Obituary: Paul Newman

As the world knows, screen great Paul Newman, 83, has died. He died of cancer, a disease he had been battling for a long time.

Newman had it all: acting ability, good looks, and a long and happy marriage (his second) to Joanne Woodward. He also wasn't tied down to just acting; he enjoyed other pursuits, including race car driving, politics, and entrepreneurship.

The news of his death wasn't entirely surprising to me; the tabloids have been doing a death watch on the poor guy for months.

He remained in demand as an actor up to his eighties until his health went bad:

He got his start in theater and on television during the 1950s, and went on to become one of the world's most enduring and popular film stars, a legend held in awe by his peers. He was nominated for Oscars 10 times, winning one regular award and two honorary ones, and had major roles in more than 50 motion pictures, including "Exodus," "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," "The Verdict," "The Sting" and "Absence of Malice."

Newman worked with some of the greatest directors of the past half century, from Alfred Hitchcock and John Huston to Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese and the Coen brothers. His co-stars included Elizabeth Taylor, Lauren Bacall, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks and, most famously, Robert Redford, his sidekick in "Butch Cassidy" and "The Sting."

He was one of those actors whose career rose at the end of the studio era and continued to the modern era. Newman was also one of those actors of the so-called "method school," an acting approach which was more "naturalistic" than the "old-style" acting one sees in the golden age of Hollywood (not including silent film, which required a completely different style of acting).

Newman was a great actor, but I want to note "method" acting was every bit as contrived as the old style. In fact, I would argue the "method actors" are far less memorable than the greats of the Golden Age of the 1930s and 1940s. Why would I say that? It's because of the way the parts for the actors were written. Actors of the "golden age" had "screen personas" created by the studios, which may or may not have closely aligned with the actors' real personalities, and the parts they played were written as to conform to those "personas." When movie fans of the Golden Age saw films of these actors, they thought the actors were basically playing themselves. Think of John Wayne, Clark Gable, Gary Cooper, Jimmy Cagney, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Greta Garbo, Katharine Hepburn, and hundreds of others from that era, and the reader will know what I mean by this. Even though these performers were every bit as talented (and probably more so) as the actors of Newman's era and the actors of today, viewers thought they weren't acting but basically playing themselves. When you saw Newman or Brando or any of the hundreds of actors taught "method acting," you KNEW they were acting. The parts were written so they submerged their personalities to fit the character they were playing. It was the opposite of the old style. It didn't matter both styles required the same acting skills; Cary Grant was playing himself while Newman was playing a character. And because "method" actors submerged their personalities to fit the parts they were playing, I'd argue they remain a lot less memorable than the greats of old.

That isn't a criticism of Newman or Brando and others; it's just an observation. The golden age actors remain to this day remembered and loved for their films and long after their deaths; I don't see the same thing holding true for "method" actors. They were iconic; the "method" actors were and are not, with the sole exception of James Dean, who is iconic primarily because he died so young.

A clip from Hud, one of Newman's most famous parts:



link