Vincent Price a ham?

Lord Summerisle · 22nd November 2001, 06:25 PM

Further to the recent post about Price's best and worst roles, I'd just like to throw in my two cents' worth.

Feel free to disagree, folks (and I'm sure a lot of you will), but IMHO Price was not a great actor, certainly not up there with messrs. Cushing and Lee. He did do some fine work - Witchfinder General, for example, some of the early Corman films, Edward Scissorhands etc. - but even in many of his so-called classic roles (House of Wax, Dr. Phibes) he simply hammed it up way too much. (While I'm on the subject, has anybody actually sat through Phibes recently? It's terrible, really boring, although the sequel is a bit better; funnier at least.)

The great thing about Peter Cushing and the incomparable Mr Lee is that they always treated each role with respect, even if the film itself were awful. Price, understandably perhaps, chose to ham it up in crummy productions, take the mickey out of the film, far too often. Then, when he got into a good film, he couldn't escape from his ham persona.

Best role? - Theatre of Blood. A fantastic film, similar in many ways to Phibes (wronged man carries out elaborate, "themed" revenge on his tormentors), only far better written, directed and acted all round.

Worst role? - Awful TV thing he did in the late 70's, with his wife I believe, called Time Express. Utterly egregious.

Like I say, I'm sure a lot of you Price fans will shoot me down in flames, and it is not my intention to offend anybody, but does anybody honestly think he was really a great actor? :)

Lord Summerisle

**Don Boycik** · 23rd November 2001, 02:09 AM

i have no idea who i would think would be the greatest actor.price i think it depended on the role he got. ever see the las vegas story or His kind of woman? those weren't horror granted that but his performance in them were good. true some of his films he did a terrible acting job in them.
but in some of them i think he did a wonderfull job.

**Frederick Bergstrom** · 24th November 2001, 04:22 AM

im not the biggest Vincent Price fan ... Most characters were pretty much played the same way ..BUT..He is a great actor and kinda suprised with the thread..Im not putting him in the league of Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing but maybe ya didnt like a few of the roles he was in but the man certainly deserves his due as a great actor. I will say when i was younger i didnt like Price movies as much as i do now maybe for the hammy way of acting as you say which i do see your point but as im older now I do seem to enjoy his films and do respect his work..again pretty suprised i mean Bela Lugosi yeah i could take that and to an extreme Lon Chaney jnr ,but Vincent Price ...I gotta disagree. Haunted Palace one of my favorites, he does some Great acting, ....not to mention his many non horror genre films

**Don Boycik** · 24th November 2001, 04:37 AM

i have to say i was surprised too on this thread.
i think he was a great actor but he never got a chance to prove it and he loved The whales of August because he wanted to do a drama movie again rather than horror. but i didn't see it but i hear that it was a terrific performance.

Lord Summerisle · 24th November 2001, 12:59 PM

Like I said in my initial post, I know there'll be a load of Price fans out there who disagree with me on this one, and I had - have - absolutely no intention of upsetting them. We all have our own personal favourite actors, films etc (although hopefully all of us here include Mr. Lee among them :) )

The question is whether you consider Price to be a "great" actor, and that of course is a pretty subjective judgement. After all, who's to say what "great" is?

I think there are certain actors who everybody would acknowledge as being unequivocally "great". These are guys with an enormous range, who can play Shakespeare or a drunk or a gangster with equal aplomb; real craftsmen (and women, although there don't seem to be so many) who truly inhabit the characters they play, bring them to life in a full and rounded way. We're talking Laurence Olivier, Spencer Tracy, Charles Laughton; or if you want moderns, Robert De Niro for example.

Then there are a whole bunch of actors who are fantastic, truly "great" to their fans, and to fans of their films, and whom some objective critics might also call great. I would include in this category actors such as Humphrey Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Peter Sellers, Sterling Hayden, Robert Ryan, Bette Davis, Boris Karloff, Richard Burton, Meryl Streep, loads of others, and - if I'm honest - Peter Cushing. Peter Cushing is one of my very favourite actors of all time, an absolute hero of mine, but if you polled fifty critics I bet not one would put him in their all-time top ten, the reason being that his fame rests primarily on his performances in horror films, and horror films have never achieved the recognition of so-called "serious" drama. (It's the same with comedy. Comic actors never get the acclaim accorded to serious actors. I love Laurel and Hardy, love them, but nobody ever talks about them as being all-time great actors.)

Then you've got a third category, actors who are good - sometimes very good - and have fanatical followings, but probably wouldn't be classed as "great" by the majority of critics (although what do the critics know?!:) ) I myself would put Vincent Price into this category. Also my own favourite movie "star", Steve McQueen. McQueen was a much better actor than people give him credit for, but he wasn't great; his range was too limited. But he was certainly the king of cool.

Lastly you've got the "stars", men and women whose acting ability is questionable at best, but who have that indefinable appeal known as "charisma" or "star quality", and/or good looks/beauty. (Great actors have this too, but they can also act properly!") In this group you've got your Bruce Willises, JIm Carreys, Marilyn Monroes and James Deans.

All of this, of course, is just one person's opinion, and it is one of the great things about forums such as this that we can all have our own opinions and argue the toss about them.

But I do stand by my original assertion that Vincent Price, for all his "great" individual performances in certain films, was not in the pantheon of the truly great. Very few are. Mr Lee, of course, is, and that's why we all love him and revere him so.

Cheers

Lord Summerisle

Elizabeth · 25th November 2001, 02:35 PM

Every individual has their own tastes and although I can understand that some may feel that Vincent Price was just a ham, I cannot share that opinion.
I have been a "fan" of Mr Price since my very young years and never missed him when he was on TV (even if meant sneaking out of bed at some unearthly time). I always felt that Vincent had that certain gentleman like flair which demanded attention yet he always made it difficult for the viewer to decide whether he was being serious or laughing at those around him. It was this ambiguity in his appearances that drew me to him and I very much enjoyed films like Ligeia and the Doctor Phibes escapades.
It cannot be denied that there are certain actors who set themselves apart from the rest and either you like them or you loathe them.
Vincent Price and Christopher Lee are two actors who accompanied and inspired me throughout my childhood and whose work has never lost that very special magic.

Greg Harris · 25th November 2001, 04:19 PM

I think Mr.Price is fantastic.

His voice is very original, and like Mr.Lee makes a film good just because he is in it.

(You know what I mean)

dvxagent1 · 25th November 2001, 05:18 PM

i think vincent was a great and fine actor, given some good roles in drama or terror pictures i think he was a great actor.

**Paul Greenwood** · 26th November 2001, 03:48 AM

Mr. Price may have been the best...or worst actor ever...who is to say...all I know is that he left me with many fine memories....and that is all that counts for me. In my book that makes him a grand success.

**Don Boycik** · 26th November 2001, 06:04 AM

well i have to agree on that vincent price has weather it's a good movie or bad that he's been in
it's brought me good memories of him as an actor.
i was a fan of him before christopher lee.

Rocky2001 · 26th November 2001, 10:40 AM

There is no doubt that if Vincent Price had not made such an impact in "House of Wax" in 1953, his film career might have dried up even earlier.

He was a very good actor, in horror films (e.g. Witchfinder General), and an excellent one if the script was tongue-in-cheek (e.g. The Abominable Dr. Phibes, Dr. Phibes RvlThe n

Gwindor · 26th November 2001, 03:25 PM

Vincent Price, like Mr. Lee, was a professional, who needed to work and pay for his childrens' education.

The job of an actor is to perform the role assigned to him. In some cases, actors are lucky enough to pick their own parts. Vincent Price had most of his parts picked for him, and this increased as time went by. He is an actor who continued working throughout his career, which is very rare. We look at the big stars with life long careers, like Paul Newman or Walter Matthau, and we assume that's normal. It's not. For every Newman or Matthau there are literally thousands of other wonderful actors who don't work very regularly.

Both Christopher Lee, CBE!, and Vincent Price are good examples of steadily working professionals. They were cast partly by their reputation for certain roles (vampires, villains, etc). But probably more significant was their track record as professionals: showing up, doing their job and doing it well. The quality of some of the films may be held against them, as though they should have turned down roles and not worked, but I think that is taking the importance of steady employment for granted.

And, as this site shows, actors should to be respected for their professionalism, even when their films are not major releases, or heavily marketed for wide distribution.

Gwindor

Rocky2001 · 26th November 2001, 04:32 PM

(Sorry about my previously reply - it got sent prematurely!)...

There is no doubt that if Vincent Price had not made such an impact in "House of Wax" in 1953, his film career might have dried up even earlier.

He was a very good actor, in horror films (e.g. Witchfinder General), and an excellent one if the script was tongue-in-cheek (e.g. The Abominable Dr. Phibes, Dr. Phibes Rises Again or Theatre of Blood).

The Roger Corman films of the 1960's gave Vincent Price plenty of opportunities to show off his prowess in the field, but his typecasting as a villain from largely minor roles in his early film career, would ultimately, work against him, when he took up horror films, basically from 1953 up to 1974.

When horror films became unpopular in the mid-70's Vincent Price didn't make a film in 5 years!! This must show how his villanous roles in horror films made him an unlikely candidate for more substantial and acclaimed roles in big budget 'normal' pictures of the late 1970's and 1980's. It is a good thing that he was able to consolidate on his love for art and cookery during his 'stale' period!!

I think Vincent Price was one of the best actors ever to appear in horror films, but his versatility was rather restricted. His best films are horror films and ones that are tailor-made to his talents for over-acting!

**John Farrell** · 26th November 2001, 05:56 PM

Having seen Vincent Price on the stage--I have to argue that he was--in general, as well trained an actor and as good as Mr. Lee and Mr. Cushing.

However--having said that--I think Mr. Price can be rightly criticized for his roles in the Roger Corman films. It is quite evident that--in stark contrast to the Hammer Acting Company--Price was never encouraged by Corman to play his material straight. With the exception of the outstanding Masque of the Red Death, Price, invariably hammed up his horror film performances--and this is unfortunate for it completely undercuts the worthiness of those films.

The reason even the lesser Hammer films are still enjoyable is because the actors always took their roles and stories seriously. Over the years this has given the films an elegance and style that will (IMHO) last.

Best,

John F

cutshaw · 26th November 2001, 10:17 PM

I think one of the major problems with any discussion like this is the term 'ham' or 'hammy'. It seems to me that the very qualities that some would attribute to a 'ham' are the exact thing that often appears to me to be 'great' acting. It's this over-the-top, bravura style of acting that truly impresses me when I see it on the stage and screen. In fact, it is a kind of theatrical, broad acting that often comes from a background in the theatre. Some of the very greatest actors were of this ilk and I suppose the best example would be Olivier. Nobody was more flamboyantly over-the-top and yet he was totally captivating and always believable. Vincent Price had this same kind of quality. Admittedly he did sometimes have a tendency to play with his tongue firmly in cheek but even so there were many, many performances when he was controlled and commanding (HOUSE OF USHER, WITCHFINDER GENERAL for starters). But just as impressive for me at least, were his brilliantly judged black comedy horrors, THEATRE OF BLOOD and the two PHIBES films. Here Price demonstrates the rare ability to walk the fine line between dramatic and comedic acting. Even in the most bizarre and ridiculous situations he manages to convey a great deal of pathos which gives the films much of their enormous quality and charm. I think it's fair to say that Christopher Lee is a different kind of actor to Mr. Price and his performances are usually a little more understated and subtle, but as is the case with Olivier, I am always entertained by a Vincent Price appearance, even when he turns up in productions well beneath his talent. I certainly rank him among my very favourite actors, right up there will other would-be hams like Orson Welles, Patrick McGoohan and Jack Nicholson. All of these are actors that loom bigger than life.