Snugglecub – Page 31 – Academy Award Best Picture Winners

1936 – Carole Lombard

1936 – Carole Lombard

My Man Godfrey

This was a delightful movie with a delightful plot. The actors were all perfectly cast, but if there was one character I couldn’t stand, it would be the female romantic lead, Irene Bullock, played by Carole Lombard. I didn’t like Irene, and I didn’t like the way the movie ended because of the character. And the strange thing about that ending is that the male lead, Godfrey Park, played by William Powell, never showed an ounce of genuine affection for her either.

The character of Irene Bullock was a spoiled woman with the emotional maturity of a two-year-old. She threw wailing, crying temper-tantrums when she didn’t get her own way. She forced her affections on Godfrey, even when he consistently, yet politely, rejected her advances. She was spiteful and vindictive toward her sister, rude and disrespectful to her parents, and woefully and unapologetically out of touch with reality to the point of willful vapidness.

Now granted, that was not Lombard’s fault. It was the way the character was written. But again, I go back to what I’ve said before. An acting nomination is eighty percent actor and twenty percent how the character is written. Lombard played the part as it was written, but I still couldn’t stand the character, and I think I was supposed to like her.

You see, Irene Bullock was supposed to be an emotional roller-coaster. So Lombard had to be deliriously happy one minute and suicidally depressed the next. She had to be screaming and sobbing one moment, and giddily kissing her man the next. She had to be viciously angry one minute, and sweet and cheery the next. But Lombard pulled it off. So did she do a good job? Grudgingly, I have to admit that she did, though I still couldn’t stand the character she created. Personally, I think I would have preferred an ending that would have put Godfrey with Irene’s sister Cornelia, played by Gail Patrick, or better yet, if he’d ended up happily single without either sister. But she blithely invaded his new home, and obliviously ignored his rebuffs. And since there happened to be a judge on hand, she married Godfrey on the spot. But I’m not buying it. Godfrey was smarter than that.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Cast Images

Character Posters

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Here we are with another excellent addition to the franchise. This one is most memorable for its great villain, Dolores Umbridge, played by Imelda Staunton. She did such a fantastic job. You just end up hating her so much, which just goes to show you how good an actress she is! I mean, Voldemort is a great bad guy, but he is a fantasy. He is evil for evil’s sake, and on the surface, there’s very little depth to him. But Umbridge is a more realistic, more familiar evil. She is just a cruel woman who justifies her despicable behavior behind a mask of self-righteous civility and extreme conservative beliefs. But of course, Helena Bonham Carter was great as Bellatrix Lestrange. She was so delightfully crazy!

So here in this fifth film in the franchise, the three leads have already proven themselves to be great actors. They seem to be inhabiting their characters, a skill that comes with experience. And I have to give special props to Radcliff, in particular. He was wonderful. He just keeps getting better and better in each film of the franchise. He was perfect in the more intimate moments with his Godfather. The great conversation in Serius’ home about whether Harry is a good person or not was beautifully acted.

And I liked the film is noticeably darker than the first four films, which is as it should be. The story itself is getting darker. I’d say that at this point, the franchise is no longer geared to a younger audience. Especially after the graphic blood magic and killing curses used in the climactic scene of the previous movie, the target audience is decidedly more mature, a demographic that can handle the emotional depth of the story. It still has its whimsy, but things are getting incredibly serious, and I love it!

So let’s talk about Umbridge in a little more detail. One of the best little scenes in the movie is the horrific scene where Harry is in her office, writing lines with her special quill. Imelda Staunton was truly terrifying as she says, “… you know, deep down, you deserve to be punished.” Oh my God! As if to say, “You should be thanking me for torturing you like this, because you know that is the right thing to do. After what you did, you should want this self-mutilation.” Holy moly, that’s sick! And we’ve all had that teacher that takes just a little too much pleasure in punishing children.

And I have to comment on the exciting scene where the death eaters and the The Order of the Phoenix are dueling! It was fast-paced, chaotic, and frightening, like a thrill ride at an amusement park! But then, in the next scene, when Dumbledore and Voldemort are fighting, it was a true wizard’s duel done right. There were magical spells, fancy flourishes, attacks, defenses, and amazing visuals! It is what combat between two powerful magical duelists should look like.

OK, here’s the bad stuff, rapid-fire style. In the beginning, If Harry brought home Dudley in a near catatonic state, why would Vernon ask him, “Who did this to you, boy?” And why would they have a squib, Mrs. Fig, watch over Harry if she can’t do anything to defend him from magical threats. Why does Dumbledore try to protect Harry by keeping him ignorant? Keeping someone in the dark is never a good way to keep them safe. When Snape is instructed to teach Harry occlumency, he never gives Harry a single word of instruction on HOW to keep Voldemort out of his mind. The CGI on Grawp was terrible. Why would Umbridge follow Harry and his friends into the forest ALONE? And if the Death Eaters are all evil, why aren’t they using the killing curse a lot more?

All in all, it was another great adaptation, another impressive installment of the franchise. The movies just keep getting better and better. It’s why I can keep watching them over and over again without losing interest. And that is the mark of good filmmaking.

Top 10 Favorite Parts

The Order of the Phoenix meeting in Serius’s kitchen, and Serius winking at Harry.
Umbridge’s opening address to the Hogwarts students.
Harry’s detention in Umbridge’s office. Staunton was SO good in that scene!!
The initial meeting of Dumbledore’s Army.
The montage where Harry is teaching his fellow students.
Harry seeing into Snape’s past, and finding that his father was a bully.
Dumbledore’s exit from the school with his phoenix.
The Weasley twins’ exit from the school and their fireworks.
The battle in the Department of Mysteries
The wizard’s duel between Dumbledore and Voldemort.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Cast Images

James Phelps and Oliver Phelps as Fred and George Weasley

Richard Griffiths, Fiona Shaw, and Harry Melling as Vernon, Petunia, and Dudley Dursley

Helena Bonham-Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange

1936 – William Powell

1936 – William Powell

My Man Godfrey

I love William Powell, and not just because he was an incredibly handsome man. He had the acting talent to back up his looks. He was charming and likeable. He handled the fast paced dialogue with wit and what seemed like ease. He was captivating on the screen. And he created a character that just seemed like such a cool guy, a guy anybody would enjoy knowing.

And My Man Godfrey was a delightful movie. It, like Powell, or perhaps because of him, had wit and charm. Powell played the title character of Godfrey Park, a once spoiled son of a rich family who had been emotionally damaged, and who had become so depressed that he had turned to alcohol. His life and his emotional state had spiraled so dramatically that he ended up as a homeless man living in a garbage dump. And he blamed nobody but himself. But living in such low conditions taught him about himself and the man he had once been.

Powell had to believably start the film as a dirty vagabond, which I found fascinating. You see, I’ve only ever seen Powell play well-mannered, wealthy characters, such as Nick Charles in The Thin Man, Florenz Ziegfeld Jr. in the Great Ziegfeld, or Bill Chandler in Libeled Lady. Even in his last film in 1955, as he played Doc in Mr. Roberts, he had an air of class and sophistication. But in this opening scene, he showed a different side of himself. He was a little rougher, a little more cynical, a little more egregious. I’ve never seen him play the bad guy, but I bet he could do it marvelously. In fact by the time he starred in My Man Godfrey, he’d been appearing in films for about fourteen years, and had acted in nearly seventy films. That’s an average of about five movies a year, non-stop, for fourteen years.

But then after he takes the job of the butler for the Bullock family, he becomes that smart and sophisticated aristocrat, despite his position of service. Then Powell was in his element and his gracious charm began to shine. He was a true leading man. There was even a romantic element to the film, though it felt a little forced, especially considering the unsatisfying ending of the movie. But that wasn’t Powell’s fault, and he pulled it off with what seemed like ease and style.

1936 – Gary Cooper

1936 – Gary Cooper

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

Here, Cooper plays the simple but honest small-town man with the heart of gold. He is innocent and pure, never having been corrupted by the fast-paced life style of the big city. He has a forthright set of morals that lead his code of conduct, a clean and generous heart, and a mind unclouded by greed. In fact, he seems to be a saint whose simplistic and down-to-earth attitudes embody all that is innocent, and righteous, and wholesome. Golly-gee-whiz, he was swell! And despite the ridiculousness of the character, Cooper pulled it off.

Except for his propensity for physical violence. He had a habit of beating the crap out of people in public. It was unrealistic behavior that would have gotten him arrested in today’s society, but for which he was applauded in 1936. Seriously, at the end of the movie, after successfully defending his sanity in court, he gives his unscrupulous, money-grubbing accuser a swift right hook, right there in the court-room, in front of the judge. Oh, that’s ok. That crook had it coming! WRONG! I don’t think that would have been realistically acceptable, even in 1936! Having the moral high-ground doesn’t give you the right to punch your opponent in the face.

But the part seemed to be written for Cooper. He really did a great job bringing out the naïveté of the character, the innocence that Mr. Deeds needed. Cooper made you feel bad for him when he tells off a table of rich jerks for making fun of his quaint simplistic mannerisms. But did he have the right to sock two of them in the kissers in the middle of the restaurant? Of course. This was Gary frickin’ Cooper! He was the perfect All-American poster child. And yes, he did a fine job in the role, despite the unrealistic flaws in the character he was playing.

But the movie was more than a story about Mr. Deeds and his inherited millions. It was a romance as well, and Cooper had a fairly good on-screen chemistry with Jean Arthur who played opposite him. Cooper’s portrayal of innocent puppy-love was good, if not compelling, and his crushing sense of dejection when he learns that she has toyed with his affections is clearly brought across. But was Cooper nominated because the Academy liked his acting, or his character? I wonder.

1936 – Paul Muni (WINNER)

1936 – Paul Muni

The Story of Louis Pasteur

Hmmm… I’m ok with Paul Muni’s nomination for Best Actor, but I’m not so sure about his win. Did he do a good job? Yes, of course he did. He was Paul Muni, and I‘ve never seen him turn in a bad performance. But was the role worth the nomination? I don’t know. Did the role demand much of the actor? Did Muni have to stretch himself, dig deep and give us something extraordinary? I’m skeptical. So then I have to look at what he was up against. Gary Cooper in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Walter Houston in Dodsworth, William Powel in My Man Godfrey, and Spencer Tracy in San Francisco. Hmmm… I don’t know.

One thing I can say for Muni is that he completely transformed himself for this role. I mean physically, I would not have recognized him as the same actor who was in I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang or The Valiant. And apparently, as an actor who got his start in live theatre, Muni did his own makeup, and did an incredible job! Kudos to you Mr. Muni. But it wasn’t just his physical appearance that made him stand out from his previous roles. It was his movements, his mannerisms, his vocal production. He completely inhabited the character of Louis Pasteur.

In fact, there were several things within the narrative that gave Muni the opportunity to shine a little, not the least of which was the film’s climax, where Pasteur is recognized for his amazing accomplishments and the lives his work was responsible for saving. He gives an inspirational speech that was both powerful and humble at the same time, and Muni delivered it with passion and conviction.

The only problem with the role is that there is no real character arch. Pasteur is introduced in the beginning as a hard-working and honest scientist who genuinely cares about the welfare and betterment of humanity. He cares more about his work than his reputation. And he remained steadfastly true to that character throughout the entire film. In the end he was exactly the same. He was depicted as a saint with no discernable flaws. Muni played it well, but the character was a little dull to watch because he was almost unbelievably perfect. But I suppose that wasn’t Muni’s fault, and he did an admirable job bringing Pasteur to life.

1935 – Miriam Hopkins

1935 – Miriam Hopkins

Becky Sharp

From what I have read, this movie had the distinction of being the first full length feature film to be filmed in Three-Strip Technicolor. The version I watched was the restored version, so all the colors looked vibrant and the picture was clear. It was a beautifully photographed picture. And Miriam Hopkins, though I didn’t always like her character, did a fantastic job. The character of Becky Sharp was an almost despicable person, and Hopkins did a great job bringing that across in her performance. The terrible duality of her personality was clear to see.

I’ve heard of Miriam Hopkins before, but I don’t recall ever seeing any of her other films. She had an interesting beauty about her. For me, it was about her jawline and her mouth. They were a facial feature that stood out to me, which made her beauty slightly unconventional, her visage alluring. She had a fresh and youthful face that was interesting to look at. And she was downright gorgeous in the party scenes where she was in fancy gowns, with her hair pulled to the back of her head.

The character of Becky Sharp was a rebellious girl, an unapologetic gold-digger. She is a liar who will pretty much be nice to those who can give her what she wants, then give them the finger after she gets it. The only time she really suffers from her own machinations is when her husband becomes wise to her constant deceptions and infidelities, and leaves her. Who knew she was actually in love with him. But even then, Hopkins made Becky’s motivations clear, her emotions raw.

But in the end, we find that she isn’t all bad. She sacrifices her own happiness and security so that her best friend can marry the man she adores. She puts aside her selfish nature to give her friend love. Fortunately, an old acquaintance shows up and gives her a little money. He also gives her a book as a gift. And being true to her nature, Becky waits till he is walking away before throwing the book at his head and laughing in his face for his kindness and his money. And the whole thing is almost played off as Becky being a scamp, a jolly rogue. And darn if Miriam Hopkins didn’t have me almost liking the character of Becky Sharp, simply because of her unapologetic wickedness. Well played, Miriam. Well played.

1935 – Claudette Colbert

1935 – Claudette Colbert

Private Worlds

Man, it’s a good thing I’m only reviewing Colbert’s performance, and not the movie as a whole. I had to view it through my modern eyes, and the insensitive way it dealt with mental illness was horrible, not to mention the blatant sexist overtones of the film. But Colbert was fine, though I’ve seen her do better. Just watch her in 1934’s Imitation of Life, and you’ll see what I mean.

And I think my disappointment in her performance can be traced back to the script. As I’ve said before, I believe an acting nomination should be a partnership of actor and script. A wonderful actress can’t do much with a terrible script, but a poor actress can be elevated by a great script. Colbert was a very good actress, and she did what she could with this one, but there just wasn’t much room to shine. There was one scene in which she calms an asylum patient having a violent episode, and she was good there. There was an intensity in that moment that her character seemed to lack in much of the movie. She simply didn’t have a lot to work with.

She played the character of Dr. Jane Everest, a scientist and clinical psychiatrist working in a mental asylum. When the hospital’s management changes, the new superintendent is ridiculously conservative, and immediately demotes her without looking at her work history or even speaking to her. He believes that women have no place in professional medicine. Her solution is to meekly accept the extreme discrimination and reject the support of her friends and colleagues. I think she was supposed to be a figure of female empowerment but this utterly failed. Look how smart she is. Look how confident she is. Look how professional she is. But in the end, falling in love with the man who mistreated her was what made her complete.

Colbert could have been so much better as a woman who fought against the sexist behavior and earned respect and fair treatment from her new boss, not by being a woman he could fall in love with, but by standing her ground and not allowing him to put her down. I wanted Dr. Everest to be strong, but instead, she was weak. And I don’t know if there was anything Colbert could have done, as an actress, to bring that to the surface. That was what the script required, and she did her job.

1935 – Katherine Hepburn

1935 – Katherine Hepburn

Alice Adams

This was a good movie, and while I enjoyed Hepburn’s earlier Best Actress nomination, and subsequent Oscar win for Morning Glory, I think I liked her performance in Alice Adams better. I think the role itself was a little more deserving, and I think there was a little more depth to her performance. There was more subtlety, more nuance, and Hepburn was perfection.

There were so many good things about the performance. At the beginning of the movie, she is a young and eager girl, innocent almost to the point of naiveté. There is an immaturity that usually only exists in children. But by the end, she becomes more aware of the world around her, and is unable to turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of her family, the failures of her father.

One of the best scenes in the movie is probably one of the funniest. It is a study of uncomfortable tension, as Alice and her parents try to convince Arthur Russell, played by Fred MacMurray, that they aren’t poor. As the evening goes on, Alice’s fiction begins to unravel and you can see it in Hepburn’s face, her voice, her movements. You can see her slowly starting to lose her grip, desperately struggling to hold back her tears.

As I did a little research on the movie, I learned that the original ending in the source material, a novel by Booth Tarkington, was quite different. In it, Alice and Russell end up permanently estranged from each other. Hepburn and the film’s director George Stevens, wanted an end in which the relationship is up in the air and Alice goes off to secretarial school. However, producer Pandro S. Berman and RKO executives wanted a happy ending where the two end up together and in love. Well, the studio got its fairy-tale ending.

But now, I’ve seen enough Katherine Hepburn movies to expect great things from her, and here, I was not disappointed. This performance had depth, and really gave us a glimpse into the deep pool of talent the actress possessed. Hepburn was wonderful, and I look forward to her next nomination.