I watched Hawaii to see Max Von Sydow. I was surprised to see that he seemed as miscast in Hawaii as Gregory Peck was in Moby Dick.
Yet it seems an absurdity to have a 'miscast', because a good actor should be able to play any part. I guess it wasn't truly a 'miscast' but more of a 'why the heck did Sydow take that part?!".
Sydow's pedigree is beyond the scripted Abner Hale. The part of Hale was shallow in its overbearing nature, lazy in its development, basely barking unrealistic condemnations, and lacking any human substance---and in effect, overplayed. Sydow had fewer than 10 "human" lines in the entire film, leaving viewers to listen to elementary prattle. Abner Hale had the potential to be a very powerful character. The writers simply failed to provide dialog with depth.
Comparing Hawaii to Capote where the viewer is allowed to freely dislike Truman Capote because of his nature, the words spoken by Hoffman were believable giving depth to his character and grounds for the viewer's emotion. That depth was never achieved in Hawaii, offering instead preposterously hollow, ridiculously vacant lines. Directing Sydow to play Hale in an exaggerated fashion only made it worse. His religious fanaticism was not buy-able; he appeared more of a lunatic.
Having seen Sydow's acting in numerous works, he has proved capable should he be given something to work with. But the script is dull, reads like a dime-store children's novel, and in effect lent nothing to play.
Julie Andrews stayed in the shadows the entire film, suggesting that was also her role in the church/relationship, but she was the only character that had any depth. Her lines were few but solid and she had a believable countenance.
The Hawaiian characters were written stereotypically, speaking w/ broken English but apparently understanding all of Hale's embellished sophisticated condemnations. The Queen seemed jovial and bossy; she was the most natural of the Hawaiians on camera, earning LaGarde the only acting award for the movie. The rest of the Hawaiian actors (both speaking and extras) seemed stiff and comparably makes Keanu Reeves look like a Larry Olivier.
I can appreciate the attempts to keep the natives natural (and by default, topless) but because the movie lacked substance not provided by the script, the semi-nude natives are reduced to gratuitous fodder. It's as if the producers knew the movie was a stink-bomb and put a lot of breasts on camera to distract the viewer from the stench.
The cinematography of Hawaii was very basic and this movie was one of the last of Russell Harlan's career. Though the movie is credited as being filmed in Hawaii, most often the scenes looked like they were shot on sets. Interior ship scenes were done cleverly and the editing was tight. The musical score was sterling. Though I have enjoyed George Hill's later directorial efforts, I believe that problems with the script and loss of the original director resulting from such problems left Hill with less to work with than what he should have had. Comparably, Val Lewton's films often have better screenplays and believable characters, tighter shooting schedules, lack of lush locations, and they are done on inconceivably low budgets.
As for the religious theme and the resulting troubles the Hawaiians ensued as a result, the theme is interesting and worthy of exploration. I do understand the nature of the missionaries giving up their lives and going away possibly never to see their families again, as my father was a minister. I understand the fanaticism implied by Hale's character, as well as his close-mindedness to the concept of God being not only a vengeful God but also one of love, patience and understanding. But my understanding of the concepts of the movie do not excuse the fact that it was very poorly written.
I, for one, do not believe that I should have to read the book to make allowances for a poorly made movie. The movie should be strong enough to stand on its own. It isn't necessary for one to read Gone With The Wind to understand why Scarlett will never go hungry again, nor any of her folk.
Yet it seems an absurdity to have a 'miscast', because a good actor should be able to play any part. I guess it wasn't truly a 'miscast' but more of a 'why the heck did Sydow take that part?!".
Sydow's pedigree is beyond the scripted Abner Hale. The part of Hale was shallow in its overbearing nature, lazy in its development, basely barking unrealistic condemnations, and lacking any human substance---and in effect, overplayed. Sydow had fewer than 10 "human" lines in the entire film, leaving viewers to listen to elementary prattle. Abner Hale had the potential to be a very powerful character. The writers simply failed to provide dialog with depth.
Comparing Hawaii to Capote where the viewer is allowed to freely dislike Truman Capote because of his nature, the words spoken by Hoffman were believable giving depth to his character and grounds for the viewer's emotion. That depth was never achieved in Hawaii, offering instead preposterously hollow, ridiculously vacant lines. Directing Sydow to play Hale in an exaggerated fashion only made it worse. His religious fanaticism was not buy-able; he appeared more of a lunatic.
Having seen Sydow's acting in numerous works, he has proved capable should he be given something to work with. But the script is dull, reads like a dime-store children's novel, and in effect lent nothing to play.
Julie Andrews stayed in the shadows the entire film, suggesting that was also her role in the church/relationship, but she was the only character that had any depth. Her lines were few but solid and she had a believable countenance.
The Hawaiian characters were written stereotypically, speaking w/ broken English but apparently understanding all of Hale's embellished sophisticated condemnations. The Queen seemed jovial and bossy; she was the most natural of the Hawaiians on camera, earning LaGarde the only acting award for the movie. The rest of the Hawaiian actors (both speaking and extras) seemed stiff and comparably makes Keanu Reeves look like a Larry Olivier.
I can appreciate the attempts to keep the natives natural (and by default, topless) but because the movie lacked substance not provided by the script, the semi-nude natives are reduced to gratuitous fodder. It's as if the producers knew the movie was a stink-bomb and put a lot of breasts on camera to distract the viewer from the stench.
The cinematography of Hawaii was very basic and this movie was one of the last of Russell Harlan's career. Though the movie is credited as being filmed in Hawaii, most often the scenes looked like they were shot on sets. Interior ship scenes were done cleverly and the editing was tight. The musical score was sterling. Though I have enjoyed George Hill's later directorial efforts, I believe that problems with the script and loss of the original director resulting from such problems left Hill with less to work with than what he should have had. Comparably, Val Lewton's films often have better screenplays and believable characters, tighter shooting schedules, lack of lush locations, and they are done on inconceivably low budgets.
As for the religious theme and the resulting troubles the Hawaiians ensued as a result, the theme is interesting and worthy of exploration. I do understand the nature of the missionaries giving up their lives and going away possibly never to see their families again, as my father was a minister. I understand the fanaticism implied by Hale's character, as well as his close-mindedness to the concept of God being not only a vengeful God but also one of love, patience and understanding. But my understanding of the concepts of the movie do not excuse the fact that it was very poorly written.
I, for one, do not believe that I should have to read the book to make allowances for a poorly made movie. The movie should be strong enough to stand on its own. It isn't necessary for one to read Gone With The Wind to understand why Scarlett will never go hungry again, nor any of her folk.