|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 7, 2022 2:01:27 GMT
Okay, I'm watching TWO SMART PEOPLE (1946) right now and I am enjoying how well Lucille Ball gets along with John Hodiak in this movie. They have good chemistry.
I don't think this is chemistry related to sexual heat. She was in love with Desi Arnaz and he was in love with Anne Baxter. So it's not like they are into each other in that way. But there's a knowing twinkle in their eyes, and they are very in tune and engaged in their scenes with each other.
It's clear they are having fun making this picture.
How do you define chemistry? How do you know when the main stars do not have chemistry?
|
|
|
|
Post by yanceycravat on Nov 7, 2022 4:06:04 GMT
I think the best way to recognize chemistry is when the viewer wants to be a part of the action, with what's going on in the movie.
You want to be around Tracy and Hepburn. You want to hang out with Redford and Newman. And as much as William Frawley and Vivian Vance disliked each other off camera you can't deny you wouldn't mind being around the characters.
There has to be a spark. No spark, no chemistry. Probably one of the most palpable sparks was between Bogart and Bacall. Now that was chemistry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Nov 7, 2022 9:31:54 GMT
Part of it is, at least for me, that the two characters seem to genuinely like each other.
As Yanceycravat noted, they might hate each other in real life, but if on screen, we the viewer see a genuine affection - not sexual - just "hey, we like each other and are comfortable around each other even if we are arguing" (see Nolte and Murphy in "48 Hours") that's part of chemistry.
As Topbill notes/implies, part of it also is if we the audience think they, the performers, are having fun, like what they are doing and want you to enjoy it too.
It's the same with music concerts. The best ones are the ones where the band seems to be having a blast performing.
|
|
|
|
Post by cineclassics on Nov 7, 2022 13:33:33 GMT
It's hard to define chemistry, but you know it when you see it. I think how an actor plays off/reacts to their co-stars has a profound impact on chemistry. Take Myrna Loy and William Powell in the Thin Man series of films: when we meet this couple, they instantly feel as though they've known each other for years the way they speak to one another, their mannerisms, etc. It feels so natural. While I think an argument can be made for the director, actors and script all being equally important to the success of a film, when it comes to co-star chemistry, for me, acting trumps them all.
|
|
|
|
Post by BunnyWhit on Nov 8, 2022 6:02:51 GMT
Doris Day has great chemistry with all her leading men -- except Clark Gable. I don't know if it was something about him, something about her, or something about the script, but Day does not have her usual sparkle with Gable in Teacher's Pet (1958). Where Day is concerned, I suspect chemistry happens because she is a very natural actress, making it easy for her leading men to respond to her in convincing fashion. By all accounts, she was a lovely, warm, generous person, and that must have made it easy for her leading men to work with her.
But that's not all. Day had marvelous chemistry with her female co-stars as well. I love her with Thelma Ritter, Audrey Meadows, Alice Ghostley, and Eve Arden. And honestly, when she was cast as a mother in a film, I would swear those kids are hers.
|
|
|
|
Post by ando on Nov 8, 2022 6:48:04 GMT
Where Day is concerned, I suspect chemistry happens because she is a very natural actress, making it easy for her leading men to respond to her in convincing fashion. By all accounts, she was a lovely, warm, generous person, and that must have made it easy for her leading men to work with her.
But that's not all. Day had marvelous chemistry with her female co-stars as well. I love her with Thelma Ritter, Audrey Meadows, Alice Ghostley, and Eve Arden. And honestly, when she was cast as a mother in a film, I would swear those kids are hers. 
Chemistry between two leads is more than just amiability, though. It's a real spark that is undeniable; a combination of mental, physical and emotional rapport that jumps off the screen. Looking back the first combo I thought of who give off that kind of spark are Gregory Peck and Ingmar Bergman in another Hitch flick, Spellbound ('45):
With any two less talented actors not only would have the dramatic conflict seemed less interesting but less exiting - and the two play off each other wonderfully. The script, full of psycho-jargon, is often hokey, but the two put it over mostly because we want to see them make it through the muck of endless psycho babble together. There's a not so subtle emotional subtext between the actors which parallels the byzantine storyline of two people attempting to escape their psychological predicaments. I wasn't at all surprised to read of Peck's confession of his affair with Bergman. They were a great combo. Wish they had done more together. |
|
|
|
Post by nipkowdisc on Nov 8, 2022 21:20:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BunnyWhit on Nov 8, 2022 23:08:48 GMT
I think Hollywood understood chemistry (though I'm not so sure it has that understanding today). Myrna Loy and William Powell have been mentioned here already, and they do have undeniable chemistry, which we must assume is why they were paired fourteen times. They were always marvelous together. I've read in several interviews with Loy that for years she received fan mail asking about her "husband, Mr. Powell" because people thought they were really married. Another such couple is Greer Garson and Walter Pidegon. They were paired eight times, and each time they simply made the screen crackle. Some of their chemistry must have been their skill as actors, as is the case with any actors who share the kind of chemistry we're concerned with here. Beyond the aspect of their work however, I wonder if we must consider a couple more personal aspects: their personalities, and they times in which they worked. Garson's philanthropy and civic leadership later in life were much celebrated manifestations of her steadfast, upright nature. Pidgeon was a kind, gentlemanly individual. Together they shared an affection for one another, for their work, and for standing for what was right. People who genuinely like each other this way cannot help but have chemistry. This kind of connection between actors likewise creates chemistry between them and the audience. This was certainly true contemporarily during the war years and immediately after when the kind of decency and virtue displayed by Garson and Pidgeon was exactly the posture audiences needed and celebrated. (As an aside: Garson was beautiful, sure, but she also was a fine knitter, which makes me love her even more!)     |
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Nov 29, 2022 14:29:31 GMT
Chemistry can seem instantaneous, and great examples like Powell/Loy and Garson/Pidgeon have already been mentioned, but it can also sneak up on us as we see two characters calculating the risk, feeling their way and taking it slow, such as we saw with Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint in North by Northwest. (Or should this new forum be a North by Northwest-free zone since its ubiquitousness was a sore point on the TCM forum?) Sometimes the necessities of the plot throw up barriers, so that we can actually see the relationship and chemistry being built from the ground up. In North by Northwest it's complicated by the fact that Saint is constrained by duty to performatively encourage the chemistry, then at another point actively discourage it, yet the whole while we can sense it building. A similar example is Notorious, in which Grant and Ingrid Bergman's relationship is again compromised by the subterfuge required by their acting as government agents without the ability to fully disclose to each other what they're up to. Their passion in the famous kiss is palpable, yet so is her disgust when she feels betrayed by him, but still in the background we can feel the inevitability of their attraction to each other. In the sense that we get to see this and this and this being added together in stages to create a final explosive result, this tentative approach can be just as powerful as chemistry which immediately jumps off the screen, especially in the hands of a suspense master like Hitchcock.
What is not chemistry, in my opinion, is Frankie and Annette. As a marketing ploy, putting the plastic duo together, like a real-life Barbie and Ken, was genius and it resulted in a franchise which has brought some level of enjoyment to every generation since. Affectionate companionability? Sure. Sibling-like playfulness? OK. Chemistry? Nah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lucky Dan on Nov 29, 2022 17:14:26 GMT
When I hear people speak of chemistry between a couple, I know what they are talking about by context and common usage but I'm curious about how the word chemistry came to be used in that sense. I always think about ESL speakers learning these phrases and thinking how confusing it must be for them. But that's pondering the ceiling.
To the question, if a person is a dullard, pairing them with someone exciting or lively or in any way pleasingly noticeable (I'm trying to avoid saying "interesting" - hell Charlie Manson was interesting) will not make the dullard suddenly attractive. Any couple who, in getting together, bring possibilities for excitement or fun, that sense that something is about to happen, can be said to have chemistry.
|
|
|
|
Post by dianedebuda on Nov 29, 2022 18:12:28 GMT
To the question, if a person is a dullard, pairing them with someone exciting or lively or in any way pleasingly noticeable (I'm trying to avoid saying "interesting" - hell Charlie Manson was interesting) will not make the dullard suddenly attractive.
Sure wish I could remember who they were or the films, but know there's been a couple of times that someone I've seen and classified as a boring backdrop suddenly became quite interesting and a focus of attention when matched with just the right personality - like there just needed to be a catalyst to unleash the spirit. Know the first time it happened, I went back and rewatched both an older and a newer film with the performer and he/she still came across as dull as dishwater. Could have been the script or director, I suppose, but sure didn't seem like it. Dang I wish I could come up with an example right now.  But that is truly extraordinary chemistry. |
|
|
|
Post by Lucky Dan on Nov 29, 2022 18:24:23 GMT
To the question, if a person is a dullard, pairing them with someone exciting or lively or in any way pleasingly noticeable (I'm trying to avoid saying "interesting" - hell Charlie Manson was interesting) will not make the dullard suddenly attractive.
Sure wish I could remember who they were or the films, but know there's been a couple of times that someone I've seen and classified as a boring backdrop suddenly became quite interesting and a focus of attention when matched with just the right personality - like there just needed to be a catalyst to unleash the spirit. Know the first time it happened, I went back and rewatched both an older and a newer film with the performer and he/she still came across as dull as dishwater. Could have been the script or director, I suppose, but sure didn't seem like it. Dang I wish I could come up with an example right now. But that is truly extraordinary chemistry. |
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Nov 29, 2022 18:35:48 GMT
It may be something as simple as two elements(people)making a new element (a couple)? It's the alchemy of the process of making the couple which is the chemistry? Dunno. And don't go pondering the ceiling, Dan. You know how you are. But you're probably right that the idea of "chemistry" between humans is a facile representation held together by common usage.
I like that you introduced the dullard scenario because that's the basis for some classic comedy, both screwball and romantic. The Lady Eve in particular comes to mind, with an impossibly obtuse Henry Fonda being outmaneuvered by Barbara Stanwyck. And one of my favorite contemporary comedies, Two Weeks Notice, in which Sandra Bullock has to handle her needy and co-dependent new boss, Hugh Grant. Hilarity can ensue because the woman (usually) has to find ways to bring the dullard into the land of the living, so, even though it's initially an unequal pairing, the dullard can become attractive, but not automatically, because the learning curve is the point. I think I just turned into an ESL speaker getting my words all jumbled.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lucky Dan on Nov 29, 2022 18:56:33 GMT
It may be something as simple as two elements(people)making a new element (a couple)? It's the alchemy of the process of making the couple which is the chemistry? Dunno. And don't go pondering the ceiling, Dan. You know how you are. But you're probably right that the idea of "chemistry" between humans is a facile representation held together by common usage. I like that you introduced the dullard scenario because that's the basis for some classic comedy, both screwball and romantic. The Lady Eve in particular comes to mind, with an impossibly obtuse Henry Fonda being outmaneuvered by Barbara Stanwyck. And one of my favorite contemporary comedies, Two Weeks Notice, in which Sandra Bullock has to handle her needy and co-dependent new boss, Hugh Grant. Hilarity can ensue because the woman (usually) has to find ways to bring the dullard into the land of the living, so, even though it's initially an unequal pairing, the dullard can become attractive, but not automatically, because the learning curve is the point. I think I just turned into an ESL speaker getting my words all jumbled.
There is a quote often misattributed to Wilde that illustrates my point about dullards. "He is not only dull himself, but the cause of dullness in others." Such people rarely attract vivacious personalities, and when they do, don't you ask yourself, "Why?" |
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Nov 29, 2022 19:08:48 GMT
I remember someone (can't think who) describing a couple this way: He's got nothing to say and she hangs on every word. I don't think I've had a vivacious moment in my life but I admire those who have the goods.
|
|
But that is truly extraordinary chemistry.