Snugglecub – Page 32 – Academy Award Best Picture Winners

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

For a long time, this was my favorite of the Harry Potter movies. I loved the new characters, I loved the climax. I loved the concept of the Tri-Wizard Tournament. I loved the visual effects. And while I still love all those things, later films in the franchise have taken my top spot.

So I’ll start off with the main cast and the characters they play. It is clear that the three leads, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson are growing in maturity, skill, and believability. They were great. I have to give special props to Radcliffe. Of course, he had to shoulder the most screen time, most of the action, and he did a fantastic job. You can really see the steady improvement in his skills as an actor. Grint actually did a great job, even though Ron was kind of a jerk for most of the film. I’m sure he was just following the instructions of the film’s director, Mike Newell. But most improved goes to Emma Watson. Her acting suddenly became more serious, more mature, and it was wonderful to see.

Little by little, over the course of the franchise, Robbie Coltrane’s Hagrid kept getting less and less screen time. By the final film, he was barely in it at all, save for a few short scenes. Michael Gambon did a great job, even with his notorious deviation from the books in a crucial moment. Fans of the books will know what that means. Then there was Cedric Diggory, Fleur Delacour, and Viktor Krum. The real problem with their characters is that they were little more than window dressing. They had very few lines, and were mostly just there to look at, except for Cedric, whose roll was a little bigger. And there was Rita Skeeter, Madam Maxim, and Igor Karkaroff, all of whom were well-cast. And another new Defense Against the Dark Arts professor, Alastor Moody, who was fantastic!

And speaking of the main villain, we finally got a full-fledged Voldemort. Ralph Fiennes did an amazing job! If he was a real person, he would be terrifying! He is nothing less than a psychotic murderer who takes pleasure in his own evil. He was only in one scene, but he made such a big impact. His every movement, spoke volumes about his character, and Fiennes was brilliant! And the scene in which Peter Pettigrew brings him back is the darkest moment in the whole franchise, up until this point. I mean, my goodness! Wormtail cuts off his own hand as part of the spell to resurrect the dark Lord.

So here were some of the things about the movie that bothered me. The fact that his name came out of the Goblet of Fire constitutes a binding magical contract? So… what? Would he die if he didn’t compete? If the whole point of Voldemort’s plan was to get Harry in the graveyard alone for the resurrection spell, why didn’t Barty Crouch Jr. just turn Harry’s shoe into a port-key? And Ron. It didn’t make any sense that Ron believed that Harry was a liar. Hiding behind that small rock would probably not have saved Harry from a blast of Dragon fire. Why couldn’t Harry or Hermione find the bubble-head charm in any of their research for breathing under water? And the movie never explained that It was Barty Crouch Jr., disguised as Moody, who was using the Imperius Curse on Krum in the maze.

And the challenges were all supposedly watched by crowds of spectators. Except that in the first challenge, the spectators would have been in just as much danger as the champions. And when Harry and his dragon were on the roof of the castle, nobody would have been able to see them. And during the second challenge, nobody would have been able to see what was going on under the water. And in the third challenge, nobody would have been able to see the champions inside the ridiculously gigantic maze. The challenges were not, in any way, designed for spectators. Ah, but who cares. It all still looked great on the big screen.

Top 10 Favorite Parts

The Quidditch World Cup.
The arrival of the students from the other Wizarding schools
The scene where Moody shows the unforgivable curses to the students
The dragon challenge
The scene where Harry asks Cho Chang to the Ball
Hermione’s entrance to the Ball. “She looks beautiful.” Perfectly delivered
The Yule Ball. I particularly loved the Durmstrang uniforms.
The resurrection scene and Voldemort chastising the Death Eaters
The wand battle and the ghosts of Harry’s parents.
The reveal of Professor Moody’s true identity.

1935 – Elisabeth Bergner

1935 – Elisabeth Bergner

Escape Me Never

I am really unsure about this nomination. My opinion keeps going back and forth. Did Elisabeth Bergner do a good job, or did she not? Did I like the portrayal, or did I not? Honestly, I’m not certain. On the one hand, she played the part of Gemma Jones, a poor girl with a baby trying to survive on the streets by lying and stealing food, with a frailty that seemed to lend itself to the character. But on the other hand, when the character became stronger, she never lost that frailty, that not-so-subtle air about her that wasn’t quite in touch with sanity.

You see, I’ve never even heard of Elisabeth Bergner before watching this film, and as far as I know, I’ve never seen any of her other movies. So I don’t know if this slightly touched persona is inherent to the actress, or if it was her acting the hell out of the part. So I did a little research. Bergner started acting in films in the early 20s, which explains why some of her movements and facial expressions seemed almost like throwbacks to the silent era.

She was an Austrian-born actress who made a name for herself for her stage work in Berlin and Paris before moving to London. That means her accent was not a skilled accomplishment of acting. It was real. So really, that’s just smart casting. That’s not to say her acting wasn’t good, because it really was. Her natural frailty and vulnerability was perfectly suited to the character. But then I also learned that the film is based on a play that was written specifically for Bergner by Margaret Kennedy. So no wonder she seemed so natural in the role.

Yes, she had that natural frailty, but there was also a strange kind of confidence that was somehow also ephemeral. The scene where Gemma tells her husband’s lover that he is married was perfectly played, with a solid kind of strength that, for that moment, overcame her frailty. And the scene where her baby died, and her uncaring husband wouldn’t even listen to her enough to learn what had happened, was heartbreaking. And after that, her already tenuous grip on reality became even weaker. But was her performance good enough for an Oscar nomination? Sure. Why not? But I think I agree with the Academy’s choice of winner.

1935 – Bette Davis

1935 – Bette Davis

Dangerous

Bette Davis’s first Oscar nomination was only a year earlier in 1934. But here she is again with her first Oscar win for Best Actress. And here, I think the award was well-deserved. Not only did I like the movie and her character more, but I think she played it beautifully. She had just as much skill and conviction as she’d had the previous year, but here, there was the extra added bonus of a character that was almost relatable, almost likable.

There was a fire and a passion that Davis had that she knew how to use. She had the sweet face of an angel, and those incredibly expressive eyes. But based on her 1934 role in Of Human Bondage, and this performance, she was getting used to playing a certain type of woman, one that was a femme-fetal. The woman she plays is self-centered and even heartless sometimes, but Davis always plays it so well.

At least here, her character had some redeeming qualities that made me like her, by the end of the film. She played the part of talented stage actress Joyce Heath whose star had fallen, turning her into a pitiful drunk, wandering the city streets. She believes herself to be cursed, only able to connect to men by draining them dry and destroying them. But her character had a wonderful arc. There was a moment of epiphany that changed her for the better, and by the end of the movie, she had become a good intentioned and honest woman who could set aside her own selfish desires in order to do the right thing.

And Davis played it all with skill and passion. It wouldn’t be a Bette Davis film with the obligatory scene in which she yells at someone and tells them off. It almost seems to be a trend or a signature with her. But with those intense eyes, she is always able to pull it off. And something else she had here was a little bit of sexy. There was a scene in which she is trying to seduce Franchet Tone’s character, and she really gave off a smoldering, sexy vibe that worked pretty well. And that’s something that I don’t really associate with Bette Davis as a celebrity or a personality. She is dramatic, intense, and always, somehow, imperious, but rarely sultry. So, well-done Bette. You deserved your Oscar win.

1935 – Franchot Tone

1935 – Franchot Tone

Mutiny on the Bounty

So, here is another example of a supporting actor getting a Best Actor nomination, simply because that was no Best Supporting Actor category had not yet been created. And honestly, I don’t think he deserved the nomination. And I say that based on both his acting skills, and the way the character was written. True, there wasn’t much to his character, and I’m not sure what he could have done to improve it much from the page to the screen, but throughout the film, he didn’t have more than three facial expressions, making him seem, at times, emotionally flat.

He played the part of a wide-eyed youth who has his naïve and idealistic notions of being an officer in the Royal British Navy crushed by the evil Captain Bligh. Honestly, his character was so one-note that he was boring to watch. And his acting ability seemed as green and inexperienced as the character he played. There were several times when he had to go into either a moralistic or inspirational speech. When that happened, his smile vanished, and he looked like he was trying too hard to be deep and dramatic.

He played Mr. Byam. In the original novel, Byam was the main protagonist, but in this film adaptation, it file like he had been relegated to a supporting character, being completely overshadowed by Clark Gable and Charles Laughton. He played the part of the innocent sailor well enough, but that was about all he played. I have a feeling the character could have been much more crucial to the plot, and much more complex and interesting than he was allowed to be in this movie.

But for the moral lesson that the film built up to in the last few scenes, he almost could have been written out of the film and little would have changed. The way the role was played by Tone, Byam was weak in will, and weak in conviction. Even in the film’s climax, when Byam is unjustly sentenced to death, and he finally speaks out in support of Fletcher Christian’s mutiny against Bligh, he barely registers any strong emotion that would certainly have been fitting. The least he could have done would be to raise his voice, point a finger, something. But no. I didn’t feel the passion or conviction I think the moment needed from him.

1935 – Clark Gable

1935 – Clark Gable

Mutiny on the Bounty

I liked Clark Gable’s performance in this film. Unlike his co-stars Charles Laughton and Franchot Tone, his character was well-written, and well-played. Gable actually did some pretty amazing things with the character that made him authentic and interesting to watch. His character had an arch, going from an honest and forthright career navy man to a mutineer. Then, Gable made Fletcher Christian a noble and tragic character who only made the transition reluctantly. For me, it was Gable who made this movie really work.

First off, he was an incredibly attractive man. He had that smile that, when he turned it on, lit up the screen and instantly brought you on board with whatever he was going through. But he also had the talent to back it up. He could play smiling and eager in one scene, calm and introverted in the next, then powerful and commanding. He seemed very much at ease in front of the camera. And he knew how to develop that character arch slowly over the course of the narrative. You could see the change gradually happening, and feel for him every step of the way.

There were two scenes that stood out to me. First was where the Bounty’s surgeon died on the deck because Captain Blight demanded his presence on the deck, even though he was too sick to stand. The raw emotions of barely suppressed anger and grief Gable displayed in that moment was so real, so expertly portrayed. The second scene was the moment when the mutiny began. His righteous anger was so intense and insistent that I would have joined his band of mutineers, myself.

Clark Gable is widely considered one of the greatest movie stars of his day. He knew how to get into the skin of the characters he played. Most people today only know him, if they know him at all, because of Gone With the Wind, and to be sure, he did a great job in that film. But here, he did a fantastic job, giving us a great portrayal of a conflicted man who felt no way out of his unfathomable situation than to become a mutineer. I think that Gable really deserved his Oscar nomination, but that being said, I agree with the Academy’s decision. Victor McLaglen’s outstanding performance in The Informer was just better.

1935 – Charles Laughton

1935 – Charles Laughton

Mutiny on the Bounty

Well, I’ll start this off by just coming out and saying it. I don’t really think Charles Laughton should have been nominated for Best Actor. And it isn’t because of his acting ability. It is because I don’t think the role, the way it was written, deserved the honor. The character was so over-the-top awful that it didn’t have any redeeming qualities and no character arch. Laughton did as good a job as anyone could have with the part, but the screenwriter only wrote Captain Bligh as a one-dimensional character.

I’ve said before that I think an acting nomination needs to be a happy marriage of a well-written role and a skilled actor. A great actor shouldn’t be recognized for a poorly written part, and an expertly written part won’t be recognized if it is played by a terrible actor. Charles Laughton, unfortunately falls victim to the former. Was the character of Captain Bligh a mean and cruel man? Yes, he was, but that’s all he was. The way he was written, he was a terrible tyrant, and nothing more. He was a flat and colorless character.

There were only two scenes in the whole movie, which collectively lasted only a few minutes, where Bligh showed a different side. The first was the scene where they landed in Tahiti, and Bligh met with Hitihiti, the chief. Cordial diplomacy is used. The other is when he helps his fellow cast-offs survive at sea in a lifeboat. In all, it added up to less than five minutes in a two hour and twelve minute film. In my book, that’s not good enough. If they had given him any genuine or realistic redeeming qualities, I might feel differently, but they really didn’t

But as I said, Laughton did as good a job as anyone could have done with the role. He played mean and cantankerous well. From his first moment on the screen to his last, with those minor exceptions, he played the exact same part. But maybe that was why he received his nomination. He played that one character trait so well. He was supposed to be unlikeable, and Laughton made sure he was. So I suppose he did his job. I just don’t think the role itself was worthy of a Best Actor nomination. Sorry, Charlie.

1935 – Victor McLaglen

1935 – Victor McLaglen

The Informer

Victor McLaglen took home the Oscar for his performance in this film, and I think he absolutely deserved it. And he beat out some pretty big Hollywood names like Clark Gable and Charles Laughton. McLaglen was incredible. He played an Irish man who betrays not only his good friend, but the whole Irish Republican Army at the same time, by going to the police as an informer. All that for twenty pounds.

But the character of Gypo Nolan was so cleverly written, and so brilliantly played. He didn’t do it just for the money. He did it because everyone was so poor. His girlfriend was so poor, she was walking the streets as a prostitute to make enough money to live. He did it to give her enough money to get out of Ireland and go to the States. But Gypo wasn’t a smart man. With such a wealth of money in his pocket, he ends up blowing most of it on alcohol and getting so drunk he can barely stand. When his IRA buddies catch up with him and question him about the informer that got his friend killed by the police, Gypo does his best to lie and blame an innocent man. But the longer the night goes on, the more his guilt makes him drink. The more he drinks, the more money he spends. In the end, he only gives his girl five pounds, but thinks he is giving her the whole twenty.

McLaglen played the part perfectly. There were some incredibly powerful scenes where he had to run the full gambit of emotions. From happy drunk to guilt-ridden, from angry to remorseful. The scene where he eventually confesses to being the informer, he is in tears, sobbing over and over again, “I didn’t know what I was doing.” It was heart-wrenching to watch. Such a great performance!

I’ve actually never heard of Victor McLaglen outside of this movie, but apparently he was an actor whose career lasted nearly forty years. And I say good for him. He did a fantastic job in this film. His emotional depth was so raw, so real. He was captivating on the screen. He didn’t have the typical face of a Hollywood leading man, but he had talent to spare. I’d be very interested to see more films with him as part of the cast. It is no wonder he took home the Oscar for his performance in this incredible film.

1934 – Norma Shearer

1934 – Norma Shearer

The Barretts of Wimpole Street

Well, Shearer knocks it out of the park again. But I don’t think it was her best performance. But that’s like saying she was only a nine instead of a ten. But she was still a nine. One of the things I have come to love about the actress is her complete ease and her fluidity in front of the camera. Shearer’s acting was like Karen Carpenter’s voice. Just as easy and natural as it could possibly be.

But here, she played Elizabeth Barrett, a girl who is under the emotional thumb of a father so strict it far surpasses the line into cruelty. She is ill, and has not left her sick bed for years, and her father actually tells her that he would rather have her sick and lame than disobedient and free to live her own life. And while Shearer played the part very well, the easiness of her on-screen presence was tinged with an effort that she usually didn’t have. It felt like she was trying a little too hard to be the character, instead of just being her. There was a sense of effort or discomfort with the role, like she was putting on airs that she didn’t have to put on, like she was performing for the stage and not the movie camera.

But it wasn’t constant, and she was still a delight to watch. I especially liked her in the climax of the film, when she sees her father’s absolute cruelty towards her younger sister, and decides to escape with her fiancée. You see, she was pitted against another Hollywood powerhouse, Charles Laughton, and she easily held her own. But the two played off each other well and the result was some pretty hefty drama. Shearer really showed off what she could do, and as always, I was impressed. And it didn’t hurt that her face was just made for close-ups.

And there was one scene where she had to sing a song. All I can say about that is thank goodness they didn’t feel it necessary to overdub her voice. It was definitely her. And I like that it wasn’t perfect. She was not a singer, but she did just fine, and it further added to the realism of the character. It didn’t need to be a beautiful voice in that moment. She really did the part justice and she really earned her nomination. But she was up against Claudette Colbert in It Happened One Night for the Best Actress Oscar, so maybe it was understandable that she didn’t win. Maybe.

1934 – Bette Davis

1934 – Bette Davis

Of Human Bondage

I know that this review should really be about Bette Davis’s performance, and not about the movie she performed in. But I have to say, I really didn’t care for this movie. I didn’t like any of the characters or their motivations. I didn’t like the plot. I didn’t like a lot of the stylistic choices the director made. And I didn’t like the poor picture quality. But all that being said, Davis turned a powerful performance.

This was the first of eleven Best Actress nominations that Davis received over the course of her long and prolific career as an actress. Her performance was so widely acclaimed that even though she was technically not nominated for the Best Actress category, several influential people mounted a campaign to have her name included on the ballot. According to Wikipedia, “For a period of time in the 1930s, the Academy revealed the second- and third-place vote getters in each category: Davis placed third for best actress above the officially nominated Grace Moore.”

In this movie, she needed to play a woman who heartlessly uses a man’s affections to take advantage of him, and Davis really did the part justice. I couldn’t stand the character. She was mean and self-serving. She was callous and manipulative. I wasn’t really supposed to like her, and to Davis’s credit, I didn’t. There would have been something wrong if I had.

In the first two thirds of the movie, the role of Mildred Rogers didn’t require a lot of range from the actress. She was sweet and smiling with one man, then instantly cold and unaffectionate with another, and that was about it. But in that final third of the film, Mildred went off the rails a bit. She screams at Dr. Carey, saying that she never loved him and had to wipe her mouth whenever she kissed him. The next day she trashes his apartment, slashes his beloved paintings, and sets fire to his securities and bonds, effectively destroying his medical school tuition funds. After that, she becomes a prostitute, contracts tuberculosis, and dies alone and in extreme poverty.

It was during these final scenes where Davis really shined, especially the scene in which she learns that her illness is in its final and fatal stages. I can totally see why her performance was lauded above Grace Moore’s mild performance in One Night of Love. There was a clear power in Bette Davis’s performance that made her stand out in a movie that I didn’t really like.

1934 – Grace Moore

1934 – Grace Moore

One Night of Love

Hmmm… Was the role worthy of a Best Actress nomination? I’m not sure. I mean, the character of Mary Barrett was a bit of a one-note part. Well, she was an aspiring opera star, so I guess she was a many-note part. All kidding aside, Grace Moore, herself, was a famous opera star in real life. She was an operatic soprano nicknamed the Tennessee Nightingale. Her films brought opera to a wider audience than her stage work.

In One Night of Love, the story was almost secondary to the music. The movie was nearly an hour and a half, and at least a third of it was made up of Grace singing. In order to nominate her for Best Actress, her performances in Bizet’s Carmen and Puccini’s Madame Butterfly, need to be considered as much as her performance as the romantic lead of the movie. But really those scenes were all about her singing rather than about her acting. Or maybe they were one and the same. Either way, she was nice to watch and a delight to listen to.

But that’s just it. Her acting was just fine, I guess, but I didn’t really see it as any better than her contemporaries. I mean, all you have to do is consider the two women she was up against in the Best Actress category. The winner was Claudette Colbert in It Happened One Night, and the other nominee was Bette Davis in Of Human Bondage. Moore just wasn’t on the same level as the other two leading ladies. She was like a gimmick because of her fantastic voice. There was nothing wrong with her skills as an actress, but they paled in comparison to her rivals.

That being said, she did have a great voice. One of the things I’ve noticed about movies from those early sound films is that ladies’ voices, especially when they were singing, sounded shrill and sometimes squeaky, and I suspect it was because sound engineers and technicians were still perfecting their craft. The higher the voice, the more shrill the sound. But most of the time, Grace’s voice had a full and lustrous quality to it that was perfection. A few of her high notes were a little piercing, but for the most part her vocal production and the sound recording were wonderful, and I can easily see why she was such a popular opera star.