Author: Snugglecub

1939 – Geraldine Fitzgerald

1939 – Geraldine Fitzgerald

Wuthering Heights

Geraldine Fitzgerald played a small but pivotal role in this film.  Besides a few brief seconds of screen-time at the beginning, before the main story of the film, which was all a flashback, she didn’t even show up until the last third of the film, and her character didn’t really have a huge influence on the main plot.  But she did provide a bit of much-needed character development for the film’s leading man.  She brought to light just how cruel he could be, and how low he was willing to sink in his pursuit of the woman with whom he was obsessed.

She played the part of Isabella Linton, a young girl full of innocence and naiveté: innocent because of her inexperience with the world, and naïve because of her believe in the inherent goodness of all men.  This is what Fitzgerald had to work with.  She played the part as a young woman fascinated with an obviously bad man, willfully ignoring the council of her brother and her sister-in-law.  Her first introduction to Heathcliff was hearing him unapologetically tell the tale of how he underhandedly took possession of his rival’s land and title, all for the purpose of revenge.  But she ignores his vengeful intentions, and calls him misunderstood. 

So how did Fitzgerald bring this across?  Well, she certainly had a beautiful and youthful appearance.  The first time we see her, she has the look of a child in her teens.  Isabella was played as pleasant enough, but willful and petulant, contradicting her elders simply because they were her elders.  But by the end, her youthfulness seems to fade just enough to show that her childish ideals have been revealed as lies.  Her innocence has vanished, and Heathcliff’s insincerity and indifference toward her is fully revealed.  She is clearly still young, but broken.  And yet, even though she knows her marriage to him was his way of being close to his beloved Cathy, she continues to throw herself at him, begging him to love her. 

There was some real emotion to the character, and Fitzgerald played it all with sincerity.  In fact, at the end, I’d almost that she was the same haggard woman we saw in the very beginning of the movie.  Broken and worn, inside and out.  I’d say her Best Supporting Actress nomination was well-deserved. 

1939 – Hattie McDaniel (WINNER)

1939 – Hattie McDaniel (WINNER)

Gone With the Wind

Hattie McDaniel was the first black woman to ever win an Oscar.  We all know how monumental and historic her win was.  It was deserved and it was important for more than just what it was.  It was official recognition of not only a black person, but a black woman, and in 1939, that was significant.  Such a recognition would have been important in any kind of an event, but in something that was so highly visible as the Academy Awards, it was phenomenal.

But just to put it into a little perspective, here are a few Academy Award facts.  McDaniel was the first black person, man or woman, who was ever even nominated for an acting Oscar.  After her, the next black actor or actress to earn a nomination was ten years later in 1949, when Ethel Waters was nominated for a supporting role in the movie Pinky.   The next black actor to actually win an Oscar was fifteen years after that in 1963, when Sidney Poitier won for Lilies of the Field.  Hattie’s win was a start, but the battle for equal representation was only beginning.

In Gone With the Wind, she played Mammy, a slave on the O’Hara cotton plantation.  She served as nurse to the O’Hara women for several generations, and as the “head woman” of the plantation.  She is gruff but well-meaning, and the way McDaniel played her, she is incredibly likeable nonetheless.  It is clear that though she is a slave, she cares deeply for the family she serves.  After the Civil War is over, she continues on as Scarlet and Rhett’s servant, though I assume she now gets paid for her labors.

Honestly, there wasn’t much to the role, but I’m still glad she won.  The significance of her nomination and her win outweighed the fact that the role itself might not have been worthy of all the attention, especially when objectively compared to the rest of the women nominated for Best Supporting Actress that year.  There was one scene in particular, in which McDaniel got to flex her acting chops a bit.  When Rhett and Scarlett’s daughter is killed in a horse-riding accident, the bitter tears she shed were real and heart-felt.  McDaniel was really beautiful in that moment, and I suspect that was the scene that earned her the Oscar.

1939 – Olivia De Havilland

1939 – Olivia De Havilland

Gone With the Wind

De Havilland was a skilled actress, and though I do not begrudge her nomination in any way, I have seen her in other films, in which she played characters of far more complexity and weight.  I’m only saying that though she was good in Gone With the Wind, she was incredible in other films like The Snake Pit in 1948.  Just sayin’.

If I had to sum up her character in only three words, they would be sweet, frail, and loving.  And that was it.  That was about all there was to her character.  She loved her husband, she loved Scarlett, and she loved her son.  She was sweet and loving to everyone.  And she was physically weak, especially when compared to the story’s main heroine, Scarlett.  She seemed to get sick at the drop of a hat, and she also lacked her sister-in-law’s iron will.  But she was unwavering in her loyalty to Scarlett, never believing all the terrible things that were said about her.

At least, that was my initial impression of the character of Melanie Wilkes, as De Havilland played her.  But upon watching the movie again, I was reminded of two scenes that showed a different side to her, both of which were excellently played by De Havilland.  The first was the one in which she is still recovering from giving birth to her son.  When a Union Soldier sneaks into Tera intent on stealing whatever he can find, Scarlett murders him.  But Melanie had actually gotten out of her sick bed and was approaching the scene with a sword in her hand.  Then she offers to dispose of the body.  The other is when she lied to the police to defend her husband from arrest.  In those scenes, it was clear that there was a little fire in her after all.  And on top of that, I am reminded that her sicknesses were always because of complications with pregnancies, something that was not uncommon in those days.

But all that being said, even though her character was a little one-note, she was still likable and that was in great part due to De Havilland’s solid performance.  There was a gentleness about the character of Melanie that was clearly a part of the actress’s own personality, a trait that was important to the role.  I think she did the part justice with the subtlety of her performance.  It was clear she could act, even though the roll didn’t seem to demand that much from her.

1939 – Edna May Oliver

1939 – Edna May Oliver

Drums Along the Mohawk

The first movie I ever remember seeing Edna May Oliver in was 1930’s Cimarron, where she played a crotchety, but good natured old lady.  Well, here, she played the exact same character.  But darn if she didn’t embody that character so perfectly.  She had the right look, the right sound, the right temperament, and the right mannerisms.  She was gruff, but generous, cantankerous, but likeable.  I understand it was a bit of a contradiction, but somehow, she could pull it off.

And I get it.  I agree that her performance in this movie was worthy of an Oscar nomination.  She played the part of Sarah McKlennar, the old widow who is, as I said, gruff and almost grouchy, but who is actually kind-hearted and well-meaning, helping others around her.  Not only that, but she had enough spunk to take up a gun and fight alongside the men defending the fort from the Loyalists and their Native American allies.  Unfortunately, during the battle, she is mortally wounded and has her own little dramatic death scene.

But I liked that there were multiple facets to her character.  At one point, she is drinking and partying during a village celebration.  She becomes flirtatious with a man who is clearly affectionate towards her.  And there was an almost comedic scene where Native American raiders break into her house and begin to burn it down.  Instead of running in fear, she starts yelling at the attackers, and attempts to shoo them out of her home.  Even after the walls are set ablaze, she sits on her bed and refuses to leave until the man who is sweet on her picks her up and carries her to safety over his shoulder.  I think it was done for laughs, but it actually said something about her character at the same time.

But there is one scene that stood out to me as deeper and more intense than others.  It is when Mrs. McKlennar shows true empathy for a respected member of the community as he faces the prospect of having one of his legs amputated.  And the sadness and despair she feels, when we learn that he has bled out and died, was incredibly real and very in-the-moment.  All these things and more were perfectly brought to life by the exceptional performance of Edna May Oliver.

1939 – Thomas Mitchell (WINNER)

1939 – Thomas Mitchell (WINNER)

Stagecoach

I love Thomas Mitchell.  He is one of my favorite character actors from Old Hollywood.  He was so good in every role I’ve ever seen him play.  And the reasons why all seem to be epitomized in this great movie, Stagecoach.  Mitchell won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and he totally deserved it.  The character of Doc Boone was a fascinating one, and Mitchell did a phenomenal job.  I can’t stress enough, just how incredible he was in this movie.

First of all, and I’ve said it before, playing believably drunk is not easy.  But the good doctor is a hopeless and unapologetic alcoholic of unbelievable voracity.  He takes every opportunity he can to swallow spirits of any kind.  But what Mitchell understood about that kind of a character is that a drunk of that caliber is not always stumbling, not always slurring his speech.  He is a functional alcoholic, so when you see that he can’t walk straight, you know he’s really sloshed, which Mitchell did, every now and then.  And it was not over-the-top.  It was sad, and even a little pathetic, just like it needed to be. 

But that was only one side to the character.  There were a few times in the narrative in which he had to be sober.  The scene where he has to sober up quickly so he can deliver a baby, was great.  He is drinking coffee and vomiting, and asking for water to be thrown into his face.  The sheer determination in his eyes to save the life of the woman in labor and the baby was so keen, so intense.  But then, after the successful delivery, the way he approaches the proffered bottle, was just as intense.  Mitchell’s acting was masterful.

And at the end of the film, Mitchell once again stole the scene, when the tension of the narrative was building up towards the big climax.  The villain, who is leaving the bar to have a shoot-out with Ringo, asks the bartender for a shotgun, but Doc Boone stands in is way.  With dead conviction in his eyes, he stands up to the murderer and fiercely threatens him, saying that he’ll have him brought up on charges if he steps foot outside the bar with the weapon.  He knew he was an inch away from death himself, and Mitchell sold the moment perfectly.  So good!

1939 – Brian Aherne

1939 – Brian Aherne

Juarez

I’ll be honest, Brian Aherne is one of those actors whose name I don’t recognize at all.  I don’t think I’ve ever heard the name before, and I don’t remember his face.  Whenever that happens, I have to look up a filmography to see if I recognize any of the films they’ve been in.  But I didn’t recognize any of them.  I think he did a fine job.  In Juarez, he played the supporting role of Maximillian I of Mexico, but I almost think he should be recognized as the film’s lead.  Yes, he was up against the Hollywood superstar Paul Muni, but his part was just as big, he had just as much, if not more screen time, and he had to shoulder the lion’s share of the film’s deep dramatic content.

He is a Habsburg who is duped into becoming the King of Mexico by Napoleon III of France.  However, the common people all favor Benito Juarez as an elected president, rather than him as an appointed monarch.  But rather than abdicating the throne and stepping down when he learns of Napoleon’s plot, he tries to do right by his fabricated position, and is eventually captured and executed by Juarez.  And in fact, his death was the climax of the movie.  If anything, I think he should have gotten a Best Actor nomination instead of Supporting Actor.

So he is supposed to be a European aristocrat, and he pulled it off just fine.  He was supposed to be noble, up to the point of death.  He did that believably.  He was supposed to be a romantic man who is very much in love with his wife, he did that, too.  But it was the quieter dramatic scenes where he really earned his Oscar nomination.  His wife, who had gone to France to confront Napoleon for his underhanded political scheming at her husband’s expense, has lost her sanity, and fails to return to him.  And as much as he wanted to go to her, his complete dedication to his position forced him to remain, and be put to death.

Aherne handled those moments with a deep sense of honor and quiet dignity.  Of course, it helped that, as a British actor, he had that innate stiff upper lip and calm composure in the face of terrible danger.  It is a trait shared with most British film actors.  And he really looked the part with his perfect hair and that crazy beard!

1939 – Brian Donlevy

1939 – Brian Donlevy

Beau Geste

Beau Geste was an interesting movie, and Brian Donlevy did a good enough job, I suppose, even though his character was a little one-note.  Actually, if I had to choose a nominee for Best Supporting Actor in this movie, I might have chosen Robert Preston, but that’s beside the point.  And this isn’t the first time a bad-guy has been nominated for an Oscar.  So I have to ask myself if Donlevy’s performance was good enough to earn him the nomination?

As I’ve said before, an acting nomination should be a happy marriage of a good actor and a well-written character.  Donlevy played the part as it was written quite adequately.  But there was just very little to the character.  He played Sergeant Markoff of the French Foreign Legion.  He is a cruel man who prefers leading his men with an iron fist, and by the end, we see no character development.  We get no back story, and no reason for his cruelty except that he is just a mean guy.  And eventually, he turns to thievery, scheming to steal Beau’s gemstone for himself.

Donlevy actually did a fine job with the material he was given.  He played mean well.  He was an attractive man, made unattractive by his personality, and by a nasty scar on his face.  He played the part like I think it needed to be played, as very stoic, stiff, and military.  And he was always in his dress uniform and his smart cap; always wearing his military medals, giving him an air of smug superiority.  And all that out in the hot sun of the Saharan Desert.

I think Donlevy had two shining moments in the film.  The first was when he witnessed the death of his kindly commander, allowing him to take control of the Legionnaires, himself.  He smile, as he confirms the other man’s demise, was just the right amount of sadistic.  The other was when the fort is once again attacked by the Tuaregs, and he actually becomes a good battle commander, even if it was just for a moment.  And he even proved himself to be smart when he began propping up the dead soldiers in the battlements, to trick the enemy into thinking that there were more defenders than there actually were.  In that moment, Donlevy actually showed Markoff to be a competent military officer, despite his sadistic attitude.

1939 – Claude Rains

1939 – Claude Rains

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Claude Rains has been a great character actor in every movie I’ve ever seen him in.  He is always competent, no matter what kind of role he is playing, and this movie is no exception.  In this film, he plays one of the bad guys.  He is an old friend of Mr. Smith’s father, and a sympathetic supporter of Smith, himself.  That is, until Smith’s idealism starts to accidentally get in the way of the underhanded political scheme he is a part of.  Then he turns on him in the worst way.  He lies about his old friend’s son to discredit him and ruin his political career.

And Claude Rains, always the professional actor, does a fantastic job.  And the film never tries to hide his lies from the audience, so we know, right from the start, what kind of a man he really is.  Rains seemed to be perfect for the part.  He has the kind of face that you just want to trust.  And he hides his lies so well.  And then after his criminal boss tells him to destroy Mr. Smith, he shows reluctance, but only a little, before doing just as he it told.

There was an ease about the actor that naturally came across in his performance.  He seemed very practiced and intentional in every scene, knowing exactly how to lead the viewer along.  And then, after witnessing the phenomenal courage and stamina of Mr. Smith, he has a final change of heart.  He first tries to kill himself, then bursts into the Senate room, shouting his confession so the whole room can hear him.  It was a very powerful scene.  Rains yelling out his own admission of guilt as Mr. Smith’s unconscious body is carried from the chamber. 

Whenever you see Claude Rain’s name appear in the cast of actors, you know you are in for an intense performance.  He never seemed to do anything half-way, whether he is playing a good guy or a bad guy.  He is one of those actors who seems to really dive into his performances, almost as if he feels very passionately about the film he is making.  At least, that is what comes across whenever he is on the screen.  Honestly, I am glad he was recognized for his work in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  He seemed to really understand the emotional ins and outs of the character, and he looked good doing it.

1939 – Harry Cary

1939 – Harry Carey

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

I have to say, Harry Carey did a fine job, but I don’t think he really deserved an Oscar nomination.  Is role was pretty small, and he didn’t have too many lines. I know a big role with a lot of lines isn’t a requirement for recognition by the Academy, but it doesn’t hurt.  The more screen time an actor has, the greater his chance to have a memorable part in the film, to have a noticeable impact on the movie’s story, as a whole.  I was just underwhelmed by his competent performance.  I felt like he did what was expected of him, but not much more.

He played the president of the U. S. Senate.  He sat in his high seat, swore in Mr. Smith as a Senator, stopped Senators from speaking out of turn, and perfunctorily presided over the Senate meetings.  He had one line in one scene near the end in which he said anything beyond his official capacity as the President of the Senate.  He gave an opinion when Senators were arguing outside of the chamber.  And that was it.  Oh, he also smiled when Mr. Smith’s filibuster achieved its goal.

Aside from that, he just didn’t really do much.  Granted, he looked the part of a stuffy old politician, but I feel that almost any character actor could have played his part.  So what made him stand out above the pack?  Why was he nominated for Best Supporting Actor?    Well, I might be totally guessing, but I suspect that it may have been something like an honorary nomination for a character actor that had appeared in about two hundred forty films since his big screen career began in 1910.  Imagine that, being involved in that many movies over the course of roughly thirty years.  That would average out to about 8 films a year, every year, for thirty years.  I would call that pretty darn impressive.

Yes, there’s no doubt, he was a trouper.  And after playing the Senate President in this film, he still had another seventeen films over the next decade in which he would act.  But if that wasn’t the reason for his nomination, then I can’t figure out what was.  This is another case of an actor’s performance being just fine, but the role itself just didn’t seem worth the nomination.  He just didn’t do much, and didn’t stand out to me as a better actor than any of his co-stars.

1939 – Greta Garbo

1939 – Greta Garbo

Ninotchka

So I’ll start this off by mentioning something I noticed about this film, or at least its advertising campaign.  Garbo laughs.  That’s what they went with to bring people into the theaters.  I guess everyone was so impressed with her performance in Grand Hotel that it was Garbo’s signature attitude.  And in Ninotchka, there was an entire scene dedicated to making her laugh.  But look at her body of work before this film.  There were plenty of smiles and laughs in her many films.  Ok, now that that’s out of the way…

Garbo gave yet another great performance.  But really, as much as I enjoyed seeing her on the screen again, I have to look at her performance objectively.  She was good, but the way the part was written, it was a little heavy handed.  True, Garbo did a good job, but if you put a different actress into the roll, I doubt there would have been much different in their performances.  The script was pretty specific on how Ninotchka needed to behave.  It was a plot point.  And in truth, the scene where she laughs felt forced.  Yes, something funny happened, but she, and everyone else in the scene, seemed to be laughing way too hard, and it was obvious that they were acting.  It didn’t feel like natural laughter.

But the rest of the time, she was just fine.  She did very well in the romantic scenes.  I liked how she started out as purely professional, stoic, and abrupt.  But Garbo took her time opening up.  It was gradual, which was perfectly realistic.  And it was important, too, because by the end, I believed that she had fallen in love with her man.  Her on-screen chemistry with Melvyn Douglas felt like a breath of clean air, very alluring.

But there was one scene in particular in which Garbo’s exceptional talent as an actor was wonderful to watch.  It was the scene in which she became drunk on champagne.  Acting believably drunk while not being too over-the-top about it is not an easy thing to do, and Garbo pulled it off in such a way as to almost make me feel like my own head was spinning from the alcohol.  Overall, she did a fine job and I completely agree with her nomination.