Category: Best Actor

1929-30 – Maurice Chevalier

The Big Pond / The Love Parade

I need to say, right off the bat, that I was not able to find a copy of The Big Pond to watch, but I was able to watch The Love Parade.  But if his performance in The Big Pond was anything like any of his other film performances, and really, weren’t they all pretty much the same, I think I can safely say, I was really unimpressed, at least in the capacity of a Best Actor nominee. 

And why?  Because he was charming.  But that was Chevalier’s problem, and, if truth be told, the reason for his success as an actor.  He was incredibly charming.  His manners were affable, his smile was disarming, and the character he played was pleasant and likeable.  Granted, I have only seen a few of his films, but he played the exact same character in the same kind of role every time.  Seriously.  Consider his performances in 1931’s The Smiling Lieutenant, 1958’s Gigi, and 1961’s Fanny.  He played the womanizing yet loveable playboy in each film.  All the men liked him, and all the women loved him because, well… he was charming.

Unfortunately that was all.  I didn’t think his acting was anything special.  After all, he had only three facial expressions throughout the entire film.  There was the affable smile, the roguish smile, and the practiced smile, though they were really all the same smile.  Then there was his annoyed face where he knotted his brow a little.  And there was his angry face, which was pretty much the same as his annoyed face with the corners of his mouth turned down.  His singing, because this was a musical, was mediocre at best, and he didn’t dance.  His heavy French accent was pleasant to listen to, but it didn’t improve the caliber of his acting.

And I don’t think the role, itself, was worthy of a Best Actor nomination.  This was a romantic comedy that was so light hearted that the drama was almost nonexistent.  Not much was demanded of the actor.  The story was a fun role reversal, where the woman was the one with the power, and the man was a mere trophy husband.  Had it been a dramatic film, there might have been some serious complexity.  But if the issue of gender inequality was ever addressed, it was done so in a frivolous way, making it more of a throw-away gimmick, rather than of a real source of drama.

Sorry, I can’t find this movie

1928 – 29 – Paul Muni

The Valiant

Wow… I have to say, this is not Paul Muni’s best work, and I don’t really understand why he was nominated for Best Actor.  I’ve seen Paul Muni in enough other movies to know that he was a brilliant actor.  Just take a look at his other Oscar nominated films like I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, The Life of Emil Zola, or The Story of Luis Pasteur.  He is so much better than he was here.

I mean, he didn’t have more than two facial expressions in the entire film.  He looked grim and grave.  The blank and almost emotionless stare was certainly appropriate for the role, but if that’s all it was, I don’t think it wasn’t enough.  Seriously, that’s all I saw on the screen.  Then for about fifteen seconds near the end, his grim determination to die for his crime changed to sorrow as he says goodbye to his sister, once she has left the room. 

There was no range to his performance, no real depth.  I felt no emotional intensity, no character arch, no significant dramatic struggle.  Honestly, he was a little dull to watch on the screen.  It was almost more interesting to watch his frail, ailing mother than him.  And it makes no sense because I know how skilled an actor Paul Muni is. 

The only thing I can think of is that this movie was a talkie, though it was released during that transitional period where movies were made for silent movie theaters as well as the movie houses that were able to play movies with sound.  There were even title cards that facilitated scene changes, like in silent films.  But even that didn’t make sense for the issue of Muni’s acting.  You’d think that over-exaggerated facial expressions and gestures should have been guiding his performance, but they weren’t.  He was consistently stoic and stone-faced the entire time.

But apparently the Academy saw something that I didn’t.  They saw a depth to his performance that eluded me.  It’s too bad, because I was expecting to really enjoy his performance.  The character he played in this film could have been so much more dynamic than he was.  I’m sorry Mr. Muni.  I just didn’t see it.

1928-29 – Chester Morris

Alibi

I’ll admit that the first time I watched and reviewed this movie, as it was nominated for Outstanding Picture, I didn’t think much of it, and I gave it a pretty negative review.  Upon watching it a second time, having had a few more years’ experience in watching films, especially older films like this one, I have a lot more respect for the movie, as a whole.  And I think the film’s leading man, Chester Morris, had a lot to do with that.

Yes, his acting suffered a bit from that pesky transition between silent films and the beginning of the talkies, but that’s understandable.  In fact, this was one of those films in which some scenes were filmed twice, and two different movies were made.  One was the surviving copy we have today, and the other was actually shown in the movie theaters that were not equipped to show films with synchronized sound.

Morris played gangster Chick Williams.  He has recently been released for prison, still claiming that he’d been framed by the coppers.  Continuing his criminal behavior, he marries the Police Chief’s daughter.  Morris’s job as an actor was to convince the audience that he had gone straight, that is, until the movie’s big twist reveal.  Yes, he’s still a hardened crook, murdering people left and right.

Where Morris’s acting talents really shined was in the scene where a police detective convinces Chick that he is going to murder him in cold blood instead of taking him to jail.  That’s where the character’s true colors are displayed, and they were all yellow.  As he begs and pleads for his life, Morris shows us a bit of depth and range to his acting skills.  I also liked the scenes where he turned on his mean face.  His eyebrows became pointed and his jaw became hard.  His mouth turned into this crooked scowl that topped off the alarming transformation.  He could go from nice to scary in the blink of an eye.

Also, his death scene, which is more of a testament to the visual effects team, was done very well.  He tries to jump across an alley, from the top of one high-rise to another, and just… fails.  Bye-bye Chick Williams, and well-done Chester Morris.

1928-29 – George Bancroft

Thunderbolt

This was an ok movie, and the lead, George Bancroft, turned in an ok performance.  The movie, especially the sound design, had several strong points, but several weak points as well.  And unfortunately, the same could also be said about Bancroft’s general performance.  He was good as the hard-nosed gangster who allows love to soften his heart as he is led away to face his death sentence, and he could have been great, but he just wasn’t.  And I think I know why.

I’m aware that I can only make this assessment with my modern eyes.  The voters in 1928 would have had a very different perspective.  This movie was an early example of a talkie, and it was clear that synchronized sound was a new concept.  Directors were still figuring out how to use this new dimension in their filmmaking, and actors were still learning how to deliver their lines.  After all, they didn’t necessarily have to worry about their vocal performances in the silent era, though I suppose live stage work would have given them some experience in the matter.

I’ve observed that in silent films, in order to convey emotional intensity, actors would often deliver their performances in slow motion.  Whether they were cowering in fear, intimidating another character, or feeling sad and dejected, everything was done slowly and deliberately.  But in talkies, this just wasn’t as necessary.  Vocal inflection could convey the needed emotional poignancy, so the acting could move along at a more natural pace.

Most of the time, Bancroft did just fine, but there were times when he would suddenly slow down and take on some of those silent film mannerisms.  And it was like flipping a switch.  In one moment, he was delivering a line as natural as real life.  The next, he was moving and speaking as slow as molasses.  But all that being said, I actually thought his performance was better than that of the 1928-29 Best Actor Oscar winner, Warner Baxter.  The role was a bit deeper, and there was actual character development written into the part.  More than that, the actor gave us a wider range of emotions and created a more complex character.  I think maybe, Bancroft should have taken home the statue.

1927-28 – Richard Barthelmess

The Patent Leather Kid

Much like with Emil Jannings, I have never heard of Richard Barthelmess, but with this one, I’m not terribly surprised.  His acting was, if I had to put a word to it, unremarkable.  He wasn’t bad, but I just can’t see how he stood out enough to earn himself a Best Actor nomination.  So I have to ask myself, why?

Maybe it was the role he played in The Patent Leather Kid or the second film he was nominated for, The Noose, that caught the Academy voters’ attention.  To be honest, it didn’t catch mine.  The story was fairly bland, especially when compared with other nominated films in the Best Actor category like The Last Command, or with other movies that were nominated for Outstanding Picture like Wings, which had more dramatic storylines for the male leads.

Here he was a boxer who meets a woman who he falls in love with.  She has a patriotic streak in her, and she encourages the Kid to enlist in the military and fight for his country.  He refuses and she eventually leaves him to join the war effort, herself, as a nurse.  The Kid is drafted and is shipped to France.  He is a coward in battle until his friend Puffy is killed.  Then he becomes brave enough to fight.  But he is wounded and nearly dies, but recovers enough to face life paralyzed from the neck down.  Then his desire to salute the American flag is so great that he forces his inert limbs in to motion, apparently healed by the passion of his own patriotism.  I just don’t think the role required that much of him. 

Was Barthelmess’ Best Actor nomination due to him being a movie idol heartthrob of his day?  Well, he was certainly a handsome man, and he looked good without his shirt on in the boxing ring.  But I didn’t find him any more attractive than other leading men in Hollywood at the time.  So what was it that got him nominated?  Honestly, I don’t know.  In my uneducated opinion, neither his acting, nor the role itself were outstanding enough to be nominated for Best Actor.  Maybe his acting in The Noose was more notable, more worthy of recognition.  I would like to see that film to see if he was more dynamic.

1928-29 – Warner Baxter

In Old Arizona

This wasn’t a bad movie.  In fact, the film was actually nominated for Outstanding Picture at the 2^nd Academy Awards.  But how much of that was due to its leading man, Warner Baxter?  I’d have to say, not much.  At this point, I’ve not watched any of the other films that had Best Actor nominations, so I’ll admit that I might be mistaken.  But I didn’t think the role demanded much of Baxter.  And yet, he took home the Oscar for his performance, so I must really be missing something.

In the whole movie the character of the Cisco Kid had two, maybe three expressions on his face.  There was the happy rogue who thought very highly of himself.  There was the suspicious lover who questioned the fidelity of his woman.  And then there was the angry bandit who was betrayed by that same woman.  There wasn’t much else to the part.

The character wasn’t terribly deep, and there was very little character development.  He was a conscientious bandit who only stole from wealthy corporations, and not innocent individuals.  He was a happy-go-lucky guy who chuckled at his own escapades as a bandito.  That only really changed at the end of the film when he learned that the woman he loves has happily betrayed him for the reward money.  He gets angry.  And after he tricks her lover into shooting her, he becomes sad, rides away into the night, and the movie ends.

The part just wasn’t that complicated, and that was reflected in the range of his acting.  In other words, his acting was just fine.  It was the role that was lackluster.  Maybe if the script had given the Cisco Kid a bit more internal conflict when he turns the tables on Tonia, and she is killed.  Maybe if he showed the least bit of fear, trepidation, or even remorse about his own criminal behavior.  But he seemed just as jolly and carefree when shooting the vigilantes that tracked him down as when he was slyly shaking hands with the cavalry sergeant who was ordered to bring him in, dead or alive.  It was all the same to the character, and that was the fault of the script.  Well, the Academy voters apparently disagreed with me.

The Last Command

1927-28 – Emil Jannings

The Last Command

I’m going to be honest.  Prior to watching this film, I had never even heard of the name Emil Jannings.  But clearly he was a skilled actor, who knew exactly what he was doing in front of the camera.  He completely inhabited the part of Grand Duke Sergius Alexander, the Czar’s cousin and commander of all his armies.  The movie itself was actually incredible, and incidentally, I would put it up on par with Wings, the first movie to ever win the Outstanding Picture award.

Jannings had complete command of the screen from his first entrance as an old broken, haunted man peeking his head around a door.  He had intense eyes that drew the viewer’s attention.  He appeared damaged and frail.  His head shook constantly, as if he had a touch of palsy.  Actually, as I’m thinking about it, permanent character mannerisms or movements might have been like verbal accents in silent films.  It’s alright if it is there, as long as the actor keeps it consistent.  If he drops it, the audience will notice.  Jannings did just fine.

The complexity of the film, and of his role, demanded a lot from the actor, and Jannings clearly understood the nuances of the character.  The film starts out as he is cast in a film about revolutionary Russia.  As he is getting into his costume, we learn that he was actually once great man, Russian royalty.  But now he is poor and humbled, living in a foreign company, and stripped of all his former titles and privileges.  Then the flashback begins, and we see him in his prime, a proud and powerful commander. 

Most of the movie tells the story of how he meets a beautiful woman who is part of the Russian Revolution that wants to put an end to the Czars.  He manages to convince her that he loves Russia just as much as she does, in his own way.  But their romance is not meant to be.  During the revolt, he sees her die in his place in a terrible train wreck.  And Jannings pulled it all off with passion and intensity.  The climactic final scene where acting in the movie brings back the traumatic events of his past was powerful to watch, all thanks to a great actor I’d never even heard of.

Jannings was also nominated for a movie called The Way of All Flesh, but I cannot find this film to watch it.