Category: Best Actor

1935 – Charles Laughton

Mutiny on the Bounty

Well, I’ll start this off by just coming out and saying it.  I don’t really think Charles Laughton should have been nominated for Best Actor.  And it isn’t because of his acting ability.  It is because I don’t think the role, the way it was written, deserved the honor.  The character was so over-the-top awful that it didn’t have any redeeming qualities and no character arch.  Laughton did as good a job as anyone could have with the part, but the screenwriter only wrote Captain Bligh as a one-dimensional character.

I’ve said before that I think an acting nomination needs to be a happy marriage of a well-written role and a skilled actor.  A great actor shouldn’t be recognized for a poorly written part, and an expertly written part won’t be recognized if it is played by a terrible actor.  Charles Laughton, unfortunately falls victim to the former. Was the character of Captain Bligh a mean and cruel man?  Yes, he was, but that’s all he was.  The way he was written, he was a terrible tyrant, and nothing more.  He was a flat and colorless character.

There were only two scenes in the whole movie, which collectively lasted only a few minutes, where Bligh showed a different side.  The first was the scene where they landed in Tahiti, and Bligh met with Hitihiti, the chief.  Cordial diplomacy is used.  The other is when he helps his fellow cast-offs survive at sea in a lifeboat.  In all, it added up to less than five minutes in a two hour and twelve minute film.  In my book, that’s not good enough.  If they had given him any genuine or realistic redeeming qualities, I might feel differently, but they really didn’t

But as I said, Laughton did as good a job as anyone could have done with the role.  He played mean and cantankerous well.  From his first moment on the screen to his last, with those minor exceptions, he played the exact same part.  But maybe that was why he received his nomination.  He played that one character trait so well.  He was supposed to be unlikeable, and Laughton made sure he was.  So I suppose he did his job.  I just don’t think the role itself was worthy of a Best Actor nomination.  Sorry, Charlie.

1935 – Victor McLaglen

The Informer

Victor McLaglen took home the Oscar for his performance in this film, and I think he absolutely deserved it.  And he beat out some pretty big Hollywood names like Clark Gable and Charles Laughton.  McLaglen was incredible.  He played an Irish man who betrays not only his good friend, but the whole Irish Republican Army at the same time, by going to the police as an informer.  All that for twenty pounds.

But the character of Gypo Nolan was so cleverly written, and so brilliantly played.  He didn’t do it just for the money.  He did it because everyone was so poor.  His girlfriend was so poor, she was walking the streets as a prostitute to make enough money to live.  He did it to give her enough money to get out of Ireland and go to the States.  But Gypo wasn’t a smart man.  With such a wealth of money in his pocket, he ends up blowing most of it on alcohol and getting so drunk he can barely stand.  When his IRA buddies catch up with him and question him about the informer that got his friend killed by the police, Gypo does his best to lie and blame an innocent man.  But the longer the night goes on, the more his guilt makes him drink.  The more he drinks, the more money he spends.  In the end, he only gives his girl five pounds, but thinks he is giving her the whole twenty.

McLaglen played the part perfectly.  There were some incredibly powerful scenes where he had to run the full gambit of emotions.  From happy drunk to guilt-ridden, from angry to remorseful.  The scene where he eventually confesses to being the informer, he is in tears, sobbing over and over again, “I didn’t know what I was doing.”  It was heart-wrenching to watch.  Such a great performance!

I’ve actually never heard of Victor McLaglen outside of this movie, but apparently he was an actor whose career lasted nearly forty years.  And I say good for him.  He did a fantastic job in this film.  His emotional depth was so raw, so real.  He was captivating on the screen.  He didn’t have the typical face of a Hollywood leading man, but he had talent to spare.  I’d be very interested to see more films with him as part of the cast.  It is no wonder he took home the Oscar for his performance in this incredible film.

1934 – William Powell

The Thin Man

This was a fun movie.  It was mainly a who-done-it, but it was also a light comedy with a touch or romance, with just a hint of drama sprinkled on top.  This was the first in a franchise of six Thin Man movies.  What came next was After the Thin Man in 1936, followed by Another Thin Man in 1939, Shadow of the Thin Man in 1941, The Thin Man Goes Home in 1945, and finally, Song of the Thin Man in 1947.  The trick is that William Powell played the lead, Detective Nick Charles, but the actual Thin Man was the man who was murdered.  So naming the following five films using the same moniker doesn’t really make sense unless they all have stories that revolve around the original murdered man.

Powell was both handsome and charming, and seemed completely at ease in front of the camera.  He was paired with Myrna Loy throughout the entire franchise, and it isn’t hard to see why.  Their on-screen chemistry was plain to see.  There was a cute little interaction between them where he pointed to her chest, and when she looked down, he booped her nose, and had an adorable little chuckle to himself.  Powell really took the part and had fun with it.

Nick Charles was a functional alcoholic, and true to the character, Powell was rarely seen without a drink in his hand.  The guy drank like a fish.  But despite his constant state of inebriation, he was a happy-go-lucky guy who had a fantastic relationship with his wealthy wife.  I liked how his character was written in that he would frequently joke with her that he married her for her money, but the love behind the jest was real. 

And there was no denying his skills as a detective.  After all, the movie was a murder mystery, and by the climax, the good guy was able to expose the bad guy, giving us a happy, romantic ending to the delightful narrative.  Powell did a great job, and I’ll be honest.  If I had been a voting member of the Academy in 1934, I might have voted for him instead of that year’s winner, Clark Gable.  Powell was just so darn charming and playful in the role, and despite playing a smiling drunk, he made the character of Nick Charles incredibly likeable and truly memorable.

1934 – Frank Morgan

The Affairs of Cellini

This was a cute movie, and Frank Morgan was cute right along with it.  But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that he stood out.  You see, his role in this movie was only nominated for the Best Actor category because the Best Supporting Actor category had not yet been created.  In order for a supporting actor to stand out in the Best Actor category, he has to give us something extraordinarily phenomenal.  And while Frank Morgan did a fair enough job, he wasn’t as good as the nomination would suggest.  The roll wasn’t worth it.

I’ve only seen a few films that had Frank Morgan as a part of the cast, and I’ve never seen him play a lead part.  Sure, he portrayed the title role in The Wizard of Oz, but it was a supporting role.  And I saw him playing a smaller part in The Great Ziegfeld. But as far as I can tell, he seemed to play the same character in those two films as he did in this one.  He was a bumbling, yet loveable old man.  I have a feeling he was really just playing himself, though I have no proof of that.  For all I know, he was putting on an act, a façade that he knew the public liked.  Either way, the nervous, slightly confused, somewhat timid man could have stepped right off the set of The Wizard of Oz.

Here, he played Alessandro, the Duke of Florence.  He tries to make himself look competent, confident, and decisive, but he is easily confused, and even more easily swayed and manipulated by his ministers, his wife, and of course, Cellini.  He was amusing and fun to watch, but he was a one trick pony.  Yes, it was a good trick, but there was no variance to the performance, no spontaneity.  There was a certain charm about him that was unmistakable, and he used that charm in the same way from the beginning of the film to the end.  Would I have given him a Best Actor, or even a Best Supporting Actor nomination?  I don’t think so.

And honestly, I can’t find a good reason for his nomination.  Apparently, The Affairs of Cellini, was a disappointment at the box office.  Even on Rotten Tomatoes, the film has mediocre reviews, at best, and an audience score of 25%.  I’m not trying to say Morgan gave us a bad performance, just an unremarkable one.

1934 – Clark Gable

It Happened One Night

Clark Gable turned in a really delightful performance in this really delightful movie.  There was a natural ease about him.  He wasn’t afraid to act a little silly, but he also knew when to be a little tougher when the scene demanded it.  He had a bit of juvenile boyishness at times, but it didn’t diminish his credibility as a serious actor.  There is a reason he is considered one of the great actors of old Hollywood.  Yes, he had those big ears, but that was part of his look.  Even with them, I still think he was a very attractive man.

Here, he played Peter Warne, a newspaper man who generally only thought about himself… that is, until he met the spoiled little rich girl, Ellie Andrews.  When he discovers her identity, he figures he can use her for the story of the day by helping her get from Florida to New York so she can marry a man she doesn’t really love.  Of course, somewhere along the road, the two fall in love with each other.  Gable was perfectly cast as the comedic romantic lead.  He seemed likeable and genuine, and his chemistry with Colbert was plain to see.

Even in the softer moments, when he is considering his blossoming love for Ellie, or when discussing the musings of his mind with her, there was a tenderness that Gable was able to bring out, making his affection for her seem believable.  And in another scene, when a stranger recognizes the heiress and threatens to call in her whereabouts for the reward money, Peter threatens the man in a way that would have done just fine in a serious drama or a gangster film.

Now, I’ll admit, I haven’t seen many of Gable’s films.  I’ve seen the Philadelphia Story, Gone With the Wind, and Mutiny on the Bounty, but I can easily say that I have never seen a bad performance from him.  Over the course of his career, he was only nominated for Best Actor three times, but I’m actually a bit surprised at that, considering how well-revered he was back then, and how well-remembered he is, even today.  And his career was pretty prolific.  He was making movies until around 1960.  His last film, The Misfits, was released posthumously in 1961.  I call that pretty impressive. 

1932-33 – Paul Muni

I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang

There is no question that Paul muni was a popular actor, and a good one, at that.  The part he played in the socially conscious film was a pretty demanding role, both physically and emotionally.  The film is the story of a man who is down on his luck, and is just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  He gets arrested for a crime he only committed at the point of a gun, and is sentenced to ten years of hard labor.  The movie did a fair job of pointing out the inhumane treatment of men in the criminal justice system of the South. 

Muni plays James Allen, a good and honest man.  On the chain gang, he is worked out in the hot from sun-up to sun-down, swinging a sledge hammer or a pick without rest.  He is fed gruel, and is beaten or whipped bloody when he complains about anything.  After a year of this torture, he makes his plans, and with his brains and a fair bit of luck, he escapes.  He runs to Chicago, and gets a job in construction.  As it turns out, he has a talent for it, and becomes a prominent construction engineer.

But a jealous lover learns his dirty little secret, and turns him in when he rejects her.  In an effort to live his life without the onus of his sentence hanging over his head, he agrees to turn himself in and return to the chain gang for a period of three months, after which the unnamed Southern state promises to release him, in light of his honesty and prominence in Chicago.  But they lied.  The scene where James learns that they just wanted him back in chains for the full remaining nine years is heartbreaking to watch, and Muni really did a great job of letting the audience feel his shock and horror, knowing that he had only gone back out of a sense of honesty, and the desire to live a clean life.

So he escapes a second time.  But by this time, his sanity is so frayed, and he fears capture so much, that he is constantly looking over his shoulder, jumping at the slightest noise.  Muni was great in that final scene, when the woman who loves him tries to get him to come home.  He cannot.  And as he backs into the shadows, she pleads with him, asking, “How do you live?”  His reply is haunting.  “I steal!”

1932-33 – Leslie Howard

Berkley Square

Well, first of all, I have to applaud the academy for paying attention to a film that was, at its heart, a science fiction film.  Yes, it was a romance, but nearly every film had that element going for it back in those days.  Howard plays a wealthy American who discovers love after he becomes displaced in time and finds himself inhabiting the body of his ancestor, 150 years in the past.  Unfortunately, the fantasy genre is often overlooked for most categories other than Best Visual Effects

I’ve seen Leslie Howard in a few other films like Romeo and Juliet, Gone With the Wind, the 49^th Parallel.  It seems to me that he plays the same character in each film.  Only the names and situations have changed, which leads me to believe that he was pretty much just playing himself.  I didn’t really see him stretching himself, either physically or emotionally.  And he played an American, which was actually a plot point in Berkley Square. But he had that British accent which, back in the late 20s and 30s, was meant to automatically identify him as an aristocrat.  However, the problem was that his accent was nearly identical to the other characters who were supposed to be British.  So he didn’t seem very American.

And so, he played the character of Peter Standish as a quintessentially British man.  In this, you don’t show too much emotion, and you don’t get too excited.  Even when you are supposed to be in tears, you simply cover your face or turn away from the camera.  The result is that he appears to be emotionally barren, especially when compared to Charles Laughton’s emotionally powerful portrayal of Henry VIII in the same year, which won him the Oscar.  What I mean is, the subtlety of Howard’s performance didn’t grip me.

Was it a bad performance?  No, it wasn’t, but neither did it stand-out.  I found it to be pretty average.  That being said, I liked the plot of the film, and Howard’s portrayal of the character was acceptable.  I guess maybe the roll just didn’t lend itself to a nomination for Best Actor.  Even though his role in Gone With the Wind didn’t earn him an Oscar nomination, I think it would have been more deserving.  This role just didn’t give the actor much to work with.

1932-33 – Charles Laughton

The Private Life of Henry VIII

Charles Laughton was really one of the greatest actors of his day.  Playing a part in an epic film that spans years, so much so that he has to use makeup effects to give him the appearance of age, is not easy, but Laughton pulled it off with what seemed like ease and skill.  It was impressive, but was a trifle when compared with the more dramatic demands of the role.

But playing age is not only accomplished through the art of makeup.  It is also done through the voice, the movements, the posture, the mannerisms, and the facial expressions.  In Henry’s early manhood, Laughton strode into a room and planted himself with confidence and arrogance.  There was a shrewdness in his eyes and command in his countenance.  He stood with his knees straight and his hands on his hips.  In his later years, he stood with a hunched back, and hobbled across the floor.  His eyes held a lifetime of experiences, both good and bad.  And there was a natural tiredness about him that only comes with the passage of years.

The character moved from joy to sorrow, from alertness to senility, from love to anger, all with a stark realism that is hard to find in many actors.  He looked the part, and he acted it perfectly. This is not the first film, in which I’ve seen him act.  I’ve seen other Oscar Nominated films like Mutiny on the Bounty, Les Miserables, and even the amusing comedy Ruggles of Redgap.  Laughton has a practiced confidence on the screen that cannot be faked.

There were several scenes in this film that allowed Laughton to really show some genuine emotion.  For example, the utter happiness he portrayed when he first looked on his son, the Prince, and telling him as a loving father how difficult it will be to rule as a king.  But there was also the heartbreaking scene in which he learns of his beloved wife’s adultery.  When he breaks down in tears and sobbing in the midst of his ministers and courtiers, the tears were real, and I felt myself tearing up a bit as well.  Laughton really seemed to understand the character, and did a wonderful job of bringing Henry to life.  Except when he unexpectedly broke the fourth wall at the end of the movie, but I’m going to blame that one on the director.

1931-1932 – Alfred Lunt

The Guardsman

Apparently, this was the only film Lunt ever did, and though he did well in front of the camera, he, and his wife/costar, Lynn Fontaine, decided they didn’t like the experience, and returned to the stage.  I thought he did just fine, and if he had stuck with it, gotten used to the new medium, he might have gone on to be a recognized name in Hollywood.  His acting was good, his comedic timing was spot-on, and he was a pleasure to watch on the screen.

On the cast list, his character was known only as the Actor.  The actor was married to the Actress, played by Fontaine, and he was a jealous man.  So, being the stereotypical, egotistical thespian, he decides to put his incomparable acting skills to work and create an alternate persona to test his wife’s love and loyalty.  Thus, we meet the Russian prince who attempts to seduce the Actress.

Lunt played both personas well enough, but I must say, the Russian was more interesting to watch.  He was more fun, which was all to the better, since this was, after all, a comedy.  And he was funny, one minute being accepted by the woman, and the next being turned away.  The Russian accent was thick and the costumes were more fanciful and playful.  Lunt did a fine job of making his two divergent characters distinct and just over-the-top enough to be entertaining.  He was particularly good in the scene where the Actress is throwing herself at him, while at the same time kicking him out of her apartment.  His extreme confusion was so perfectly played.

But though the Actor’s true persona wasn’t as interesting, Lunt still did the part justice.  He was insecure through his ego and desperate for his wife’s affection.  And when she took him in her arms, you could feel that desperation.  There was a scene where she feigns hurt at his mistrust and he literally begs for her forgiveness.  There was more than simple acting there.  There seemed to be a real tenderness that that I actually liked.  Of course Lunt was fawning over his actual wife, and that chemistry came through pretty clearly.  Lunt did a good job, and I like that he was recognized for an honest and earnest performance.

1931-32 – Wallace Beery

The Champ

Here is Wallace Beery with his second nomination for Best Actor, and his first win, though he did have to share the honor with Fredric March.  His performance was pretty good, though, to be honest, I wasn’t convinced of Beery’s portrayal of a boxer.  He handled the dramatic scenes with depth and skill, but he was completely unconvincing in the ring, and during the training sequence.  Here’s what I mean.

Sometimes, it is easy to tell if an actor has the skill to convincingly pull off a character.  Here, it was pretty clear that Beery was faking his boxing, and I’m not even a boxing aficionado. The straight-elbowed way he was throwing his punches during the climactic match would have seriously hurt his elbows and shoulders, and put very little power behind his blows, and yet we are supposed to believe that he knocked his opponent out.  His posture had very little defensive capabilities, leaving his gut exposed to punishment.  And I’m thinking he would probably have been off balance with his fighting stance, as he was leaning back the whole time, putting all his weight on his back foot.  I’ll admit that I’m not a boxer, and that I could be wrong, but he seemed to fight like a novice who was afraid of getting hit in the face by his opponent, not a former world champion in the sport. 

But during the dramatic scenes, he was wonderful.  The scene where he tries to convince his son that he doesn’t love him anymore was heartbreaking.  When he even goes so far as to smack Dink in the face to get him to go live with his mother, I was left in shock.  Then, when the boy tearfully goes, he is so ashamed of hitting his boy, he bloodies his fist against a concrete wall.  The following scene, where he is reunited with his child, was wonderful to see.

Honestly, I don’t think Beery should have won this Oscar, not because his acting was that bad, but because he was wrong for the role.  He just clearly wasn’t a boxer, and because of that, I didn’t completely believe his performance.  And much of this complaint could have been fixed with some simple technical training before filming began.  Keep your weight forward, keep your arms close to protect yourself, and don’t throw sideways punches with locked elbows.  You’ll be more believable.