re: Was John Wayne a good actor?

quote:

---

Maybe parts were written to his style. He was selective, borderline over exposed at times, but never left the audience feeling exhausted from his presence.

---

It isn't obvious, but he was way ahead of his time. He was a restrained, under actor. He didn't have much stage experience or training, he was a converted film stuntman/extra. He didn't have a "method" or any sort of instinct to project. He was a relatively conscious "under" actor. A "reactor" if you will. He sought to react as a normal person would, not a Hollywood actor. Not flat or disconnected, but a much more natural delivery of material compared to his peers of the 1930s through 1950s.

If you want to compare him to great actors of his generation, Spencer Tracy and Gary Cooper aren't denigrated as always playing themselves, but there isn't a playing card's difference between the three of them in acting style, delivery or, frankly, ability.

Now, if you look at guys with, perhaps a little more range (or ability, if you prefer), William Powell was also a natural guy who could do serious or funny, or something in between. Cary Grant probably in that same category as well.

But, for film acting as a lead in those sorts of films, John Wayne was a fantastic choice for both an entertaining film as well as a profitable one.