Wonderfully eloquent. Also, he is honest and balanced in his appraisal of a fellow actor, rather than fawning. This means the praise for Brando carries so much more weight.
@@seltaeb3302 While I was about to agree with R O's observant post, yours won the day, especially as I read it in Gielgud's voice. Lucky I wasn't imbibing at the time.
There are some. People like Gary Oldman, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy, Cate Blanchett, Nicole Kidman, Hugo Weaving, Derek Jacobi, Judi Dench, Michael Sheen . . I could add a dozen more.
I agree . I remember growing up these graet actors were held in high esteem and their abilities on stage and screen would be discussed and they were graetly admired for what they could bring to a role . Nowadays the classic roles are not there , the characters are shallow , the scripts are written by lazy writers who rely too much on expletives , and there is too much reliance on cgi. I miss those actors who could hold my attention and make a film one to remember , there is no modern equivalence .
There is no such thing as an English gentleman. Why do you think we constantly can make fun of them and they just don't get how the class system oxford and cambridge and Westminster is a deception that we are not equal
@@Chris-wj8fz Of course there is. And your sneering bitterness doesn't make it not so. We're not equal. I don't have the talents of da Vinci or Einstein or Churchill or Paul McCartney. We're not equal.
The kind of consummate artist that has no peer, and never will. His offstage speech and staggering breadth of knowledge and compassion are as fascinating as when he’s onstage.
You've also got to miss the days of the interviewer who wouldn't interrupt his subjects every 5 seconds or laugh uncontrollably at every word they'd say just to be sycophantic.
Dick Cavett was such a wonderful interviewer. His questions were never mundane and his subjects had to actually think about their answers instead of giving rote responses. The only person I would compare him to today would be Terry Gross.
@@zackamania6534 "Most" .. "accomplished".. "intelligent".. 3 very relative general terms..... Firstly Intelligence has nothing to do with it.. you can be a genius and a very poor communicator...in fact only a handful of actors are able to speak about their craft with Gielgud level of depth.. Most well known actors start and continue in FILM where their performance is created in the editing room thus they dont have to master anything as the director/editor is in full control of any film actors performance .. This is unlike someone who cut their teeth on stage where they are directly interacting with his/her audience and thus must know everything about their part (physically and emotionally) otherwise they will be exposed on that stage.. this process allows them to understand their craft and get it honed role after role.. Most A-List actors are intelligent in terms of making money and marketing them selves.. but get them to talk about the process of acting.. 95% of them will fail miserably
Quite the opposite! They were of such talent, that we shall never stop watching them! [But I take your intended point, and - sadly - agree, whole-heartedly]
@@Seri99no I absolutely love Rylance. His performance in Wolf Hall is incredible. But we're not going to get decades of Rylance and others of his caliber performing the type of material that Gielgud, Richardson and Olivier performed. My requiem is not just for the actors, but for the world that gave rise to them.
Oh, how times have changed, yesteryear filled with lucid genius thinkers and artists, beautifully articulated English language with witty conversations and fantastic craftsmen actors we went to theaters to see. Today we have TH-camrs starlets, the Kardashians, Tik-Tok and The real housewives of Atlanta, oh dear, in my humble estimation, we are a very sorry lot indeed.
This was a wonderful and insightful evaluation of Brando as an actor and also a deeply knowledgeable observation of the differences of acting in movies and theater. Where I might differ is to note that the movie of Julius Caesar should show the crowd, and the editing must support Marc Anthony. On stage you might rely more on the actor, since the audience may not be able to see the faces of the actors in the crowd. Gielgud's comments on Streetcar are right on the money.
He and Olivier battled over who should play Charles Ryder's father in Granada's production of "Brideshead Revisited". Sir John's performance was a gem.
Amazing how Gielgud looked the archetypal grey man in a grey suited civil servant profession. Nothing remarkable looking about him at all, but his voice, and subtle facial expression OMG! Few actors in history can match that incredible voice, and enunciation in the English language on or off set.
I have read about Brando's stage career, and by all accounts he was spectacular, so Gielgud's what-if remark sounds accurate. So it is interesting that as early as this film he felt he had made enough money to do what he wished, so if he didn't pursue theater he must have had his reasons.
Sir John said it was because Brando didn't want to follow all the discipline that was needed for stage roles. But within only a few years of this video disciplined acting on stage had faded away so Brando might easily have felt more comfortable very soon for more stage roles. However, he had made enough by then that he no longer needed to prove himself and took only the big money making movie roles.
@@karenryder6317acting just wasn't that important to Brando....it wasn't a "calling" as with so many great actors..he more or less stumbled into it and surprisingly was brilliant at it...but the grind of a long theatre run was agony for him
Marlon Brando is the greatest actor because of his unmatched acting range. From 1950-60 he played a paraplegic in THE MEN, Stanley Kowalski in A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, a Mexican revolutionary in VIVA ZAPATA, Mark Anthony, a Hell's Angel in THE WILD ONE. Terry Malloy in ON THE WATERFRONT, Napoleon in DESIREE, sang and danced in GUYS AND DOLLS, a Japanese man(!) in TEAHOUSE OF THE AUGUST MOON, a contrite nazi in YOUNG LIONS then directed ONE EYED JACKS.
@Rinan Clay, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, greatest actor of his day and perhaps of all-time, sad for us his admirers that in the mid 70’s and 80’s he became indolent, I am certain he had his personal reasons, this man could have been in many more classics.
@@MarjorainMD Gielgud was correct. Everyone would love to have seen Brando as Hamlet. Another observation: there are two Broadway plays I wished I could have seen: Brando in A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE and Julie Andrew in MY FAIR LADY.
In 1953 John was arrested for cottaging. He thought it would ruin him but it actually signaled the publics disagreement with the Victorian era anti-homosexuality laws. When John finally went back on stage he received a standing ovation.
@@artrandy That's a very reductive way to look at it. He received a standing ovation because he was a much loved actor who was clearly approaching a breakdown. And being arrested for cottaging in 1953 didn't necessarily mean a man had done it. It was the peak of the anti-gay police persecution, following Burgess and Maclean (known homosexuals) defecting to Moscow. The same unreasonable and paranoid time that resulted in the suicide of many suspected homosexuals, including genius war hero Alan Turing.
When I saw Marlon Brando in On The Waterfront (on reruns), I was young, didn't know much about him. But what was amazing to me was his performance. I could see right away he had a presence & acting ability that was a cut above most actors.
So very true about Brando, he probably had the discipline to do more stage work but hated the repetition. It would’ve been very intriguing to see him do more Shakespeare roles/films
Indeed, Brando said as much in his interview with Connie Chung. However, in that exchange he seemed to emphasize the emotional wear and tear of doing several--what, 8?-- shows a week. But of all the criticisms thrown at him and all the spoutings from envious detractors, I've never heard or read any reports of his not "bringing it" on a nightly basis in Streetcar. Nothing about his inability to sustain it over the two year period he played Stanley on stage. Nothing about his "phoning it in" or "just not feelin' it" on occasion. And one might easily think it could've been a burden for Marlon to live up to what was surely an incredible amount of hype and publicity. A new audience very night expecting the fireworks they'd either heard about or they themselves had witnessed on a previous evening and returned to re-experience.
We’ve lost such brilliant talent because the studios don’t respect literature, words, storytelling. They’re about packaging content. If storytelling ever becomes valued again, you’ll see chaps like Gielgud return.
Stop watching American trash then! There are hundreds of superb films in other languages that are multi dimensional with superb actors, and acting in them.
At first I thought Dick Cavett was wrong for referring to "Sir" John Gielgud in 1953, but he was RIGHT! The movie came out and Gielgud was knighted in June of 1953, so critics definitely would have referred to him as (newly knighted) Sir John. I never should have doubted Dick Cavett. I won't do that again!
Gielgud was typical of the age in which he lived. People of immense talent and achievement yet quietly spoken and self-effacing. They told stories which had you enthralled whereas today it is nobodies with nothing to say yet in love with themselves to a narcissistic degree and boring everyone rigid. Maybe the young fall for that but we older folk remember something far, far better. Gielgud reminds me of a species which has all but died out - the English gentleman of which there were so many at one time - beautifully spoken and impeccable with their dress and manners.
The first time I heard the speech, Friends, Romans Country men - Lend me you ears, done properly was by Marlon Brando. Two brilliant performances in that movie was by Brando and Edmund O'Brien - the rest thought they were on the stage.
Imagine someone speaking so intelligently on an evening TV show. We're light years away from that now. Great comments on Brando, though! I think I like him a little better having heard Gielgud say those things.
I met sir John when I was 21 on set, I had no idea who he was and called him Johnny he called me Robbie, the assistant producer told me off for talking to him, it was all a little weird I and I told the assistant to have sex with himself, all those year's ago
Yeah, I think he was great. British people don't like Americans doing " their" roles but I haven't seen a better job done with the role. Besides, I think Brando knew this Mark Antony had to adapt to the ways of filmmaking not stage. I think Sir John isn't considering that. Subtlety and nuance are required for film even during big speech scenes like the one in Julius Caesar. Brando was also nominated for an Oscar for the role, John Gielgud wasn't. Brando won a BAFTA for Best FOREIGN Actor in the role and Gielgud won Best BRITISH actor for his role as Cassius in the film and Gielgud acted in Shakespear for YEARS to perfect his role, but Brando did it with ease and was considered the more superior of the 2 so slight jealousy!
Film is so different to stage but both professions have few actor's with the interpretation of their craft that John and Marlon had , Marlons ideas were way ahead of time
Two men having an intelligent and precise interaction worthy of reflection and further comment. We however have become a shallow and mindless people with frequently mindless agendas that are so poor in value that they are articulated at the elementary level.
I love listening to these interpretations of wonderful and interesting people by wonderful and interesting people. Sir Laurence Olivier talks about Marilyn Monroe. 8 fascinating minutes.
Personal opinion but I felt Edmund O'Brien's Casca was the best actor in Julius Caesar and the best interpretation I've ever seen whether in a film or stage play. It was so good, he upstaged Brando enormously. If you haven't seen the 1953 version of Julius Caesar, please watch it - even if it's just to see Edmund O'brien's stunningly good performance. Brando was unsuited for the role as Mark Anthony - but I guess the studios wanted him, irrespective of his capabilities.
I agree....Brando should have watched more stage productions for the forum scene to understand where the force of his natural skill would best be used. I think in particular the one line so many use today "...cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!" He utters it with force but it seems 'wooden' his standing far from Caesar's corpse. Then again it is early in his career (1953) . Many mock Charlton Heston but his performance as Marc Antony same title (1970) I don't believe has a peer to match. Note Gielgud in both films.
@@neilmccarthy1839 Gielgood threw his life and soul into Shakespeare (impressive) - but such a quintessential English gentleman, with a clipped accent playing a Roman general.... hmmmm
@@neilmccarthy1839 That "Cry 'havoc!'" line got everyone's attention alright, including mine when I watched the movie as a high school student. I thought--omg this guy could be so good if he ever decided to take more roles that demanded craft rather than mumbling.
Interesting that people would have called Brando a 'motorcycle actor' implying he was of limited range. Brando was one of the best stage actors around before making his first movie.
Today's woke "stars" are so lightweight in comparison to the real stars of yesterday. They knew their craft and they were fully rounded individuals with excellent knowledge and experiences that added to their overall performances.
Sir John was Unique in an elite class of maybe 4 members at the most-- who had the refinement, God-given talent and Class to comprise the naturally exclusive group to which they belonged. Not comparable to any who will exist during a gen-Xer's lifetime, and Definitely not any of the youngest boomer's.
I’m sure Sir John also came under Brando’s spell! Brian Blessed’s story of ‘goosing’ Sir John in the corridors at the National Theater is hilarious. ‘Oh, that Brian Blessed. He’s a terrible man…………..but he’s a lovely bit of rough’.😂
Forget Loose Women and Richard and Judy. Just play interviews like this for 60 minutes. Dick Cavett was a good listener and always had interesting guests.
I guess we'd have to settle for Kevin Spacey imitating both Cavett and Gielgud in a future round......and his personal pecadilloes aside, I think Kevin would knock it out of the park!
Can anybody mark the point in time when we lost such command of our own culture? Was it at that point in the early eighties when the narrative switched from beauty to Capitalism?
An impossibly deep historical question which one could attempt to answer simply but such an endeavour appears impractical and unfair. Nevertheless, I will try and begin to answer it here. In the UK, the collapse of what could be termed organised and cohesive civilisation began in 1914 (the catastrophe of WWI, which resulted in all the disasters that followed it). Once American capitalist culture mutated and seeped into Europe in the 1950s, it was only a matter of time before it established hegemony over the world's population. People like Sir John Gielgud came from a bygone era of British culture which carried the confidence of empire and world dominance, with a markedly different set of attitudes and energies to what we have seen in Western culture since the 1960s. If you want to know more about the cultural revolution in England between 1965-1997, read 'The Abolition of Britain' by Peter Hitchens. It is a fascinating and educational read.
@doctornov7 Thank you so much for replying. I honestly thought that my comment would sink away into the background internet noise. Thanks also for the book recommendation. Finally thank you for your very considerate and considerable reply. They know that we now that they know and yet they still capitalise. (A crude use of Solzhenitsyn in that last sentence, I know!)
Yes well of course there is a different tone to the writers Shakespeare is not Tennessee Williams. A director could have just told him what part of the speech to enunciate too rather than try and work around the issue. Old Shakespeare is a period piece whereas Street Car was set in what was then a more modern setting. Both tragic stories though with tragic characters.
Good Lord, that commentary is full of content. Not a single wasted syllable. Incredible.
True
The 463rd syllable is questionable, be fair!
I miss intelligent, articulate people in the public sphere.
What about DON LEMON
I miss them everywhere.
No question: The mere awareness of the need for articulate “comportment” - what a loss.
Thank you for your comment.
@J M.. There's a few around. If they don't spout the accepted narratives they're banishedto the fringes so you have to work to find them.
@@ytwarren47 - you made me spit my coffee all over…..
Wonderfully eloquent. Also, he is honest and balanced in his appraisal of a fellow actor, rather than fawning. This means the praise for Brando carries so much more weight.
Gielgud could fawn for England dear boy..
@@seltaeb3302 While I was about to agree with R O's observant post, yours won the day, especially as I read it in Gielgud's voice. Lucky I wasn't imbibing at the time.
Excellent observation.
Yes, this kind of balance is virtually extinct in film criticism. Books about film directors, for example, are practically 100% fawning.
I found him irritating just like olivier, condescending
Refreshing to hear a great actor actually discussing the craft of acting.
Sir John was truly an immense acting talent! His voice is absolutely hypnotic, I could listen to him for ever!
To listen to Sir John, Jez Irons and Rickman in a pub having a natter over a few jars would be cool.
Sir John Gielgud talking about Marlon Brando, These people are giants, There is no equivalence in modern cinema..
The bar is so low now.
There are some. People like Gary Oldman, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy, Cate Blanchett, Nicole Kidman, Hugo Weaving, Derek Jacobi, Judi Dench, Michael Sheen . . I could add a dozen more.
@@blackletter2591 you could add a dozen more and it would only fortify your state of being incorrect...
I agree . I remember growing up these graet actors were held in high esteem and their abilities on stage and screen would be discussed and they were graetly admired for what they could bring to a role . Nowadays the classic roles are not there , the characters are shallow , the scripts are written by lazy writers who rely too much on expletives , and there is too much reliance on cgi. I miss those actors who could hold my attention and make a film one to remember , there is no modern equivalence .
How about Kim Kardashian.?? 🤣
Sir John Gielgud was the quintessential Englishman and one of the best actors we ever saw.
English, but of Polish descent.
@@hetmanjz One of my all time fave british actors was the great George Sanders - English,but of Russian descent.
What a marvellous man Gielgud was. A real English gentleman.
Tak, ale o polskim, arystokratycznym pochodzeniu. Yes, but it should be remembered that Gielgud was of Polish, aristocratic descent.
Irrelevant to who he was.
There is no such thing as an English gentleman. Why do you think we constantly can make fun of them and they just don't get how the class system oxford and cambridge and Westminster is a deception that we are not equal
@@Chris-wj8fz Of course there is. And your sneering bitterness doesn't make it not so. We're not equal. I don't have the talents of da Vinci or Einstein or Churchill or Paul McCartney. We're not equal.
@@axakeydziatowicz7642 Never knew that. Thank you.
I could listen to Sir John Gielgud speak on any subject. Such a learned yet great open-minded actor.
The kind of consummate artist that has no peer, and never will. His offstage speech and staggering breadth of knowledge and compassion are as fascinating as when he’s onstage.
You've also got to miss the days of the interviewer who wouldn't interrupt his subjects every 5 seconds or laugh uncontrollably at every word they'd say just to be sycophantic.
When I watch reruns of the Dick Cavett Show it is very striking the differences between his show and what passes for a talk show now.
You're not a Graham Norton fan then 😂
@@ryans756 I actually am! 😂😂😂 Contradictory, I know.
@@lunartat77 Hahaha. Contradictory? Nahh, we'll just say you're a complex individual :)
@@ryans756 Best compliment I've ever had. Thanks! 👍
I could listen to him read the phone book all day as they say. Lovely speaking voice. Incredible presence.
Struck by the erudition, the delivery - I imagine I could listen to Gielgud talk for 15 minutes about magic markers.
Gielgud really knows his craft. Also Marlon is a superstar. He was able to hold the screen. You can't buy that. You are born with it.
Too bad Brando gave up on acting early in his career. He only acted for money, his admission.
Let's not forget Kim Kardashian!
@@ytwarren47 (Why ever not? ; )
I easily could always understand Gielgud's diction unlike Brando's mumbling years.
That's a lotta horseshit buster! What are you, nuts?
I busted my ass with Stella and Lee to become what? An overpaid, overweight Ham! Jesus!
Such intelligent commentary…a rarity these days.
Dick Cavett was such a wonderful interviewer. His questions were never mundane and his subjects had to actually think about their answers instead of giving rote responses. The only person I would compare him to today would be Terry Gross.
Can you even IMAGINE an actor being this intelligent and well spoken today?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
no
Adam Sandler?
@@kools67
Now THAT'S FUNNY!!
🤣🤣🤣
Yes. People don’t speak with the same verbiage but most accomplished actors are pretty intelligent.
@@zackamania6534 "Most" .. "accomplished".. "intelligent".. 3 very relative general terms..... Firstly Intelligence has nothing to do with it.. you can be a genius and a very poor communicator...in fact only a handful of actors are able to speak about their craft with Gielgud level of depth.. Most well known actors start and continue in FILM where their performance is created in the editing room thus they dont have to master anything as the director/editor is in full control of any film actors performance .. This is unlike someone who cut their teeth on stage where they are directly interacting with his/her audience and thus must know everything about their part (physically and emotionally) otherwise they will be exposed on that stage.. this process allows them to understand their craft and get it honed role after role.. Most A-List actors are intelligent in terms of making money and marketing them selves.. but get them to talk about the process of acting.. 95% of them will fail miserably
a great actor..his generation of talented Brits on the stage....will never be seen again....
Quite the opposite! They were of such talent, that we shall never stop watching them! [But I take your intended point, and - sadly - agree, whole-heartedly]
Now they're trying to pass lightweights like Benedict cummerbund and Eddie redstain off
On the whole, I do agree but what about Mark Rylance?
@@Seri99no I absolutely love Rylance. His performance in Wolf Hall is incredible. But we're not going to get decades of Rylance and others of his caliber performing the type of material that Gielgud, Richardson and Olivier performed. My requiem is not just for the actors, but for the world that gave rise to them.
@@atlanteum Yes I see your point.
So interesting to hear Gielgud’s perceptive observations about Marlon and acting technique.
Such a brilliantly articulate gentleman, Mr. Gielgud. At least we have your work to replay.
One of the great Brits discussing the greatest American actor of his time. Don't you miss these great actors?
Oh, how times have changed, yesteryear filled with lucid genius thinkers and artists, beautifully articulated English language with witty conversations and fantastic craftsmen actors we went to theaters to see.
Today we have TH-camrs starlets, the Kardashians, Tik-Tok and The real housewives of Atlanta, oh dear, in my humble estimation, we are a very sorry lot indeed.
Good lord. What has become of human interaction. The days when chat shows were really worth watching
It is more about the poor quality of the interviewers than the actors!
This was a wonderful and insightful evaluation of Brando as an actor and also a deeply knowledgeable observation of the differences of acting in movies and theater. Where I might differ is to note that the movie of Julius Caesar should show the crowd, and the editing must support Marc Anthony. On stage you might rely more on the actor, since the audience may not be able to see the faces of the actors in the crowd. Gielgud's comments on Streetcar are right on the money.
Wow, there’s a master actor who understands his craft deeply.
Most people remember Gielgud from " Arthur " but he was one of the finest actors in British history. Such an eloquent voice!
I think of his great performance in 'War and Remembrance'.
I remember him in Caligula, him and Peter O’Toole alongside Malcom McDowell owned that film, Helen Mirren was fantastic as well.
I know him from 'Providence.' "Death creeps on." Like Arthur Rubinstein on the piano.
@@MarjorainMD yeah,Gielgud in that piece of pornographic trash.What was he thinking?
He and Olivier battled over who should play Charles Ryder's father in Granada's production of "Brideshead Revisited". Sir John's performance was a gem.
Amazing how Gielgud looked the archetypal grey man in a grey suited civil servant profession. Nothing remarkable looking about him at all, but his voice, and subtle facial expression
OMG! Few actors in history can match that incredible voice, and enunciation in the English language on or off set.
Please, i read that as archetypal gay man
Two great actors from two totally different schools. Plus the wonderful Dick Cavett to bring out the best of Sir John.
I have read about Brando's stage career, and by all accounts he was spectacular, so Gielgud's what-if remark sounds accurate. So it is interesting that as early as this film he felt he had made enough money to do what he wished, so if he didn't pursue theater he must have had his reasons.
Sir John said it was because Brando didn't want to follow all the discipline that was needed for stage roles. But within only a few years of this video disciplined acting on stage had faded away so Brando might easily have felt more comfortable very soon for more stage roles. However, he had made enough by then that he no longer needed to prove himself and took only the big money making movie roles.
@@karenryder6317acting just wasn't that important to Brando....it wasn't a "calling" as with so many great actors..he more or less stumbled into it and surprisingly was brilliant at it...but the grind of a long theatre run was agony for him
Incredibly articulate and insightful. People who know their craft,; not celebrities.
Beautifully spoken … the style and content ❤
Marlon Brando is the greatest actor because of his unmatched acting range. From 1950-60 he played a paraplegic in THE MEN, Stanley Kowalski in A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, a Mexican revolutionary in VIVA ZAPATA, Mark Anthony, a Hell's Angel in THE WILD ONE. Terry Malloy in ON THE WATERFRONT, Napoleon in DESIREE, sang and danced in GUYS AND DOLLS, a Japanese man(!) in TEAHOUSE OF THE AUGUST MOON, a contrite nazi in YOUNG LIONS then directed ONE EYED JACKS.
@Rinan Clay, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, greatest actor of his day and perhaps of all-time, sad for us his admirers that in the mid 70’s and 80’s he became indolent, I am certain he had his personal reasons, this man could have been in many more classics.
@@MarjorainMD Gielgud was correct. Everyone would love to have seen Brando as Hamlet. Another observation: there are two Broadway plays I wished I could have seen: Brando in A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE and Julie Andrew in MY FAIR LADY.
@@peterryder7941 You and I Peter, in complete agreement with your statement, 100%
In 1953 John was arrested for cottaging. He thought it would ruin him but it actually signaled the publics disagreement with the Victorian
era anti-homosexuality laws. When John finally went back on stage he received a standing ovation.
So Sir John earned a 'standing' ovation for cottaging? Interesting..........
@@artrandy That's a very reductive way to look at it. He received a standing ovation because he was a much loved actor who was clearly approaching a breakdown. And being arrested for cottaging in 1953 didn't necessarily mean a man had done it. It was the peak of the anti-gay police persecution, following Burgess and Maclean (known homosexuals) defecting to Moscow. The same unreasonable and paranoid time that resulted in the suicide of many suspected homosexuals, including genius war hero Alan Turing.
I used to own a Cottage in The Cotswolds...
*Perfect balance of nuanced critique and earnest praise. (Sir John's a giant in his own right. He deserves his own bio pic or documentary.)*
When I saw Marlon Brando in On The Waterfront (on reruns), I was young, didn't know much about him. But what was amazing to me was his performance. I could see right away he had a presence & acting ability that was a cut above most actors.
So very true about Brando, he probably had the discipline to do more stage work but hated the repetition. It would’ve been very intriguing to see him do more Shakespeare roles/films
Can you imagine who brilliant and old Brando would have been as Lear?
Indeed, Brando said as much in his interview with Connie Chung. However, in that exchange he seemed to emphasize the emotional wear and tear of doing several--what, 8?-- shows a week. But of all the criticisms thrown at him and all the spoutings from envious detractors, I've never heard or read any reports of his not "bringing it" on a nightly basis in Streetcar. Nothing about his inability to sustain it over the two year period he played Stanley on stage. Nothing about his "phoning it in" or "just not feelin' it" on occasion.
And one might easily think it could've been a burden for Marlon to live up to what was surely an incredible amount of hype and publicity. A new audience very night expecting the fireworks they'd either heard about or they themselves had witnessed on a previous evening and returned to re-experience.
It seems like Brando could have done more with the tremendous gift he had, but I am grateful for the handful of great film performances he did do.
Like a lot of supremely talented people his addictions and appetites ruined him....
That is what it sounds like when someone knows exactly what they’re talking about.
We’ve lost such brilliant talent because the studios don’t respect literature, words, storytelling. They’re about packaging content. If storytelling ever becomes valued again, you’ll see chaps like Gielgud return.
Ah storytelling! Adult roles! When will we see the like again?
Stop watching American trash then! There are hundreds of superb films in other languages that are multi dimensional with superb actors, and acting in them.
Brando's "Lend me your ears" speech is absolutely magnificent.
Sir John's portrayal of Hobson is still so memorable and hilarious to this day
Great remarks concerning some of the ‘metrics’ of acting.
What a master was he.
At first I thought Dick Cavett was wrong for referring to "Sir" John Gielgud in 1953, but he was RIGHT! The movie came out and Gielgud was knighted in June of 1953, so critics definitely would have referred to him as (newly knighted) Sir John. I never should have doubted Dick Cavett. I won't do that again!
I love John Gielgud and mastery of the English language.
That's Rolls Royce of a mind. What a speaker.
What an intelligent actor
Christ, that's some intelligent commentary
Gielgud was typical of the age in which he lived. People of immense talent and achievement yet quietly spoken and self-effacing. They told stories which had you enthralled whereas today it is nobodies with nothing to say yet in love with themselves to a narcissistic degree and boring everyone rigid. Maybe the young fall for that but we older folk remember something far, far better. Gielgud reminds me of a species which has all but died out - the English gentleman of which there were so many at one time - beautifully spoken and impeccable with their dress and manners.
I think I just learned more about practical acting in that short commentary that I've done my entire life.
The first time I heard the speech, Friends, Romans Country men - Lend me you ears, done properly was by Marlon Brando. Two brilliant performances in that movie was by Brando and Edmund O'Brien - the rest thought they were on the stage.
Brando was superb,not sure about O;Brien.Thought he was out of his depth. ( brilliant in DOA and The Wild Bunch,though).
Both true greats
I had quite forgot that men used to be so eloquent and educated.
1971 England with Sir John speaking so eloquently and articulately and England 2024 Stylee.."Alright Bruv, you get me Bro, it's good Fam,innit....
Imagine someone speaking so intelligently on an evening TV show. We're light years away from that now. Great comments on Brando, though! I think I like him a little better having heard Gielgud say those things.
Compare this to today's late shows
@@karenryder6317 IKR? Just people spouting political opinions, as if there's nothing else going on in the world.
I met sir John when I was 21 on set, I had no idea who he was and called him Johnny he called me Robbie, the assistant producer told me off for talking to him, it was all a little weird I and I told the assistant to have sex with himself, all those year's ago
Brando was outstanding as Marcus Antonius…outstanding…just watch him .
Yeah, I think he was great. British people don't like Americans doing " their" roles but I haven't seen a better job done with the role. Besides, I think Brando knew this Mark Antony had to adapt to the ways of filmmaking not stage. I think Sir John isn't considering that. Subtlety and nuance are required for film even during big speech scenes like the one in Julius Caesar. Brando was also nominated for an Oscar for the role, John Gielgud wasn't. Brando won a BAFTA for Best FOREIGN Actor in the role and Gielgud won Best BRITISH actor for his role as Cassius in the film and Gielgud acted in Shakespear for YEARS to perfect his role, but Brando did it with ease and was considered the more superior of the 2 so slight jealousy!
Film is so different to stage but both professions have few actor's with the interpretation of their craft that John and Marlon had , Marlons ideas were way ahead of time
Two men having an intelligent and precise interaction worthy of reflection and further comment. We however have become a shallow and mindless people with frequently mindless agendas that are so poor in value that they are articulated at the elementary level.
I could listen to him all day!💋
I love listening to these interpretations of wonderful and interesting people by wonderful and interesting people. Sir Laurence Olivier talks about Marilyn Monroe. 8 fascinating minutes.
Good grief Guilgud is a smart man, really understands his craft. Come on Brannagh - step up!
And you, Cumberbatch! Stop hiding behind the money!
Batch really sold out, playing cartoon characters. It's a waste of his talent.
Brilliant man!!!
Personal opinion but I felt Edmund O'Brien's Casca was the best actor in Julius Caesar and the best interpretation I've ever seen whether in a film or stage play. It was so good, he upstaged Brando enormously. If you haven't seen the 1953 version of Julius Caesar, please watch it - even if it's just to see Edmund O'brien's stunningly good performance.
Brando was unsuited for the role as Mark Anthony - but I guess the studios wanted him, irrespective of his capabilities.
I agree....Brando should have watched more stage productions for the forum scene to understand where the force of his natural skill would best be used. I think in particular the one line so many use today "...cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!" He utters it with force but it seems 'wooden' his standing far from Caesar's corpse. Then again it is early in his career (1953) . Many mock Charlton Heston but his performance as Marc Antony same title (1970) I don't believe has a peer to match. Note Gielgud in both films.
@@neilmccarthy1839 Gielgood threw his life and soul into Shakespeare (impressive) - but such a quintessential English gentleman, with a clipped accent playing a Roman general.... hmmmm
@@NoosaHeads Indeed, same as Will Smith portraying a Roman General? not only ludicrous, but Caesar or Anthony are going to get slapped.
@@neilmccarthy1839 That "Cry 'havoc!'" line got everyone's attention alright, including mine when I watched the movie as a high school student. I thought--omg this guy could be so good if he ever decided to take more roles that demanded craft rather than mumbling.
He had a lot of thoughts, didn't he, Sir John Gielgud?
Is this really Sir John Gielgud? Or is it former NYC Mayor Ed Koch?
It seems there was a time when an actor had to be literate , articulate and eloquent, now people seem to take up acting for fame, not as an art.
This interview today..,”He was the shit, no cap!” Then Jimmy Fallon makes hyena sounds.
John is so kind.
Interesting that people would have called Brando a 'motorcycle actor' implying he was of limited range. Brando was one of the best stage actors around before making his first movie.
I'm 65 years of age and I've never heard the phrase piss-elegant before. It is now burned into my brain.
I also learned that word from Sir John :)
Right on the mark.
Today's woke "stars" are so lightweight in comparison to the real stars of yesterday. They knew their craft and they were fully rounded individuals with excellent knowledge and experiences that added to their overall performances.
It's just harder for the studios to sanitize actors' images, with them running their mouths on social media.
Brilliant insights
Brando wasn't a stage actor from listening to others, he was a movie star.
Okay Brando as Hamlet with Gielgud directing would have been amazing
Day-Lewis is the only actor alive with the talent of those actors from back then and he’s retired.
What a loss to humanity. They are coming fast and furious now, I am so sad to say. But glad I existed in the same time/space.
Hands down the best Cassius ever. All hail the legend
Sir John was Unique in an elite class of maybe 4 members at the most-- who had the refinement, God-given talent and Class to comprise the naturally exclusive group to which they belonged. Not comparable to any who will exist during a gen-Xer's lifetime, and Definitely not any of the youngest boomer's.
I’m sure Sir John also came under Brando’s spell!
Brian Blessed’s story of ‘goosing’ Sir John in the corridors at the National Theater is hilarious.
‘Oh, that Brian Blessed. He’s a terrible man…………..but he’s a lovely bit of rough’.😂
Time to go watch Julius Caesar!
Nice one Johnny...🇬🇧🇯🇲💯
Forget Loose Women and Richard and Judy. Just play interviews like this for 60 minutes. Dick Cavett was a good listener and always had interesting guests.
Sir John Gielgud looked like a real Sonya
I guess we'd have to settle for Kevin Spacey imitating both Cavett and Gielgud in a future round......and his personal pecadilloes aside, I think Kevin would knock it out of the park!
I think Brando's Mark Antony was nothing to write home about, but he was great in 'The Appaloosa' and 'One-Eyed Jacks".
Apocalypse Now.- Col.Kurtz.
@@richardscanlan3419 and great as Johnny in 'The Wild One'..:)
GIRL- "Hey Johnny what are you rebelling against?"
BRANDO- "Waddya got?"
@@tungstenkid2271when the biker chick comes onto him
BRANDO : what do ya want me to do,send you flowers?
cold.
Can anybody mark the point in time when we lost such command of our own culture? Was it at that point in the early eighties when the narrative switched from beauty to Capitalism?
An impossibly deep historical question which one could attempt to answer simply but such an endeavour appears impractical and unfair. Nevertheless, I will try and begin to answer it here.
In the UK, the collapse of what could be termed organised and cohesive civilisation began in 1914 (the catastrophe of WWI, which resulted in all the disasters that followed it). Once American capitalist culture mutated and seeped into Europe in the 1950s, it was only a matter of time before it established hegemony over the world's population. People like Sir John Gielgud came from a bygone era of British culture which carried the confidence of empire and world dominance, with a markedly different set of attitudes and energies to what we have seen in Western culture since the 1960s.
If you want to know more about the cultural revolution in England between 1965-1997, read 'The Abolition of Britain' by Peter Hitchens. It is a fascinating and educational read.
@doctornov7 Thank you so much for replying. I honestly thought that my comment would sink away into the background internet noise. Thanks also for the book recommendation. Finally thank you for your very considerate and considerable reply. They know that we now that they know and yet they still capitalise. (A crude use of Solzhenitsyn in that last sentence, I know!)
Now we have tik tok stars
The intelligence and erudition gone now from public discourse.
Somewhere someone is going “PATRIARCHY!” xD
They were probably filming The Godfather when this interview took place.
MB would 'pleasure' JG as thanks for his help with his speaches.
Yes well of course there is a different tone to the writers Shakespeare is not Tennessee Williams. A director could have just told him what part of the speech to enunciate too rather than try and work around the issue. Old Shakespeare is a period piece whereas Street Car was set in what was then a more modern setting. Both tragic stories though with tragic characters.
Very articulate
An hour too short
"Piss elegant", ahahaha . ... My dad used to say someone was being "poncey" Great phrases/words you never hear any more.
piss-elegant
(slang, vulgar) Elegant or sophisticated, especially in a pretentious or contrived manner.
Marc Antony should have the cigarette behind his ear.
Can someone say articulate?
He shreds Brando. And he is right. Brilliant.
It did sound like a take-down wrapped in oblique praise.
Maybe he didn't do much theatre because he didn't like learning his lines 😂