Whackingday.com

A few weekends ago I watched Bridge on the River Kwai. I’d seen the whole thing before in before in fragments, but this was the first time I’d watched it from opening frame to last.

It was wonderful to watch a real classic, shot on actual film without a frame of CGI garbage.

Of particular interest to me though, was the contrast between the performances of Alec Guinness – the legendary classical ‘master’ actor – and William Holden – the handsome, loud ‘movie star’.

The two share only a few scenes, and Holden does suffer by comparison both in those scenes and later as their separate stories develop. If I hadn’t seen him in anything else, I’d conclude that Holden was barely a shadow of Guinness in terms of ability. His scenes seemed laboured and Hollywood-cheesy compared to the Englishman’s quiet dignity.

I believe however, this was entirely due to the way their roles were written: Guinness’ role allowed him to act. Holden was the designated movie star: to drive the action scenes along, to inspire the young male audience and send the female audience aflutter. Holden couldn’t act as well as Guinness in this film because the script, direction and narrative didn’t allow him to.

If you need proof of what Holden could do as an actor as well as a star, seek out Sam Peckinpah’s classic revisionist western The Wild Bunch. Peckinpah’s loud, testosterone-driven film may seem an odd example to use, but as the ageing, ruthless outlaw Pike Bishop, Holden displays no sign of star-driven vanity and is not laboured with sappy dialogue or pointless exposition. His worn features and brief, angry outbursts evoke anger, weariness and resignation.

The role of Pike Bishop was not a sympathetic one. He utters no great words and performs no exciting stunts. It’s only Holden’s gravitas which makes his character mesmerising.

It takes an actor to do that, and Holden certainly made the grade in any company.