What do you think?
Rate this book
Charles Laughton: A Difficult Actor
The creator of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, Henry VIII and Captain Bligh, Charles Laughton's career spans 50 films and 40 stage roles. This entralling biography follows him from his parents' hotel in Scarborough to his climactic assumption of the role of King Lear in Statford at the end of his life. Along the way we meet a galaxy of Hollywood greats - from Korda, Hitchcock and Billy WIlder to Gregory Peck, Robert Mitchum and Marilyn Monroe. We also discover a hugely talented and complex man - a legend in his own lifetime who nonetheless counted himself a failure.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1987
11 people are currently reading
177 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
August 13, 2020
This is my third Simon Callow book, and he never quite writes what I expect to read. In preparing CHARLES LAUGHTON: A DIFFICULT ACTOR, he acknowledges that three main sources were from Elsa Lanchester (Laughton’s wife). Two of them were books she wrote (or collaborated in writing), and the third was from Charles Higham who had access to Laughton’s papers as provided by Elsa Lanchester. Callow does not suggest that she had a personal agenda in how Laughton’s life would be perceived, but he does state, “These three books thus all reflect her viewpoint, and have therefore been used with respectful caution.”
So, what is Callow’s focus? He tries to analyze Laughton’s method of acting, and particularly how Laughton used portions of “the things that contributed to who he was” and emphasized different aspects of them in his characters. One could almost see his performances as self-therapy sessions! Callow explores those different aspects to a great extent up through Laughton’s portrayal of Quasimodo in 1939’s THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, and to a much lesser degree after that when Laughton pulled back from the strenuous physical and mental involvement.
Callow’s speculation is fascinating and so much more involving than a typical life story told in chronological order. He also provides intriguing background on the abortive I, CLAUDIUS project (detailed in the documentary, “The Epic That Never Was”). The popular reason for the failure has been Merle Oberon’s automobile accident. Callow finds a much more plausible explanation that I had not heard before, and that contradicts the rumors. (I do highly recommend watching “The Epic That Never Was.” We lost what would have been an amazing motion picture.)
The other major benefit was being made aware of Laughton performances that were unknown to me and that are still available. My movie Watchlist has grown since my reading. (I’m especially curious to see “This Land Is Mine.”)
There are some difficulties, too.
* There is a considerable amount of repetition regarding issues that may have influenced Laughton’s character development. It was not to the point of being annoying, but I did have moments when I noted to myself, “Yes, I’ve read about that already.”
* I had read elsewhere that Maureen O’Hara was Laughton’s protégée. Callow treats her pretty much as if she was a performer who Laughton “loved like a daughter.” It is a shame that her book, ‘TIS HERSELF, wasn’t yet available when Callow published this one. However, I found it odd that he didn’t interview her ... or did he doubt the professional relationship?
* There were some “knowable errors” that very much surprised me. The one that caused me to reread a paragraph multiple times was the statement that Tod Browning had directed Lon Chaney in 1923’s THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME. Not only was the style completely unlike something Browning would have created, but multiple viewings told me that the director was Wallace Worsley. Another error that jumped out at me was Callow’s mention of the “dropping of the H-Bomb on Hiroshima.” It was an atomic bomb ... certainly devastating ... but, an H-Bomb would have been worse.
Finally, I’m a “sponge” for on-the-set details. CHARLES LAUGHTON: A DIFFICULT ACTOR is very sparse in providing them. Were they available and not included? (There is good detail provided for the film Laughton directed, NIGHT OF THE HUNTER.)
Callow’s approach is well worth reading. It provided insight into some of my favorite Laughton performances, and has motivated me to watch others with a more discriminating eye. It has also redefined my understanding of Acting!
So, what is Callow’s focus? He tries to analyze Laughton’s method of acting, and particularly how Laughton used portions of “the things that contributed to who he was” and emphasized different aspects of them in his characters. One could almost see his performances as self-therapy sessions! Callow explores those different aspects to a great extent up through Laughton’s portrayal of Quasimodo in 1939’s THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, and to a much lesser degree after that when Laughton pulled back from the strenuous physical and mental involvement.
Callow’s speculation is fascinating and so much more involving than a typical life story told in chronological order. He also provides intriguing background on the abortive I, CLAUDIUS project (detailed in the documentary, “The Epic That Never Was”). The popular reason for the failure has been Merle Oberon’s automobile accident. Callow finds a much more plausible explanation that I had not heard before, and that contradicts the rumors. (I do highly recommend watching “The Epic That Never Was.” We lost what would have been an amazing motion picture.)
The other major benefit was being made aware of Laughton performances that were unknown to me and that are still available. My movie Watchlist has grown since my reading. (I’m especially curious to see “This Land Is Mine.”)
There are some difficulties, too.
* There is a considerable amount of repetition regarding issues that may have influenced Laughton’s character development. It was not to the point of being annoying, but I did have moments when I noted to myself, “Yes, I’ve read about that already.”
* I had read elsewhere that Maureen O’Hara was Laughton’s protégée. Callow treats her pretty much as if she was a performer who Laughton “loved like a daughter.” It is a shame that her book, ‘TIS HERSELF, wasn’t yet available when Callow published this one. However, I found it odd that he didn’t interview her ... or did he doubt the professional relationship?
* There were some “knowable errors” that very much surprised me. The one that caused me to reread a paragraph multiple times was the statement that Tod Browning had directed Lon Chaney in 1923’s THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME. Not only was the style completely unlike something Browning would have created, but multiple viewings told me that the director was Wallace Worsley. Another error that jumped out at me was Callow’s mention of the “dropping of the H-Bomb on Hiroshima.” It was an atomic bomb ... certainly devastating ... but, an H-Bomb would have been worse.
Finally, I’m a “sponge” for on-the-set details. CHARLES LAUGHTON: A DIFFICULT ACTOR is very sparse in providing them. Were they available and not included? (There is good detail provided for the film Laughton directed, NIGHT OF THE HUNTER.)
Callow’s approach is well worth reading. It provided insight into some of my favorite Laughton performances, and has motivated me to watch others with a more discriminating eye. It has also redefined my understanding of Acting!
January 30, 2009
Detailed, compassionate biography of niche-defying actor Charles Laughton by the brilliant, articulate, and equally un-nicheable actor Simon Callow. Charles Laughton is mainly remembered now (when he is) for the greatest of his film performances: Henry VIII in THE PRIVATE LIFE OF HENRY VIII, Captain Bligh in MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, and Quasimodo in THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME. But in the 1920s and 30s he was the coming man on the West End stage, unsurpassable at portraying characters that might at best be described as villainous and at worst as monsters in a way that made audiences tremble with both terror and compassion. The power of these interpretations may have come from his lack of concern with what we would now call motivation. (“He was not interested in the why of human action; only the what concerned him.”) And so his performances said to the audience not “here is how this man became monstrous, understand him and forgive,” but much more disturbingly, “Look, here is a monster, he is what he is, such things can be.” That he never entered the theatrical pantheon with Gielgud, Olivier, Richardson etc is a puzzle Callow tries to unravel; certainly it may have had something to do with the fact that Laughton was never able to really master iambic pentameter, denying him many of the greatest stage roles in English.
Callow’s deep feeling of kinship with Laughton, which he admits to freely, makes him occasionally over-fulsome in his praise and reluctant in his criticism, but it also makes his book an intriguing exploration of self as well as subject. Like Laughton, he’s an unlikely specimen for stardom, and in many of the same ways (tubby, non-artistocratic, with a big head and heavy, sensual features that no one would ever describe as handsome) and one feels his claim to an instinctive understanding of Laughton’s various professional and personal insecurities is both justifiable and accurate. It’s also useful - Laughton was neither a diarist nor a particularly prolific correspondent, and after his death his widow Elsa Lanchester, like many other widows of great men before her, took considerable pains to make sure that the public record of him that survived was one she created, curated and endorsed, for good and for ill. So Callow has to rely heavily on existing biographical material, the evidence of Laughton’s film work, and on his own intuitive understanding of the man. Callow himself is a larger than life personality, and his prose can get pretty florid, but his delight in the juiciness of language is so palpable that you sort of forgive him for it, and it’s fascinating to read his analyses of Laughton’s idiosyncratic process, and of why some of his performances were so unforgettably brilliant and others less so. And while at one level he’s addressing the particular work of a particular actor, the subtextual question he’s really asking of himself and of us is whether it’s even possible to write with any accuracy or specificity about what acting is and how it happens. As in his wonderful personal manifesto Being an Actor, he often answers this question triumphantly in the affirmative, and even when the answer eludes him, it’s possible that no one has ever gotten quite so close to articulating the mysteries of the actor’s process.
“If acting is a creative art – if it is – then it is perfectly reasonable to demand for it conditions similar to those of the painter or the writer: the right, that is, to make a mess, to splash around, to make drafts and sketches, to have a wastepaper bin at your side. In any creative activity, art is madness, craft is sanity. The balance between them makes the work.” -- Simon Callow
Callow’s deep feeling of kinship with Laughton, which he admits to freely, makes him occasionally over-fulsome in his praise and reluctant in his criticism, but it also makes his book an intriguing exploration of self as well as subject. Like Laughton, he’s an unlikely specimen for stardom, and in many of the same ways (tubby, non-artistocratic, with a big head and heavy, sensual features that no one would ever describe as handsome) and one feels his claim to an instinctive understanding of Laughton’s various professional and personal insecurities is both justifiable and accurate. It’s also useful - Laughton was neither a diarist nor a particularly prolific correspondent, and after his death his widow Elsa Lanchester, like many other widows of great men before her, took considerable pains to make sure that the public record of him that survived was one she created, curated and endorsed, for good and for ill. So Callow has to rely heavily on existing biographical material, the evidence of Laughton’s film work, and on his own intuitive understanding of the man. Callow himself is a larger than life personality, and his prose can get pretty florid, but his delight in the juiciness of language is so palpable that you sort of forgive him for it, and it’s fascinating to read his analyses of Laughton’s idiosyncratic process, and of why some of his performances were so unforgettably brilliant and others less so. And while at one level he’s addressing the particular work of a particular actor, the subtextual question he’s really asking of himself and of us is whether it’s even possible to write with any accuracy or specificity about what acting is and how it happens. As in his wonderful personal manifesto Being an Actor, he often answers this question triumphantly in the affirmative, and even when the answer eludes him, it’s possible that no one has ever gotten quite so close to articulating the mysteries of the actor’s process.
“If acting is a creative art – if it is – then it is perfectly reasonable to demand for it conditions similar to those of the painter or the writer: the right, that is, to make a mess, to splash around, to make drafts and sketches, to have a wastepaper bin at your side. In any creative activity, art is madness, craft is sanity. The balance between them makes the work.” -- Simon Callow
October 2, 2014
Simon Callow is a gifted and insightful writer and while this biography is not quite as impressive as the multi-volume bio of Orson Welles (two down, one still to go), this is still an excellent treatment of an enigmatic actor. Laughton is, in Callow's estimation, right up there with Brando in the pantheon of great actors of the 20th century, and it would be hard to find a more physically different type.
Hailing from exotic Scarborough, where his family managed a hotel, Laughton went to war in 1914 and suffered the trauma of poison gas, which forever damaged his voice, and the memory of what he has seen. He then went on to become a very fine and mich-lauded stage actor (though not a classical Shakespearean actor, as Callow notes) before moving into films and then moving to Hollywood and becoming a massive movie star in the 30s. His big break was with the Alexander Korda-produced Private Life of Henry VIII, in which he demonstrated his ability to dredge his soul for unpleasantness and project this onto the screen in a way that was not really done at the time (method avant la lettre) - his much-vaunted ugliness (which he continually protested, too much) seemed to be almost an asset in technique of mining the grotesque. He went on to star in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Island of Lost Souls, Ruggles of Red Gap and Mutiny on the Bounty in the 1930s and his flamboyantly rhetorical and, by today's standards, mannered performances made him unique in Hollywood and in great demand.
Unfortunately, as the subtitle suggests, Laughton was not a happy soul and his self-loathing, which may, the book suggests, stem from his double life as a closeted homosexual, as well as his high-minded artistic inclination, which madee him almost unmanageable by the studio system. His career flatlined in the 1940s, when he made some decent films (This Land is Mine, with Renoir, The Big Clock, The Suspect) but a lot of dross to pay the bills, and for expanding art collection (Abbott and Costell Meet Captain Kidd, anyone?), and Callow suggests he increasingly lost all interest in the film industry. For a period in the 50s he began giving readings (of plays and other texts) around the US and set up a school for acting, which included such alumni as Shelly Winters and Robert Ryan, and directing plays (including with Bertolt Brect), before he was given the chance to direct a film. In 1955, Laughton directed one of the greatest films ever made in Hollywood, Night of the Hunter, which was a great critical success but a commerical disaster and he never directed again. Thereafter he tried to return to the theatre, and even took on Lear, but kept up a few appearances in films (notably in Spartacus, against his rival Olivier, with whom he is compared favourably by Callow, with Larry being described as more like an 'athlete' against Charles' deeper existential-poetic sense of artistry), before dying of cancer in his early 60s, having at last found some personal contentment. Callow's writing is intelligent, knowledgeable and sympathetic without being uncritical and it is hard to see how he could be bettered on this topic.
Hailing from exotic Scarborough, where his family managed a hotel, Laughton went to war in 1914 and suffered the trauma of poison gas, which forever damaged his voice, and the memory of what he has seen. He then went on to become a very fine and mich-lauded stage actor (though not a classical Shakespearean actor, as Callow notes) before moving into films and then moving to Hollywood and becoming a massive movie star in the 30s. His big break was with the Alexander Korda-produced Private Life of Henry VIII, in which he demonstrated his ability to dredge his soul for unpleasantness and project this onto the screen in a way that was not really done at the time (method avant la lettre) - his much-vaunted ugliness (which he continually protested, too much) seemed to be almost an asset in technique of mining the grotesque. He went on to star in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Island of Lost Souls, Ruggles of Red Gap and Mutiny on the Bounty in the 1930s and his flamboyantly rhetorical and, by today's standards, mannered performances made him unique in Hollywood and in great demand.
Unfortunately, as the subtitle suggests, Laughton was not a happy soul and his self-loathing, which may, the book suggests, stem from his double life as a closeted homosexual, as well as his high-minded artistic inclination, which madee him almost unmanageable by the studio system. His career flatlined in the 1940s, when he made some decent films (This Land is Mine, with Renoir, The Big Clock, The Suspect) but a lot of dross to pay the bills, and for expanding art collection (Abbott and Costell Meet Captain Kidd, anyone?), and Callow suggests he increasingly lost all interest in the film industry. For a period in the 50s he began giving readings (of plays and other texts) around the US and set up a school for acting, which included such alumni as Shelly Winters and Robert Ryan, and directing plays (including with Bertolt Brect), before he was given the chance to direct a film. In 1955, Laughton directed one of the greatest films ever made in Hollywood, Night of the Hunter, which was a great critical success but a commerical disaster and he never directed again. Thereafter he tried to return to the theatre, and even took on Lear, but kept up a few appearances in films (notably in Spartacus, against his rival Olivier, with whom he is compared favourably by Callow, with Larry being described as more like an 'athlete' against Charles' deeper existential-poetic sense of artistry), before dying of cancer in his early 60s, having at last found some personal contentment. Callow's writing is intelligent, knowledgeable and sympathetic without being uncritical and it is hard to see how he could be bettered on this topic.
February 21, 2024
Thoroughly enjoyed this wise and witty account of one of the twentieth century's most distinctive actors, one who seemed to transcend any and all categories of age, class, sexuality, physicality, personality, and even nationality by always being simply yet complexly, irreducibly yet comprehensively himself. But of course it wasn't easy, and as a great actor himself author Simon Callow gives a compelling portrait of the many difficulties, many self-created, others not, Laughton the actor and man faced in realizing Henry VIII, Nero, Captain Bligh, Quasimodo, among too many others to here recount.
August 31, 2024
Simon Callow once wrote a positive full-page review of my Nicol Williamson biography in The Guardian, so perhaps I'm a little biased, but I'm pretty sure I would have given this 5 stars anyway... In any case, this is an exceptional biography because, not only is the author able to bring his own insight as an actor, but he is also an excellent writer and has proved himself to be as thorough a researcher as anyone could hope for.
I watched a number of Laughton pictures in the course of reading this (The Private Life of Henry VIII, Payment Deferred, St Martin's Lane, The Barretts of Wimpole Street, Jamaica Inn, Captain Kidd, The Epic That Never Was, Tales of Manhattan), and there are many others I've seen before. I agree with SC that Laughton's best film work was in the 1930s, after which he seemed reluctant to put the same amount of commitment in, and to find off-screen pursuits more rewarding. In contrast to SC, though, I personally thought that Laughton was awful in St Martin's Lane and I don't remember being very impressed with This Land Is Mine when I saw it years ago. But I'm glad that reading this encouraged me to check out some performances I hadn't seen, such as 'Barretts', in which Laughton completely transforms himself and is riveting.
This is a fascinating book from beginning to end, and I felt that it really got to the heart of its subject. I also appreciated that the author did not allow it to end with Laughton's painful, protracted and depressing death, but gave the last words to the man himself in the form of a beautiful piece Laughton wrote about a trip to Alaska. Laughton had already proved that he was a great director with 'The Night of the Hunter'; this suggests that he could have made an equally fine author too.
I watched a number of Laughton pictures in the course of reading this (The Private Life of Henry VIII, Payment Deferred, St Martin's Lane, The Barretts of Wimpole Street, Jamaica Inn, Captain Kidd, The Epic That Never Was, Tales of Manhattan), and there are many others I've seen before. I agree with SC that Laughton's best film work was in the 1930s, after which he seemed reluctant to put the same amount of commitment in, and to find off-screen pursuits more rewarding. In contrast to SC, though, I personally thought that Laughton was awful in St Martin's Lane and I don't remember being very impressed with This Land Is Mine when I saw it years ago. But I'm glad that reading this encouraged me to check out some performances I hadn't seen, such as 'Barretts', in which Laughton completely transforms himself and is riveting.
This is a fascinating book from beginning to end, and I felt that it really got to the heart of its subject. I also appreciated that the author did not allow it to end with Laughton's painful, protracted and depressing death, but gave the last words to the man himself in the form of a beautiful piece Laughton wrote about a trip to Alaska. Laughton had already proved that he was a great director with 'The Night of the Hunter'; this suggests that he could have made an equally fine author too.
May 15, 2024
Exceptional book about a curious actor, who hopefully, will not be lost to time. Fascinating as an actor and also in his private life with Elsa Lanchester.
Callow's book leaves few stones unturned in its depth and breadth, thought it would have been more connecting if the writing style in the coda had been throughout the book.
I'm not sure how the book could be enjoyed without some prior knowledge of Laughton's work and the stage and film world he inhabited.
Callow's book leaves few stones unturned in its depth and breadth, thought it would have been more connecting if the writing style in the coda had been throughout the book.
I'm not sure how the book could be enjoyed without some prior knowledge of Laughton's work and the stage and film world he inhabited.
October 5, 2018
An interesting look at Laughton's acting-this is not a traditional bio, it really is about his acting, with bits of his life thrown in to emphasize a point or illustrate his thinking. It's very telling how powerful an impression Laughton makes, that I'm very familiar with his work, having only seen one movie that he was in, one movie that he directed and one radio program he acted in!
February 6, 2026
I would have rated this book higher,but not the condescending snobbery of the author.disparaging criticism of most the films charles laughton starred in except the ones of the more classical nature.god forbid we go the the cinema to be witness to comedy,or light hearted films.plus the interjection of French phrases dotted liberally in the paragraphs.felt as though we were being talked down to.
January 4, 2019
A great book about a fascinating person. Full of fun and detail and carefully understood insight.
April 1, 2019
If i could go back in time. I would want to watch his performance of King Lear.
July 19, 2025
A solid and comprehensive biography.
January 8, 2020
This is an amazing book. I agree with the comment made by Alec Guinness on the cover:"One of the best theatre books ever". Simon Callow is a theatre person himself and writes in a revelatory manner about theatre and film, and Laughton's fascinating journey through this world. Perhaps a little too much detail in parts, but definitely worth reading if you care about theater, film's, and acting.
February 26, 2017
Callow's research seems to have involved reading books by anyone who so much as made Laughton a cup of tea, but he wears this considerable Laughton learning very lightly for the most part, and delivers a fascinating examination of the actor's art/career. (This is the focus of the book; it's not a traditional biography, but I liked that about it.) One might quibble with a couple of the more extravagant claims - Laughton's Hunchback is 'a cornerstone of this century's dramatic achievement; it is a yardstick for all acting' - but I only say *might*! Such great claims only reflect Callow's deep enthusiasm for the heights reached by his subject, and bring forth memorable observations: 'Laughton does with acting what great creative artists attempt: to sound the deepest and highest notes of human possibility, to exalt the human soul and heal the damaged heart.'
January 21, 2013
I waded through this because Laughton was such an interesting actor/man. But I will warn whoever might want to read this that it is mostly about his acting technique with little about his private life. He started at a young age as a business man managing hotels and doing it quite well. He served in WWI and it effected him deeply as it did so many others. Becoming involved in acting was a slow process depending on his ambition and personality. Spending much time on the early stagework in England and then his off again on again relationship with Hollywood. His great disappointments - the only film he directed Night of the Hunter was not well received at the time neither by critics or audiences. And the performances of the stage play Galileo which he had spent so much time and energy preparing for. His slow loss of interest in acting and only doing it for the money to finance other project was sad. Dealing with his homosexuality is briefly discussed as it was a struggle for him. His appearance describing himself as the back end of an elephant guided his life sometimes to the point of waving it as a banner. It is some dry reading and he was a difficult actor altogether but generous with his fellow actors. Preferring to teach and read/recite long passages of Shakspeare and the Bible and others. He toured with this format for most of the end of his life.
April 1, 2010
Fascinating biography of one of the golden age's great film actors -- a must for any fan of Laughton's or someone interested in the craft of acting. Callow is an acclaimed actor himself so the book is part biography, part analysis of craft. Not as fascinating or page-turning as the author's three-volume biography of Orson Welles (the first two volumes are among my favorite books of all time -- volume three is in the works) but a fine achievement nonetheless. If you haven't seen them, I would rent Laughton's essential films -- MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, LES MISERABLES -- first before reading...
March 21, 2012
Not only a great biography of a great actor, a great biography, period, written with passion by someone who very much knows what acting is and has the ability to viscerally convey it. Laughton was a fascinating man, a real artist; Callow sent me back to looking at his movies, and the dozen or so great performances Laughton gave that feel utterly fresh today. Callow's two-part Orson Welles bio is also wonderful, but that's the chronicle of a slowly unfolding disaster.
July 25, 2016
This book is so compelling because Simon Callow is an actor. Since this was written in 1987 and Lancaster died in 1986, it would been good if Callow did more interviews and research using archives instead of using books by Lancaster and Charles Higham. Although Higham's "Charles Laughton: An Intimate Biography" (1976) was not listed in the selected bibliography.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews