dual personalities

I really hate reviews like the one of the re-make of Papillon in the Wall Street Journal where the reviewer manages to insult the current actor (Charlie Hunnam) and the original one (Steve McQueen) both without really knowing what he’s talking about.

Steve McQueen…was among the last of a species cultivated by classic Hollywood, an icon of cool and a performer who enjoyed an ineffable on-screen charisma that translated into an intimacy with his audience—they were all in on this joke called movies…McQueen was the furthest thing from a Method actor. In fact, he wasn’t even considered a great performer…But his particular kind of stardom made it possible to actually enjoy something like “Papillon,” with its bleakness and violence, its constant reversals of fortune, and the injustice at its center.

As if it was his “particular kind of stardom” that made him good, made him watchable. As if the system did it. The system was long gone when McQueen came to town.

Anyway, someone in Hollywood got the bright idea that Charlie Hunnam could be the new Steve McQueen, and they do have some things in common: handsome blond looks and the ability to ride a motorcycle. But it is a disservice to Hunnam, whom I really like, because let’s face it, there is no one like Steve. Let Charlie be Charlie.

Re-making Steve McQueen movies is like like trying to re-make John Wayne movies. It is a Bad Idea.

But what really triggers me is when reviewers label Steve as the “King of Cool” as if that was something he tried to do. He just was cool, something those nerds don’t have a clue about. Hollywood didn’t make him cool. And, hey, he was a good actor! “In fact, he wasn’t even considered a great performer”–give me a break.

We know better.

Few things trigger me, but, as my children know, this is one of them.