The Coen brothers wrote the role of Walter Sobchack in The Big Lebowski with John Goodman in mind. In fact, they would have filmed Lebowski before Fargo, but Goodman’s schedule was already booked. Before he arrived on the Lebowski set, I asked a veteran crew member what he was like.
“Do you remember the part he played in Barton Fink? That’s pretty much him.”
A million laughs one moment, dark and brooding the next. The few times I saw him work, Goodman was very hard on himself. He was not a particularly gracious man, at least not to a young guy like myself (though he was charming around women). Which doesn’t explain anything about him, of course. That’s not so unique. But I was disappointed in his performance, thought it was uneven, especially because it was written for him, and because he’s often so good.
Goodman was the subject of a good article in yesterday’s Times. He is currently playing the part of Pozzo in a revival of Waiting for Godot.
Mr. Goodman will forever be associated with Dan Conner, the working stiff he played so memorably on “Roseanne,” giving the part not just size and humor but also an edge of melancholy. Mr. Goodman now looks back fondly on the “Roseanne” years, but for a while, he said, he felt trapped in the show.
“I resented it at the time,” he said. “It’s one of those arrogant things that happen to you when you don’t realize the breaks you’re catching.” He added: “I don’t feel this way anymore, but for a couple of years I put myself above the material. I hate saying it, but it’s true, and I’m ashamed of it.”
A friend of mine who knows his Beckett told me last week that Goodman was the stand-out in this production. This article made me root for him.
Mr. Goodman said: “Right now I’d rather be here than anywhere. I’d rather be here, trying to find the goddamn part, and I hope I never do find it, because I don’t want to slide into complacency. What would I do then? Start cockfights in my dressing room?”
I and I'm sure many others will disagree that Goodman's performance in The Big Lebowski is uneven.
Oh, I understand completely. I guess having read the script prior to filming, and knowing it was tailored to him, and having seen the dailies during production, I thought it could be better. In a way, it was so well-written, so specifically designed for him, he couldn't spoil it.
[2] "In a way, it was so well-written (the script), so specifically designed for him, he couldn’t spoil it."
I'm suddenly reminded of YS2.0... for some reason...
;)
[2] But in your opinion, if he had played it as-written do you think the character would have had the same pop culture impact? I mean I don't think its an overstatement to say that is one of the most memorable/famous performances of the last 15 years.
[2] you'll have to make with the specifics, in that case.
=)
what in particular do you think is "uneven"?
what is in the script that you don't see translated to the film?
He just seemed unfocused at times. Maybe it was an unfair judgement on my part. When I read this script it was SOOOO Goodman that I felt that his performance in real life didn't live up to my expectations. Whereas Bridges, on the other hand, surpassed my expectations.
I have tix for tonight's game. I am hoping there is a break in the rain that allows us to get the game in. But it doesn't look good.
For anyone interested, here's the link for Yanks weather update:
http://yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ballpark/weather_update.jsp
[7] we're in the same boat. I'm just hoping if they DO call it, they do it before I leave the office and drag my ass up there for no reason.
game called as of 3:30
I was 99% sure the Yankees would try to lure me into the stadium to drop a mortgage payment on Frickles and Gin & Tonics for 3 hours before the game was finally called.
[10] Well you can always take advantage of your visit to "stock up" on meat at Lobel's...
;)
I just saw Godot last Friday - and Goodman and John Glover are both awesome. Nathan Lane and Bill Irwin unfortunately give surface performances without much real humor or pathos. Goodman is really working up there - Glover has natural stage magic. Lane and Irwin used to have stage magic, now they have too many crutches and too many cheap laughs. Costumes were great, set was nice but the direction overall misses Beckett by a mile.
E,
Is it that Irwin is a limited actor? I saw him play Lucky once and thought he stole the show.
Does anyone think Bill Irwin is anything but a one-trick pony? It's a good trick, but - you know - Popeye was like 30 years ago. Hell, even "Don't Worry Be Happy" hasn't aged too well -- hey - what's up with that???
He may be a limited actor - because his one trick has worked for so long. Rarely will he work with a director that will challenge him (same thing with Nathan Lane). Those two get to rehearsals and start coming up with ideas to fill what should be a performance. They think that with some clever ideas the sleeping audience will think they saw a great performance. Goodman; however, has to prove himself to the stage and audience. He knows that it takes constant work. An actor can't rest on their last performance; each one has to be focused and motivated. Think of Mariano - he brings his gut to the mound and performs. Schmuks like the Rocket think that if they act intense they'll pull off a miracle - it's all in his head with little relationship to his body. Mo has a ritual, a physical preparation before he runs onto the field. He works off stage, until he's onstage. Irwin and Lane try, but they're disconnected.