Lew Ayres in All Quiet on the Western Front
Showing posts with label 1930. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1930. Show all posts
Sunday, 19 June 2011
Best Actor 1930: Results
Lew Ayres in All Quiet on the Western Front
Best Actor 1930: Ronald Colman in Bulldog Drummond
Ronald Colman received one of his first two Oscar nominations for portraying Captain Hugh 'Bulldog' Drummond in Bulldog Durmmond.
Bulldog Drummond is a fairly enjoyable film about a bored soldier who decides to become detective, and help a young woman, whose uncle is being extorted by a nasty bunch.
Although I enjoyed the film, an obvious flaw with the film is the either over the top, or dull performances by many of the performers but this does not matter all that much due to the fact Ronald Colman is the lead. Ronald Colman as he also showed in Condemned from this year shows his ability to play his part with an incredible ease and grace that puts to shame many of the stiff performances of this year.
Colman instead of playing a criminal instead portrays basically a free time detective Bulldog Drummond. He plays the part simply wonderfully. He always has a special pleasure in the part, that is most certianly a joy to watch. He is just a great leading man, he always is filled with charisma and charm in the part. He as well has a great amount of humor in the part, which most of comes directly from he himself, in his brilliant little reactions he has in his stories.
In this part he in a some ways reminded of William Powell in the Thin Man, which is most certianly a good thing. It is just the spectacularly entertaining way he portrays the part. He never takes the part too seriously, but does not just walk through it without depth either. He instead finds the perfect balance, making his journey through the case extremely enjoyable to follow through from beginning to end.
The film really probably would not be good if it were not for Colman, but because of him it is quite enjoyable. Colman almost seems to know the problems with the other performances in this film, and plays off of them brilliantly. He tones down toward the over the top ones, he humors over the dull performances, Colman is always terrific no matter who he shares a scene with.
Colman as Drummond even manages to make Drummond romance with the young woman work despite the fact that she is played rather boringly by Joan Bennett. Colman makes it work because he is just so deliciously charm. Even though her affections back at him are forced, the romance is great nonetheless because Colman coveys Drummond affection for her so beautifully.
Colman, unlike so many performances this year never bored me for a moment in this performance, Colman always knows how to play on film, unlike many of the stagy performances that are even in this film. Colman is able to convey more emotion in a single twitch of his mouth, a raise of eyebrow, or the movement of eyes than other actors of this time could convey in a whole film, I wanted to say all this really to tell you that this is one performance that is not at all dated. I love every moment of this performance, every dead pan, reaction, charisma filled gesture, this is a great performance.
Although I enjoyed the film, an obvious flaw with the film is the either over the top, or dull performances by many of the performers but this does not matter all that much due to the fact Ronald Colman is the lead. Ronald Colman as he also showed in Condemned from this year shows his ability to play his part with an incredible ease and grace that puts to shame many of the stiff performances of this year.
Colman instead of playing a criminal instead portrays basically a free time detective Bulldog Drummond. He plays the part simply wonderfully. He always has a special pleasure in the part, that is most certianly a joy to watch. He is just a great leading man, he always is filled with charisma and charm in the part. He as well has a great amount of humor in the part, which most of comes directly from he himself, in his brilliant little reactions he has in his stories.
In this part he in a some ways reminded of William Powell in the Thin Man, which is most certianly a good thing. It is just the spectacularly entertaining way he portrays the part. He never takes the part too seriously, but does not just walk through it without depth either. He instead finds the perfect balance, making his journey through the case extremely enjoyable to follow through from beginning to end.
The film really probably would not be good if it were not for Colman, but because of him it is quite enjoyable. Colman almost seems to know the problems with the other performances in this film, and plays off of them brilliantly. He tones down toward the over the top ones, he humors over the dull performances, Colman is always terrific no matter who he shares a scene with.
Colman as Drummond even manages to make Drummond romance with the young woman work despite the fact that she is played rather boringly by Joan Bennett. Colman makes it work because he is just so deliciously charm. Even though her affections back at him are forced, the romance is great nonetheless because Colman coveys Drummond affection for her so beautifully.
Colman, unlike so many performances this year never bored me for a moment in this performance, Colman always knows how to play on film, unlike many of the stagy performances that are even in this film. Colman is able to convey more emotion in a single twitch of his mouth, a raise of eyebrow, or the movement of eyes than other actors of this time could convey in a whole film, I wanted to say all this really to tell you that this is one performance that is not at all dated. I love every moment of this performance, every dead pan, reaction, charisma filled gesture, this is a great performance.
Best Actor 1930: Maurice Chevalier in The Love Parade
Maurice Chevalier received one of his only two nominations for portraying Count Alfred Renard in The Love Parade.
The Love Parade is actually a fairly enjoyable romantic musical comedy about a womanizing Count who must learn to obey his Queen, Louise (Jeanette MacDonald), after he marries her.
As I said in my review of his performance in the Big Pond, Chevalier really is not much of an actor, he really is a musical performer. The changes of his character are never really expressed by his characterization, but more of rather by just events that occur in the film. Chevalier performances really are never than individualized per film, and his success really matters greatly on the strength of the film, and the ability of the director to properly utilize Chevalier.
This film does properly utilize Chevalier, it knows his limits, as well as his strengths, and how to press and exploit each. Chevalier in this film is charming as usual, and the director knows when and how much of it should be used. Chevalier certainly has some really great charm based scenes in this, as he does singing scenes where he really puts himself into the moment of the scene to great effect, I particularly liked all the joy he put into his song about Paris.
Chevalier is humorous when he needs to be, having the proper comedic timing needed for the role, and although I won't say his chemistry with MacDonald is amazing, it does work well in the context of the film. His whole story involving him accepting his place in the royal household does not require a lot of development but Chevalier still deals with it well enough. Character development really is not the point of his performance though, but it instead it is to be a charming, enjoyable, a true romantic comedy lead, and Chevalier certianly is that in this film.
As I said in my review of his performance in the Big Pond, Chevalier really is not much of an actor, he really is a musical performer. The changes of his character are never really expressed by his characterization, but more of rather by just events that occur in the film. Chevalier performances really are never than individualized per film, and his success really matters greatly on the strength of the film, and the ability of the director to properly utilize Chevalier.
This film does properly utilize Chevalier, it knows his limits, as well as his strengths, and how to press and exploit each. Chevalier in this film is charming as usual, and the director knows when and how much of it should be used. Chevalier certainly has some really great charm based scenes in this, as he does singing scenes where he really puts himself into the moment of the scene to great effect, I particularly liked all the joy he put into his song about Paris.
Chevalier is humorous when he needs to be, having the proper comedic timing needed for the role, and although I won't say his chemistry with MacDonald is amazing, it does work well in the context of the film. His whole story involving him accepting his place in the royal household does not require a lot of development but Chevalier still deals with it well enough. Character development really is not the point of his performance though, but it instead it is to be a charming, enjoyable, a true romantic comedy lead, and Chevalier certianly is that in this film.
Best Actor 1930: Maurice Chevalier in The Big Pond
Maurice Chevalier received one of his two nomination for portraying Pierre Mirande in The Big Pond.
The Big Pond, since it has Chevalier in it, is obviously a musical romantic comedy who falls in love with a wealthy American tourist played by Claudette Colbert.
Maurice Chevalier was not some sort of incredible actor of incredible range. He basically played the same character in his youth with only slight alterations. One thing is for sure though they tended to be romantic Frenchmen who did not mind breaking into song from time to time.
Chevalier without a doubt has a charm but the fact that he is more of a performer than an actor makes it so the success of his performances really comes from his material, really if Chevalier lacks the good material than his performance will be lacking.
This is unfortuantely the case here, this film is a particularly non special romantic comedy, that really lacks anything of note. None of the songs, are really of note, the whole story is not special, and the script lacks wit, thus leaving Chevalier to carry to much on his shoulders which unfortunately goes beyond abilities a bit much.
Chevalier certainly sings with his usual charm, but it never goes beyond just slightly charming. His chemistry with Claudette Colbert is much the same way. There is just not really much of anything that sticks out as a classic moment for Chevalier. He is not bad here, but he most certainly is much better when he has a better film behind him.
Maurice Chevalier was not some sort of incredible actor of incredible range. He basically played the same character in his youth with only slight alterations. One thing is for sure though they tended to be romantic Frenchmen who did not mind breaking into song from time to time.
Chevalier without a doubt has a charm but the fact that he is more of a performer than an actor makes it so the success of his performances really comes from his material, really if Chevalier lacks the good material than his performance will be lacking.
This is unfortuantely the case here, this film is a particularly non special romantic comedy, that really lacks anything of note. None of the songs, are really of note, the whole story is not special, and the script lacks wit, thus leaving Chevalier to carry to much on his shoulders which unfortunately goes beyond abilities a bit much.
Chevalier certainly sings with his usual charm, but it never goes beyond just slightly charming. His chemistry with Claudette Colbert is much the same way. There is just not really much of anything that sticks out as a classic moment for Chevalier. He is not bad here, but he most certainly is much better when he has a better film behind him.
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Best Actor 1930: Wallace Beery in The Big House
Wallace Beery received his first Oscar nomination for portraying 'Machine Gun' Butch Schmidt in The Big House.
The Big House tells the story of the various inmates of a prison including a thief who tries to reform himself, a snitch who got in prison due to his drunken driving killing someone, and a murderous gunmen.
Wallace Beery plays the murderous gunmen Butch who is suppose to be some sort of a cold blooded killer, but Beery is not for a second believable as a cold blooded killer. He plays the part at the begining basically the same way he played the champ, making me possibly see that performance may be even worse than I said.
Either way Beery is almost laughable when he tries to act tough in the early scenes of the film. It just is not believable at all, he never has single moment of menace in his entire performance. I think a problem may be he tries to be likable as well as mean and fails to be either.
Beery I will admit gets a little better later on in the film. He stops trying to do the Wallace Beery things so much, and his later attempts at being tough are a little more believable. They certainly are not amazing, but no longer laughable. His performance though on a whole really is small, since he is supporting.
Beery really is not given a lot to work with, and the part only really wants him to be a tough guy who is semi likable, which does not really work anyways. Beery never tries really to show much more to his character, other than what is written. It is a performance that improves over the course of the film, but unfortunately it never really improves into all that much.
Wallace Beery plays the murderous gunmen Butch who is suppose to be some sort of a cold blooded killer, but Beery is not for a second believable as a cold blooded killer. He plays the part at the begining basically the same way he played the champ, making me possibly see that performance may be even worse than I said.
Either way Beery is almost laughable when he tries to act tough in the early scenes of the film. It just is not believable at all, he never has single moment of menace in his entire performance. I think a problem may be he tries to be likable as well as mean and fails to be either.
Beery I will admit gets a little better later on in the film. He stops trying to do the Wallace Beery things so much, and his later attempts at being tough are a little more believable. They certainly are not amazing, but no longer laughable. His performance though on a whole really is small, since he is supporting.
Beery really is not given a lot to work with, and the part only really wants him to be a tough guy who is semi likable, which does not really work anyways. Beery never tries really to show much more to his character, other than what is written. It is a performance that improves over the course of the film, but unfortunately it never really improves into all that much.
Best Actor 1930: George Arliss in The Green Goddess
George Arliss did not win his Oscar from his other nomination this year for portraying The Raja of Ruhk in The Green Goddess.
The Green Goddess tells the story of three British citizens who crash land in Himalaya Mountains, and they meet the anti-British ruler of the lands.
It is interesting that George Arliss received his two nominations for two roles that he had played previously in silent films and both for performances as rules. It is also interesting to note that Arliss in one portrays one as an evil leader who is anti British, and played the nice leader of Britain in the other.
George Arliss actually does differentiate between the two parts, The Raja and Disraeli are not at all the same man. He does play them similarly in some ways though, in that they both almost always have this slight grin, as well as they both stand and move in a rather stiff fashion, as well as talk in a rather stiff fashion. I would say the Raja is ever stiffer than Disraeli though.
I will say that this stiffness actually does fit the part a little bit. The Raja is suppose to be very cold and calculated, and boy is Arliss cold and calculating in his performance. He also does always hint as well that the Raja enjoys his power a great deal, just as Arliss showed in Disraeli although this time he shows it in a darker tone.
I can't say this is ever that great of a performance though. He still is much too stiff, and as I said it works a little in his favor, he could have still put just some more life into the performance on a whole, and the part could have been far more entertaining and interesting than it is. As it stands it is a not entirely ineffective performance that does work as sort of an interesting companion piece to Arliss' performance in Disraeli.
It is interesting that George Arliss received his two nominations for two roles that he had played previously in silent films and both for performances as rules. It is also interesting to note that Arliss in one portrays one as an evil leader who is anti British, and played the nice leader of Britain in the other.
George Arliss actually does differentiate between the two parts, The Raja and Disraeli are not at all the same man. He does play them similarly in some ways though, in that they both almost always have this slight grin, as well as they both stand and move in a rather stiff fashion, as well as talk in a rather stiff fashion. I would say the Raja is ever stiffer than Disraeli though.
I will say that this stiffness actually does fit the part a little bit. The Raja is suppose to be very cold and calculated, and boy is Arliss cold and calculating in his performance. He also does always hint as well that the Raja enjoys his power a great deal, just as Arliss showed in Disraeli although this time he shows it in a darker tone.
I can't say this is ever that great of a performance though. He still is much too stiff, and as I said it works a little in his favor, he could have still put just some more life into the performance on a whole, and the part could have been far more entertaining and interesting than it is. As it stands it is a not entirely ineffective performance that does work as sort of an interesting companion piece to Arliss' performance in Disraeli.
Best Actor 1930: George Arliss in Disraeli
George Arliss won his Oscar from one his two nominations this year for portraying Benjamin Disraeli in Disraeli.
Disraeli is a rather dull film about Disraeli, the British Prime Minister, an he plans to buy the suez canal and performs a many of manipulations to achieve his goal in the end.
George Arliss was the third Oscar and the first one to win for portraying a real person. This fact results in him in rather odd looking hair which when up close looks rather strange. Arliss seems in his performance does actually want to try to portray Disraeli in an accurate realistic fashion. Disraeli whole flamboyant fashion is not inaccurate to the real Disraeli who apparently was that sort of fellow.
I think because of that Disraeli most certianly is an interesting character. A terrific manipulator, as well as thinker, who goes on very difficult and specific routes to achieve his aims. I think Disraeli probably could have made for a great character and film later than when this film was made. Disraeli manipulations though in this film never mean very much though because every character besides Disraeli is completely one dimensional and uninteresting.
Arliss is basically center stage throughout the whole film, and it follows Disraeli through his various manipulations of people to achieve his plan of gaining the Suez Canal. Arliss goes through a many of different type of manipulations whether he gently insures someone to do his will or more underhandedly by pretending to be sick, or pretending to be far more powerful than he actually is.
Arliss I will give credit is not completely dull as Disraeli, he is dull at times most certainly, but not all the time. There are many boring moments where Arliss reads his lines, in a slightly above average fashion, which is unfortuantely only slightly above average for the time, which means he still is pretty dull and quite boring. These moments he barely does much of anything, and he certainly does not add it to his completely stiff spine he has in the role either.
Arliss does have his better moments though which are the manipulation moments, where he does show some energy in his portrayal of Disraeli, showing that Disraeli enjoys being smarter than every thing else. He also inserts some passion into his performance when fighting for the nation. These are better moments because firstly he infuses some much needed spirit into the role, and also he does seem to use film a little bit to show his performance reacting in the right way toward the camera in the right fashion, rather than treating the film set like a stage set as he does in many other scenes. Although Arliss has his semi moments he never really is that good though, he is only ever at best mildly fine with his performance.
George Arliss was the third Oscar and the first one to win for portraying a real person. This fact results in him in rather odd looking hair which when up close looks rather strange. Arliss seems in his performance does actually want to try to portray Disraeli in an accurate realistic fashion. Disraeli whole flamboyant fashion is not inaccurate to the real Disraeli who apparently was that sort of fellow.
I think because of that Disraeli most certianly is an interesting character. A terrific manipulator, as well as thinker, who goes on very difficult and specific routes to achieve his aims. I think Disraeli probably could have made for a great character and film later than when this film was made. Disraeli manipulations though in this film never mean very much though because every character besides Disraeli is completely one dimensional and uninteresting.
Arliss is basically center stage throughout the whole film, and it follows Disraeli through his various manipulations of people to achieve his plan of gaining the Suez Canal. Arliss goes through a many of different type of manipulations whether he gently insures someone to do his will or more underhandedly by pretending to be sick, or pretending to be far more powerful than he actually is.
Arliss I will give credit is not completely dull as Disraeli, he is dull at times most certainly, but not all the time. There are many boring moments where Arliss reads his lines, in a slightly above average fashion, which is unfortuantely only slightly above average for the time, which means he still is pretty dull and quite boring. These moments he barely does much of anything, and he certainly does not add it to his completely stiff spine he has in the role either.
Arliss does have his better moments though which are the manipulation moments, where he does show some energy in his portrayal of Disraeli, showing that Disraeli enjoys being smarter than every thing else. He also inserts some passion into his performance when fighting for the nation. These are better moments because firstly he infuses some much needed spirit into the role, and also he does seem to use film a little bit to show his performance reacting in the right way toward the camera in the right fashion, rather than treating the film set like a stage set as he does in many other scenes. Although Arliss has his semi moments he never really is that good though, he is only ever at best mildly fine with his performance.
Best Actor 1930: Lawrence Tibbett in The Rogue Song
Lawrence Tibbett received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Yegor in The Rogue Song.
The Rogue song is a mostly lost film, although a few moments survive. It is apparently about a singing bandit leader who falls in love with a princess but punishes her as well for her brother apparently rapes Yegor's sister. Also in the film are some scenes with Laurel and Hardy that supposedly lack any relation to the main plot, and were simply inserted later.
Now onto the small snippets of his performance. One is him singing to the princess. He sings well, but he is just holding the princess and singing there really is nothing that can be really taken from it to really tell what sort of performance this is.
His other brief scene involves him being angry at the princess at yelling at her. He says how he will not have his friends heart broken in a rather dull but at the same time over the top fashion. That's all there is to his performance though. It seems bad from this one brief moment, but who knows he could be brilliant the rest of the film, I really can't say.
The Rogue song is a mostly lost film, although a few moments survive. It is apparently about a singing bandit leader who falls in love with a princess but punishes her as well for her brother apparently rapes Yegor's sister. Also in the film are some scenes with Laurel and Hardy that supposedly lack any relation to the main plot, and were simply inserted later.Now onto the small snippets of his performance. One is him singing to the princess. He sings well, but he is just holding the princess and singing there really is nothing that can be really taken from it to really tell what sort of performance this is.
His other brief scene involves him being angry at the princess at yelling at her. He says how he will not have his friends heart broken in a rather dull but at the same time over the top fashion. That's all there is to his performance though. It seems bad from this one brief moment, but who knows he could be brilliant the rest of the film, I really can't say.
Friday, 17 June 2011
Best Actor 1930: Ronald Colman in Condemned
Ronald Colman received one of his first two nominations for portraying Michel Oban in Condemned.
Condemned tells the story of a inmate on devil's island who falls in love with the warden wife after being her butler, and he tries to escape. The first half being the butler is somewhat boring, but the escape actually is pretty well done.
Ronald Colman I think does something that many actors of this period needed to learn, including some of the other actors nominated this year, to relax. Colman knows how to use this ability relax to be able to give a far more natural performance than the performances of many actors of this time. This ability is very important because he is able to actual ease into reactions into his performance, rather constantly pushing to perform which leads to much of the overacting from this period.
Colman's performance almost seems in some ways from a different period becuase he is honestly conveys just a different kind of presence here. He play Michel who is a suave thief, who was caught. Boy is Colman suave, he just always knows how to play the part. He is charismatic and properly charming the role, showing an easy going nature of his character that is actually enjoyable to watch.
His whole charming of the wife of the warden is easily handled by Colman. He does not at all force it since Michel simply acts decently to her, and Colman portrays it that way, although of course with his undeniable charm. Although the relationship is even written as being pretty forced, Colman never portrays it that way because he manages in just the right fashion.
Later when he is imprisoned by the warden for his relationship with the warden's wife, Colman performance actually gets even better. He still has the proper charm throughout but manages to as well show the pain and struggle that Michel must go through to escape Devil's island and runaway with the warden's wife.
Colman really gives just a strong leading man performance, when there really were not enough of them. He makes his journey one that is easy to follow through his instantly likable, and completely winning approach to the role. Colman brought me through the whole film from the slower moments, to the far more interesting ones at the end, this is a very good performance that puts many other performances from this time to shame.
Ronald Colman I think does something that many actors of this period needed to learn, including some of the other actors nominated this year, to relax. Colman knows how to use this ability relax to be able to give a far more natural performance than the performances of many actors of this time. This ability is very important because he is able to actual ease into reactions into his performance, rather constantly pushing to perform which leads to much of the overacting from this period.
Colman's performance almost seems in some ways from a different period becuase he is honestly conveys just a different kind of presence here. He play Michel who is a suave thief, who was caught. Boy is Colman suave, he just always knows how to play the part. He is charismatic and properly charming the role, showing an easy going nature of his character that is actually enjoyable to watch.
His whole charming of the wife of the warden is easily handled by Colman. He does not at all force it since Michel simply acts decently to her, and Colman portrays it that way, although of course with his undeniable charm. Although the relationship is even written as being pretty forced, Colman never portrays it that way because he manages in just the right fashion.
Later when he is imprisoned by the warden for his relationship with the warden's wife, Colman performance actually gets even better. He still has the proper charm throughout but manages to as well show the pain and struggle that Michel must go through to escape Devil's island and runaway with the warden's wife.
Colman really gives just a strong leading man performance, when there really were not enough of them. He makes his journey one that is easy to follow through his instantly likable, and completely winning approach to the role. Colman brought me through the whole film from the slower moments, to the far more interesting ones at the end, this is a very good performance that puts many other performances from this time to shame.
Best Actor 1930
And the Nominees Were:
Ronald Colman in Bulldog Drummond
Ronald Colman in Condemned
George Arliss in The Green Goddess
George Arliss in Disraeli
Maurice Chevalier in The Big Pond
Maurice Chevalier in The Love Parade
Wallace Beery in The Big House
Lawrence Tibbett in The Rogue Song
That's right eight nominations total. Unfortunately though since only two short clips of Tibbett's performance survive so I will only be doing a very brief review of his performance that will not be ranked with the others, or rated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)