Author: Snugglecub

1941 – Walter Huston

1941 – Walter Huston

The Devil and Daniel Webster

First off, to address the little elephant in the room, the poster says All that Money Can Buy because they actually changed the name of the movie to avoid confusion with another film that came out around the same time called The Devil and Miss Jones, but the restored the name later. 

I actually loved Walter Huston’s performance in this movie.  He played none other than the Devil, himself.  There was no pitchfork, no fire and brimstone, no horns, though he wore a hat that often gave the appearance of horns.  He was the trickster, who was out to swindle honest men out of their souls.  What was so wonderful about his performance was that he seemed to play into the mythos of old Scratch.  He was friendly and charming.  He was quick with a handshake.  But there was a maniacal madness lurking just under the surface.  There was a dark and calculating sense of single-minded purpose.  Nowhere was this more evident than in the barn dance scene.  He was playing the fiddle faster and faster, his features growing darker and more demonic as he played.

And then there was his voice, his recognizable voice that has to be a Huston Family trait.  I first heard it in his son, John Huston, in the 1977 animated film, The Hobbit, voicing Gandalf.  Walter’s voice had that same epic quality, that same gravitas, that same personality.  His voice was perfect for the sly Father of Lies.  His wide smile was almost clown-like, showing all his teeth in a slightly disturbing way.  And yet, it was strangely mischievous and disarming at the same time.

But I hesitantly venture the opinion that maybe he shouldn’t have been nominated for Best Actor.  The role of Mr. Scratch wasn’t the lead character of the film.  That character was actually James Craig, playing Jabez Stone.  He was the story’s protagonist.  It was, after all, his soul that was in danger from the supporting character of Mr. Scratch, and it was his story that the plot followed.  It’s just that, due in large part to Huston’s great performance, the devil was more interesting to watch.  Houston was a scene stealer!  He even stole that last scene of the film.  Looking for his next victim, he breaks the fourth wall and points at the audience.

1941 – Cary Grant

1941 – Cary Grant

Penny Serenade

This nomination actually surprised me, but not because I don’t think Grant deserved his nomination.  He absolutely did.  I was surprised that this was his first Best Actor nomination, and his first of only two, at that.  He is one of the most well-remembered and beloved movie stars of his time.  He was a very good actor, who seemed perfectly at home in front of the camera.  Playing the part of Roger Adams, the romantic lead in this drama, allowed him to show just how skilled he was.

Now, I’ll admit, when I think of Cary Grant, I think more of his comedic roles in films like the Philadelphia Story, Bringing Up Baby, Arsenic and Old Lace, and His Gal Friday.  But this movie was a romantic drama.  There were moments where he needed to be teetering on the edge of tears, and other times when severe depression was called for.  Grant handled it all with depth and gravitas.  The scene the leaps to mind is the one in which he is pleading with a judge not to take away his adopted daughter because he has no steady income.  The sheer desperation he was able to put into his performance was impressive.

And that wasn’t the only scene where he really leaned into the drama.  At the end, when his wife is leaving him, he knows that he has really messed up his marriage, and that it is his own fault.  Grant was amazing as he tells his wife that he can’t think of a reason for her to stay with him.  He showed more than simple depression in that moment.  There was fear as well, and that elevated the emotion of the scene to something special.

Alright, yes.  There was an amusing scene in which both Grant and his costar Irene Dunne were able to ham it up a bit and make us all laugh a little.  The baby’s first night in their home was pretty funny.  When Roger thinks the infant is missing and starts to panic, I could tell that Grant was well within his comedic element.  But when I think of this movie, it’ll be the dramatic moments that I’ll remember.  There was a reason why audiences loved the actor for such a long time, and why he had such a prolific career.  And apparently he was more than just a comedic genius.  He was as dramatic as you could want when he needed to be.

1941 – Margaret Wycherly

1941- – Margaret Wycherly

Sergeant York

OK, so I know I’ve been less than positive about the other two acting nominations for Sergeant York.  I’m not convinced that Gary Cooper or Walter Brennan should have been nominated.  But I believe this nomination for Best Supporting Actress was deserved.  The character of Mother York had an emotional range, had depth, and as a result, was interesting to watch.  From her first appearance on the screen, she did more to establish the general feel in the rural Tennessee community where the story took place than any other character.  From her, we learn that the people were stoic, strong, gentle, and religious. 

Wycherly was able to show all those things in the way she moved and the way she spoke.  She moved slowly and deliberately.  She never raised her voice.  She saw sad about her son’s disruptive behavior, and though she never shed a tear, you could see that they were being held back by strength of will.  She showed obvious love for her errant son, Alvin, but also didn’t make any excuses for his drunken tirades.  She even tried to defend him before asking the local preacher to have words with him.  That scene alone was enough to catch my attention.

But then, later on in the movie, her love for her son grows even deeper as she sees him turn his life around.  Her prayers for him to achieve his goal of buying the fertile bottomland he is after were heartfelt and passionate.  Wycherly really stood out in that scene.  And it didn’t hurt that she really looked the part.  She wasn’t pretty or glamorous.  She was just a mother who cared deeply for the welfare of her son, who was working so hard to improve his life.

And then, of course, there were the two scenes of parting and reuniting.  When Alvin left her to go to war, and her daughter asks “Maw, what are they a-fightn’ fer?” her response of, “I don’t rightly know child.  I don’t rightly know.” was perfectly delivered, as she knew that she might never see her son again.  And when he returns, the look of unvarnished relief and joy was brief, only taking a few seconds, but wonderfully portrayed.  Wycherly really did a fine job in her performance and I’m glad she was nominated for an Oscar.

1941 – Walter Brennan

1941 – Walter Brennan

Sergeant York

Here we are once again with Walter Brennan.  This is his fourth Best Supporting Actor nomination in the last six years.  This guy was on a roll and it was clear that the Academy loved him.  But I have to say, this wasn’t my favorite character for him.  There just wasn’t much to him.  He played a sweet, kindly old man, and that was about it.  There was no real drama, not much depth.  It’s almost like the Academy voters nominated him just because it was him. 

So he played the part of Pastor Rosier Pile.  One might say that he was the emotional catalyst of the film.  It was his teachings that led the errant York to become a fervent Christian, and eventually the hero of World War One.  He was simple country Pastor, who was kind, wise, and passionate.  Unfortunately, he was written as a one-dimensional, flawless, saint of a character.   And to my mind, that means that the actor had very little room to show off any of the great acting skills that he was known for.  Brennan was capable of far more than the role demanded. 

That isn’t to say he did a poor job.  I just don’t think the role itself was worthy of an acting nomination.  I much preferred his work in The Westerner or Kentucky.  In those films, he had dimension and depth.  So then I have to ask myself, what scenes in Sergeant York allowed Brennan to do some of his acting skills?  There are three that immediately come to mind. 

First, when York’s mother comes to the General Store for supplies.  Pastor Pile gently consoles her for having a rowdy son, and agrees to have a talk with him.  But that scene was more about Mother York, not the Pastor.  The second is when he talks to Alvin, telling him that religion might come a-calling like a bolt of lightnin’, when ye ain’t even expectin’ it.  He was good there.  And the third is when Alvin actually comes to the church.  He and the congregation are singing Give Me That Old Time Religion.  Suddenly he turns into a fervent Pentecostal Evangelist, getting Alvin on his knees before God. 

But that was about it, unless you consider the short sequence in which he tries to get Alvin out of the draft as a conscientious objector.  But that was more about Alvin than him.  I guess my point is that Brennan was worthy of the nomination.  The role of Pastor Pile wasn’t.

1941 – Gary Cooper (WINNER)

1941 – Gary Cooper

Sergeant York

I’m going to say something that I am guessing is an unpopular opinion.  Was he a good actor?  Good enough.  Was he an actor with a wide range?  Not so much.  Cooper had a habit of choosing roles that were very homogenized.  To put is plainly, he often played himself.  But the thing was that everybody really liked who he was.  He was a poster child for good clean American wholesomeness, and the audiences of the time responded to that persona with enthusiasm. 

In this film, as one might guess, Cooper played an all American war hero.  Aside from a slightly rough beginning, after which he made a decision to own a piece of property so he could marry his sweetheart, the character of Alvin York became a hard-working, honest and forthright man.  After the land was bought out from under him, he found religion and became a mild-mannered saint with the innocence of a child, the same character he played in many of his films.

What made his character interesting to me was the idea that once he was drafted into the Army during WWI, he attempted to be a conscientious objector, refusing to kill based on his religious convictions.  However, when in battle, he killed because it had to be done.  I really liked how the character was written after that.  The nation wanted to honor him with offers of money and fame.  But he rejected it all because he had done something he wasn’t proud of.  It was an interesting take on a war hero.  Never-mind that he gladly accepted the land and the modern house that was gifted to him at the end of the movie.  That property was still bought with the blood of German men, Sergeant!  Oh well…

But the real question I have to ask here is this.  Did Gary Cooper deserve the Oscar he took home for his efforts?  I don’t know.  Of the five nominees in the Best Actor category, I have only seen this and Orson Wells in Citizen Kane.  I’d like to think that Wells probably should have been awarded the top prize, but that’s just me.  Still, I have to follow my own rules.  An acting Oscar is the marriage of a good actor and a well-written part.  And those 1940s audiences really loved all those wholesome roles that Cooper so often played.  Sergeant York was no exception.

1940 – Ruth Hussey

1940 – Ruth Hussey

The Philadelphia Story

I was thoroughly delighted with Ruth Hussey’s performance in this movie.  It was a smart script in which nearly every character was intelligent and witty.  The main cast consisted of a quartet of characters.  A lesser known actress, Hussey had to contend with three powerhouses, Carey Grant, James Stewart, and Katharine Hepburn, and I think she held her own quite well.  She was just as quick with the fast dialogue, the perfect comedic timing, and the slight emotional drama.

Hussey played the part of Liz Imbrie, a photographer for Spy Magazine, who is assigned to cover a wealthy socialite’s wedding.  The magazine’s editor uses blackmail to get her and the writer, played by Stewart, into the home, but they have to use their own wiles to stay there.  Hers was most definitely a supporting role.  She doesn’t have a lot of screen time, but she seemed to make the most of every second she got.  She was often in the background, observing a lot of the action, but she frequently chimed in with little comedic zingers that was perfectly delivered, making her a rather memorable character. 

But she wasn’t in the background all the time.  She had her own little subplot which gave Hussey the ability to create a fairly fleshed-out character.  She clearly had romantic feelings for Mike, played by Stewart, which were not completely returned.  The unrequited love angle gave Hussey the opportunity to throw a bit of light drama into the mostly silly romantic comedy.  I really enjoyed her calm, no-nonsense attitude when speaking about her feelings for Mike.

And there’s no doubt that she was beautiful, though not in the same haughty and aloof way as Hepburn, so she didn’t overshadow the film’s lead actress.  She had more of a common, comfortable beauty with an attraction that was all its own.  And there was an intelligence that could be clearly seen in her face that wasn’t just part of the character.  It came from the actress, and was a natural part of her.  It makes me wonder what else Hussey has done, and whether she typically played supporting roles, or if she generally played lead roles.  I’ll have to do a little reading.  Either way, I think she totally deserved her Oscar nomination.

1940 – Jane Darwell (WINNER)

1940 – Jane Darwell

The Grapes of Wrath

This was an Oscar that was well-deserved.  Darwell owned this character and she was even a scene stealer at times.  She had such a strong on-screen presence and her performance was so authentic that she was simply captivating on the screen.  She played Ma Joad, the matriarch of the family, the strength and determination of them all.  She is the woman who can bend, but never break.  She keeps going when everyone else is ready to quit.  She has more than enough cause for anger or depression, and yet is filled with a stalwart sense of right and wrong, and love enough to care for the world.  This is what Darwell brought to thr screen. 

She had several scenes in which it clearly came to the surface.  The first of which was the scene where the Joad family is forced out of their home and off their land, and they are loading up a truck for the move to California.  As she is burning the contents of a box of memories, letters and the like, she finds an old pair of earrings.  She holds them up to her ears, and you can see in her eyes the memories of when she was young, of happier times when such adornments were taken for granted.  Then her expression changed to one of sadness, as the present returned, and I could imagine her wondering if she would ever have occasion to wear them again.  There was no dialogue in that scene, but Darwell didn’t need any to show us what Ma Joad was thinking.

The other scene that stood out to me was the one in which she wakes in the middle of the night, only to find that her son, who must go on the run from the law, is leaving.  The sadness and motherly love Darwell brought to the scene was amazing to watch.  This was really the film’s climax, and in the very next scene, as the remaining members of the family are moving on, themselves, she expresses Ma Joad’s strength yet again, proving that she is the glue that holds the family together through good times and bad.

Darwell really understood the character and she acted the hell out of the part.  This is one of those times when I completely agreed with the Academy’s choice in the awarding of an Oscar.  Even looking at her fellow nominees, I’m glad she won.

1940 – Judith Anderson

1940 – Judith Anderson

Rebecca

This was a truly remarkable performance.  Judith Anderson was perfectly cast as the villain Mrs. Danvers.  In this psychological thriller, she is a creepy character, who actually doesn’t commit any crime until the end of the movie, where she burns a mansion down, and intentionally stays to die in the fire.  On the one hand, she is mentally unstable, and on the other hand, she is very cold and calculating.  She has a lack of morals, but, if you look at what she does in the movie, she didn’t break any laws or commit any actual crimes.

She is actually a pretty complex character on the surface, but a simply motivated one at her core.  She was the housekeeper of the estate, and Rebecca’s personal maid when she had been alive.  Mrs. Danvers had become disturbingly obsessed with her employer, with an obsession that absolutely crossed the line into utter adoration and intense sexual attraction.  From her first appearance on the screen, where she is introduced to the Second Mrs. de Winter, it is clear that she disapproves of her, because she is not Rebecca. 

She treats her new mistress coldly and with open distain.  There are two scenes in particular which stood out to me as phenomenal.  The first is the one where she is showing off Rebecca’s bedroom to the Second Mrs. de Winter.  She is truly creepy in how she shows off Rebecca’s fur coat, then her underwear drawer, and then her see-through nightgown.  This is the scene where her strong sexual desire for Rebecca was clearly stated without ever actually being stated.  When showing off the nightgown, she says, “Look.  You can see my hand right through it,” implying that she used to love seeing Rebecca’s naked body when she had worn it.

The other scene that she was amazing in was the one in which she tries to convince Maxim’s new wife to commit suicide.  She first manipulates her into upsetting Maxim, and then, when she is in tears, she invites her over to the open window and whispers in her ear, calmly suggesting that she has nothing to live for.  Maxim doesn’t really love you.  How could he?  It would be easy to just let go and die.  It would be best if you did.  Wow.  Anderson played such a convincing villain!

1940 – James Stephenson

1940 – James Stephenson

The Letter

James Stephenson did an adequate job.  He played the part as it was written with sincerity, though he didn’t appear to have much to work with.  This wasn’t the actor’s fault.  Nor was it entirely the fault of the script.  The director had a little to do with how I saw the actor in this film.  I have three thoughts when it comes to why I don’t really agree with his nomination. 

First is that Stephenson seems to suffer from what I sometimes call British emotional subtlety syndrome.  British emotions are usually down-played so much that you’d think they didn’t have any strong emotions in them at all.  So he is a lawyer who is defending a murderess.  Her story is that she killed in self-defense.  But he learns that story is all a lie.  It is when he learns the truth that he begins to go on his dramatic character arc.  Rather than allowing her to be convicted, he buys the damning evidence and keeps it out of the trial. 

At best, this puts his career in jeopardy.  At worst, it gives him a guilty conscience.  The few times when his emotions come close enough to the surface to be seen is probably what earned Stephenson his Oscar.  But really, even those moments were subtle to a fault.  For example, during the trial, he lies through his teeth, proclaiming his client’s innocence. He pauses once or twice in his closing arguments, and you can see him sweating.  But that was about it.  The problem is that, though the dramatic emotion was there, I really had to look for it. 

The second thing had to do with the way his character was filmed by the director.  I think he spent more time with his back to the camera then he did his face to it.  He was in scenes where he wasn’t the focus of what was happening, or even what was being said.  It was a disservice to the actor, and it didn’t help his performance.

But the third thing that I think took away from his performance was the script.  He was just written as an emotionless man, so I guess in that respect, he played the part well.  It just made him a little uninteresting to watch on the screen.  In the end, his performance was good, but maybe not worthy of an Oscar nomination.

1940 – Jack Oakie

1940 – Jack Oakie

The Great Dictator

Jack Oakie had a really difficult task to accomplish in this movie, and I think he handled it perfectly.  He had to go up against Charlie Chaplin.  It must have been pretty daunting to try to keep pace with such a legend.  But he pulled it off, and created a memorable character.  And honestly, I think he was just as funny as Chaplin.  The character of Benzino Napaloni was a parody of Benito Mussolini, with a touch of Napoleon Bonaparte thrown into the mix.

He actually doesn’t have a lot of screen-time, but when he was on the screen, he was a bit of a scene stealer, and that’s saying something, again, when he shared the screen with Chaplin.  There was a confidence about him that demanded attention.  And it was necessary for the character.  He needed to be just as much of a megalomaniac as his partner in crime, Adenoid Hynkel.  He was just as self-obsessed, just as maniacal, and most importantly, just as silly.  In fact, I’d even say that the two men had a really great on-screen chemistry.  They really knew how to play off of each other to create some really funny scenes.  I particularly liked the running gag each time they tried to shake hands.  One would extend his hand while the other would raise it in the Nazi salute.  Each realizing their mistake, they would both switch at the same time, back and forth, back and forth.  Yeah, it was a little corny, by today’s standards, but I can’t deny that it was still funny. 

And just as Chaplin had that fast-paced silly German accent and nonsense dialogue, so too did Oakie have to deliver all his lines just as rapidly, but with an Italian accent.  You see, I don’t think he, or Chaplin, for that matter, were making fun of Italians or Germans.  They were making fun of Mussolini and Hitler.  And they weren’t just making fun of them.  They were making political statements, calling real dictators buffoons. 

So here’s the thing.  While I know that Jack Oakie did a fantastic job, I have to ask if his performance was so outstanding as to warrant an Academy Award nomination.  And the short answer is… I don’t know.  Did the actor deserve the recognition?  I think so.  Did the role itself deserve it?  Maybe not.  An Academy Award nomination should be a good blend of a well-written character and a skilled actor.  And Benzino Napaloni was written to be silly, which is difficult to translate into intense or powerful.  And the more I think about it, Chaplin was able to pull it off.  The script just didn’t give Oakie enough time or range to do the same thing.