Edmund and the Sea (Long Day's Journey Into Night - Act IV)

(Continued) "The performance reaches an absolute peak in the long scene in which he tells his younger son of the glories and satisfactions of his youth. Mr. Richardson makes, beyond question, the most tragic figure on the screen. Katharine Hepburn is tricky and uneven in the difficult role of the wifeShe is put to so much repetitionthat she strains her own gifts of airy acting and the patience of workaday folks." I agree about Richardson, but disagree with him about Hepburn.

Reviews are just opinions - they are also a reflection of the time

That time is now long gone

today the acting of Olivier Geilgud and Richardson seems very cardboard and affected as the culture has become much more identified with naturalism and realism

There are many more contemporary reviews praising Hepburn's style - she has certainly survived in the cultural memory much more successfully as a modern woman

The Three Knights as they were known in the UK are all but forgotten

You say "cardboard & affected," I say poetic & dramatic. You say the 3 Knights are forgotten, but clearly you recall them, as I didn't even mention Olivier & Gielgud. If they are forgotten, why have I come across at least three books each on Richardson & Gielgud & around a dozen on Olivier (most in print)? Olivier esp. is not forgotten. It seems to me you have what CS Lewis called "chronological snobbery." Hepburn (my fav actress) is indeed better remembered (tho' not for this rarely seen role).

I'm 52!

you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in their 20's who even knows who Laurence Olivier IS! - least of all Richardson or Gielgud - even drama students

The main reason being their style of acting did not stand the test of time

(Personally I think Olivier deserves better than what history dealt his memory - I think - like The Great Kate - he was a timeless genius

but who am I against so many? Fashion dictates)

But Richardson's acting was really of an era

Not so. You're not "arguing against so many." What's your definition of being remembered? Do you have to be as famous as Elvis or Marilyn Monroe? Olivier is remembered by hordes of classic movie fans, and I still occasionally hear his name touted as the greatest actor of all time. Being remembered as a legend, as he is, among movie fans is good enough, regardless of general fame. And NOBODY really familiar with British theater history doesn't know about Richardson and Gielgud.

(Con.) If you're right, why are so many of the reviews and comments Ive read from THIS DECADE positive about Richardson (at least 10:1) and I've read about all I could on the film? Why too are so many recent reviews of him in other films also positive? You should realize what you say is just your opinion and actually goes against the general consensus. Also, google "chronological snobbery"; it has nothing to do with your age, but rather a belief that newer standards are better than old ones.

what a sad and dull world it would be if we all shaped our opinions according to the general consensus!!

All right, I'll give you that! I wouldn't want you to drop your own opinions just because others disagree; I just wanted you to know there are still a lot of others out there who think differently (though, I'm sure a fair number would agree with you too, just not most classic movie fans and reviewers).

I'll be content to agree to disagree. Cheers.

cheers

(Continued) Let me add (though you may scoff because it's an "old," contemporary review), Bosley Crowther (the Roger Ebert of his day) wrote in his NYT's review: "Most controlled and magnificent is Ralph Richardson in the devastating role of the aging father and matinee idol. His explicit awareness and command of the fatal ambivalence of this old rascal, his voluminous, flowing sentiment, and his terrible, corroding canker of pride and insecurity are brilliantly drawn."