George C. Scott -- The Bruce Campbell of his day??!!

[peter johnson]

If you go back over the last 20 posts or so on different topics, the one name that keeps popping up is George C. Scott, of all people -- I never would have thought of this on my own, just sort of believing George C. to be a sort of usual mainstream actor, albeit a good one.
Now that I think about it, the man had a huge repetoire of fringe flicks -- we have Strangelove, Firestarter, Incubus, The Changeling, and others.
Now, the one thing that just whaps me in my forehead is "A Christmas Carol":  Cavorting with Marley, and the ghosts of the damned/ Time travel/Parallel Universes/Alternate realities/Redemption etc. etc. . . . .You know, that Charles Dickens sure could write, ch'a know?
I swear, that man, for having such a straight rep., sure was in a b-load of odd pictures.
. . . and let's not forget Patton believing he was the reincarnation of Alexander etc.
peter johnson

[raj]

I don't know if I'd call Dr. Strangelove fringe, it is a well respected film (and I find it hilarious, yet another one to go into the black comedy pile)

I always try to watch Scott's version of A Christmas Carol, not because I particularly like the story (Scrooge was worried about too many people on the planet, used little fuel & food, could he have been an early environmentalist? ), but his performance is so powerful.

Some of his other stuff, like Firestater, etc. are more b-movie-esque.  Maybe Bruce Campbell will one day be up on stage accepting his Oscar?!

[Mofo Rising]

Well, I don't know if you could really consider those "fringe flicks".  THE CHANGELING, for instance, while a horror film, is heavily slanted towards the dramatic side.  I don't think you could consider it "fringe" unless you group all horror films that way.  It's certainly not as outside the stream as an EVIL DEAD flick.  Well, at least it wouldn't have been when it was released.

All of Scott's choices still had an aura of respectability around them (maybe not FIRESTARTER).  Even EXORCIST III, after the debacle of the second, was released with pomp and circumstance.

Campbell, on the other hand, has starred in features that are most definitely pulp material.  The only reason the EVIL DEAD movies have gained respect, at least in film fan circles, is that they're so damn good.  But most of Campbell's films, out side some of his bit parts, don't have the mass respectability of most of the films Scott worked on.

Not to belittle Bruce Campbell, who is a fine actor and undeniable persona, but I just don't think the Scott comparison works.

It is however a good point about George C. Scott.  His film career has had a lot more quirks than one would have otherwise been led to believe.

[peter johnson]

My wife brought up a very good point re. George C.:  He did turn down the Academy Award for "Patton", and was therefore unable to get good roles for a bit there.
Hence his somewhat eccentric choices for awhile: re.  One must eat . . .
Brilliant & funny fellow.
peter johnson