Author: Snugglecub

1941 – Gary Cooper (WINNER)

1941 – Gary Cooper

Sergeant York

I’m going to say something that I am guessing is an unpopular opinion.  Was he a good actor?  Good enough.  Was he an actor with a wide range?  Not so much.  Cooper had a habit of choosing roles that were very homogenized.  To put is plainly, he often played himself.  But the thing was that everybody really liked who he was.  He was a poster child for good clean American wholesomeness, and the audiences of the time responded to that persona with enthusiasm. 

In this film, as one might guess, Cooper played an all American war hero.  Aside from a slightly rough beginning, after which he made a decision to own a piece of property so he could marry his sweetheart, the character of Alvin York became a hard-working, honest and forthright man.  After the land was bought out from under him, he found religion and became a mild-mannered saint with the innocence of a child, the same character he played in many of his films.

What made his character interesting to me was the idea that once he was drafted into the Army during WWI, he attempted to be a conscientious objector, refusing to kill based on his religious convictions.  However, when in battle, he killed because it had to be done.  I really liked how the character was written after that.  The nation wanted to honor him with offers of money and fame.  But he rejected it all because he had done something he wasn’t proud of.  It was an interesting take on a war hero.  Never-mind that he gladly accepted the land and the modern house that was gifted to him at the end of the movie.  That property was still bought with the blood of German men, Sergeant!  Oh well…

But the real question I have to ask here is this.  Did Gary Cooper deserve the Oscar he took home for his efforts?  I don’t know.  Of the five nominees in the Best Actor category, I have only seen this and Orson Wells in Citizen Kane.  I’d like to think that Wells probably should have been awarded the top prize, but that’s just me.  Still, I have to follow my own rules.  An acting Oscar is the marriage of a good actor and a well-written part.  And those 1940s audiences really loved all those wholesome roles that Cooper so often played.  Sergeant York was no exception.

1940 – Ruth Hussey

1940 – Ruth Hussey

The Philadelphia Story

I was thoroughly delighted with Ruth Hussey’s performance in this movie.  It was a smart script in which nearly every character was intelligent and witty.  The main cast consisted of a quartet of characters.  A lesser known actress, Hussey had to contend with three powerhouses, Carey Grant, James Stewart, and Katharine Hepburn, and I think she held her own quite well.  She was just as quick with the fast dialogue, the perfect comedic timing, and the slight emotional drama.

Hussey played the part of Liz Imbrie, a photographer for Spy Magazine, who is assigned to cover a wealthy socialite’s wedding.  The magazine’s editor uses blackmail to get her and the writer, played by Stewart, into the home, but they have to use their own wiles to stay there.  Hers was most definitely a supporting role.  She doesn’t have a lot of screen time, but she seemed to make the most of every second she got.  She was often in the background, observing a lot of the action, but she frequently chimed in with little comedic zingers that was perfectly delivered, making her a rather memorable character. 

But she wasn’t in the background all the time.  She had her own little subplot which gave Hussey the ability to create a fairly fleshed-out character.  She clearly had romantic feelings for Mike, played by Stewart, which were not completely returned.  The unrequited love angle gave Hussey the opportunity to throw a bit of light drama into the mostly silly romantic comedy.  I really enjoyed her calm, no-nonsense attitude when speaking about her feelings for Mike.

And there’s no doubt that she was beautiful, though not in the same haughty and aloof way as Hepburn, so she didn’t overshadow the film’s lead actress.  She had more of a common, comfortable beauty with an attraction that was all its own.  And there was an intelligence that could be clearly seen in her face that wasn’t just part of the character.  It came from the actress, and was a natural part of her.  It makes me wonder what else Hussey has done, and whether she typically played supporting roles, or if she generally played lead roles.  I’ll have to do a little reading.  Either way, I think she totally deserved her Oscar nomination.

1940 – Jane Darwell (WINNER)

1940 – Jane Darwell

The Grapes of Wrath

This was an Oscar that was well-deserved.  Darwell owned this character and she was even a scene stealer at times.  She had such a strong on-screen presence and her performance was so authentic that she was simply captivating on the screen.  She played Ma Joad, the matriarch of the family, the strength and determination of them all.  She is the woman who can bend, but never break.  She keeps going when everyone else is ready to quit.  She has more than enough cause for anger or depression, and yet is filled with a stalwart sense of right and wrong, and love enough to care for the world.  This is what Darwell brought to thr screen. 

She had several scenes in which it clearly came to the surface.  The first of which was the scene where the Joad family is forced out of their home and off their land, and they are loading up a truck for the move to California.  As she is burning the contents of a box of memories, letters and the like, she finds an old pair of earrings.  She holds them up to her ears, and you can see in her eyes the memories of when she was young, of happier times when such adornments were taken for granted.  Then her expression changed to one of sadness, as the present returned, and I could imagine her wondering if she would ever have occasion to wear them again.  There was no dialogue in that scene, but Darwell didn’t need any to show us what Ma Joad was thinking.

The other scene that stood out to me was the one in which she wakes in the middle of the night, only to find that her son, who must go on the run from the law, is leaving.  The sadness and motherly love Darwell brought to the scene was amazing to watch.  This was really the film’s climax, and in the very next scene, as the remaining members of the family are moving on, themselves, she expresses Ma Joad’s strength yet again, proving that she is the glue that holds the family together through good times and bad.

Darwell really understood the character and she acted the hell out of the part.  This is one of those times when I completely agreed with the Academy’s choice in the awarding of an Oscar.  Even looking at her fellow nominees, I’m glad she won.

1940 – Judith Anderson

1940 – Judith Anderson

Rebecca

This was a truly remarkable performance.  Judith Anderson was perfectly cast as the villain Mrs. Danvers.  In this psychological thriller, she is a creepy character, who actually doesn’t commit any crime until the end of the movie, where she burns a mansion down, and intentionally stays to die in the fire.  On the one hand, she is mentally unstable, and on the other hand, she is very cold and calculating.  She has a lack of morals, but, if you look at what she does in the movie, she didn’t break any laws or commit any actual crimes.

She is actually a pretty complex character on the surface, but a simply motivated one at her core.  She was the housekeeper of the estate, and Rebecca’s personal maid when she had been alive.  Mrs. Danvers had become disturbingly obsessed with her employer, with an obsession that absolutely crossed the line into utter adoration and intense sexual attraction.  From her first appearance on the screen, where she is introduced to the Second Mrs. de Winter, it is clear that she disapproves of her, because she is not Rebecca. 

She treats her new mistress coldly and with open distain.  There are two scenes in particular which stood out to me as phenomenal.  The first is the one where she is showing off Rebecca’s bedroom to the Second Mrs. de Winter.  She is truly creepy in how she shows off Rebecca’s fur coat, then her underwear drawer, and then her see-through nightgown.  This is the scene where her strong sexual desire for Rebecca was clearly stated without ever actually being stated.  When showing off the nightgown, she says, “Look.  You can see my hand right through it,” implying that she used to love seeing Rebecca’s naked body when she had worn it.

The other scene that she was amazing in was the one in which she tries to convince Maxim’s new wife to commit suicide.  She first manipulates her into upsetting Maxim, and then, when she is in tears, she invites her over to the open window and whispers in her ear, calmly suggesting that she has nothing to live for.  Maxim doesn’t really love you.  How could he?  It would be easy to just let go and die.  It would be best if you did.  Wow.  Anderson played such a convincing villain!

1940 – James Stephenson

1940 – James Stephenson

The Letter

James Stephenson did an adequate job.  He played the part as it was written with sincerity, though he didn’t appear to have much to work with.  This wasn’t the actor’s fault.  Nor was it entirely the fault of the script.  The director had a little to do with how I saw the actor in this film.  I have three thoughts when it comes to why I don’t really agree with his nomination. 

First is that Stephenson seems to suffer from what I sometimes call British emotional subtlety syndrome.  British emotions are usually down-played so much that you’d think they didn’t have any strong emotions in them at all.  So he is a lawyer who is defending a murderess.  Her story is that she killed in self-defense.  But he learns that story is all a lie.  It is when he learns the truth that he begins to go on his dramatic character arc.  Rather than allowing her to be convicted, he buys the damning evidence and keeps it out of the trial. 

At best, this puts his career in jeopardy.  At worst, it gives him a guilty conscience.  The few times when his emotions come close enough to the surface to be seen is probably what earned Stephenson his Oscar.  But really, even those moments were subtle to a fault.  For example, during the trial, he lies through his teeth, proclaiming his client’s innocence. He pauses once or twice in his closing arguments, and you can see him sweating.  But that was about it.  The problem is that, though the dramatic emotion was there, I really had to look for it. 

The second thing had to do with the way his character was filmed by the director.  I think he spent more time with his back to the camera then he did his face to it.  He was in scenes where he wasn’t the focus of what was happening, or even what was being said.  It was a disservice to the actor, and it didn’t help his performance.

But the third thing that I think took away from his performance was the script.  He was just written as an emotionless man, so I guess in that respect, he played the part well.  It just made him a little uninteresting to watch on the screen.  In the end, his performance was good, but maybe not worthy of an Oscar nomination.

1940 – Jack Oakie

1940 – Jack Oakie

The Great Dictator

Jack Oakie had a really difficult task to accomplish in this movie, and I think he handled it perfectly.  He had to go up against Charlie Chaplin.  It must have been pretty daunting to try to keep pace with such a legend.  But he pulled it off, and created a memorable character.  And honestly, I think he was just as funny as Chaplin.  The character of Benzino Napaloni was a parody of Benito Mussolini, with a touch of Napoleon Bonaparte thrown into the mix.

He actually doesn’t have a lot of screen-time, but when he was on the screen, he was a bit of a scene stealer, and that’s saying something, again, when he shared the screen with Chaplin.  There was a confidence about him that demanded attention.  And it was necessary for the character.  He needed to be just as much of a megalomaniac as his partner in crime, Adenoid Hynkel.  He was just as self-obsessed, just as maniacal, and most importantly, just as silly.  In fact, I’d even say that the two men had a really great on-screen chemistry.  They really knew how to play off of each other to create some really funny scenes.  I particularly liked the running gag each time they tried to shake hands.  One would extend his hand while the other would raise it in the Nazi salute.  Each realizing their mistake, they would both switch at the same time, back and forth, back and forth.  Yeah, it was a little corny, by today’s standards, but I can’t deny that it was still funny. 

And just as Chaplin had that fast-paced silly German accent and nonsense dialogue, so too did Oakie have to deliver all his lines just as rapidly, but with an Italian accent.  You see, I don’t think he, or Chaplin, for that matter, were making fun of Italians or Germans.  They were making fun of Mussolini and Hitler.  And they weren’t just making fun of them.  They were making political statements, calling real dictators buffoons. 

So here’s the thing.  While I know that Jack Oakie did a fantastic job, I have to ask if his performance was so outstanding as to warrant an Academy Award nomination.  And the short answer is… I don’t know.  Did the actor deserve the recognition?  I think so.  Did the role itself deserve it?  Maybe not.  An Academy Award nomination should be a good blend of a well-written character and a skilled actor.  And Benzino Napaloni was written to be silly, which is difficult to translate into intense or powerful.  And the more I think about it, Chaplin was able to pull it off.  The script just didn’t give Oakie enough time or range to do the same thing.

1940 – William Gargan

1940 – William Gargan

They Knew What They Wanted

This movie surprised me in several ways.  First, the story was much more dramatic than I was expecting.  Second, Charles Laughton turned in a really wonderful performance, and third, William Gargan played a complete jerk so perfectly.  I’ll say right off the bat that he deserved his Oscar nomination.  The role was not an easy one to play, and I thought he did a fine job.

He played the part of Joe.  There were times when I thought he was the main character of the story, but at the end, I came to understand that he was put into the correct category.  Joe was a self-proclaimed drifter who cared only for himself.  He was a lady’s man who did what he wanted when he wanted and never thought about the consequences.  But when he gets his best friend Tony’s bride-to-be pregnant, he has a moment of responsibility where he asks the girl to marry him instead.  She blames him for bringing out the worst in her, as she has actually fallen in love with her fiancée.  She slaps Joe hard and refuses him, and he seems more relieved than anything else.  Still the shock on his face was well-played.

Then when Tony learns the truth, he beats the crap out of him, and he is so ashamed, he just stands there and takes it.  Then he runs away into the night, and that’s the last time we see him.  Joe’s emotions were complex and fluid, and Gargan did a pretty good job moving through them quickly and without much transition.  And the drama got pretty deep.  Yes, Laughton and Lombard were seasoned actors and clearly knew what they were doing, but Gargan, though less well-known than his costars, also had a long list of acting credits behind him, and ahead of him, for that matter.

I don’t know exactly what I was expecting in this movie, but I was quite pleasantly surprised, and Gargan was a big part of that.  I guess he was really the bad guy of the movie, though not really.  He was a victim of lust, a vice that many people have.  And Gargan had just the right look for the part.  He was handsome, but not too handsome, smarmy, but oddly charming at the same time.  He had a devil-may-care attitude, but underneath, he hid a kind heart.  He was neither fully bad nor fully good.  He was just irresponsible.  And Gargan brought all this out through his attention to those emotional complexities that the role required.  Well done!

1940 – Marjorie Rambeau

1940 – Marjorie Rambeau

Primrose Path

I’ll start this off by saying that the character of Mamie Adams, as played by Marjorie Rambeau surprised me, and that was a good thing.  At the beginning of the movie, she comes on the screen and into the plot like a bit of a whirlwind.  It is clear, right from the start that she is cheating on her sloppy drunk of a husband, though it is just as clear that she loves him at the same time.  But then, as the film progresses, her character deepens and shows complexity and even a bit of pathos.

I can see why Rambeau was nominated for the Best Supporting Actress award.  She created a real character with both good and bad characteristics.  She was multi-layered.  At first, I didn’t like her, but by the end I did.  And when it came to her death scene, I felt for her.  All that being said, there seemed to be those two sides to the character of Mamie that Rambeau nailed.  The good and the bad.

The way Rambeau played the bad girl was wanton and unapologetic.  She was a party girl who liked to go out and have a good time.  Her first appearance on the screen had her coming home from a festival, bragging to her family about the rich man she’d fooled around with.  She’d spent money on frivolous things that could have been better spent feeding and clothing her children.  And when tending her drunk husband, she carelessly coddled him and gave him money to go buy more alcohol, feeding his addiction and perpetuating his inebriation.  Rambeau easily made her seem flippant and unapologetic.

But on the opposite side of that coin, she actually did love her husband in a strange way, just as she loved and cared for her two daughters.  Rambeau brought out a kind of strength and compassion in the woman who made no secret about her extramarital affairs.  And upon learning that her eldest daughter had fallen in love, she sat with her and tried to give her a bit of advice, misguided as it might have been.  And she even cried for her daughter as the girl took her first steps into womanhood and the dangerous world of men and love.  Rambeau pulled it all off with confidence and even a bit of flare.  She made me like Mamie Adams, despite her flaws, and that can’t be an easy thing to do.