Category: Best Supporting Actor

1941 – James Gleason

Here Comes Mr. Jordan

Much like Robert Montgomery’s Best Actor nomination, I don’t really get why James Gleason’s performance was so highly regarded, though at the same time, I think Gleason deserved his nomination more than his costar.  The movie is a light-hearted comedy, a genre that is often overlooked when it comes time for awards.  .  Gleason played a supporting character who seemed to be, at times, a bit of comic relief.  And to be fair, I think he was actually the funniest part of the movie, which, unfortunately, isn’t really saying much.

He played Max “Pop” Corkle, Joe Pendleton’s boxing manager.  After Joe Dies in a plane crash and comes back as a rich investment banker and tries to tell Max who he really is, Gleason’s “You’re who?  Sure you are, buddy.  And who’s the invisible angel you’re talking with?  Let’s get you back to the loony bin,” act was perfect.  But it doesn’t take long for him to be convinced of Joe’s real identity, and he finds himself trying to negotiate with the invisible angel.

It was a silly movie, and fortunately, it was clear that the actors weren’t taking any of it too seriously.  But Gleason stood out, making his performance just enough over-the-top, as was necessary in a comedy, to be amusing.  None of the comedy was really outrageous or in your face, but it was all pretty inoffensive and innocent. 

But then in the last few scenes in the movie, his character actually took a turn for the dramatic.  When Joe’s new body is murdered, he is given word that Joe has been given yet another body.  He goes to meet the new Joe, and is ready to resume his relationship with his friend, only to discover that while Joe may be the man in Murdock’s body, he has no memory of his past lives, no memory of his good friend Max Corkle.  I think this is where Gleason earned his Oscar nomination.

The mix of disappointment and grief at losing his friend a second time seemed to really hit him hard.  There was also a sense of loss as he is once again disconnected from the supernatural, and his world becomes mundane again.  There was some genuine emotion on his face that was unmistakable.  Gleason did a fine job in that brief final scene.  But unfortunately, because of how his part was written, and not through anything the actor did or didn’t do, I think it was too little, too late.  Gleason did a good job with what he was given.  He just wasn’t given much.

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.

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

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.

Sorry, I cannot find this film.

1940 – Albert Basserman

Foreign Correspondent

Now here’s a name I’ve never heard of before, but I have to say, he did such a great job.  His part in the film was small but mighty.  So, he played the character of Van Meer, a Dutch diplomat.  The actor was actually German, but his accent sound foreign and convincing enough.  And he really looked the part.

There were a number of things that really made his performance stand out as incredible.  There were several facets to his character that Basserman played to perfection.  On the one hand, a slightly dotty old man, masking a politically evasive diplomat, on the other, a fully aware politician.  On the one hand, a recently sedated captive, on the other, a fully drugged victim of brainwashing.  And it was in these later scenes, where his mind has been worn down, where Basserman’s acting skills really shined.

I’ve said before that acting believably drunk is not easy.  But here, the actor had to be sober, and then slowly lose it as the sedatives take effect.  He was really good.  Watch his eyes as they lose focus.  You can see his head start to swim.  Then in his last scene, he is being brainwashed as his captors try to get him to tell them secret information, he is fully drugged.  He doesn’t know where he is, or what is real.  He barely recognizes his friend, Fisher.  Basserman was so good in this scene.  But then, when they give up and a thug starts to murder him, off screen, he begins to spill his secrets.

But before that he gives a little anti-war/anti-violence speech that I’m sure went a long way to earning him his Best Supporting Actor nomination.  He says “You can do what you want with me.  That’s not important.  But you’ll never conquer them, Fisher.  Little people everywhere who give crumbs to birds, lie to them.  Drive them.  Whip them.  Force them into war, where the beasts like you will devour each other, then the world will belong to the little people.”

That was a pretty powerful speech that spoke to more than just that other characters in the movie.  It spoke to the movie-going audiences.  And it was very intentional by the film’s director.  Basserman did a great job delivering the message from Hitchcock..  I almost might have awarded him the Oscar instead of Walter Brennan, but I’m not sure.  It must have been a tight race.

1939 – Thomas Mitchell (WINNER)

Stagecoach

I love Thomas Mitchell.  He is one of my favorite character actors from Old Hollywood.  He was so good in every role I’ve ever seen him play.  And the reasons why all seem to be epitomized in this great movie, Stagecoach.  Mitchell won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and he totally deserved it.  The character of Doc Boone was a fascinating one, and Mitchell did a phenomenal job.  I can’t stress enough, just how incredible he was in this movie.

First of all, and I’ve said it before, playing believably drunk is not easy.  But the good doctor is a hopeless and unapologetic alcoholic of unbelievable voracity.  He takes every opportunity he can to swallow spirits of any kind.  But what Mitchell understood about that kind of a character is that a drunk of that caliber is not always stumbling, not always slurring his speech.  He is a functional alcoholic, so when you see that he can’t walk straight, you know he’s really sloshed, which Mitchell did, every now and then.  And it was not over-the-top.  It was sad, and even a little pathetic, just like it needed to be. 

But that was only one side to the character.  There were a few times in the narrative in which he had to be sober.  The scene where he has to sober up quickly so he can deliver a baby, was great.  He is drinking coffee and vomiting, and asking for water to be thrown into his face.  The sheer determination in his eyes to save the life of the woman in labor and the baby was so keen, so intense.  But then, after the successful delivery, the way he approaches the proffered bottle, was just as intense.  Mitchell’s acting was masterful.

And at the end of the film, Mitchell once again stole the scene, when the tension of the narrative was building up towards the big climax.  The villain, who is leaving the bar to have a shoot-out with Ringo, asks the bartender for a shotgun, but Doc Boone stands in is way.  With dead conviction in his eyes, he stands up to the murderer and fiercely threatens him, saying that he’ll have him brought up on charges if he steps foot outside the bar with the weapon.  He knew he was an inch away from death himself, and Mitchell sold the moment perfectly.  So good!

1939 – Brian Aherne

Juarez

I’ll be honest, Brian Aherne is one of those actors whose name I don’t recognize at all.  I don’t think I’ve ever heard the name before, and I don’t remember his face.  Whenever that happens, I have to look up a filmography to see if I recognize any of the films they’ve been in.  But I didn’t recognize any of them.  I think he did a fine job.  In Juarez, he played the supporting role of Maximillian I of Mexico, but I almost think he should be recognized as the film’s lead.  Yes, he was up against the Hollywood superstar Paul Muni, but his part was just as big, he had just as much, if not more screen time, and he had to shoulder the lion’s share of the film’s deep dramatic content.

He is a Habsburg who is duped into becoming the King of Mexico by Napoleon III of France.  However, the common people all favor Benito Juarez as an elected president, rather than him as an appointed monarch.  But rather than abdicating the throne and stepping down when he learns of Napoleon’s plot, he tries to do right by his fabricated position, and is eventually captured and executed by Juarez.  And in fact, his death was the climax of the movie.  If anything, I think he should have gotten a Best Actor nomination instead of Supporting Actor.

So he is supposed to be a European aristocrat, and he pulled it off just fine.  He was supposed to be noble, up to the point of death.  He did that believably.  He was supposed to be a romantic man who is very much in love with his wife, he did that, too.  But it was the quieter dramatic scenes where he really earned his Oscar nomination.  His wife, who had gone to France to confront Napoleon for his underhanded political scheming at her husband’s expense, has lost her sanity, and fails to return to him.  And as much as he wanted to go to her, his complete dedication to his position forced him to remain, and be put to death.

Aherne handled those moments with a deep sense of honor and quiet dignity.  Of course, it helped that, as a British actor, he had that innate stiff upper lip and calm composure in the face of terrible danger.  It is a trait shared with most British film actors.  And he really looked the part with his perfect hair and that crazy beard!

1939 – Brian Donlevy

Beau Geste

Beau Geste was an interesting movie, and Brian Donlevy did a good enough job, I suppose, even though his character was a little one-note.  Actually, if I had to choose a nominee for Best Supporting Actor in this movie, I might have chosen Robert Preston, but that’s beside the point.  And this isn’t the first time a bad-guy has been nominated for an Oscar.  So I have to ask myself if Donlevy’s performance was good enough to earn him the nomination?

As I’ve said before, an acting nomination should be a happy marriage of a good actor and a well-written character.  Donlevy played the part as it was written quite adequately.  But there was just very little to the character.  He played Sergeant Markoff of the French Foreign Legion.  He is a cruel man who prefers leading his men with an iron fist, and by the end, we see no character development.  We get no back story, and no reason for his cruelty except that he is just a mean guy.  And eventually, he turns to thievery, scheming to steal Beau’s gemstone for himself.

Donlevy actually did a fine job with the material he was given.  He played mean well.  He was an attractive man, made unattractive by his personality, and by a nasty scar on his face.  He played the part like I think it needed to be played, as very stoic, stiff, and military.  And he was always in his dress uniform and his smart cap; always wearing his military medals, giving him an air of smug superiority.  And all that out in the hot sun of the Saharan Desert.

I think Donlevy had two shining moments in the film.  The first was when he witnessed the death of his kindly commander, allowing him to take control of the Legionnaires, himself.  He smile, as he confirms the other man’s demise, was just the right amount of sadistic.  The other was when the fort is once again attacked by the Tuaregs, and he actually becomes a good battle commander, even if it was just for a moment.  And he even proved himself to be smart when he began propping up the dead soldiers in the battlements, to trick the enemy into thinking that there were more defenders than there actually were.  In that moment, Donlevy actually showed Markoff to be a competent military officer, despite his sadistic attitude.

1939 – Claude Rains

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Claude Rains has been a great character actor in every movie I’ve ever seen him in.  He is always competent, no matter what kind of role he is playing, and this movie is no exception.  In this film, he plays one of the bad guys.  He is an old friend of Mr. Smith’s father, and a sympathetic supporter of Smith, himself.  That is, until Smith’s idealism starts to accidentally get in the way of the underhanded political scheme he is a part of.  Then he turns on him in the worst way.  He lies about his old friend’s son to discredit him and ruin his political career.

And Claude Rains, always the professional actor, does a fantastic job.  And the film never tries to hide his lies from the audience, so we know, right from the start, what kind of a man he really is.  Rains seemed to be perfect for the part.  He has the kind of face that you just want to trust.  And he hides his lies so well.  And then after his criminal boss tells him to destroy Mr. Smith, he shows reluctance, but only a little, before doing just as he it told.

There was an ease about the actor that naturally came across in his performance.  He seemed very practiced and intentional in every scene, knowing exactly how to lead the viewer along.  And then, after witnessing the phenomenal courage and stamina of Mr. Smith, he has a final change of heart.  He first tries to kill himself, then bursts into the Senate room, shouting his confession so the whole room can hear him.  It was a very powerful scene.  Rains yelling out his own admission of guilt as Mr. Smith’s unconscious body is carried from the chamber. 

Whenever you see Claude Rain’s name appear in the cast of actors, you know you are in for an intense performance.  He never seemed to do anything half-way, whether he is playing a good guy or a bad guy.  He is one of those actors who seems to really dive into his performances, almost as if he feels very passionately about the film he is making.  At least, that is what comes across whenever he is on the screen.  Honestly, I am glad he was recognized for his work in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  He seemed to really understand the emotional ins and outs of the character, and he looked good doing it.