I suppose because the Oscars (that nothing could make me watch again) are coming up, The New York Times, presumably with the help of its movie critics, published a feature called “When Casting Goes Wrong”[Gift Link], purporting to be their picks “from recent decades” of the worst cast movie roles. A new Oscar recognizes the process of matching actor and role—it’s a bad idea, but never mind. My problem is that the list of 14 manages to miss such flagrant, infamous casting botches that it forces me to doubt any future judgments of these alleged film experts.
True: of the films represented on the list that I have seen, the casting choices flagged were indeed terrible. However, the list somehow omitted what had to be the most inexcusable, bizarre, inept and offensive casting decision in Hollywood history: “Hyde Park On Hudson”’s casting of Bill Murray…BILL MURRAY!…as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I wrote about this 2012 fiasco here. An excerpt:
“There is no artistic or historical justification for having Murray play the iconic FDR. All I can hypothesize is that the producers knew that the movie would be a hard sell to anyone under the age of 80, so they decided, “Hey, Boomers love Bill Murray: they’ll pay to see him in anything!” The result is disrespectful to one of our most important leaders, ruinous to the movie (which has other problems), and the antithesis of artistic competence, integrity and responsibility.I watched this thing looking like the audience in “The Producers” after the completion of “Springtime for Hitler,” with my mouth in what Stephen King calls “a rictus of horror.”
“… [Murray] doesn’t speak like Roosevelt, sound like him, carry himself like him, or display his gravitas, power or personality. To me it looked like the actor wasn’t even trying…that, or the role was completely beyond his narrow talents. Did he do any research at all? To be fair, FDR was special, with a magnificent voice, an actor’s mastery of projecting the desired emotional messages, and physically imposing despite his disability. John Voight, an infinitely more talented actor than Murray, still flopped when he tried FDR in “Pearl Harbor” despite being covered in so many layers of latex that he looked a bit like him, or at least a rubber dummy of him…
“I was shocked to see that there were actually critics who praised Murray’s performance. This is one more bit of evidence that critics can’t be trusted. Presumably, these ignoramuses wouldn’t know FDR if he sat in their laps. One critic wrote that Murray “humanized” Franklin. I suppose one could argue that playing one of our most calculating, politically brilliant, ruthless, astute, complex, essential, influential and towering American historical figures as a clueless, shallow, unengaged and ironic jerk is “humanizing.” I would argue that it’s just irresponsible and defamatory.”
Ethics Alarms 
really hoping you had a gift link for that story.
-Jut
Oops! It was supposed to be…I fixed it. Gift link now…
An inverse of your Ethan Hawke/Lorenz Hawke situation could be 5′-7″ (or maybe less) Tom Cruise cast as Jack Reacher (6′-5″ and imposingly bulked-up and buff, per the books).
Yes, my neighbors, who are fans of the novels, hated that casting. The first Cruise-Reacher movie was still fun, but I had no idea what the character was supposed to be when I saw it. The “Reacher” series educated me.
Just a bit of fluff, but Meryl Streep and her cohorts were two decades too old in Mama Mia.
I never liked Kurt Russell in Tombstone, although I generally like his acting in the more lighthearted characters he plays. Every time it’s on I always think they should’ve picked someone else for that part.
It’s amazing, isn’t it? The guy has been a middling level star since he was 11; he can do comedy and drama; he’s had many hit movies in different genres, but he doesn’t have “star power,” whatever that is. Val Kilmer steals that film away from Kurt: even Stephen Lang, Michael Beihn and Sam Elliot make more of an impression.
Elicited from a friend knowledgeable about these matters:
He’s right about the new Oscar for casting—it’s a ridiculous idea, and the examples the Times made of “bad casting” were nonsensical—they were just bad performances, or the result of bad writing or directing. Bad casting, or miscasting, to use a more precise term, is different. A classic example is Millie Perkins in “The Diary of Anne Frank,” a beautifully crafted and deeply felt adaptation of the famous stage play. The lead role required an actress as luminous as Susan Strasberg apparently was on Broadway, and Millie just didn’t have it, thus fatally damaging the film’s effectiveness.
On the other hand, there are triumphs of casting against type that sometimes resulted in Oscars for the actor—some deserved, and others awarded mostly for being a surprise. Shirley Jones, for example, the ingenue of two Rodgers and Hammerstein film musicals, hit the jackpot, winning a supporting actress Oscar for playing a prostitute in “Elmer Gantry. Though she was only in a couple of scenes, her performance was so unexpected and so startling—in a raw and very sexual way—that I suspect the vote was nearly unanimous. A daring and brilliant bit of casting.
There are many other notable examples of miscasting, none of which appeared in the Times article.
I disagree about Millie. She was a very inexperienced actress whose big plus was exactly that quality of being luminous. George Stevens got that one right, and took a big risk to do it. The lingering criticism of Perkins seems to come almost entirely from the influence of New York Times critic Bosley Crowther, like all Times movie and drama critics an asshole, who raved about how wonderful the movie was while slamming Millie. Of course the movie couldn’t have been so wonderful with a poor Anne. Most critics praised her performance. At the time there was a lot of anticipation that Audrey Hepburn would play the role, but she properly declined because she was too old. Also the play was a big New York hit, and Susan Strasberg was reportedly memorable and won a Tony at 18. But she was never effective in the movies, and Stevens’ instincts in not casting her seem to have been proven accurate.
Tangential but interesting (to me, at least).
In hindsight, it should be obvious that any number of icons of the old west might have lived into the 20th century, but going down the Google rabbit hole a while back turned up these, and a number of others:
John Wayne claimed to have met Wyatt Earp, and considered him an idol. Earp moved to California and worked as a consultant for early Hollywood Westerns. Tom Mix helped Helped Wayne get his career started, and was a pallbearer at Earp’s funeral.
Bat Masterson became a prominent sports writer and columnist.
Seth Bullock (Deadwood) lived until 1919, and was a friend of Teddy Roosevelt.
Tom Mix’s demise: Famed cowboy actor took his final drive near Tucson
A photo of his Cord! I didn’t know he wrecked in broad daylight. He made $220,000.00 a day in current dollars!