Author: Snugglecub

1939 – Irene Dunne

1939 – Irene Dunne

Love Affair

It has been a while since I’ve seen this movie, and I am glad to be reminded of just how perfectly cast Irene Dunne was in the role of Terry McKay.  I’ve always really enjoyed Dunne as an actress because had a beauty that was enhanced by an innate intelligence that not all Hollywood actresses possessed.  And that intelligence came out in her acting, too.  So her attractiveness was more than just skin deep.  It came from her body, her heart, and her mind.

So the big draw of the story, as you might imagine from the film’s title, was the romance, and I loved how Dunne portrayed it.  At first Terry tries to resist it.  She tries to use logic to keep her emotions at bay.  But eventually, when she realizes she cannot, she gives in to it completely.  But she allows time for both her lover and herself to put their lives in order so that they could be together without deceiving their current partners.  So they both did just that.  He leaves his fiancée and she breaks it off with her boyfriend.  Unfortunately, on the day they were to reunite, she is hit by a car, paralyzing her from the waist down, preventing her from keeping her appointment with her man.

One of the most powerful moments in the movie is when Terry finally gives in to her passions and accepts that she is in love with Michel, played by Charles Boyer.  The lighting of the scene, the framing, and the dramatic soundtrack all sold the scene, as did Dunne.  As Boyer walks out of the scene, the camera lingers on Dunne and an image of turbulent waters is overlaid over her worried face.  She made me understand all the layers of emotion her character was experiencing as she resigned herself to whatever was to come in her star-crossed romance.

And she could sing too.  I’ve seen her sing in other films, and I really liked her lyrical soprano voice.  Many female singers in films of that era had voices that came across as shrill, but not her.  She sounded robust and yet practiced, and very pleasant to the ear.  I always know I’m in for a good ride when Dunne is part of the cast.  Yes, this was a worthy Best Actress nomination, though I understand why she didn’t win.  I mean, she was up against Vivien Leigh in Gone With the Wind.

1939 – Greer Garson

1939 – Greer Garson

Goodbye Mr. Chips

Greer Garson was absolutely gorgeous, and she played the part as it was written perfectly.  The problem is that I don’t think the part was an Oscar-worthy role.  The character was sort-of one-note.  She started off as an inhumanly nice lady, and ended the same way.  There was no drama in the character, nothing interesting.  Garson, who I know is a very good actress, didn’t have to stretch herself.  She didn’t have more than two or three emotions in the entire film.  And while she played her part beautifully, it was just a boring part.

I mean, the character was sweet and charming, and that was it, from her first appearance on the screen to her last.  In proper British fashion, there were never any highs or lows to her emotional range, there wasn’t any conflict, no tension, and certainly no anger.  Quite frankly, I can’t figure out why she was nominated.

Garson played the part of Katherine, the young wife of Mr. Chipping.  Honestly, her character was written to be so sweet and perfect, lacking even the smallest flaw, that she was quite unrealistic.  People like Katherine don’t really exist anywhere except on paper, in a writer’s imagination.  And that was how Garson played her.  Her every thought seemed to be pure, loving, completely and unquestioningly supportive of her husband (after all, it was still the 1930s…) and kind to a fault.

Actually, that’s not true.  There was a scene in which she and Mr. Chips were sitting at a table while everyone around them was dancing.  It was clear that she wanted to dance, too, but doddering young Mr. Chips was too clueless to see what she wanted.  I could see a slight furrowing of her brow, and that was all.  It was the only time in the entire movie where she seemed a little frustrated with her man.  But not to worry.  They eventually dance and she feels a little sad because they will have to part and say goodbye the next day.

The thing is, I’ve seen Garson in other films, films in which she was given the opportunity to show off her skills as an actor, and she was great.  I’ll say it again.  I can’t figure out why she was nominated for Best Actress.  The role wasn’t worth it.

1939 – Bette Davis

1939 – Bette Davis

Dark Victory

Here we are once again with Bette Davis, proving one more time that she was a major powerhouse in her day.  I think this was a rather special role for her, insomuch as I am used to seeing her play mean or even bitchy characters.  Just look at her in her other Best Actress nominated films like Of Human Bondage, Dangerous, and Jezebel, and also future films like The Letter, All About Eve, and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane.

But here, she plays a woman who uses a slight bit of cattiness to cover a justifiable fear of impending illness and death.  But after the good doctor warms her over, she plays a good and honest woman who only lashes out when she discovers she has been lied to in the most phenomenal way.  Yes, both her doctor and her best friend decide that lying to her about her terminal illness is the best way to handle the situation.  Then when she finds out by accident that she only has a few months left to live, she gets understandably angry, and in that moment, I didn’t blame her.

The difference in the way she approached the character of Judith Traherne was noticeable.  She didn’t go out of her way to attack people, but used sarcasm and flippancy as a way to deflect attention from her failing health.  Other than that, she was kind, generous, and even gracious, a side of the actress that is not entirely absent from her body of work, but is generally overshadowed by her darker side.  I actually liked the character of Judith, as Davis played her.

For me, the scene that earned her the Oscar nomination was the one in which she learns that her brain tumor is terminal.  She discovers the lie, and the look of mortal terror and betrayal is written all over her face.  Davis really sold that moment.  Of course, when she confronts her doctor, who is now her fiancée, and her best friend, she reverts to her old tricks of delivering vicious dialogue with wide eyes and a sharp smile.  As I said, I think that in this case it was justified, but it was an attitude and demeanor we’ve seen all too often in other films.  As usual, Davis did a fine job, proving once again that she deserved the honors the Academy loved to bestow upon her.  I say well-done on the different, nuanced character.

1939 – Vivien Leigh (WINNER)

1939 – Vivien Leigh

Gone With the Wind

Vivien Leigh had been working as an actress on the big screen for several years when she landed this role in an incredibly high-profiled movie.  This is the one for which she will be forever remembered.  This is what put her on the public’s radar.  She was so good.  It was as if the part were written for her. 

This movie was an epic that took place over the course of twelve years, following Scarlett from the age of sixteen to twenty-eight.  Leigh had to believably play the young Southern Belle, and the hardened adult.  From the height of happiness and depths of despair, from the ridiculously naive to the weathered and devious.  She sometimes had the physical appearance of frailty, but it was clear that there was an inner strength born of fire and passion. 

Vivien Leigh had to embody all of these things and more in order to do the part justice, and I think she knocked it out of the park.  But that being said, I didn’t really like the character of Scarlett O’Hara.  She was a horrible person who treated everyone around her terribly.  The way she treated the slaves, her family, and her friends just made her an unlikable character.  But that’s why Leigh did such a great job.  I don’t think we weren’t supposed to like her.  We were supposed to hate her for her vanity and selfishness, and yet respect her for her inner strength and resourcefulness.  And that’s exactly what Leigh gave us.

And by the end, despite all the terrible things she did, we were happy when she finally realized that she actually loved Rhett instead of Ashley.  We were hopeful that after the credits began to roll, she would go out and win Rhett back.  We wanted her to turn her life around and become the best version of herself she could be.  The role of Scarlett put Leigh through the full spectrum of human emotions and she did it all while staying incredibly true to the character.  Because of Leigh’s masterful performance, we rooted for her despite all the ghastly behavior. I think Leigh really deserved her Oscar for playing the complex and engaging character so beautifully, with a real understanding of the heroine’s emotional journey.  Congratulations on the well-deserved win.

1939 – James Stewart

1939 – James Stewart

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

OK, I can understand why this was such a popular movie, especially considering when it was made.  It was only a few years before the start of WWII, and it was a movie that was designed to inspire patriotism and good old fashioned American values, as if America was the only place in the world where there were good and wholesome people.  Just look at how our presidents of old like Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington were so prominently displayed.  Just don’t look too hard…

And James Stewart could so easily be seen as the embodiment of that idealistic small town goodness that ends up saving the day.  He plays the title character of Mr. Smith, someone whose wholesome naiveté, whose stalwart belief in the rightness and purity of his own convictions, and whose unwavering determination to always do what’s right in the face of evil, teaches others to abandon their nefarious ways to become honest and repentant.  Doesn’t Stewart just have that kind of face?  But on top of that, he could actually act.

In the beginning of the movie he played someone who was unrealistic.  I’m sorry but when I see a grown man using the phrase “gee whiz“ I need to roll my eyes, just a bit.  But the sinful city of Washington DC soon leaves its mark on him and he begins to see the world more clearly.  Obviously, Stewart could pull off the naïve small town boy.  But the more calloused righteous crusader allowed him to show more strength, determination, and conviction than he could at the beginning.  He got to portray physical toughness, mental stamina, and the sheer exhaustion of both.  It was in those climactic scenes where Stewart really got to show the audiences his strong skills as an actor.

The filibuster scene was so well done, and I suspect that it’s what earned Stewart his nomination.  The sweat on his face, the hoarseness of his voice, and his unstable movements really drove home the illusion that he had been on his feet and talking without ceasing for nearly twenty-four hours.  It is what made the rest of the heavy-handed patriotism of the film worth wading through.  And I guess that after watching that sequence, I don’t begrudge Stewart his Best Actor nomination.

1939 – Mickey Rooney

1939 – Mickey Rooney

Babes in Arms

It’s a good thing I’m rating Mickey Rooney’s performance and not the movie.  It may have been acceptable in 1939, but dear God, this one didn’t age well.  The movie was shamefully racist, even going so far as to show an entire stage of white performers wearing black-face in one of the films many musical numbers.  And both Rooney and Judy Garland were there in the forefront of that scene.

 Rooney was only nineteen years old when Babes in Arms was released.  But as could many actors of the day, he could sing… well, sort-of… and he could dance.  I’m just saying that singing clearly wasn’t his best talent.  He was primarily an actor, and he could do that pretty well… uh… most of the time.  But I wouldn’t have nominated him for Best Actor.  And I have two very specific reasons why.

First, this was a musical.  You’d think that a lead actor in a musical should be able to sing.  And yes, he sang a few lines passably well, but the lion’s share of the male singing in the film was given to Douglas McPhail, who had an incredible voice.  Rooney only sang in fairly soft passages and for only a few measures at a time.  The rest of his singing was done in what I sometimes call speak-singing.  He basically spoke his lyrics rhythmically.

Second, and I know I might be a little unpopular for saying this, but I’ve never been a huge fan of Rooney’s over-the-top style of acting during his younger years.  Most of the time, he was fine, good even, like when he was arguing with his father, or when he had a romantic scene with Garland.  His comedy bits were good, too, like when he was impersonating Clark Gable and Lionel Barrymore.

But then there was that small scene where he hammed up his performance so much that it took me out of the story.  Early in the movie, he is given a hundred dollars for a song he has written.  He suddenly turned into a looney-toons cartoon character, hooting, screeching, and gibbering like he belonged in an insane asylum.   To me, that’s not good acting.  That’s just ridiculous.  Maybe I should blame the director for that, but his performance in that scene wasn’t at all Oscar-worthy.

1939 – Laurence Olivier

1939 – Laurence Olivier

Wuthering Heights

Laurence Olivier did a fantastic job in this movie.  The role was emotionally dynamic and had a wildly intense climax.  The character of Heathcliff was not particularly a likeable character, but then, he wasn’t supposed to be.  He was angry, vengeful, and passionate to a fault, all traits that, as a typical British actor, Olivier was not supposed to display.  Case in point, look at the roll David Niven portrayed in this movie.  But Olivier broke that mold in an incredibly powerful way.

Heathcliff was so madly in love with Cathy that his every action in life was with the goal of either being with her, or being near her.  Even his loveless marriage to her husband’s sister was done with the goal of being close to her in mind.   And when she was dying, he attended her on her deathbed, supplanting her husband’s rightful place at her side, he sobbed over her dead body.  And in that climactic scene, he begs her ghost to haunt him and drive him mad until he could join her in death.

That was where Olivier showed those raw emotions that, as a Brit, he was not supposed to show.  But he knew that the part demanded the sobbing, the deep emotional trauma, the reckless giving in to his passions.  Olivier really delivered.  And I think that maybe his performance seemed just a little more over-the-top than it otherwise might have been, because the incredibly subdued David Niven was standing right next to him.

But his performance was more than that one final scene.  The role required a distinct difference of portrayal from the beginning of the movie to the end.  Heathcliff came from humble peasant beginnings, but later became an angry and vengeful man of wealth and power.  Olivier played both facets of the character well, one with a mix of humility and fire, the other with aggression and obsession.  Though he was only thirty-two when he played the part of Heathcliff, Olivier did a great job with the complex character.  He seemed to carry himself like an older actor with more experience.  There was a confidence about him that was unmistakable.  In fact, had I been one of the Academy voters, I would have voted for him instead of Robert Donat.  Just sayin’.

1939 – Clark Gable

1939 – Clark Gable

Gone With the Wind

This was an incredible epic movie, and Gable, playing the iconic part of Rhett Butler, was perfectly cast.  He was awesome, and honestly, he was my favorite part of the movie.  This was the perfect combination of a well-written character, and a skillful actor who knew exactly what he was doing.  Not only did Gable look the part, he understood the role. 

What I loved about Rhett and the way Gable played him was that he wasn’t a typical Southern Gentlemen.  He was crude, honest, charming, manipulative, and completely unapologetic about it.  He told the truth whether or not it was what people wanted to hear, or whether or not he would become popular.  He’s the kind of guy, who, if asked, “Does this dress make me look fat?” would answer, “Nope.  Your fat makes you look fat.”  But he’d say it with such charm that you wouldn’t be able to get mad at him.

Part of it was the way the character was written, but the rest was how Clark Gable played it.  He exuded confidence and affability.  He had a swagger that was disarming.  And his genuine smile certainly didn’t hurt much.  And he had a way of laughing in the face of danger.  He rarely lost his composure or his sense of humor, and when he did, it was almost always because of his Achilles heel, Scarlet O’Hara.

He loved her because, as he stated more than once, she was like him.  They were survivors, resourceful, and pragmatic, but also passionate at the same time.  Rhett Butler was actually a pretty complex character.  The dichotomy of his outward persona and his weakness when it came to Scarlet, constantly pulled him in different directions. But this wasn’t Gable’s first rodeo.  He seemed to handle each facet of Rhett with an easiness about him that had to have been innate.

I especially liked him in the scene where he is drunk and taunting Scarlet, just before he ended up… well… raping her.  Where he was usually cheerful, logical, and easy going, he was really dangerous in this scene.  It was so well played by both the actors and it was a really powerful moment.  Great job, Clark!

1939 – Robert Donat (WINNER)

1939 – Robert Donat

Goodbye Mr. Chips

Ok, so Robert Donat won the award for Best Actor, and I’m not so sure I agree with his win.  Don’t get me wrong, he turned in a pretty good performance, but I might have voted for Clark Gable in Gone With the Wind.  And the reason is that Donat didn’t create so much of a character, as he created a caricature.  He played the title role of Mr. Chips, and was required to play him in different stages of life between the ages of twenty-five and eighty-eight.  And in true British fashion, he played a nearly emotionless stick-in-the-mud.  That is, until he becomes really old.  Then he becomes a nearly spry cartoon character.

I don’t know.  In his youth, he acted old, and when he was old, he acted young.  Maybe that was the way the part was written, but there was a little bit of a disconnect in my brain.  Still, Mr. Chips was a likeable enough character, no matter what age he was portraying.  And Donat did a fine job bringing him to life.  I think maybe he was a little overshadowed whenever he shared the screen with Greer Garson, but that actually lent itself well to the story being told.

Still, I suppose there were a couple of scenes in which Donat earned his award, like the scene in which he proposes to his future wife, while chasing down the train that is taking her away from him.  That was well-acted.  And then there was the scene in which his wife dies in childbirth.  The utter devastation in his face was powerful.  And then there was the scene where he is reading the names of his former students and colleagues who have died in the first World War.  There was no doubt that Donat was a skilled actor.

But I’ll go back to my earlier argument.  When he played the old man, I just didn’t buy it.  He behaved too much like a young man who was pretending to be old.  The makeup artists did a fantastic job, and he really looked the part, but there was just something in the way he behaved, the brightness in his eyes, the bounce in his step, that ruined the illusion of age for me.  So what am I saying?  Did he deserve his Oscar?  Yes, he did.  Did Clark Gable deserve it more?  I think, yes, he did.  At the very least, Gable’s performance displayed a lot more passion.