Sign in to follow this  
papyrusbeetle

Raymond Burr just keeps amazing me

30 posts in this topic

MV5BYjc0OTQ5MTktNjU1Yy00NzE2LWI1YWMtNDU3YTUwN2UxOWEwL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTE2NzA0Ng@@__V1_.thumb.jpg.8cbe1c67b25ab32c77946a5d7a3aeedd.jpgOf course, he RULED television series as "Perry Mason" and "Ironside".

But his "noir" films are pretty wonderful. And he is unforgettable in these great triumphs in black and white!

DESPERATE (1947) not a mobster to get on the wrong side of

RAW DEAL (1948) a mobster fascinated with fire, who dumps cherries jubilee on his girlfriend

WALK A CROOKED MILE (1948) - A communist--enough said?

BRIDE OF THE GORILLA (1951) - passionate scenes with gorgeous, doomed Barbara Payton

BLUE GARDENIA (1953) - a eager playboy who dumped the WRONG woman!

REAR WINDOW (1954) - pathetic neighbor across the courtyard from Jimmy Stewart

CRY IN THE NIGHT (1956) - he plays the creepy dangerous massive "mama's boy" who finds Natalie Wood irresistible

CRIME OF PASSION (1957) - he learns the hard way not to turn his back on Barbara Stanwyck

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget Burr's performance in the noir His Kind of Women (with stars Mitchum and Russell).

Burr plays a character that is even more sadistic than the one in Raw Deal.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TopBilled said:

Also, he plays despicable characters in PITFALL (1948) and RED LIGHT (1949).

My hatred for Burr's character in "Pitfall" almost rivals my past hatred for Stanwyck's "Strange Love of Martha Ivers." 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2017 at 9:06 PM, NickAndNora34 said:

My hatred for Burr's character in "Pitfall" almost rivals my past hatred for Stanwyck's "Strange Love of Martha Ivers." 

What is interesting about the character Burr plays in Pitfall,  is that he is a fairly normal guy,  mentally.   I.e. one using any means possible to achieve a sexual relationship with a good looking women.  

I say 'normal' as compare to the sadistic characters he played in His Kind of Women and Raw Deal;  These guys were sadistic psychos,   while the guy in Pitfall wasn't (just a sociopath).     This makes the ending all the more interesting because Scott may face charges for killing him.     If the Burr character was a psycho like in those other films Scott wouldn't have been arrested.      

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow---thanks for the info!

I can't even REMEMBER raymond burr in PITFALL.

The whole movie (IMHO) revolves around Lizabeth Scott, her cute clothes, and the tagline:

 A man can be as strong as steel...but somewhere there's a woman who'll break him!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely think very much about Burr's characters or his performances. I agree he was a fine talent. But he always impressed me rather negatively; with his huge bulk, fleshy face, and protruding eyeballs.

And then a few years ago I ran across an anecdote about his real life which further soured me on him. A closeted homosexual, there was apparently an unpleasant incident on some movie set where he took such a intense ardor for some young male actor that it practically led (or was leading up to) male rape. Burr was stalking this kid; or pressuring him; or pursuing him. Making unwelcome advances. For a guy his size to lose control of himself that way...ugh.

I do like Burr's audio performances. He played the hard-as-nails Inspector Hellman in Jack Webb's "Pat Novak, for Hire" (the best radio noir ever) and Capt. Lee Quince in 'Fort Laramie'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, there is just something about Raymond Burr that's wonderful. I love to watch him--villain or hero.

As Alfred Hitchcock said (of him, I think, describing what it takes to be a great film actor)

He's extremely good at doing nothing at all.

(Maybe another poster can remember the exact quote.)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay but in some cases you can't separate an actor from the man he is in private life. If Burr didn't have self-control over his perverse urges, if he harmed people--I sure won't watch him. Acting is an intimate craft--maybe the most intimate. You are showing your inner truths. Making us partake of them. Delivering them right into our brains. It's personal. So if your private life is corrupt, twisted, and malevolent, maybe don't become an actor.

Klaus Kinsky, Woody Allen--yes-- they are skirting the border too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Raymond Burr was a very dear person (his co-star Barbara Hale liked him very much, and describes great parties/dinners that he hosted at his home, just to have the pleasure of cooking for friends.)

I'll go with Barbara's opinions.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Okay but in some cases you can't separate an actor from the man he is in private life. If Burr didn't have self-control over his perverse urges, if he harmed people--I sure won't watch him. Acting is an intimate craft--maybe the most intimate. You are showing your inner truths. Making us partake of them. Delivering them right into our brains. It's personal. So if your private life is corrupt, twisted, and malevolent, maybe don't become an actor.

Klaus Kinsky, Woody Allen--yes-- they are skirting the border too.

I'm able to separate how I view an actor's work from their personal lives.    I do this for all celebrities.    Took me years to master this but I feel it is worth it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it comes down to what we each as individuals, feel is 'over-the-line'. Maybe its an individual judgment call. For instance I might watch 'Will to Power' without a qualm. But I wouldn't watch 'Saw' or 'Human Centipede' or 'Last House on the Left the remake'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always admired Raymond Burr and Barbara Hale's success in Perry Mason. But I was too young to really get into the show at the time it was originally on. When they did The Return of Perry Mason, I finally got to experience firsthand l the chemistry and excitement that made them a top dramatic series in the classic TV era.

Years ago I watched the made-for-tv movies in France & even though they were dubbed in French I could still appreciate the professionalism and Class Act of these two principal performers.

 

Well now the original Perry Mason 1 hour black and white TV series is on DVD.  I've started from the very beginning show to see what it was that made this series so special.

The power of Raymond Burr's acting mixed with the subtle nuance of his Discovery process with the mystery is what I find most intriguing. The skill with which Barbara Hale responds to Perry Mason is minimalist acting at its finest.

The supporting actors are well cast and the writing is above average for drama at that time.

But the show is all about Raymond Burr and his ability to hold the audience. Barbara Hale always said that she never could believe how Raymond Burr memorized every week all of those long summation speeches.

Right now I'm on Season 1, volume two and the strength of his performance is measured but quite tough. It must have been quite a relief for him to play such a sensitive and caring character after his procession of Heavys in all of those "A" movies.

 Coming to the aid of all of those helpless and hopeless women must have been a lot more fun than going after Clark Gable with a meat hook. LOL

Ray Collins and William Talman were supporting jewels in the cast as well.

William Tallman's Hamilton Burger was a much beloved character by the TV audience. Everyone felt sorry for him because he never won.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I'm able to separate how I view an actor's work from their personal lives.    I do this for all celebrities.    Took me years to master this but I feel it is worth it.

Yeah James, you make an excellent point here.

I think it was John Lennon who got me to realize this when I was still a teenager.

I was a big fan of Lennon's public life, and eventually I came to realize that how or why he led his private life the way he did was probably none of my business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Maybe it comes down to what we each as individuals, feel is 'over-the-line'. Maybe its an individual judgment call. For instance I might watch 'Will to Power' without a qualm. But I wouldn't watch 'Saw' or 'Human Centipede' or 'Last House on the Left the remake'.

Again, for me it has nothing to do with judging what is or is NOT 'over-the-line';  I don't make any judgement,  period,   but instead just view the 'work' as being completely separate from what an artist does in their personal live.

I still fail at this from time to time;  i.e.   maintaining this POV takes daily effort since one of the primary goals of the media (especially social media),  is to rally up strong feelings (either positive or negative) in the general public.     To go along with the social media wave is being a sucker IMO.

PS:  I'm also looking at this as an artist (musician),  myself:    A well written harmonic chord progression is just that;  period.    I don't care if the person who wrote it was a child murder, etc...     I just play the music because,  well,  it is well written music.   

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Ars Gratia Artis' eh? :)

Overt judgments can be refrained from, but internal judgments are another matter. There are still elements of deliberation, choice, and acquiescence. You are repeating someone else's movements when you play a chord they played themselves, recorded, and transmitted to you.

I think its fair to agree that much music is not completely random; it is organized into a pattern and presents itself as containing meaning, open for us to interpret.

Hypothetical: Let's say that someone wrote a piece of music which could physically cause ear damage to listeners. Let's say they wrote it expressly for this purpose. If so, you wouldn't play it.

Straying pretty far from the topic of Raymond Burr here, I know-- but I stand by my gut reaction. Yes, I have been able to ignore the private lives of plenty of other artists as occasions have variously demanded. This specific instance? Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

'Ars Gratia Artis' eh? :)

Overt judgments can be refrained from, but internal judgments are another matter. There are still elements of deliberation, choice, and acquiescence. You are repeating someone else's movements when you play a chord they played themselves, recorded, and transmitted to you.

I think its fair to agree that much music is not completely random; it is organized into a pattern and presents itself as containing meaning, open for us to interpret.

Hypothetical: Let's say that someone wrote a piece of music which could physically cause ear damage to listeners. Let's say they wrote it expressly for this purpose. If so, you wouldn't play it.

Straying pretty far from the topic of Raymond Burr here, I know-- but I stand by my gut reaction. Yes, I have been able to ignore the private lives of plenty of other artists as occasions have variously demanded. This specific instance? Nope.

So do you change your behaviors based on these 'gut reactions'?    E.g.  take all of the DVD's an actor is on and destroy them?    Boycott any media service (e.g. T.V. Station), that shows their work?    

These are serious questions;   E.g.  many members of the so called African American community are debating what to do with Bill Cosby's legacy of work,  going from a complete erase to showing the work without asterisks.  E.g. should awards that have been given be taken away?       How 'far' should society go in this regard?    Note that #MeToo has very specific demands about what is 'right' for each of us.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

;) You'r-r-r-re  a  har-r-r-r-rd  man, McGee...

Answer #1: no, I don't believe I change my own behavior to the extent you just described. If I involuntarily dislike something, I simply don't go out of my way to ever view it. But I don't rush through my home rooting out all the traces of the evidence.

Answer #2: boycotting. N/A because I already boycott all sorts of media.

Answer #3: Do I feel my own abnegation of an odious performer should be a policy adhered to by anyone else. NO. Nothing is more despicable to me (in today's culture) than the urge for censorship, redaction, or whitewashing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p.s. Thankfully I'm unfamiliar with the hashtag group you mentioned. But, it doesn't sound like anyone I'd care to have a beer with.... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

;) You'r-r-r-re  a  har-r-r-r-rd  man, McGee...

Answer #1: no, I don't believe I change my own behavior to the extent you just described. If I involuntarily dislike something, I simply don't go out of my way to ever view it. But I don't rush through my home rooting out all the traces of the evidence.

Answer #2: boycotting. N/A because I already boycott all sorts of media.

Answer #3: Do I feel my own abnegation of an odious performer should be a policy adhered to by anyone else. NO. Nothing is more despicable to me (in today's culture) than the urge for censorship, redaction, or whitewashing.

Thanks for this reply.   I admit I was paranoid because when this topic was discussed before some users like myself were called immoral enablers because we would watch a Roman Polanski film.   I.e. certain people insisted that if one didn't join a boycott  one must be a criminal themselves (e.g. sexual assault people).   They were upset TCM showed Polanski films (or Woody Allen etc...) since that provided 'support' to these artist (who are still living).       

I should have assumed you would take a reasonable approach and that we have similar views on censorship, redaction and whitewashing.

 

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes my blood boil! Yes, we're of like mind on this point. You'll never find me in a crowd of pitchfork-wielding suburbanites calling for a committee to save our precious children, the sanctity of womanhood, etc. Whatever I privately feel about anything, I can't abide rule-mongers! I don't subscribe to Redbook or Good Housekeeping. Jean-Jacques Rousseau is my intellectual hero! B)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

I always admired Raymond Burr and Barbara Hale's success in Perry Mason. But I was too young to really get into the show at the time it was originally on. When they did The Return of Perry Mason, I finally got to experience firsthand l the chemistry and excitement that made them a top dramatic series in the classic TV era.

Years ago I watched the made-for-tv movies in France & even though they were dubbed in French I could still appreciate the professionalism and Class Act of these two principal performers.

 

Well now the original Perry Mason 1 hour black and white TV series is on DVD.  I've started from the very beginning show to see what it was that made this series so special.

The power of Raymond Burr's acting mixed with the subtle nuance of his Discovery process with the mystery is what I find most intriguing. The skill with which Barbara Hale responds to Perry Mason is minimalist acting at its finest.

The supporting actors are well cast and the writing is above average for drama at that time.

But the show is all about Raymond Burr and his ability to hold the audience. Barbara Hale always said that she never could believe how Raymond Burr memorized every week all of those long summation speeches.

Right now I'm on Season 1, volume two and the strength of his performance is measured but quite tough. It must have been quite a relief for him to play such a sensitive and caring character after his procession of Heavys in all of those "A" movies.

 Coming to the aid of all of those helpless and hopeless women must have been a lot more fun than going after Clark Gable with a meat hook. LOL

Ray Collins and William Talman were supporting jewels in the cast as well.

William Tallman's Hamilton Burger was a much beloved character by the TV audience. Everyone felt sorry for him because he never won.

 

Welcome to an addiction.  My wife and I watch an episode at least once per week.  We received Seas. 1, Vol 1 as a gift and then purchased each set as it came out.  While there are many really good shows, there are no bad ones.  Right now we are also in Seas. 1, Vol 2 as we re-watch the series from begging to end.  Don't be surprised, but there was one color episode later on as an "experiemnt."  Nobody liked the result, so they went back to B&W.

It is amazing to watch Burr in PM and then watch him as really bad guys in so many movies.  And he is believable in both!  Supposedly Earle Stanley Gardner set in on the tryouts and Burr was going for some other role.  Gardner looked at him and said that's Perry Mason.  I recall reading that for many of his court appearances he was actually reading what he was saying rather than looking at the person on the stand.

The supporting actors are all very good in their roles.  My favorite is William Hopper, who retired to Palm Springs after the series ended.  He was a blonde when he joined the WW II Navy underwater demolition group (precursor to SEALS), but finished the war with gray hair.  But as you watch the episodes, take note of the guest actors.  Entertaining to look some of them up on Wikipedia.

The Gardner books have been re-released, but they are very different from the old movies or the TV series.  Perry and Paul were pretty unscrupulous and close to mean at times.  Read one and decided the TV series is much better.

Anyway, enjoy the series.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2018 at 12:32 AM, Sgt_Markoff said:

Okay but in some cases you can't separate an actor from the man he is in private life. If Burr didn't have self-control over his perverse urges, if he harmed people--I sure won't watch him. Acting is an intimate craft--maybe the most intimate. You are showing your inner truths. Making us partake of them. Delivering them right into our brains. It's personal. So if your private life is corrupt, twisted, and malevolent, maybe don't become an actor.

Klaus Kinsky, Woody Allen--yes-- they are skirting the border too.

I can easily separate the actor from the man he is in private life. If we were to start refusing to watch or otherwise consume art or entertainment which involves anyone guilty of any kind of wrong-doing ( and nowadays the bar for that is pretty low), there'd be very little left to watch, read, view, or listen to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

'Ars Gratia Artis' eh? :)

Overt judgments can be refrained from, but internal judgments are another matter. There are still elements of deliberation, choice, and acquiescence. You are repeating someone else's movements when you play a chord they played themselves, recorded, and transmitted to you.

No you're not.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us