Category: Best Actor

1937 – Robert Montgomery

Night Must Fall

Robert Montgomery deserved his nomination, yet, at the same time, I’m glad he didn’t win.  He was good, but there were things about his performance that I didn’t like.  He seemed to be trying too hard to be dramatic.  The result is that there were moments in which his acting seemed too over-the-top.  He needed a little more subtlety in his portrayal of the bad guy.  I’ll explain.

First, I think the plot would have been better served if we hadn’t known, from the first moment Danny was on the screen, that he was the killer.  I couldn’t tell if this was the fault of the actor, the director, or the script, but I suspect it was a combination of all three.  It was immediately clear that he was the guilty party, and I’m not sure if I was supposed to know that or not.  I think there could have been more suspense, more drama when he interacted with the other characters, and more conflict if his guilt was in question, at least for a little while.  Second, in order to display the character’s nervous and guilty mannerisms, his acting resembled the style of acting that was necessary in the silent film era.  His facial expressions and movements were sometimes too exaggerated.  Not all the time, mind you, but often enough that it caught my attention. 

But there were also some things that I really liked about his performance.  For example, he did a good job of consistently using an Irish accent.  It sounded believable, and it never wavered, so good job on that.  Another thing was that he had the perfect look for the character.  There was both an innocence and an enthusiasm about his handsome face that was necessary for the role.  In fact, his look went a long way to cover up some of the problems with his acting.

In other words, despite his over-the-top performance, he was still captivating to watch on the screen.  Yes, we knew he was the killer, but with a face so innocent, I was constantly wondering why.  Unfortunately the answer was never really given.  Apparently, Danny was just a killer without a solid motive.  I mean the little conversation about his childhood might have explained his murderous tendencies, but we never actually learned why he killed the first lady in the first place.  Oh Well.

1937 – Charles Boyer

Conquest

This was a somewhat true movie about Napoleon and, at least according to the movie, the love of his life, the Polish Countess, Mari Walewska, played by Greta Garbo.  Boyer seemed to be the perfect choice to play the famous French Emperor, and he did a wonderful job.  This was really an Oscar-worthy performance

Boyer played Napoleon as confident, arrogant, charismatic, and possessed of a self-importance that bordered on a god complex.  All these qualities in such excess actually made him an unlikeable man.  They made him seem selfish, demanding, volatile, and petulant.  But darn if Boyer didn’t make him somewhat charming at the same time, despite being a jackass most of the film.

The film focused on the romance between Napoleon and the Countess Walewska, not on his brilliance as a military tactician.  But as my bit of research revealed, that is really where the real Napoleon’s true charisma shined.  He was a great military leader who was not afraid to fight right along-side his men in battle, and they loved him for it.  But the film only used Boyer as a romantic lead who happened to be the famous Napoleon.  And Boyer was nothing if not charming. 

Boyer took the role of Napoleon quite seriously.  He changed his appearance to look like the historical figure.  He got a matching haircut, and I think, though I cannot confirm, he wore a bit of padding to give the character a slight paunch, especially in his later years.  I also think he held himself differently to give himself a smaller stature.  He often had hunched shoulders or was leaning slightly forward.  While Napoleon was only about five feet tall, which was only slightly shorter than average height for the time, Boyer was five-foot-nine.

So then why didn’t Boyer win the Oscar?  First he was up against Spencer Tracy in Captains Courageous.  That was a hard one to beat.  But second, is that though his performance was fine, the script let him down, making him a little too unlikeable.  And as I’ve said before, an Oscar winner needs to be a synthesis of good acting and a good script.  Here, the script wasn’t bad, but it was, in my opinion, only average.

1937 – Spencer Tracy

Captains Courageous

Spencer Tracy was an actor who was very often cast in the role of a kindly father figure.  And in this movie, it was a perfect fit for him, as the movie was about a spoiled child who was in need of a kindly father figure to turn him from a brat into an upstanding, mature young man.  Tracy was made for this role, despite the fact that the character of Manuel Fidello, a Portuguese sailor and fisherman.  Ok, so his accent was a little inconsistent, but he was still wonderful.

I have seen several films with Spencer Tracy, and he is always good.  He always seemed to have a genuineness about him that made him very believable on the screen.  He just seemed so likeable, so kind, and so generous of spirit, that it had to be more than just acting.  It was a part of the man, and as natural to him as breathing, which is just what Manuel needed.

And we got to hear him sing.  His voice was soft and gentle, and was actually a bit of a plot point that endeared him to the young Harvey, excellently played by Freddie Bartholomew.  His song, called Manuel’s love song, was like a sweet lullaby that made me feel all warm and fuzzy.  His voice wasn’t beautiful, but the gentleness that Spencer Tracy put into his performance really sold the song, making the two scenes where he sang it poignant and memorable.  And the soft sounds of the hurdy-gurdy he played gave it a sweet beauty that I really liked.

In this film, he had a rougher appearance than I am used to seeing from him.  He wasn’t a priest or a wealthy patriarch.  They gave him a bushy perm, and dressed him in the clothes of a working fisherman, and he actually pulled it off.  He was a working class laborer with a heart of gold, who reluctantly develops a paternal relation with the spoiled Harvey.  Just by being a kindly, honest man, he teaches the young boy about love and friendship.  He drives home the point of the story, which is that children need love and attention in order to grow up into kind, responsible adults.  Tracy was wonderful in this performance, and I’m glad that he took home the Oscar.  Incidentally, this was the first of his two Oscar wins for Best Actor, out of his nine nominations. 

1937 – Fredric March

A Star is Born

Well, the story is a popular one, so popular that it has been told on the silver screen at least four times.  But this one was the first.  This one was the one that introduced us to the tragic character played by March, Norman Maine, a once great actor, whose career has fallen into a downward spiral, accelerated by his desperate battle with alcoholism. 

In a nutshell, the character’s story arch can be summed up in a few sentences.  As Norman’s star falls, the acting career of the woman he loves skyrockets.  Norman is plagued by depression, self-hate, and alcohol abuse, until finally, he realizes that the only way he can save his wife’s career, her dreams, her happiness, is to commit suicide.  In the end, he makes that supreme sacrifice out of love.  The actor playing this character had to have a wide range to believably give us a pathetic drunk, as well as a charming leading man.  March did it all perfectly.

It didn’t hurt that he was a very attractive man with a smile that made him instantly likable.  He had a light and easy charm that drew me in, despite his reprehensible behavior.  And it was clear that he was sincerely in love with his wife, Esther, played by Janet Gaynor.  When he was sober and things were good, he was wonderful.  But when he was drunk, the self-pity was palpable.  The depression was frightening.  The tragic end seemed almost inevitable.  A less-skilled actor could have made the part a caricature for whom we had no sympathy and no empathy.  But because of March’s incredible performance, we felt for him, wanting him to conquer his addiction to alcohol.

During his final scene, as he tries to convince Esther that he’s feeling better, that he is ready to try sobriety again for her sake, we can see in his eyes that he is saying goodbye. We see his death coming, and we almost agree with his reasons for killing himself.  It was a sad and depressing end for the character, but at the same time, an appropriate one.  Here, March was on top of his game.  This was the third of his five Best Actor nominations, and though he didn’t win, I wouldn’t have been surprised if he had.  Well done, Fredric!

1937 – Paul Muni

The Life of Emile Zola

By this time, Paul Muni was no stranger to the honor of an acting nomination.  In fact, this was his fourth nomination for Best Actor, and the Academy Awards had only been in existence for ten years.  Clearly, he was one of the most celebrated actors of his age, and there was a reason.  He was good.  He was always good. However, I noticed something odd.  On the film’s promotional poster, it shows a depiction of the actor, not the character he plays in the film.  What that tells me is that the marketing team was banking on the actor, not the film.  Strange.

Here, the chameleon-like actor took on the role of the famous French author Emile Zola.  The first half of the film focuses on the rise of his esteemed career, and the second, on his involvement with the Dreyfus case.  When he accuses the leaders of the French Army of knowingly condemning an innocent man to cover their own crimes and indiscretions, he is accused of libel, and sentenced to time in prison.  He flees the country and only returns after Dreyfus’s innocence is proved.  But he dies of carbon monoxide poisoning on the eve of Dreyfus’s re-commissioning ceremony.

At the beginning of the movie, Muni is almost unrecognizable as the young Zola, and even as the film progresses, and the character ages, he is still so made up to look like the real Zola, that it is sometimes hard to see Muni under all the makeup and the fat suits.  But he was there, always acting appropriate to the progressing age of the character, which he consistently did quite well.

But I think what earned him this nomination for his acting was the speeches.  There were several of them in the movie, but there are two that stood out to me.  The first is the one where he makes his accusations, and the second is where he addresses the jury ad his libel trial, denouncing the court for its ridiculously unjust proceedings.  He really knew how to sell those pivotal moments.  His voice was confident and commanding, giving him an air of superiority and authority.  Even though that second speech wasn’t enough to sway the jury to his own side, it was probably the speech that swayed the Academy voters.  Once again, Muni proved why he was such a respected and well-loved actor.

1936 – Walter Huston

Dodsworth

The movie, as a whole, was fairly average.  But there were a few stand-outs among the cast who distinguished themselves with their outstanding acting. Unfortunately, I didn’t feel that Walter Huston was one of them.  I’m not saying he did a bad job.  Far from it.  He played the part of Sam Dodsworth competently.  But for the most part, the roll just wasn’t worth the nomination.  If I was to nominate any member of this cast for an Oscar, it would have been Mary Astor or Ruth Chatterton, neither of whom were honored with an Oscar nod.

You see, the character of Sam Dodsworth didn’t have very much of a character arch, he didn’t go through a very wide range of emotions, and I didn’t feel that Huston was stretched or really challenged as an actor.  He only had two real emotional personas in the film, which he vacillated between.  There was happy and annoyed.  I know I’m oversimplifying his performance, but those were the two that stood out to me.  Sometimes his happiness bordered on excited, and his annoyance touched on anger, but that might have just been part of his character.  He wasn’t supposed to be emotionally erratic.

That being said, he played the part properly.  He never got too overworked, whether he was discovering a new passion or confronting his wife about her infidelities.  He was always on an even keel, where any normal man would have been much more animated.  The problem is that this translated as a little passionless, and not terribly difficult for an actor to portray.  But again, I don’t think this was Huston’s fault.  It was just the role, itself, and the way it was written.

His scenes that stood out to me as his best were the ones in which he displayed a little more emotion than normal.  There is one where he returns home from Europe alone, and is angered that his home doesn’t feel right without her in it.  Another is where he returns to Europe to politely and calmly confront his wife and her lover.  And yet another is where he finally declares his love for Edith.  But even in these pivotal scenes, the emotions he displays are calm and subdued, and though I hate to use the word, a bit passionless.  It’s too bad, because Huston was a fine actor.

1936 – Spencer Tracy

San Francisco

Well, I guess this can still be considered a transitional phase.  The category for Best Supporting Actor had just been newly created, and though I have always enjoyed Spencer Tracy’s performances, this role belonged in the Best Supporting Actor category.  The story was about Blackie, played by Clark Gable with Jeanette McDonald playing Mary Blake, his love interest.  Spencer Tracy played Father Mullin, their friend.  I wonder why, with a newly established place for supporting parts, Tracy was nominated for Best Actor.

Anyway, Tracy, as always, did a fine job.  He is one of those actors that has an honest face, a likable demeanor, a trustworthy persona.  It is no wonder he was often placed in the role of a clergyman or priest.  This isn’t the first film in which I’ve seen him wear the white collar.  He has a calmness and a gentleness that automatically lend themselves to the profession.  He is always kind and generous, compassionate and forgiving.

Many of Spencer Tracy’s contemporaries considered him to be one of the best actors of his generation.  There was always an honesty about his performances that was very easy and open.  And playing the role of Father Mullin was no exception.  It was almost as if he wasn’t really acting at all, but just being himself in front of the camera.  And it didn’t hurt that he was a pretty attractive man.  He had the kind of face that was youthful and honest.  He didn’t smile much, other than a gentle grin, like he was privately amused by something wholesome.  But when he did smile, it seemed to mean something significant.

But again, the role was really a supporting role, so I don’t think he should have been nominated for Best Actor, as much as I enjoyed watching him on the screen.  To be sure, Tracy would have his chances.  In fact, over his 37 year-long career as an actor, he was nominated for 9 Best Actor awards, winning twice.  But all that being said, I’ve watched My Man Godfrey, in which Mischa Auer was nominated for Best Supporting Actor.  I think Spencer Tracy should have been nominated in that category in Auer’s place.  But that’s just me.

1936 – Paul Muni

The Story of Louis Pasteur

Hmmm… I’m ok with Paul Muni’s nomination for Best Actor, but I’m not so sure about his win.  Did he do a good job?  Yes, of course he did.  He was Paul Muni, and I‘ve never seen him turn in a bad performance.  But was the role worth the nomination?  I don’t know.  Did the role demand much of the actor?  Did Muni have to stretch himself, dig deep and give us something extraordinary?  I’m skeptical.  So then I have to look at what he was up against.  Gary Cooper in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Walter Houston in Dodsworth, William Powel in My Man Godfrey, and Spencer Tracy in San Francisco.  Hmmm… I don’t know.

One thing I can say for Muni is that he completely transformed himself for this role.  I mean physically, I would not have recognized him as the same actor who was in I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang or The Valiant.  And apparently, as an actor who got his start in live theatre, Muni did his own makeup, and did an incredible job!  Kudos to you Mr. Muni. But it wasn’t just his physical appearance that made him stand out from his previous roles.  It was his movements, his mannerisms, his vocal production.  He completely inhabited the character of Louis Pasteur.

In fact, there were several things within the narrative that gave Muni the opportunity to shine a little, not the least of which was the film’s climax, where Pasteur is recognized for his amazing accomplishments and the lives his work was responsible for saving.  He gives an inspirational speech that was both powerful and humble at the same time, and Muni delivered it with passion and conviction.

The only problem with the role is that there is no real character arch.  Pasteur is introduced in the beginning as a hard-working and honest scientist who genuinely cares about the welfare and betterment of humanity.  He cares more about his work than his reputation.  And he remained steadfastly true to that character throughout the entire film.  In the end he was exactly the same.  He was depicted as a saint with no discernable flaws.  Muni played it well, but the character was a little dull to watch because he was almost unbelievably perfect.  But I suppose that wasn’t Muni’s fault, and he did an admirable job bringing Pasteur to life.

1935 – Franchot Tone

Mutiny on the Bounty

So, here is another example of a supporting actor getting a Best Actor nomination, simply because that was no Best Supporting Actor category had not yet been created.  And honestly, I don’t think he deserved the nomination.  And I say that based on both his acting skills, and the way the character was written.  True, there wasn’t much to his character, and I’m not sure what he could have done to improve it much from the page to the screen, but throughout the film, he didn’t have more than three facial expressions, making him seem, at times, emotionally flat.

He played the part of a wide-eyed youth who has his naïve and idealistic notions of being an officer in the Royal British Navy crushed by the evil Captain Bligh.  Honestly, his character was so one-note that he was boring to watch.  And his acting ability seemed as green and inexperienced as the character he played.  There were several times when he had to go into either a moralistic or inspirational speech.  When that happened, his smile vanished, and he looked like he was trying too hard to be deep and dramatic.

He played Mr. Byam.  In the original novel, Byam was the main protagonist, but in this film adaptation, it file like he had been relegated to a supporting character, being completely overshadowed by Clark Gable and Charles Laughton.  He played the part of the innocent sailor well enough, but that was about all he played.  I have a feeling the character could have been much more crucial to the plot, and much more complex and interesting than he was allowed to be in this movie. 

But for the moral lesson that the film built up to in the last few scenes, he almost could have been written out of the film and little would have changed.  The way the role was played by Tone, Byam was weak in will, and weak in conviction.  Even in the film’s climax, when Byam is unjustly sentenced to death, and he finally speaks out in support of Fletcher Christian’s mutiny against Bligh, he barely registers any strong emotion that would certainly have been fitting.  The least he could have done would be to raise his voice, point a finger, something.  But no.  I didn’t feel the passion or conviction I think the moment needed from him.

1935 – Clark Gable

Mutiny on the Bounty

I liked Clark Gable’s performance in this film.  Unlike his co-stars Charles Laughton and Franchot Tone, his character was well-written, and well-played.  Gable actually did some pretty amazing things with the character that made him authentic and interesting to watch.  His character had an arch, going from an honest and forthright career navy man to a mutineer.  Then, Gable made Fletcher Christian a noble and tragic character who only made the transition reluctantly.  For me, it was Gable who made this movie really work.

First off, he was an incredibly attractive man.  He had that smile that, when he turned it on, lit up the screen and instantly brought you on board with whatever he was going through.  But he also had the talent to back it up.  He could play smiling and eager in one scene, calm and introverted in the next, then powerful and commanding.  He seemed very much at ease in front of the camera.  And he knew how to develop that character arch slowly over the course of the narrative.  You could see the change gradually happening, and feel for him every step of the way.

There were two scenes that stood out to me.  First was where the Bounty’s surgeon died on the deck because Captain Blight demanded his presence on the deck, even though he was too sick to stand.  The raw emotions of barely suppressed anger and grief Gable displayed in that moment was so real, so expertly portrayed.  The second scene was the moment when the mutiny began.  His righteous anger was so intense and insistent that I would have joined his band of mutineers, myself. 

Clark Gable is widely considered one of the greatest movie stars of his day.  He knew how to get into the skin of the characters he played.  Most people today only know him, if they know him at all, because of Gone With the Wind, and to be sure, he did a great job in that film.  But here, he did a fantastic job, giving us a great portrayal of a conflicted man who felt no way out of his unfathomable situation than to become a mutineer.  I think that Gable really deserved his Oscar nomination, but that being said, I agree with the Academy’s decision.  Victor McLaglen’s outstanding performance in The Informer was just better.