Welcome to The Flip Side of the Frame, the Reelists column where we perform dual-angled case studies on film actors. In the history of cinema and acting, very few have ever retired from the game with a spotless record. Even the greatest made some questionable role choices and ultimately paid the price with their performances. This is where The Flip Side of the Frame comes in. I’m an acting buff. If there’s one thing that grinds my gears, it’s the type of cinephile who claims that everything begins and ends with the director. Over the years, my appreciation of the director’s purpose and contribution to a film has grown significantly. Naturally, if a set doesn’t have a director (or if it has Stephen Sommers), then nothing gets made. I’m also quite certain that there is truth to be found in the famous ‘auteur theory.’ But I’ll never let go of my first true love in the movies: the acting. 

For this first entry into the Flip Side archives, we take a glimpse at two performances from John Travolta. Mr. Saturday Night himself can be seen this week in From Paris With Love, which looks ready to take a huge dump all over the Bond franchise. Travolta has always been rather hit or miss for me, and I’m positive that many readers would agree. He falls into the ‘Mark Wahlberg’ category of actors. It just depends on what the script asks of him, and what character he's asked to portray. Some performances are strong expamples of why Travolta has become as popular as he is, while others show him growing lazy and merely ‘going through the motions.' Here are two such examples. 

Bolt

While while not live-action, Travolta's voice-work in this Disney animated film from a couple years back is more than sufficient to develop his character - Bolt, the unwitting canine actor. This confused but lovely pup escapes the set of the science-fiction/adventure show he stars in when he takes for reality that his owner has been kidnapped by their arch nemesis in the show's latest cliff-hanger ending. While the fiction of Bolt's television show is apparent to the audience, the world of the set is the only world Bolt is knows. He frantically flees the set in search of his owner, crossing United States from East to West, making colourful friends along the way. Notably, Mittens the cat (Susie Essman) teaches Bolt how to behave like a ‘normal’ dog. 

Surprisingly, Travolta turns in an excellent performance as Bolt. This curious and brave animal is no puppy. He is an energetic and lively young adult dog. Casting of a younger actor would have been ill-advised. Bolt required a seasoned veteran to invest some years of experience and confidence into the character, despite his cluelessness regarding the real world outside the studio walls. A misplaced ‘know it all’ bravura should be present, but one that the audience can believe is genuine. Travolta sells this side of the Bolt character masterfully. He sells Bolt's need to save his owner and gives it genuine resonance. He is a super hero.

There are some subtle nuances in this performance as well. Bolt may be brave and bold, but he isn’t human. Travolta, while playing the part of a misguided dog, never gives Bolt too boisterous a voice. There is something keeping Bolt from overt humanity. There is still something…innocent in the delivery of those lines. He is just a dog after all. Travolta's quality performance doesn’t flounder in the latter stages of the movie, whereupon Bolt learns the harsh truth of his existence. When he is finally aware that he has no powers, Bolt's cockiness is replaced by shock and sadness, eventually replaced by a renewed sense of self. This emotional escapade is well transmitted through Travolta's voice, as he clearly understood the character and the universe he was dealing with. Honestly, it's difficult to think of a better performance of his during the last decade.

Admittedly, this performance shocked me. The original prospect of this film failed to excite me, Travolta included. They say books shouldn’t be judged by their covers. I’d wager that certain movies shouldn’t be judged by the crappiness of their trailer or their cast members. 
 

The Punisher 

Ah, The Punisher. Nobody’s favourite Marvel hero. What possessed the studios to make a film about such a depressing anti-hero is anyone’s guess. Don’t get me wrong, I think the character works fine within the confines its source material, but, thus far, the few attempts to translate it to film have been mediocre, at best.

In this incarnation, Frank Castle (Thomas Jane), former FBI agent, returns from the supposed dead to taunt and liquidate the mob clan that butchered his entire family. This nefarious organization is lead by the slimy Howard Saint, played by our friend John. The catch is that the movie begins with an FBI operation that leaves one of Saint's sons dead, so there's understandable vengeance on both sides. Mayhem ensues. Well, not really. 

The 2000-2010 Travolta era, with the exception of a couple movies, such as Bolt, is mostly a wasteland of tepid attempts at respecability. Now, I may be wrong as I haven't seen all of his output in those years, but, of those I have seen, The Punisher exemplifies what’s wrong with Travolta’s recent record. ‘Bland’ comes to mind. Uninspired, lacking in content and depth, lazy, etc. There's a smarmy comment that I’ve always found comical but also apt. Travolta only showed up because ‘the cheque was in the mail.’ One would think that in order to imbue a character as dark as the Punisher with some gusto, the filmmakers would try to get something specific and idiosyncratic out of their actors. If that fails, then at least the actors could chew the scenery. Just look at Travolta's credentials, and you could expect better than this.

As mind boggling as it is, I’m almost positive I’ve seen this movie twice, plus a third viewing of certain scense, like the climax. Yet, for the life of me, I couldn’t tell you anything specific about Travolta’s character. I didn’t even remember his name until I checked IMDB. Yeah, there are moments when his character gets a little bit angry and yells such memorable lines as ‘I want Frank Castle dead!’, but there really isn’t much of a pulse. He doesn’t look interested at all in what’s happening around him, but quite honestly, I’d be pretty freaking bored myself, dead son and all notwithstanding. It’s important to understand something about The Punisher. He is not a spectacular character. He is sometimes over-the-top and memorable, but Frank Castle is an empty soul, a vehicle for destruction, slaughter and mayhem. You don’t build a movie around Castle, you build it around the villain. Tony Scott’s The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 may not have been a great film, but at least it allowed Travolta to indulge in some bad assery. For all his exaggerated exclamation points, he played a freaking villain. In The Punisher, he merely drifts in and out of scenes, not playing it too strong, not playing it too light… not playing anything really. I think he was just reading cue cards. Saint is a big, rich, mobster millionaire who likes to smoke cigars and dress in black. How’s that for originality? There’s something oddly whiny in his performance and delivery too. For such a big, bad villain, he seems to react like my 6 year old brother does when the latter gets the caramel fudge Sunday instead of the chocolate fudge Sunday LIKE HE WANTED! MAKE IT HAPPEN NOW! 

You know, back in the 1930s, gangster films might have featured exaggerated and simplified characters, but the actors who portrayed them, such as Edward G Robinson and James Cagney,, injected memorable energy into them. There’s a reason why people still talk about those films, and, more specifically, about those characters to this day. There’s also a reason why no one will remember The Punisher or its main antagonist. If I may loosely borrow the tagline from the film, I have nothing personal against John Travolta, so this bashing wasn’t revenge, no, it was punishment. 

For The Reelists, I’m Edgar Chaput.