Of course I loved Peck in TKAB, but it didn't qualify as acting. You see, I have proof that Peck really was Atticus Finch: a nineteen-year-old Audrey Hepburn wanted to fuck his brains out on the set of "Roman Holiday" and he turned her down on the account of his being married.
That's crazy. If I were his wife I would be questioning my husband's heterosexuality. But anyway, RIP.
Tell me booby, how Pecks performance does not qualify as acting. What am I missing. Seems to me that it was a great performance. With regards to his not boning a 19 year old Hepburn, how refreshing to see there were men with integrity and values. Something to be saluted not made the butt of jokes.
So I can't salute something and make jokes about it too? Have you considered that perhaps some people have the ability to place their tongues in their cheeks? Amazing, innit.
Hear that roaring in your ears? That's the sound of Humor Flight 427 sailing right over your head. But seriously- Peck was a very limited actor who was miscast much more often than he succeeded. The only actor in history to singlehandedly ruin a Hitchcock film.
In many ways, Peck was an actor before his time - which is a compliment and a curse. He was in an era of Hollywood where there was the "Hero" and then every other character. Peck was not a traditional "hero" in any sense of the word: Not gallant, couldn't rescue the damsel in distress, etc. Today, the "hero" role comes in all shapes and sizes. The leading man no longer has to be all things to all people. Peck could never be that "hero" in early Hollywood, but he could be a leading man today with Hollywood's more specific role and typecasting. RS
I agree with ya there, that was a bad performance in Spellbound. But I blame Hitch too, who filled the film with so many bad Freudian references to make it resemble a first year psych class.