103 thoughts on “Charles Laughton Movies”

1. STEVE/JOHN LAUGHTON PART 2

   1951/THE BLUE VEIL Jane Wyman was billed alone above title in big letters and Charles’ name below the title is in very small letters. Bruce’s link column doesn’t even think it worth mentioning Charles was is in the movie.

   1951/THE STRANGE DOOR. Wikipedia lists this low budgeter as a film noir horror, the kind and scale of movie that it has been suggested was keeping Charles’ career down in the 1940s. Bruce doesn’t even list it.

   1952 A & C MEET CAPTAIN KIDD. Hardly an epic with Charles billed after the title and A & C to whom he plays foil billed above it. Bruce quotes it as being the 56th ranked film at the box office in its year of release and gives it a critic/audience rating of just 56%.

   1952/O’HENRY’s FULL HOUSE. Ensemble film with alphabetically billed large cast despite which it did disastrously at the box office with just $43 million gross.

   1953/SALOME Laughton in a supporting role is billed below the title in small letters whilst stars Hayworth and Granger are billed above it in large letters

   1953 YOUNG BESS Laughton 4th billed in yet another supporting role.Mediocre box office at $70 million and MGM says it lost money overall

   1954/HOBSON’S CHOICE A low budget British film that was hardly the “big” picture that Charles is said to have thrived on. It had a terrible box office of just $32 million adjusted.

   1955/NIGHT OF THE HUNTER. Charles directed only and as Bruce has pointed out today the movie is artistically valued but in 1955 its reception by critics was poor and its box office exceptionally disastrous [just an adjusted $13.9 million domestically] despite Mitchum as its star with the consequence that Laughton is said to have become discouraged and never directed again. Accordingly in any perceived 1950s “comeback” by Laughton it could have played no part at the time and even today according to Wikipedia most of the focus is on Mitchum’s perceived magnificent performance.

   1957/WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION Arguably Charlie’s only major lead role in the 1950s but here again the “exception proves the rule” because despite being centre stage in a brilliant performance** Laughton was billed 3rd to Power & Dietrich illustrating they were the ones actually depended upon to carry the movie commercially as its stars. **For Witness Charles was nominated for an Oscar, a Golden Globe and a BAFTA. He also won the David d Donatello award for best foreign actor though he had to share that accolade with Mr Mumbles whose Sayonara performance tied with Charlie’s. Whilst thanks probably to Power’s presence Witness was a fair hit Sayonara was a colossal one for those days with according to Bruce a worldwide adjusted gross of well over half a billion dollars.

   1960/SPARTACUS In a film dominated by Douglas a 4th billed Laughton continued his post 40s career as largely a supporting actor.

   1960/UNDER TEN FLAGS. A modest Italian American production in which the lead and top billing went to Van Heflin who himself was not one of the A list stars and who usually had lower billing and supporting parts in prestige productions.

   1960/ADVISE & CONSENT Though Charlie was nominated for a BAFTA Fonda got the lead and the billing and the film did a mediocre adjusted $65 million at the box office.

   Reply

   1. Bob
      I must apologize to you about asking more directly for your own opinion as I missed these posts as they were relegated to older posts.

      My take is that you are using three different sticks to beat poor old Charlie. Billing. Box-office. Critical response. There is no doubt that Laughton slipped badly through the forties and into the early fifties, although I think this situation is not unusual for an aging character actor. However, beginning with Salome in 1953, almost all his movies did something right, and Laughton generally got good personal notices. I think Salome did all right at the box office with Laughton giving by far the most interesting performance in the type of grand role, Herod, which he had done so often in the 1930’s. Hobson’s Choice & Night of the Hunter were critical successes. Witness was both a commercial and a critical hit, and Laughton, even if third billed, got the bulk of the acting praise. Spartacus was a biggie. Sure Kirk Douglas was the star, but Laughton was pushing sixty. What similar role in what similar movie did Douglas himself have when he was sixty? Advise and Consent was a critical hit with Laughton again singled out. I stand by Laughton making a comeback in the late fifties and early sixties.

      As for hammy turns in the 1930’s—I personally love ham. Some roles call for it. I have seen both the 1935 & the 1962 versions of MOTB several times, and I much prefer Laughton to Howard.

      Laughton’s career slippage should be put into context. After getting top-billed, even over Clark Gable, in blockbusters such as Mutiny & Hunchback, the only direction to go is down. He remained a busy character actor to the end, getting the sort of billing only the best character men get.

      Reply

   2. Hey Bob…..sorry my update my came after you comment….and now many of the numbers you mentioned are no longer the same.

      Your Laughton conversation has almost driven Chuck to the top spot on the website…very cool….as this has historically been one of our least viewed pages.

      Reply

2. STEVE/JOHN – LAUGHTON PART ONE
   “In the 1950’s the big films came back, and so over the last decade of his career did Laughton. My take is Laughton was THE character actor of the 1930’s.”
   1 For me these statements collectively are like the Curate’s Egg “good in parts”. Undoubtedly Charles was a terrific actor but of course during his decades there were many great performances and often their practitioners would in tandem bring millions to the box office.

   2 It was largely the latter consideration that determined who were the greatest stars and therefore to be accepted as a great star in Hollywood you had to pull your weight at the box office as did the likes of Gable and the Duke along with such people as Laddie and my favourite girls, Joan, Deanna and Doris.

   3. I therefore feel that the bad part of the Curate’s Egg is that in the 1950s Laughton was ‘back”. Put another way a comeback usually implies a return to more or less one’s original status and if Laughton’s post-1940s record is truly a comeback then it couldn’t have been much that Charles went back to certainly in terms of consistent stand-alone star power. However from my perspective he never regained the status that he had in the 1930s when he actually WON an Oscar and it is worth recording that the American Film Institute does not consider him one of its legends. Also for certain film historians a number of Charles’ 1930s performance have not dated well and some of the critics regard at least a few of those performances as being considerably over the top with Bligh in particular being thought of as “a large slice of ham” that does not compare favourably with Trevor Howard less “eccentric” and more measured interpretation. Conversely Gable Christian is favoured by many over Mr M’s Fletcher.

   4 I will attempt to demonstrate matters more fully in a Part 2 post. Bruce has not yet updated Charles’ stats and the box office figures that I quote are Bruce’s very latest updates from pages of other actors who starred with Laughton in the movies concerned.

   Reply

   1. Bob

      Well, whom do you back as the best character actor of the 1930’s based on roles and performances in that decade only?

      Reply

3. Steve

   Just watched your Laughton video. What stood out is what I great list of movies. I thought The Big Clock was underrated, but after seeing the top ten, well, there are just so many good movies.
   What stands out with Laughton is that he was an actor who feasted on the larger-than-life roles. I noticed your list was mainly dominated in the top ten by 1930’s movies (7) except for the top three which were from 1955 to 1960. In the 1930’s Laughton got those big roles–Nero, Henry VIII, Jovert, Bligh, Quasimodo. In the forties he didn’t, so his forties movies dominate the bottom half of your list. I think this reflects where Hollywood was in those decades. There were fewer big historical or literary adaptations–some, but not the number of the 1930’s–with smaller scale movies such as noirs dominating. In the 1950’s the big films came back, and so over the last decade of his career did Laughton.
   My take is Laughton was THE character actor of the 1930’s.
   As for your ratings, it is hard to dispute much. Your top five would be my top five, although these movies are so good you could vary order according to personal taste.

   Reply

   1. John, I’ve gone over your comment with a fine-tooth comb and couldn’t find any complaints about omissions or lower than expected ratings, what happened? I’m almost disappointed. 🙂

      Thanks amigo, glad you approved, especially the top five. Like you say so many great characters, Laughton was highly respected and proved you don’t have to be good looking to be popular in Hollywood. I thought he was the best Quasimodo on film, dare I say better than Chaney,.

      Reply

   2. GOOD EVENING JOHN/STEVE/WORK HORSE 1 One problem in answering John’s question is pinning down a commonly-agreed definition of a character actor. The definition given in Wikipedia leans heavily on the person specialising in supporting roles and not being a leading actor. An IMDB list of the “100 Greatest Character Actors in the history of Movies” also expressly excludes anyone who was a leading actor and presumably that’s why Charles is not on that list because in his heyday in the 1930s he got top billed leading roles and even a few leading roles in the 1950s

      2 However Wikipedia also concedes that the definition is open to wide interpretation and some critics and film journalists argue that not only is someone like Charlie Laughton despite his leading roles a character actor but so too were others who though major stars and usually in lead roles did not play the orthodox people that the likes of Stewart or Cooper normally did. Two leading role Greats who who are often mentioned as character actors are (1) Tracy in roles like Hyde, The Old Man and the Sea, Square John in Boom Town, the Land Baron in Broken Lance and the cop who turned crooked in its a Mad Mad World. (2) Brando who played the Brute Stanley in Streetcar, Zapata, The Wild One, Mark Antony, Napoleon, Sakini in Teahouse, the Nazi in The Young Lions, Grindl in Candy, Godpop and the mad Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. These performances were of varying quality and some of them were panned by critics but as the leading film historian David Shipman said none of the orthodox major stars of the Hollywood before Brando and who had his status would have attempted these kinds of roles or their range. Indeed it has been argued that in a previous era Brando would not have achieved top stardom in such roles and he was lucky in his timing of when he appeared on the scene.

      3 So in relation to the thirties if we accept that the leading man can be a character actor I would go for Tracy as that decade’s greatest. If we exclude leading men I would go for Walter Brennan and I like what IMDB says about him in its 100 greatest character actors list:

      “WALTER BRENNAN Actor
      “In many ways the most successful and familiar character actor of American sound films and the only actor to date to win three Oscars for Best Supporting Actor”

      4 However I’m not dogmatic about these selections and if you go for Laughton I’ll respect that as I have never denied he was a brilliant actor and my only misgiving was with your apparent perception that in the 1950s Charlie returned to his glory days of the 30s. Actually it’s all so subjective that I usually wait to see what way Bruce goes, take the opposite view and sit back and wait for the fun to begin.

      Reply

      1. Hey Bob…in my response to John’s comment I broke down my top 20 or so character actors. I also brought up the name of Walter Brennan.

         I know Laughton had some early success as a lead actor….but it seems he quickly moved to supporting roles. Most of the Laughton movies I have watched have put him in supporting roles. Even his big movies like Mutiny and Hunchback his parts are almost secondary to Gable and lots of other characters in Hunch.

         So I stand by my thought that he was one of the greatest character actors. As always thanks for the feedback.

         Reply

4. 1 STEVE By the 1950s Charles was largely in supporting roles but he had one final great top star performance in the 1957 hit Witness for the Prosecution in which although Power was top billed and had a strong role Charles was actually the dominant lead Experiencing Laughton as largely a supporting actor it did surprise me when in his TV series The Hollywood Greats Barry Norman included Charles thus putting him in the company of widely acknowledged Legends whom Barry had also profiled like Gable, Cooper, Bogie and Mr Mumbles.

   2 Peter Ustinov in an interview said that Charles was a vain man and making Spartacus together they got on well until Laughton asked Peter to name the greatest actor of all time and Peter replied that it was between Olivier and Tracy. Laughingly Ustinov added to the interviewer “It was the end of a beautiful friendship. After that he barely spoke to me again!” However in his Laughton page Work Horse says Charles may have been the greatest CHARACTER actor ever. A sensible opinion divorced from his sometimes hyperbole about somebody or other being the greatest box office performer!

   3 Another 9.4/10 day at the office for you with a glut of great posters like Sign of the Cross, Big Clock, The Old Dark House and Henry 8th. Excellent stills from Sign of the Cross, Mutiny on the Bounty and a really stunning one from Island of Lost Souls. You and The Work Horse are in total agreement about 4 of the Top 5 but WH surprised me by leaving out of his 5 – albeit just – Hunchback whereas disappointingly both he and you excluded Henry 8th from the main 5.

   4 Also in my own database I keep separate a personality’s work as a star from that in other fields such as direction [Night of the Hunter]. I did though once toy with the idea of giving Mr M separate and double credit on his stats page for both his acting and directorial work in One Eyed Jacks thus adding $140 million to his total gross and compensating him for Bruce’s raid on his Julius Caesar gross. Nevertheless excellent stuff overall from both you and WH and it’s great to again see both an stylish video and a comprehensive stats page on a quality star.

   Reply

   1. Thanks Bob, appreciate the review, rating, observation and trivia.

      I had to include The Night of the Hunter, it’s such a highly regarded film, Bruce and John would have taunted me about it for months if I’d left it out.

      Bruce and Flora are already puzzled that I left out The Last of Sheila from my Anthony Perkins video and he didn’t even star or direct in that one! He co-wrote the screenplay. It’s a tough crowd. 🙂

      I’d read somewhere that Night of the Hunter was the best ‘one-off’ or ‘only’ movie someone has directed in film history. Who would have thought Charlie had talent to direct as well as his genius as an actor?

      Laughton on Robert Mitchum – All the tough talk is blind. He’s a literate, gracious, kind man and he speaks beautifully – when he wants to. Bob would make the best Macbeth of any actor living.

      Laughton on Gary Cooper – I knew in a flash Gary had something I should never have. It is something pure and he doesn’t know it’s there. In truth, that boy hasn’t the least idea how well he acts.

      Hitchcock on Laughton “You can’t direct a Laughton picture, the best you can hope for is referee.” The two Hitchcock films he starred in – Jamaica Inn and The Paradine Case – had low ratings and just missed the video chart.

      Reply

      1. HI STEVE

         Loved the quotes. As for that “tough crowd” if a star just visited the set of another star Bruce would want to give them both credit for the film’s often massive grosses. I think that Flora is actually ‘soft’ when it comes to her own idols because she seems to see them as flawless people who can walk on water.

         Reply

         1. HI AGAIN STEVE

            1 I meant to say in my previous post about being “tough” and the perception of perfection in actors that I think John is the Robert Mitchum of this site and he just pretends to be tough [especially with me] but he simply loves a good friendly argument which psychologists interpret generally as the praiseworthy deep rooted gregarious desire to communicate with one’s fellow man.

            2 Regarding the apparent perception of Flora that her special idols are perfect you and I are wise enough to know, and “tough” enough to accept, that none of those old Hollywood stars was perfect with the possible exception of Laddie, the Duke, Mr Mumbles, Alfred Hitchcock, Elvis. Bruce Willis, Cary Grant, Sir Maurice Micklewhite and Chuck Tweedie.

            Reply

            1. 🙂

            2. Good stuff….I need to check out Steve’s Laughton video….as well as to update this page too….pretty sure my database has close to 50 Laughton movies now. Thanks for sharing all of this information.

5. The Canterville Ghost B.O gross?

   Reply

   1. Hey Kevin….currently I do not The Canterville Ghost in my database…..but when I do an update on Laughton’s page (Which will be very soon)….I have secured more box office information that should allow me to include this movie.

      Reply

      1. Hey Kevin….I did just do a quick look….and it looks The Canterville Ghost was a pretty good hit….rough estimate…..it earned about $1.7 million in rentals….which would be about $148 million (domestic)…comparing that to the top hits of 2016 that would be right around Trolls….which is currently the 16th biggest hit of the year.

         Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.