Superman Through the Ages! Forum

The Superman Homepage just published an interview with Noel Neill:

http://supermanhomepage.com/tv/tv.php?topic=interviews/noel-neill2

She talks about Hollywoodland, George Reeves, and more.

The casting of Affleck alone was enough to make me stay away from this movie but hearing that they portray him with depression as like his sole personality trait along with the role and the costume as symbols of shame seals the deal.

Even if you are gonna have the depression of typcasting figure into it all you still need to portray the other aspects of the man *and* of the part he played. I don't think anyone could play the role of Superman and be blind to the more positive things about it. Also from all accounts George was a fun guy and did have some fun doing the show.

Also with all due respect to the plight and tragedy of George Reeves I really get sick and tired of seeing the idea of playing the part of Superman treated like an albatross or low-level job. Like it's the actor equivalent to being stuck at McDonalds or something. Some actors work their entire lives just to get a decent part in anything let alone to be the lead and play a positive icon beloved by millions from all age ranges or walks of life all around the world.

I like that Brandon Routh appreciates the history of the part but at the same time, he just really freaking enjoys it. He was quoted as saying "There are far worse fates than being known as Superman." I like that there is an actor in the part who thinks it's awesome to be there BECAUSE IT IS!

To be fair, that was historically the attitude of a lot of showbiz folks when it came to TV -- just a poor cousin to the movies.  Now it's the other way around, and the inevitable star-studded "I Love Lucy" movie (full of CGI effects -- especially for that cool scene where Superman visits Lucy) will be a severe disappointment if it doesn't crack $200 million.

My favorite bit of the interview:
Amen!

If anyon'es caught the George Reeves episode on the Biography Channel, you may recall the mocking laughter from the preview audience of From Here To Eternity when Reeves appeared, and that's why his part was cut down to almost nothing.

Finally saw Hollywoodland....which had a similar scene

sad....if he only knew that his talents would continue to be respected and admired

I liked Hollywoodland but I'm not sure if it was a fair & unbiased portrayal of George Reeves life. As a whodunit kind of mystery movie I thought it was pretty good.

The bit with the audience jeering Reeves at a screening of "Eternity" is one of those stories that's been accepted as "fact" just by virtue of having been repeated so often.  Depending on who you ask, it never happened at all.

Same with the scene where George disarms the child with a gun.  A lot of Reeves scholars hold this never happened at all, but that it was a story started by George himself to get away from making appearances in costume (he was often kicked and pelted with objects by kids testing his "invulnerability", but the gun part...who knows?).

I appreciate the writer's efforts not to "solve" this death definitively, but I still think he fell into the trap of accepting "conventional wisdom" as fact.  A good example is the "George as humiliated artist" subplot.  Yes, if you look for them there are examples of George expressing unhappiness: he once said he'd give anything to meet even one fan who was an adult, for example.  But we've all had our bad days, and to characterize his whole life and career as a failure based on the occasional grumble is just wrong.  I mean, I grouse about my kids sometimes but that doesn't mean I hate being a dad.

I think the notion took root very early on that George killed himself out of frustration with his career's trajectory, and somehow over time even people who believe he was murdered have still held onto the idea that he was unhappy as Superman.  I think that's a bias that ruins any attempt at objectivity.  I wont' profess to any special knowledge of the man -- he died before I was born! -- but I've seen the DVDs, and I'm telling you this is a guy who had fun with what he was doing.  There are so many neat little touches, gestures and throwaway lines in those shows that you just know George added himself, because he was having a hoot.  The other night in "Olsen's Millions," all he had to do was jump out the window and leave, but he stood there crouching for an extra moment, waited for Jimmy to look his way first and said, "May I?" with a big grin, before leaping.  I swear it looked like Jack Larson didn't expect that.  This was a guy who liked his work.

Was there a perception at that time that being a television actor was somehow a second-rate position, much as early film actors were looked down upon by stage actors?

I don't remember exactly who it was - it may have been Jack Larson - who accepted the Adventures of Superman gig because their agent told them it would be a quick buck and wouldn't matter, because no one would ever see it.

I agree that the story about From Here to Eternity is questionable - and my reading of the interview is that Steve Younis was making that very point when he referred to it.

My wife and I had a similar reaction watching Inherit The Wind the other night, and seeing Dick York

 I had put more faith in the accuracy of what's presented on The Biography Channel that anything appearing in Hollywoodland, but I suppose Biography does its share of repeating hearsay stories

I guess the modern day equivilent would be actors who do direct to DVD movies or low budget sitcoms for a certain kids TV channel (or 3).  Not serious actors... I'm sure that must be what the perception of TV actors was back then... not like today when TV actors and movie stars could cross over into the other medium without a hitch (and even THAT is a relatively recent thing, too)

Thanks davidelliot, good comparison.

I think perhaps the truth is, he wasn't day-to-day miserable, certainly enjoyed his work, took pride in doing a great job, but deep down felt that with all his abilities,  he should have achieved a higher level of success

I don't think there's any way that we can accurately know how he felt deep down.

People who know him state that he was optimistic, helpful, and considerate.  I trust his friends and peers much more than I trust the media.  Noel and Jack and everyone else on the cast and crew who knew him seem like really good people.  On the other hand, the media's sole purpose seems to be to make money by spinning things in such a way as to maximize getting people upset and depressed so that they will then buy more news - trying to perpetuate an addictive cycle in order to continue receiving profits. (Much like the current trend of soft-porn and ultra-violence in comics.  The stories themselves; or in the case of news, the facts; become irrelevant.)

I haven't seen Hollywoodland.  But if I had to hazzard a guess, I would say that they left out mentioning some pertinent facts about George Reeves' state of mind - like the fact that he had quite a few upcoming projects, including directing, that he was looking forward to and was very enthusiastic about.

I haven't seen Hollywoodland.  But if I had to hazzard a guess, I would say that they left out mentioning some pertinent facts about George Reeves' state of mind - like the fact that he had quite a few upcoming projects, including directing, that he was looking forward to and was very enthusiastic about.

[/quote]
That was in the movie; George's projects were callcelled because of his relationship with Laura(?) Lemon. The Mannixes were blacklisting George from any future work.

That was in the movie; George's projects were callcelled because of his relationship with Laura(?) Lemon. The Mannixes were blacklisting George from any future work.
[/quote]

But according to the available biographical material, there was no such blacklist. A deal to direct a supernatural movie came through the day he died, and the studio in question called him the following morning. Had he lived, he would have gotten a start on a directing career.

I had a number of problems with the movie beginning with the fact that (a) the narrative had no closure to it and (b) after building up all the possible ways it could have happened, they copped out with, "Oh, it was really suicide after all." Basically, it was just a waste of two hours that amounted to nothing.