Sign in to follow this  
Rick2400

Fred MacMurray

299 posts in this topic

The "heavy" in THE CAINE MUTINY? He had some questionable morals, but I would hardly call him a heavy, who generally has to kick some ***.

 

Hate to pile on, but did you not watch the acquittal party scene? Ferrer throws his drink in MacMurray's face and makes it quite clear that FM is the real villain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to pile on, but did you not watch the acquittal party scene? Ferrer throws his drink in MacMurray's face and makes it quite clear that FM is the real villain.

A villain and a heavy, to me, are not synonymous....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well don't leave us hanging...

OK, Frazier isn't going down without a fight......To me,  to be a  heavy, you have to exhibit some physical brutality. To be a villain, you do not. A heavy has to be a villain, but a villain doesn't have to be a heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred was one of those shifty, underhanded, manipulative,

but non-violent villains. Yeah, he was pretty deceitful,

but I always thought that Queeg was a screwball anyway.

Queeg would have been at home in BRINGING UP BABY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "heavy" in THE CAINE MUTINY? He had some questionable morals, but I would hardly call him a heavy, who generally has to kick some ***.

fred was the HEAVY=VILLAIN in the film. Queeg being insane does not negate that fact that Fred played the weak Coward and the HEAVY in the film. Where you got the definition that a heavy had to be violent is what's questionable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fred was the HEAVY=VILLAIN in the film. Queeg being insane does not negate that fact that Fred played the weak Coward and the HEAVY in the film. Where you got the definition that a heavy had to be violent is what's questionable

..and, to me, a heavy is not very bright. That wasn't MacMurray's problem in THE CAINE MUTINY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you make up definitions? the heavy is violent and not bright??? Please show us where you got those defintions.LOL I suspect you  NEVER watched the whole film LOL- Fred started the process by planting the idea that Queeg was nuts, and let others hang out to dry. He would have seen others punished and NOT owned up to his part. That is villainous, not "questionable morals" as you said. Again, REWATCH the film

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have literally never heard anyone differentiate between a villain and a heavy before.

 

The word heavy in this sense came about because big actors would be cast as villains in stage melodramas so as to look immediately intimidating to the audience, thus eliminating the need to laboriously establish sympathy for the smaller hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have literally never heard anyone differentiate between a villain and a heavy before.

 

The word heavy in this sense came about because big actors would be cast as villains in stage melodramas so as to look immediately intimidating to the audience, thus eliminating the need to laboriously establish sympathy for the smaller hero.

 

Interesting.    I always wondered why that term was used.    I didn't think it was because actors like Laid Cregar or Raymond Burr often played the 'heavy'.   ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you make up definitions? the heavy is violent and not bright??? Please show us where you got those defintions.LOL I suspect you  NEVER watched the whole film LOL- Fred started the process by planting the idea that Queeg was nuts, and let others hang out to dry. He would have seen others punished and NOT owned up to his part. That is villainous, not "questionable morals" as you said. Again, REWATCH the film

I have seen the film backwards, forwards, and sidewise. It's not as if the word "heavy" in this sense is a Merriam-Webster staple. To me, "heavy" will always have connotations of some physical or firearm-related force. Frazier  is not going down on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen the film backwards, forwards, and sidewise. It's not as if the word "heavy" in this sense is a Merriam-Webster staple. To me, "heavy" will always have connotations of some physical or firearm-related force. Frazier  is not going down on this one.

Just for your info, the Webster's New World Dictionary, cites as one of the definitions of Heavy as "THEATER A VILLAIN"- NO mention of "physical or firearm-related force"

DICTIONARY.COM DEFINES PLAY THE HEAVY- act the part of a villain, take the blame for UNKIND BEHAVIOR.

Again no mention of "physical or firearm-related force". 

That's YOUR definition, judging from the posts on this thread and dictionary definitions you are alone on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for your info, the Webster's New World Dictionary, cites as one of the definitions of Heavy as "THEATER A VILLAIN"- NO mention of "physical or firearm-related force"

DICTIONARY.COM DEFINES PLAY THE HEAVY- act the part of a villain, take the blame for UNKIND BEHAVIOR.

Again no mention of "physical or firearm-related force". 

That's YOUR definition, judging from the posts on this thread and dictionary definitions you are alone on this one.

I can take the heat. Maybe I'll write my own dictionary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say here that I can see DGF's point, as I too have watched THE CAINE MUTINY many a time myself, and while Fred's character is DEFINITELY a "low-down dirty and gutless back-stabber", I TOO have a hard time thinking of him as "a Heavy" in the same sense as, say, an out and out "criminal" type.

 

And in fact, because Jose Ferrer's character "outs" him near the end of the film, and because Fred's character seems to readily acknowledge his own "inadequacies" as a stand-up guy during that scene, THIS is why I have some reservations as to defining his character as "a Heavy".

 

(...sorry all the rest of you here, but you know ME...I gots ta calls 'em as I sees 'em, and regardless what Mr. Webster and/or Messrs Funk and Wagnall says)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "heavy" in THE CAINE MUTINY? He had some questionable morals, but I would hardly call him a heavy, who generally has to kick some ***.

"Low down dirty and gutless back stabber"  are your words dargo and that is NOT exactly what DWF wrote  LOL As you can read, all DWF feels is that Fred's character had questionable morals.Sorry but you gotta call them as you see them, but you're opinion is just that and NOT the final word.LOL. Your description sure sounds like a villain to me and a HEAVY= VILLAIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the definition of Heavy is slang-

 

A large muscular man employed to menace or intimidate, or as a nightclub bouncer. (UK slang)-The gangster was annoyed, so he sent a couple of heavies round.
 
Fred in that movie didn't physically intimidate anyone, he used the psychological approach to get into their heads that the Captain was nuts. He was more the bookworm criminal like the Unibomber without exploding bombs, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is the definition of Heavy is slang-

 

A large muscular man employed to menace or intimidate, or as a nightclub bouncer. (UK slang)-The gangster was annoyed, so he sent a couple of heavies round.
 
Fred in that movie didn't physically intimidate anyone, he used the psychological approach to get into their heads that the Captain was nuts. He was more the bookworm criminal like the Unibomber without exploding bombs, lol.

 

 

THANK you, MM! And I'm sure DGF thanks you too.

 

(...however, instead of your "Unibomber" analogy here, doncha think Fred's character is more like, say, Iago in The Bard's "Othello"?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is part of an interview with PEOPLE magazine Fred MacMurray did Nov 18, 1991

 

Though in later years he admitted regretting those nasty roles because he feared they made viewers dislike him, he also knew what it was about his acting style that made him so effective as a VILLAIN.

" Whether I play a HEAVY or a comedian",he said, I always start out as smiley, a decent rotarian type, If I play a HEAVY, there comes a point in the film when the audience realizes I'm really a heel"

 

I doubt you can name a film Fred played a violent type,tough gangster type and yet FRED describes some of the roles as a HEAVY. His definition doesn't seem to fit the one given by DGF, Dargo or Movie Madness, DGF, Movie Madness and Dargo, disagree all you want, I'm with FRED MACMURRAY on this one :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is part of an interview with PEOPLE magazine Fred MacMurray did Nov 18, 1991

 

Though in later years he admitted regretting those nasty roles because he feared they made viewers dislike him, he also knew what it was about his acting style that made him so effective as a VILLAIN.

" Whether I play a HEAVY or a comedian",he said, I always start out as smiley, a decent rotarian type, If I play a HEAVY, there comes a point in the film when the audience realizes I'm really a heel"

 

I doubt you can name a film Fred played a violent type,tough gangster type and yet FRED describes some of the roles as a HEAVY. His definition doesn't seem to fit the one given by DGF, Dargo or Movie Madness, DGF, Movie Madness and Dargo, disagree all you want, I'm with FRED MACMURRAY on this one :)

 

Yeah, but lavender, you have to remember here that that interview PROBABLY took place after Fred had been exposed to Flubber.

 

(...and as I THINK we all know now days, THAT stuff was SO toxic that it would sometimes have tremendously negative effects upon the nervous system of those who came into contact with it....and soooooooo....) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say, this last reply by you was a disappointment dargo. Guess it's just too tough to admit you might be wrong. The initial post was by Speedracer calling Fred a heavy  in The Caine Mutiny, it's on page2 of this thread. DGF then disagreed with her and that quote of his is in my post. He underplays Fred's character in the film, and that's what I really object to. But even so, MacMurray himself considered his the role of a heavy. Fred calling himself the heavy whether it's pre or post his Flubber exposure :wacko: is what counts here as far as I'm concerned. It was his role to play and I agree with his interpretation of the character  as a HEAVY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say, this last reply by you was a disappointment dargo. Guess it's just too tough to admit you might be wrong. The initial post was by Speedracer calling Fred a heavy  in The Caine Mutiny, it's on page2 of this thread. DGF then disagreed with her and that quote of his is in my post. He underplays Fred's character in the film, and that's what I really object to. But even so, MacMurray himself considered his the role of a heavy. Fred calling himself the heavy whether it's pre or post his Flubber exposure :wacko: is what counts here as far as I'm concerned. It was his role to play and I agree with his interpretation of the character  as a HEAVY.

 

Well, sorry to "disappoint" ya here, lavender.

 

(...but now I'M a little "disappointed" that you apparently failed to appreciate that with that last absurd reply of mine, I was attempting to make light of how needlessly "serious" I thought this minor little sidetracking into the realm of "proper word usage" had become)  :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, sorry to "disappoint" ya here lavender.

 

(...but now I'M a little "disappointed" that you apparently failed to appreciate that with that last absurd reply of mine, I was attempting to make light of how needlessly "serious" I thought this minor little sidetracking into the realm of "proper word usage" had become)

I knew your reply was ridiculous, but to be honest, I found it insulting that you couldn't bring yourself to admit you might be wrong. and to see the valid points that I posted. After all, you were the one that first posted your agreement with DGF's incorrect take on MacMurray's role. DGF was the one who started the "sidetracking into the realm of proper word usage" Speedracer had posted a lengthy post all about Fred and Down Goes Fraser's only response was his comment disagreeing with the use of the word "HEAVY" and you posted a response to that. So I guess, maybe if you thought it was needless, you didn't have to agree with DGF in the first place. YOU can't ALWAYS win arguments around here dargo LOL and as far as I'm concerned HEAVY=VILLAIN and I guess Fred MacMurray does too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew your reply was ridiculous, but to be honest, I found it insulting that you couldn't bring yourself to admit you might be wrong. and to see the valid points that I posted. After all, you were the one that first posted your agreement with DGF's incorrect take on MacMurray's role. DGF was the one who started the "sidetracking into the realm of proper word usage" Speedracer had posted a lengthy post all about Fred and Down Goes Fraser's only response was his comment disagreeing with the use of the word "HEAVY" and you posted a response to that. So I guess, maybe if you thought it was needless, you didn't have to agree with DGF in the first place. YOU can't ALWAYS win arguments around here dargo LOL and as far as I'm concerned HEAVY=VILLAIN and I guess Fred MacMurray does too.

 

Point taken. However, I really wasn't out to "win" any "argument" here, lavender. My sole purpose earlier was to only say that I could see DGF's point, and that PERSONALLY I will usually only apply the term "a Heavy" to characters in films who exhibit some form of "implied or overt physical menace" when acting as a villain.

 

(...that's all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I know, but you're both wrong LOL :D DGF is always wrong, you, not so much LOL (teasing)

Watching the TCM Edgar Ulmer doc right now and really want to concentrate on that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Villain and heavy are virtually interchangeable terms as far as I'm concerned.

 

The villain of a stage melodrama or film or novel is the heavy, and vice versa.

 

Having said that, I don't really think that Fred MacMurray quite qualifies as such in The Caine Mutiny. His character is duplicitous, of course, and cowardly, as already stated by others on this thread. One can feel complete contempt for him as a human being. By not standing beside Van Johnson (therefore back stabbing him) there's no question that Fred is a self serving WEASEL of the first order.

 

But a person can be all those contemptible things, I feel, but still not quite fall into the category of being a villain.

 

Let's face it. In his final scene in the film, when he takes that glass of wine or beer or whatever it was in his face, from Jose Ferrer, Fred doesn't try to alibi his behaviour. In fact, this scene is the closest in the film to his behaving a little more like a man because he takes his public dressing down stoically. MacMurray also acts ashamed of his own behaviour in the scene, so that must reflect some hint of decency within his makeup, as well, I figure.

 

So I guess I'm sort of half siding and disagreeing with every one here. A heavy IS a villain, but Fred doesn't quite qualify as such, to me, in Mutiny.

 

For my money, Fred falls far more into the category of a villain in The Apartment with his exploitation and games playing than with his cowardly behaviour in The Caine Mutiny. I'll tell you this, though, I sure wouldn't trust him as a pal in the latter film.

  • Like 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