justified (also
featuring Olyphant and the estimable Mr. Beaver). Note how almost no one in
these shows looks like what we nowadays consider a movie star.
(It’s
possible that cable TV series can’t afford to not hire actors with both skill and genuine personality. An amiable
fellow like Sam Worthington (Avatar),
would be steamrolled by most of the cast of Game
of Thrones, a show where even little people stand
way taller than they used to. Errol Flynn would have to work even harder now (and
take much better care of himself, bless his raffish soul).
James
Gandolfini and The Sopranos opened the gates to this new, but familiar,
world of film. They resurrected an old style of film acting that seemed lost, and
broadened and deepened the craft. With the dramatic space provide by the form,
clichés and reflective tics will no longer do. They have to echo something
deeper.
With
Gandolfini leading the way, the experience of watching narrative film, long or
short, is now richer, more exciting, more pleasurable than ever. Watching these
shows makes me feel like a child again, in the company of a family of a familiar
faces.
Copyright 2012 by Thomas
Burchfield
No comments:
Post a Comment