The Post profiled actor Jack Palance in 1954, where he explained his obsession for playing the darker side of villainy on the screen.
The Saturday Evening Post
“Hollywood’s Frightening Lover”
by Richard G. Hubler
November 13, 1954
“I learned how to hate when I was a kid,” says Walter Jack Palance. “In the hard-coal mines.” As a villain in nearly 90 percent of his roles, he has never forgotten the elementary tutoring of his childhood rough-and-tumble in a Northeastern Pennsylvania coal town. He has changed from an arrogant, stiff-necked youngster to a mild-spoken, thoughtful family man. But he can still summon up at will the turbulent emotions that he once experienced. This ability, together with his unusual face, makes him the foremost portrayer of “heavy roles” in Hollywood.
The deadliness of his deep-set stare, the shine of his high cheekbones and the honest witness of his dipsy–doodled nose, his tousled, lusterless black hair and belligerent muscular stance give him the edge on virtually all movie villains. Palance adds to this a voice that is almost suave in its gentility.
[Brief case: Though on-screen for less than 13 of Shane’s 118 minutes, Palance’s performance drew an Oscar nomination (Entertainment Pictures / Alamy Stock Photo)]
He wryly claims that even his four-year-old daughter, Holly Kathleen, is impressed. “Say something, Daddy,” she urged him one night. “Every person says you have a nice soft voice, anyway.”
He thinks that his so-called obsession for playing the darker side of villainy on the screen is easily explainable: “In any dramatic scene, the central figure is always the villain, not the hero. He has the most interest for the audience. The actor who inspires a healthy hatred will make more money than any other.” No actor who has made an outstandingly knavish screen portrayal has ever missed stardom. Palance knows; in his fourth picture he got star billing — about twice as fast as it usually happens.
To get “reality” for his villains, Palance sometimes goes
to extremes. For his part in Shane, he trained the way he used to prepare for
his professional fights. He actually got his draw and fire — without any
particular aim — down to three-fifths of a second. The writer of the book
complained that no one could fire a .44 with gloves on. Palance gently pointed
out that he was already doing it.
I like that quote. "Ya really gonna shoot a .44 with gloves on? You're crazy! Can't nobody do that." But Jack Palance COULD and DID. Telling somebody like Jack Palance that a man can't shoot a .44 with gloves on is like telling somebody that's impossible to drive a car with a blindfold on. If I've seen it happen then it's possible. It CAN be done and it WILL be done if one BELIEVES it can be done. There's no magic there. But Jack Palance makes it appear as if there IS magic in there. And that's because he's such a great actor. For a second, you hardly forget that he's the villain. Then later on you catch the scene and it's him in his purest form. Now that's acting.
ReplyDelete