Snugglecub – Page 33 – Academy Award Best Picture Winners

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.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Cast Images

James and Oliver Phelps as Fred and George Weasley

Shefali Chowdhury and Afshan Azad as Parvati and Padme Patil

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Cast Images

Character Posters

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.