Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2006 > March > 22 > Entry
Premiere: They coulda been contendahs
Fellow blogger Ron Rollins has done a fine job highlighting Premiere’s list of the 100 greatest performances of all time.
But now comes the real fun of debating these lists: talking about who was left out.
The magazine never lists any rules for its list, but it seems two were followed: No actor can have more than two performances on the list, and no film can be mentioned more than once.
The first rule leads to some heartbreakers like Bogart being tapped for The Maltese Falcon and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (both fine choices), but not his most famous role in Casablanca. Or Brando being tapped for Last Tango in Paris and On the Waterfront, (again, both excellent), but not for his iconic turn in The Godfather or his work in A Streetcar Named Desire, which marked a seismic shift in acting from theatrical technique to The Method.
The second rule means that while Jack Lemmon gets some deserved recognition for his side-splitting work in Some Like It Hot, that leaves Marilyn Monroe, one of the most potent symbols of Hollywood, with the fuzzy end of the lollipop, and nary a mention on the list.
In fact, sexy performances were by and large ignored. I certainly would have found a spot for Grace Kelly’s performance in Rear Window, which features the greatest female entrance of all time, bar none.
Villainy was ranked far too low on the list, with Anthony Hopkins’ indelible Hannibal Lecter coming in at a measly number 70, while Norman Bates AKA Anthony Perkins was missing. Maybe mother, what’s the phrase … wasn’t quite herself that day.
On the other side of the coin, a key hero is missing as well: 007. I would have tapped Sean Connery in Dr. No, since that set the mold.
With the exception of Judy Garland in A Star is Born, musical performers were shamefully ignored. That means no nominations for Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, Gene Kelly or Julie Andrews. So I guess being “practically perfect in every way� isn’t enough.
And speaking of Judy, it’s too bad Premiere ghettoized kids’ performances into a sidebar. And even there, her performance as Dorothy is not mentioned. Why, oh why can’t I indeed.
A good number of comedic performances were tapped, but like most of these lists, the weight leans toward drama. If Premiere wanted to be really bold, they would have included Robin Williams’s best performance, even though it only features his voice: the genie in Aladdin.
And some giants are missing as well. NOTHING for Clark Gable? Or Sean Penn, considered by many to be the greatest contemporary actor? Citizen Kane is considered one of the greatest films of all time, but Orson Welles’ performance is not?
Finally. Joe Pesci isn’t exactly a giant, but what about his performance in GoodFellas? That’s funny. I mean, what isn’t great about that, Premiere? Is he a clown? Didn’t he amuse you?
Well, who knows? Considering that Tom Cruise ranked third in Premiere’s ridiculous list of the greatest stars of all time last year, but is nowhere to be found on the performances list, maybe Premiere folds under questioning.
How about you, folks? Which of your favorites was snubbed?
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: Lists
Comments
By SRCputt
March 24, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
At least this isn’t the most embarassing media list ever. That would be VH1’s 50 biggest movie soundtracks of all time, which somehow forgot The Sound of Music, which only spent 3 years in the top 10 on Billboard’s album chart.By SRCputt
March 24, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
Classic snub: Donald O’Connor in Singin’ In The Rain. Recent snub: Edward Norton in American History X. And at least this list wasn’t the embarassment last year’s stars list was.By Sir Critic
March 23, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Very good point about Karloff, Ron … altho my argument would be to include Bela Lugosi’s Dracula, which was the same year and was even better. And you’re also right that too many of these lists tend to deeemphasize golden age material. I thought Premiere’s list last of stars last year, which placed Cruise and Roberts above Kate Hepburn and Bette Davis was an embarrasment. In fairness, they did include entries for Chaplin and Keaton, so at least they were looking this time.By ron rollins
March 23, 2006 8:13 AM | Link to this
yo, eric… thx for the plug! i thot it was largely a fun list, but as you point, out, full of holes, all of which you’ve pointed out much better than i did. i think they had some fairly questionable calls (brando and gable were 2 that also came to my mind) and they also pretty much ignore anything before 1940; i think you could argue that while on-film acting styles changed in the late 1930s to become more what we regard today as contemporary, that doesn’t mean that acting before then was bad… here’s one i would have included: boris karloff for “Frankenstein.” didn’t he pretty much create an icon, not to mention an entire industry? still, it was a fun and chewy list.