Author: Snugglecub

1938 – John Garfield

Four daughters

Ok, John Garfield was one handsome man! But what’s more, he could act.  He knew how to use his posture, his facial expressions, his eyes, and his attitude to create a complex character.  He wasn’t exactly a likable character, but I don’t think we were supposed to like him.  Garfield took that one dimensional role and gave it another layer that made me question whether Mickey Borden was just a loser, or if he was really life’s victim, as he claimed.  I mean, were his intentions good, or was he just a shiftless drifter who fell in love with a girl he couldn’t support. 

But I guess that was the big question.  If he was just a loser, would he really commit suicide so that his wife could have a better life?  And was that the coward’s way out, or an act of love and bravery?  I actually think it was both.  He knew, or at least was convinced, that he wasn’t capable of making Ann happy, so he stepped aside in a grand and dramatic gesture.  But a strong man would have done one of two things.  Either he would have just divorced her, allowing her to return to the man she really loved, or he would have pulled himself up by his own bootstraps, become a better man, himself, and become worthy of Ann’s love.

Either way, Garfield did a fantastic job.  He left me both despising and liking Mickey at the same time, so that when he died, I felt something and mourned his passing.  I have a feeling that it was a little more than the script gave him to work with, and I think the actor elevated the role.  But the whole thing worked because his ultimate sacrifice accomplished what it was supposed to.  It allowed Ann to return to Felix, and that is what the movie wanted us all to want.

The two scenes that stood out to me as very well-acted were Mickey’s first scene, and then his second to last.  In the first, he immediately showed us how he was a drifter with little concern for others or himself.  He took things without asking, he was disrespectful to strangers who would welcome him into their home, and yet he proved himself to be a talented musician.  In that second to last scene, there is a crazed look in his eyes as he determines to run his car off the road, in a successful attempt to kill himself.  Well done, Garfield.  Well done.

1938 – Basil Rathbone

If I Were King

Basil Rathbone’s outstanding performance in this movie took me completely by surprise, and here’s why.  The only kind of film I remember seeing him in are swashbuckling movies in which he is a master swordsman and fencer.  Even though he generally plays the villain, he is still handsome, brash, bold, and courageous.  He is always witty, confident, and even arrogant.  But here he plays against that go-to character, and creates a weaselly, sniveling, devious, childish, and crafty king, who looks and behaves like he has never touched a sword in his life.

And yet he pulled it off perfectly.  Not only that, he actually made me like the character by the end of the film.  The part was so well-written.  King Louis XI could so easily have been portrayed as a typical bad-guy, as many villains are in films.  But even though he did have plenty of negative qualities, he also had several redeeming traits as well, and Rathbone made them all believable.  The part was so contrary to his normal role, his performance impressed me, and showed me a completely different side of the actor.  He was amazing.

He created a memorable character.  Some of his little quirks were his distinctive cackling laugh, his hunched shoulders, his small steps, his perpetual sneer.  He played a little weasel.  Clever, confident, and petulant, all at the same time.  There was only one thing that I didn’t really care for, but I don’t hold it against him.  He was no worse than any of the other actors in the film, certainly no worse than the film’s lead, Ronald Colman.  The story takes place in France, but half the cast had a decidedly British accent.  The other half had obvious American accents.  There was no consistency, and no attention to that little detail.

But like I said, the character was written quite well.  He actually had a sense of honor… a skewed one, maybe, but honor nonetheless.  There was a touch of honesty and at times, a sense of fairness and decency.  After watching the end of the movie, I would hesitate to call his character a villain.  I might categorize him as an antagonist, but not a villain.  And I think Rathbone’s Oscar nomination was well-deserved.  It was the perfect marriage of a smart script and a great actor.

1938 – Walter Brennan

Kentucky

Walter Brennan created a great character.  A walking stereotype, but a great character.  He was the crotchety old grandpa with a kind heart… well, kind to everybody except his life-long rival.  That was what so wonderful about the role, and sadly what made him a little one-note at the same time.  But you have to give Brennan credit for being consistent from his first on-screen appearance to his last.

Brennan is a great character actor.  He has one of those faces that I remember seeing often enough in other films, always a supporting character, and never a lead.  But he was so good at it.  He was one of those actors who really inhabited a role.  Brennan’s acting could be said to be like a simple painting.  Painting something simple is tricky because it is so easy, you think anyone could do it, when in reality, if it isn’t done flawlessly, it is more likely to be seen as terrible.  Brennan’s acting was like that.  It could so easily have been a throw-away performance, but because he was such a skilled actor, he elevated the simple character to a higher level.

Brennan’s acting elevated the way the part was written into the script.  He made the cranky old man likeable, and gave him a softer side that was always under the surface.  And the fact is, I liked him.  I liked the old coot, just as I was supposed to, despite his grouchy demeanor. 

I also noticed that all the publicity photos of the actor I have seen, show Brennan as a younger and more clean-cut gentleman.  He grew a van-dyke for the role, and it looked completely natural on his face, even though he didn’t even look like the same person.  When I was watching the movie, it took me a moment to recognize him from his other film roles and publicity pics.

However, all that being said.  I’m not sure if I would have awarded Brennan the Oscar.  You see, I have also now seen Gene Lochkart in Algiers, and I think, I might have cast my vote for him.  I’m certainly not saying that Brennan was undeserving.  I’m just saying, if it had been up to me, it would have been a close call.

1938 – Robert Morley

Marie Antoinette

Honestly, this nomination was a bit of a surprise for me.  It isn’t that I think Robert Morley turned in a bad performance.  I think he played the character very well, as it was written.  It’s just that the character wasn’t very dynamic.  It wasn’t a character that made the actor shine.  For one thing, he didn’t have more than two facial expressions throughout the entire film.  For another he didn’t do much of anything that caught my attention.  He didn’t have any special dramatic moments, and he didn’t stand out to me for his skills as an actor.  Or did he…?

Maybe that was the point of the character of King Louis XVI of France.  He was supposed to me an emotionally stunted, timid, almost buffoonish man.  He was sullen and depressed, and spent most of his screen time looking confused.  And I’m beginning to think that this was a conscious choice on the actor’s part.  He could very easily been more animated, and yet he reigned it all in to give that impression of ineptitude.  Every once in a while, he fought back, rebelled against that royal upbringing that forced him to hide his emotions and deny any passionate feelings.  And when that happened, a little anger crept into him, and a little self-confidence.

So maybe the part was a little harder to play than I’m giving him credit for.  Maybe the performance was more subtle and more nuanced than I was thinking.  Maybe the real challenge of the role was the actors ability to make the perpetual timidness and the extreme lack of self-confidence.  If that was the case, then he was fairly good.  Unfortunately, it didn’t seem like it was a difficult emotion to portray, and the way the character was written, made it seem a little one-note.

And something else that I didn’t care for in the performance is that Morley spoke with a decidedly British accent.  Now, I’ll admit that this might have simply been a product of the time.  Any time they wanted someone to be snobby, wealthy, or high-class, Hollywood would simply give them that snooty British accent.  Never-mind that he was a French king.  And never-mind that there were other characters in the film that spoke with proper French accent.  Oh well.  I think this is just a case of the actor doing just fine, but the role not being especially Oscar-worthy.