And Ellen Barkin, Laura Dern, Sarah Jessica Parker — talented and well-liked actresses who have played sexy roles, but certainly aren’t conventionally good-looking.
Could Bogey make it today?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Bogart didn't really become a star until he was about forty (and pretty much ceased playing gangsters). That's less likely today, for a leading man. He might do better as a character actor or a television actor now. TNT would love him.
How about Paul Giamatti or Phillip Seymour Hoffman? Weren't they older before they took off? Billy Bob Thornton that I mentioned earlier or Samuel L. Jackson?
Bogart didn't really become a star until he was about forty (and pretty much ceased playing gangsters). That's less likely today, for a leading man. He might do better as a character actor or a television actor now. TNT would love him.
How about Paul Giamatti or Phillip Seymour Hoffman? Weren't they older before they took off? Billy Bob Thornton that I mentioned earlier or Samuel L. Jackson?
Yes, and with the exception of Jackson they're character actors. Bogart was a romantic lead - one of the most romantic, for many of us - in his forties. He was the star of the kinds of movies that these guys play sidekicks, heavies and stooges in.
Harrison Ford would be a better example - he graduated to single leads and romantic parts in his early forties, after doing a couple of Star Wars movies - but he's more conventionally handsome than Bogart as well.
Well, OK, I give up, there will never be another actor who comes into prominence when he turns 40 who could be a romantic lead and has looks that will be seen as not conventionally handsome when judged from the standards of society 50 years later. 
Has anyone mentioned Bill Murray yet? He started out as a comedy lead but has done many dramatic leads. And he's romanced Andie McDowell, Sigourney Weaver, Scarlett Johanssen (Lost in Translation's central relationship may have been platonic but it was still romantic) among others. Despite having crumpled, lived-in looks that make Bogie look like Cary Grant.
It occurs to me also that if Bogey and Bacall were around nowadays, there'd be little chance of their May-to-December relationship going on to become one of the great Hollywood love storis (on and off-screen). Instead, Heat Magazine, US etc would pore over the dirty old forty-something divorced leading man pairing off with his 19 year-old co-star and put them under such scrutiny that there would be an inevitable break-up!
It occurs to me also that if Bogey and Bacall were around nowadays, there'd be little chance of their May-to-December relationship going on to become one of the great Hollywood love storis (on and off-screen). Instead, Heat Magazine, US etc would pore over the dirty old forty-something divorced leading man pairing off with his 19 year-old co-star and put them under such scrutiny that there would be an inevitable break-up!
Yes.
Bogey>>>All
Bogey>>>All
Well, OK, I give up, there will never be another actor who comes into prominence when he turns 40 who could be a romantic lead and has looks that will be seen as not conventionally handsome when judged from the standards of society 50 years later.
What about Aaron Eckhart? Ok I know he'd been around for ages but--from my perspective at least--the first thing I remember seeing him in was Thank you for smoking, when he was almost 40...and he's gone on to play romantic and craggy world weary leads?
^^ No. He isn't unusual looking in the least nor does he have any unusual or distinctive speech manner.
Tom Hanks has been mentioned as comparable to Jimmy Stewart, but Stewart was a gangly and goofy looking guy who went on to be a leading player. I can't imagine anyone like him making it today.
It isn't that those older actors didn't have the talent---I think they most certainly have. But I think it unlikely Hollywood today would accept someone so far outside convention in terms of leading players. Today if you don't "fit the mold" or the basic parameters then for the most part you're relegated to supporting player or character parts.
Tom Hanks has been mentioned as comparable to Jimmy Stewart, but Stewart was a gangly and goofy looking guy who went on to be a leading player. I can't imagine anyone like him making it today.
It isn't that those older actors didn't have the talent---I think they most certainly have. But I think it unlikely Hollywood today would accept someone so far outside convention in terms of leading players. Today if you don't "fit the mold" or the basic parameters then for the most part you're relegated to supporting player or character parts.
Last edited:
^ Stewart had a handsome lean face; Hanks has a face like a bag of spuds by comparison!
And I hope no one ever does. I still think he was one of the most annoying and grating leading men ever. He inexplicably got a lot of high profile work and starred in movies that were good and succeeded in spite of him. I understand the comparison to Hanks because they both played a lot of 'nice guy/everyman' roles, but Hanks was so much more likable and accessible.
Clearly millions of moviegoers disagree[d] with you.
I know. Doesn't change the fact that he irritated the hell out of me. There were some really funny impressions of him on "The Simpsons", so it wasn't a total loss. I still think "Vertigo" would have been better with someone else in his role. I find it hard to take him seriously with his wacky voice.
With improved childhood nutrition, Bogey would no doubt have been taller nowadays - probably over 6' - and he was handsome enough in his youth to play romantic interest-type secondary characters in his early theater roles. I can see him following Clint Eastwood's career trajectory through TV to action movies and then broadening out into more interesting stuff.
I don't see why Bogey would need to wait till his 40s to break through at all. He was in acting at a much younger age than that, and nowadays maybe his combo of looks, talent and persona would have been recognized earlier.
Another factor was his lifelong alcoholism - that probably did a number on his looks, and maybe nowadays it wouldn't have been countenanced and he would have gotten help with it earlier.
The bottom line is, Bogey born say in the 60s would have been a different person than Bogey born in the 19th C. And the entertainment business has also changed hugely. You can't extrapolate directly.
I don't see why Bogey would need to wait till his 40s to break through at all. He was in acting at a much younger age than that, and nowadays maybe his combo of looks, talent and persona would have been recognized earlier.
Another factor was his lifelong alcoholism - that probably did a number on his looks, and maybe nowadays it wouldn't have been countenanced and he would have gotten help with it earlier.
The bottom line is, Bogey born say in the 60s would have been a different person than Bogey born in the 19th C. And the entertainment business has also changed hugely. You can't extrapolate directly.
I could easily see Hanks in a lot of the roles Jimmy Stewart did, and vise-versa.
(A remake of The Spirit of St. Louis starring Tom Hanks would rock.)
I adore James Stewart.
But you said that his fame was "inexplicable," when clearly it was easily explained by the fact that millions of people adored his work.
Well, I'd say there have been a lot of "imitators" of Jimmy Stewart. Of course...they never capture him, really.
By that I mean, Jimmy's typical role is the naive, green, sweet guy who has a firely, feisty streak. He was able to pull it off without looking immature.
All the imitators who try to do that...end up looking wierd.
For all his "childlike" on-screen persona, Stewart also had a commanding presence. The "temper flares" we see in Liberty Valance and Mr. Smith make us root for him, not scoff at him.
All the imitators end up looking unstable when they do that.
Again...I'd say Tom Hanks would be great for Stewart-like roles. But he's not Jimmy Stewart. Nor does he try to be an immitator--he's his own man.
By that I mean, Jimmy's typical role is the naive, green, sweet guy who has a firely, feisty streak. He was able to pull it off without looking immature.
All the imitators who try to do that...end up looking wierd.
For all his "childlike" on-screen persona, Stewart also had a commanding presence. The "temper flares" we see in Liberty Valance and Mr. Smith make us root for him, not scoff at him.
All the imitators end up looking unstable when they do that.
Again...I'd say Tom Hanks would be great for Stewart-like roles. But he's not Jimmy Stewart. Nor does he try to be an immitator--he's his own man.
