|
Post by maphillips3 on Jan 25, 2010 11:54:07 GMT -5
I have often wondered what the rift was between these two were. Seems to me that in every interview that, Robert always slams Steve. Did they have a fight, or something? I really wish, I had more insight in this quarrel. Does anyone have any information about this?
|
|
|
Post by maphillips3 on Feb 21, 2010 18:24:15 GMT -5
I was wondering if these guys got into a fight, or something?
|
|
|
Post by chaney on Feb 24, 2010 9:39:06 GMT -5
Looked through some of the old Mitchum books and couldn't find much addressing this. Think it might have been a case of McQueen becoming famous for taking on the hip outsider persona that Mitchum originated and having financial, critical, and public opinion success with it. Granted times were different by the late 60's and certainly Mitch took the brunt of the critics and the studios for his independence 20 years earlier. He even spent time in jail for smoking pot, something McQueen's generation flaunted. Mitch learned the lines to the scripts, hit his marks, and worked with his fellow actors. McQueen cut out the lines, haggled with directors, and created physical business to steal scenes from other actors. Think it was merely these differences, nothing personal and certainly no fight or incident between the two physically.
By the late 60's the drink was starting to take hold of Mitch more and he was spouting off about a lot of things, sometimes merely to get a rise out of reporters. McQueen parallels might have been one of those subjects that he got tired of talking about, so his tone took on the trademark Mitchum sarcasm. There is a fairly solid answer from Mitchum in response to Richard Shickel's question:
Schickel - I saw a quote from you that made me laugh several times - saying something about Steve McQueen, like, "Steve doesn't bring much to the party." I took this to be not only a criticism of him, but maybe of a kind of school of acting.
Mitchum - Unless it's there for him, Steve's not really going to come in and bring a lot to the party, unless it's something that requires a wrench and a quart of oil. He doesn't come in with a whole bagful of goodies and just enliven everything up. Steve needs a good director. I said that in association with his association with Bobby Wise (on THE SAND PEBBLES). From my own experience and observation, that would not be the sort of ideal director for Steve McQueen. Steve needs to be reminded of his own potential. He should be kept alive at all times. Someone like David Lean would keep him on his toes. I'm very grateful for directors who keep me alive, remind me that I am capable of more. Otherwise, I just let it slide by.
|
|
|
Post by BMitchum on Nov 7, 2010 14:26:51 GMT -5
Bronson had made some remarks that Robert's antics were just an act and he wasn't really a tough guy, that "he could take him". When Robert showed up at an event and Bronson was there, Robert made it know he was looking for Bronson to make him put his money where his mouth was. "tough guy Bronson" left the event in order to avoid Mitchum. Bronson was probably talking about himself when he called out Robert Mitchum and quickly tucked and ran when Mitchum tried to confront him. How do I know this? Bob was my grandfather and told me.
|
|
|
Post by chaney on Nov 7, 2010 23:11:21 GMT -5
Interesting. I've theorized before that as tough as Charlie came across and as tough as his background was, some of his own tough guy aura was based on his intimidating presence and mystique. I've heard tale of a lot of people who were scared of him but I've never heard of him actually coming to fisticuffs with anyone. When encountering guys with tough guy reputations of their own (William Smith, Richard Egan, and now Bob Mitchum), Charlie backed down when put on the spot.
Part of this might be the realization that not only were these men not going to back down from Charlie's tough talk, but that physically they were all larger and knew how to fight. I think Charlie picked his spots and picked them well. To lose a fight to any of these men would seriously have undermined his own tough guy reputation.
I'm a fan of both Charlie and Bob Mitchum and it's always interesting to hear about what goes on or went on behind the scenes. Would be interested to hear tale of other Mitchum tough guy stories if you have them.
|
|
|
Post by maphillips3 on Nov 7, 2010 23:45:10 GMT -5
Interesting Bronson-Mitchum story. I believe Charlie was a supreme tough guy, but I do believe that guys, like Micthum, Leo Gorden, Woody Strode, Jack Palence, of his era could easily take him, but that is know knock on him, because these guys were the cream of the crop. its just like when Clint Eastwood backing down to Richard Burton, on the set of "WERE EAGLES DARE". I don't believe that diminishes Clint's tough guy persona, because Richard had a good tough guy rep. Can you tell us any of the tales of people scared of Bronson CHANEY?
|
|
|
Post by maphillips3 on Jun 3, 2011 12:35:59 GMT -5
CHANEY, what is your opinion of McQueen/s acting style? I heard he talked alot about the" less is more" style of acting(something Clint and Bronson popularized, during that time), because it was more of naturalistic way of acting, but do you think that was the best way of acting?
|
|
|
Post by chaney on Jun 3, 2011 20:29:05 GMT -5
Not necessarily the best way of acting, especially incongruous with stage-training. Some actors are fantastic with dialog and can really carry a scene to a peak. Others can play to the camera or handle props with precision and skill (McQueen and Lee Marvin handling weapons comes to mind). Whatever creates interest on screen and captures the audience's attention. McQueen was expert at being silent on screen and projecting a mood or an aura. He wasn't comfortable with dialog and would pare it down, knowing what he was capable of achieving with a soulful nod or glance.
One of the best actors I've ever seen at "thinking" on screen is Warren Oates. Sometimes that guy could carry long stretches of screen time with nothing more than a squint of his eyes or a furrowing of his brow. Definitely something that is probably more inherent in a personality or actor's background than something that can be taught.
|
|
|
Post by harmonica on Jun 4, 2011 11:39:14 GMT -5
I totally agree about Warren Oates, he was a superb actor but very underrated.His performance in "Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia" was one of my 10 favorite movie performances.
You got it right about the dialog-body thing.Although Bronson was considered a physical actor he knew how to deal with long lines.I think it's not casual the fact that among other great actors in ensemble-cast movies it was him who was given some powerful glorious monologues like the "kid's fathers' manhood" speech in "The Magnificent Seven" or the revelation of his claustrophobia in "The Great Escape" or his last monologue in "The Battle Of The Bulge" he also had the most "serious" dialogs with Marvin in "The Dirty Dozen".He was definately not just a Leonesque actor.
McQueen, to be on topic, was one of the greatest actors to me.I consider him superior to Eastwood but I would pick Paul Newman or Bronson over him.His performance in "Papillon" is just great."The Magnificent Seven" is the perfect example of his ability on stealing scenes,he fails to do the same in "The Great Escape" though(due to Pleasence, Bronson...).
|
|
|
Post by maphillips3 on Jun 24, 2011 13:47:24 GMT -5
I agree Chaney about Mcqueen wielding a weapon. In the "THE GETAWAY", the beat scenes are at the end of the movie, when he is blowing people away that gun!
|
|
|
Post by Mean Little Ass-Kicker on Mar 6, 2012 19:12:01 GMT -5
Bronson had made some remarks that Robert's antics were just an act and he wasn't really a tough guy, that "he could take him". When Robert showed up at an event and Bronson was there, Robert made it know he was looking for Bronson to make him put his money where his mouth was. "tough guy Bronson" left the event in order to avoid Mitchum. Bronson was probably talking about himself when he called out Robert Mitchum and quickly tucked and ran when Mitchum tried to confront him. How do I know this? Bob was my grandfather and told me. No offence or anything, but if your story is true, it doesn't necessarily make Bronson any less of a man for leaving. Saying his reputation was an act and that he can "take him" (could have been said in good fun) doesn't mean he wanted to fight the guy. And a fight breaking out at an event? That alone would be an embarrassment for both of them.
|
|
hammer
Junior Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by hammer on Apr 30, 2012 23:07:05 GMT -5
I disagree with a lot of what I have read here. First of all, just because someone is taller and heavier than another person (Mitchum vs Bronson) has NOTHING to do with who would win a fight. I am a two time Champion, have set two world records and have won 30 out of 36 fights. Size has NOTHING to do with winning! That comes from skill, conditioning and training. Bronson was in great shape and Mitchum was never in that type of condition. Not sure I believe the account. And skill wise, I think Charlie could have beaten him. Same with Palence nor some of the others could not have beaten him. Will Smith, maybe. Trust me, size is over-rated. Skill and conditioning win the day!!
|
|
|
Post by CJR on Dec 30, 2012 11:46:41 GMT -5
Is that the reason there are no differing weight classes in boxing or MMA fighting? Oh, wait...there are.
Robert Mitchum fought in 27 professional boxing matches. Bronson was about 5'8" and 155 pounds. Mitch would have had an advantage of five inches and fifty pounds or more.
|
|
|
Post by maphillips33 on Jul 18, 2017 15:14:44 GMT -5
Thanks for all of your replies!
|
|
|
Post by Bronsonfan1975 on Nov 3, 2018 15:13:39 GMT -5
I disagree with a lot of what I have read here. First of all, just because someone is taller and heavier than another person (Mitchum vs Bronson) has NOTHING to do with who would win a fight. I am a two time Champion, have set two world records and have won 30 out of 36 fights. Size has NOTHING to do with winning! That comes from skill, conditioning and training. Bronson was in great shape and Mitchum was never in that type of condition. Not sure I believe the account. And skill wise, I think Charlie could have beaten him. Same with Palence nor some of the others could not have beaten him. Will Smith, maybe. Trust me, size is over-rated. Skill and conditioning win the day!! To say that Bronson had stamina is not true. Bronson was a heavy smoker and "Hard Times" director Walter Hill once said in an interview that Bronson could only fight for 30 seconds because of his smoking.
|
|