Marlon Brando's Arabic Parts

1
Part of Fate in Gemini disposed by Mercury in the 5th House
Part of Genius in Leo disposed by Sun conjunct the 5th House
Part of Fame in Leo disposed by Sun conjunct the 5th House

If you use the Sidereal, the dispositors show a 5th house emphasis.

Is it wrong sighted to use these parts as indicators of his Acting Career/talent?

How would one interpret these parts?

Thanks

C

birth data

3
Brando April 3 1924 11p (or10:53p) Omaha Nebraska

Part of Fame ASC + Jupiter - Sun 9 Leo

Part of Fate ASC + Saturn - Sun 19 Gemini

Part of Genius ASC + Sun - Neptune 0 Leo

Asc = 3-41 Sagitarius
Sun = 14-09 Aries
Jupiter = 19-53 Sagitarius
Saturn - 0-9 Scorpio
Neptune = 17-44 Leo

Thanks

C

4
This ought to get the ball rolling. Several years ago, for reasons I do not recall, Brando's name/chart came up and I offered a decidedly unpopular opinion from which I have not budged. But first let's look at the question:
Is it wrong sighted to use these parts as indicators of his Acting Career/talent?
Probably. The parts or lots are good supportive testimony. They cannot bring about what is not in the chart. We all have those parts somewhere in our charts. One good rule of thumb is a part that is in aspect, preferably tight aspect, to its dispositor is "in play," i.e. it will play a role in the life of the native. So the part of fate is not in aspect to Mercury and the parts of fame and genius are in aspect by sign only to their dispositor, the Sun. None of these parts, therefore, is in play, although the Jupiter opposition to the part of fate is interesting.

Jupiter in Sagittarius in the first is so perfectly descriptive of Brando even if it does not describe everyone with this placement. There never was an actor or perhaps even a politician more full of himself than Marlon Brando. Having that Jupiter trine an exalted Sun can only make an already grandiose self image even grander.

Venus represents the aesthetic sense and she is strong in domicile, but accidentally debilitated by being in the 6th house. She is also unaspected, unless you wish to count a conjunction to Algol. However Venus is conjunct the part of genius by antiscion. Make of that what you will.

If you haven't figured it out just yet, I think Marlon Brando was a highly overrated, if not the most overrated actor in screen history. This opinion is usually met with "Oh yeah well did you ever see On the Waterfront?" OK OK In one motion picture boosted by an all star cast and one of the finest directors ever, he did pretty good. Where he didn't do pretty good was at the box office. Almost all of his movies ended up in the red. The Godfather was the exception not the rule, and I'm assuming that movie made money. I don't know for a fact that it did. So the general consensus might be that he was a brilliant actor, however the moviegoing public voted with their wallets. Or, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "They stayed away in droves." One can argue, as I would, that lack of popularity does not necessarily mean lack of talent, but Brando was making American motion pictures, he was not doing Shakespeare. Talent, in this arena, is not crucial to success (see Cruise, Tom). There is however one classical role he was born for and I don't think he ever played: Faustus.

Parts don't "do." They are points in the chart or put another way, they have no light. We might look to progressions or directions to see if and when a planet conjuncts a part and that might coincide with a significant event in the life, but again I'd use it as supporting testimony, not initiating. Brando's part of fame doesn't make him famous. His ASC ruler is strong and in good aspect to the Sun. Both Jupiter and the Sun are analogous to fame and honors. We could argue that the dispositor signifies the part, and in Brando's case the part of fame is disposed by an exalted ruler who is trine to a powerful ASC ruler so he will be famous. I'm not sure it is that simple, but that might be worth considering.

Overall, I'd say that The parts mentioned don't seem to play a major role in the chart regardless of anyone's opinion of Brando, other than to confirm my admitedly jaded viewpoint (heh).

Re: the part of genius. What is genius, anyway? C.S. Lewis pointed out that genius used to be associated not with individuals, but with their work. DaVinci's "Last Supper" is a work of genius. By Einstein's time the word was attached to the individual. Einstein was a genius. So does this part represent the individual or the product of his mind? I think that's worth thinking about. Everyone who has an IQ in the top 2% has potential not genius.

Now I have a question: since the formulae are supposed to represent the intent of the part what does the planet of confusion and illusion have to do with genius? I would think Mercury or maybe the Moon belongs in there somewhere. But that's me.

If you're a Brando fan, sorry. Don't take it personally. I just can't see what so many others see in him.

Tom

overated brando

5
Overated? Probably. One or two great achievements can make other reasonably well accomplishments seem better and poorer ones look better than they actually are. "On theWaterfront" was'nt the only one at that time. There was also "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "Julius Ceasar". After that, he did interesting work; the better being "Burn", "The Godfather" and "Last Tango in Paris". He is also looked up to by his peers and considered an acting genius by Elia Kazan, Karl Malden and Stella Adler. The other actor that they argue is the best is Laurence Olivier.

I chose to look at the parts in Brando's chart because of that reputation. The parts seem to point the acting. Even his part of accomplishment is disposed by Neptune in Leo. Leo, Gemini, 5th and 3rd houses are usually highlighted in actors charts. Your supportive testimony comment was basically the answer I was searching for.

Laurence Olivier's Part of Fame is 27 Cancer disposed by 5th house moon. He did'nt have as many parts pointing to the 5th house or Leo as Brando did but he had Gemini and the 5th house accented. May 22, 1907 Dorking,UK 5am.

C

6
On the Waterfront" wasn't the only one at that time. There was also "A Streetcar Named Desire"
A soap opera the way he did it - and not a very good soap opera at that.
and "Julius Caesar".
Didn't see that one.
After that, he did interesting work; the better being "Burn", "The Godfather"
I never saw or even heard of Burn, or maybe I just forgot about it. I damn near fell asleep during the Godfather. I have the distinction along with a guy I used to drink with and the Wall Street Journal as being one of the very few noting that this movie isn't very good with or without Brando. The book was fun though.
and "Last Tango in Paris"
.

He gets to be a dirty old man on screen. Breathless. What about his timeless portrayal as Jor-el in Superman? As a kid I loved comic books , and Superman was a favorite. Of all the Superman characters I found Jor-el to be one of the more interesting, perhaps because in the grand scheme of things, he was a bit player, and therefore mysterious. But he was a hero even if no one listened to him and his planet blew up. In my mind Brando even messed this up. I looked at the image of Jor-el on screen and kept thinking of The Wizard of Oz behind the curtain before he was exposed. Jor-el went from sympathetic character to arrogant, obnoxious boor via Brando's interpretation in a cameo appearance. One might think if that was the kind of people that populated Krypton, the universe was better off without them. God bless Ma and Pa Kent for saving young Kal-el from turning out like Brando.
I chose to look at the parts in Brando's chart because of that reputation.
And it is that reputation to which I refer. In my way less than expert opinion it is undeserved. I find him overly melodramatic and deeply in love with himself. Last Tango is a great example. I read where Brando always wanted to have sex on screen, and Last Tango was his vehicle. My interest in Brando's sex life is about as great as his was for mine, but why should he wish to display his for an audience? Does the word "narcissist" enter anyone's mind?

Studying his chart is well worth the effort because he was famous, and as you correctly point out he had a stellar reputation held by some seriously talented people. I just don't see the big deal. There were far more talented people among his contemporaries that were recognized, but not to the extent Brando was. My gut feeling is that his personality is more responsible for his reputation than his ability.

The chart has an unusual amount of essential dignity: Jupiter in Sagittarius, Venus in Taurus, and Mars in Capricorn is pretty impressive. Even the one trouble spot, combust Moon, rules weaker houses and the Sun and Moon sit on the benefic fixed star Alpheratz. This is a chart that is indicative of success, and I never doubted the fact that he was successful. From Robson on Alpheratz:

With Sun. Honor preferment and favors from others.

With Moon. Energetic persevering, honor, wealth, many good friends and business success.


Denebola on the MC puts a bit of a damper on this and one of Robson's delineations is "busy with other people's affairs." I think the fixed stars played a significant role as well. It is an interesting chart - no doubt about that.

Tom