Showing posts with label 1932. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1932. Show all posts
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Best Actor 1932: Results
Friday, 10 June 2011
Best Actor 1932: Fredric March in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Fredric March won his first Oscar from his second nomination for portraying the two sides of man in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
This version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is fairly well made, and interesting, with some unique techniques used in the film which work quite well.
Fredric March portrays both roles of course, one of the civilized doctor, and the other of the evil animalistic Hyde. March first portrays the doctor, in what is mostly a normal sort of leading man role. He shows that Jekyll is most upstanding fellow, as well as intelligent and very proper.
The doctor is perhaps even a little on the dull side, March is not at all dull in terms of his portrayal, but March just shows as part of his performance that the doctor is a little simple in his simple desires and wants in life. After he basically wants to marry the woman of his dreams Muriel and have his scientific ideas about the two natures of man be recognized. In that was March is properly simple in being just a honest man.
Due to the fact that his ideas are questioned, his relationship with Muriel is troubled by her reluctant father, and Jekyll is tempted by a lower class woman Ivy he encounters. Dr. Jekyll refuses to jump at such temptations himself, but instead decides to use his formula to bring out his primitive side. He does this to both prove his point, but also to allow him to pursue Ivy. It is interesting because here March shows that when everything is no longer perfect for Jekyll, he himself stops being perfect, slowly bringing out more complexity to his the character of Jekyll.
March then becomes Hyde in quite an impressive transformation scene by both the special effects, and March sells it as well even if overall he is not required to do that much. He then becomes Hyde who resembles as Neanderthal. His make up is possibly a bit much, particularly his teeth that are large, and March clearly has to speak over them in his performance. The make up though certianly works, as does the way March begins to move more like an animal, and changes his voice to show a complete transformation.
March is good as Hyde, particularly at first where he is constantly moving his arms all around, like Hyde was always there but has finally broken out. March though perhaps over does it just a little in his I am evil ha ha ha ha ha, sort of way he starts out as Hyde, but I still enjoyed what he did, becuase March infuses a lot of energy and terrible joy into Hyde, showing that Hyde loves to be Hyde.
March is best as Hyde though in his scenes with Miriam Hopkins as Ivy, because he shows the true primitive nature of Hyde. March is rather chilling in how he mixes Hyde's constant lusting after Ivy, along with his constant jealousy and cruelty toward her. It really is notable because March portrays the brutality of Hyde as non stop, as it is completely his nature to be that way. March also is quite good in his physical presentation of Hyde, as a true primitive, but also how Hyde has even more ability in his ape like abilities.
The best moments of March's performance though I think when Jekyll has realized what he has done as Hyde. March's is terrific in showing the guilt that he feels so strongly from what he has, a guilt that truly effects him deeply making Jekyll lose his uprightness at the beginning of the film. It is quite disheartening to see this other transformation of Jekyll where he loses everything he had, and breaks down as a man because of his mistake in ever wishing to become Hyde.
This is not a perfect performance, and certianly is from its time, but where it succeeds it really succeeds. I think a lot of actors would play each side of man on a one note, but Fredric March plays them both in a far more complex fashion particularly Doctor Jekyll who he develops through the film marvelously from a simple man who seems to find the complexities within himself, and as well as Hyde who he really conveys a wide range of primitive feelings coming from that character as well. This a performance that does not take the safe route with either character, and succeeds with both very well.
Fredric March portrays both roles of course, one of the civilized doctor, and the other of the evil animalistic Hyde. March first portrays the doctor, in what is mostly a normal sort of leading man role. He shows that Jekyll is most upstanding fellow, as well as intelligent and very proper.
The doctor is perhaps even a little on the dull side, March is not at all dull in terms of his portrayal, but March just shows as part of his performance that the doctor is a little simple in his simple desires and wants in life. After he basically wants to marry the woman of his dreams Muriel and have his scientific ideas about the two natures of man be recognized. In that was March is properly simple in being just a honest man.
Due to the fact that his ideas are questioned, his relationship with Muriel is troubled by her reluctant father, and Jekyll is tempted by a lower class woman Ivy he encounters. Dr. Jekyll refuses to jump at such temptations himself, but instead decides to use his formula to bring out his primitive side. He does this to both prove his point, but also to allow him to pursue Ivy. It is interesting because here March shows that when everything is no longer perfect for Jekyll, he himself stops being perfect, slowly bringing out more complexity to his the character of Jekyll.
March then becomes Hyde in quite an impressive transformation scene by both the special effects, and March sells it as well even if overall he is not required to do that much. He then becomes Hyde who resembles as Neanderthal. His make up is possibly a bit much, particularly his teeth that are large, and March clearly has to speak over them in his performance. The make up though certianly works, as does the way March begins to move more like an animal, and changes his voice to show a complete transformation.
March is good as Hyde, particularly at first where he is constantly moving his arms all around, like Hyde was always there but has finally broken out. March though perhaps over does it just a little in his I am evil ha ha ha ha ha, sort of way he starts out as Hyde, but I still enjoyed what he did, becuase March infuses a lot of energy and terrible joy into Hyde, showing that Hyde loves to be Hyde.
March is best as Hyde though in his scenes with Miriam Hopkins as Ivy, because he shows the true primitive nature of Hyde. March is rather chilling in how he mixes Hyde's constant lusting after Ivy, along with his constant jealousy and cruelty toward her. It really is notable because March portrays the brutality of Hyde as non stop, as it is completely his nature to be that way. March also is quite good in his physical presentation of Hyde, as a true primitive, but also how Hyde has even more ability in his ape like abilities.
The best moments of March's performance though I think when Jekyll has realized what he has done as Hyde. March's is terrific in showing the guilt that he feels so strongly from what he has, a guilt that truly effects him deeply making Jekyll lose his uprightness at the beginning of the film. It is quite disheartening to see this other transformation of Jekyll where he loses everything he had, and breaks down as a man because of his mistake in ever wishing to become Hyde.
This is not a perfect performance, and certianly is from its time, but where it succeeds it really succeeds. I think a lot of actors would play each side of man on a one note, but Fredric March plays them both in a far more complex fashion particularly Doctor Jekyll who he develops through the film marvelously from a simple man who seems to find the complexities within himself, and as well as Hyde who he really conveys a wide range of primitive feelings coming from that character as well. This a performance that does not take the safe route with either character, and succeeds with both very well.
Best Actor 1932: Alfred Lunt in The Guardsman
Alfred Lunt received his only Oscar nomination for portraying the actor in the Guardsman.
The Guardsman is a comedy about an actor who tests his wife the actress' fidelity by dressing up as a Guardsman and testing her. The film has a good concept, but really the story seems like it should be more enjoyable than it is.
Alfred Lunt portrays the Actor, and he portrays him basically as a big ham. An actor who is a bit into his own acting ability, and constantly acts just like he does on stage. He makes big emotional gestures, talks loudly in his booming voice, and makes some big eye movements. It is all very theatrical, Lunt being an actor from the theater it really is no surprise.
The pivotal question really is did Lunt know what he was doing, did he give this over the top hammy performance on purpose, or by accident. I would have to say since it is a comedy he never he was being over the top, and hammy, as he was trying to create one of those insufferable actors.
The question is how does his hamminess work, well I can't say it works as well as it should. A better performance of a similar type would be Fredric March in The Royal Family of Broadway, which was far more enjoyable than this performance. Why? Well I think Lunt does not frankly go far enough with his hammy portrayal, and should have really gone for a great comedic performance, but he just does not.
When he dresses up as The Guardman he basically does the same exact thing, he gives an over the top accent, and still over the top eye movements and all that. He still does not go far enough really, to make his performance funny or even particularly enjoyable. I always felt that I wanted more, more humor from this performance, I sort of smiled once one he acted like a little kid toward his wife when she questioned his love toward her.
This is rather repetitive performance, that is never funny enough to be this repetitive. His hammy way at the start becomes even less amusing as the film goes on. Also it is really surprising whole little chemistry Lunt and real life wife Fontanne as the Actress. They really do not crate anything special together, their whole relationship is rather boring on screen together.
This performance never capitalizes on what it could and should have been. Lunt never really does attune himself to the camera, and frankly acts too much to the other actors, without properly compensating that he is not on stage. Lunt never becomes that funny or that entertaining in this performance, it is not entirely bad, it has a moment or two, but it really is a missed opportunity.
Alfred Lunt portrays the Actor, and he portrays him basically as a big ham. An actor who is a bit into his own acting ability, and constantly acts just like he does on stage. He makes big emotional gestures, talks loudly in his booming voice, and makes some big eye movements. It is all very theatrical, Lunt being an actor from the theater it really is no surprise.
The pivotal question really is did Lunt know what he was doing, did he give this over the top hammy performance on purpose, or by accident. I would have to say since it is a comedy he never he was being over the top, and hammy, as he was trying to create one of those insufferable actors.
The question is how does his hamminess work, well I can't say it works as well as it should. A better performance of a similar type would be Fredric March in The Royal Family of Broadway, which was far more enjoyable than this performance. Why? Well I think Lunt does not frankly go far enough with his hammy portrayal, and should have really gone for a great comedic performance, but he just does not.
When he dresses up as The Guardman he basically does the same exact thing, he gives an over the top accent, and still over the top eye movements and all that. He still does not go far enough really, to make his performance funny or even particularly enjoyable. I always felt that I wanted more, more humor from this performance, I sort of smiled once one he acted like a little kid toward his wife when she questioned his love toward her.
This is rather repetitive performance, that is never funny enough to be this repetitive. His hammy way at the start becomes even less amusing as the film goes on. Also it is really surprising whole little chemistry Lunt and real life wife Fontanne as the Actress. They really do not crate anything special together, their whole relationship is rather boring on screen together.
This performance never capitalizes on what it could and should have been. Lunt never really does attune himself to the camera, and frankly acts too much to the other actors, without properly compensating that he is not on stage. Lunt never becomes that funny or that entertaining in this performance, it is not entirely bad, it has a moment or two, but it really is a missed opportunity.
Best Actor 1932: Wallace Beery in The Champ
Wallace Beery won his Oscar from his second nomination for portraying Andy "Champ" Purcell in The Champ.
The Champ is a film that tells the story of a washed up boxer and his son Dink (Jackie Cooper).
Wallace Beery I think has one major problem with his performance that is extremely hard to forget, and that is he is not a very believable boxer. He does not seem like he had ever been a boxer, and certainly not the champion of the world. Beery is never for a moment convincing as a boxer, nor does he suggest of any of the supposed greatness that the Champ once had.
Wallace Beery I think has another problem in that he read some of his lines in a very memorized way. He really dials to put behind certian lines the right emotion, and frankly just sort of says some of his lines. He does not say them in a stilted fashion really, but in a fashion that conveys nothing. Also there are plenty of really obvious acting moments when he does big smile to indicate happiness, and a big frown to indicate sadness, without very much in between sometimes.
Another problem with Beery is Champ seems to a be a little more complicated of a character as written than as Beery played him. Champ is washed up because he failed to ever stop gambling, and to stop drinking. Champ in Beery's performance just seems to do these thing, Beery really never suggests any deeper reason for why the Champ does this self destructive behavior, he just simply does it.
His on-screen relationship with Jackie Cooper has been described as movie magic, but is it really. Well I do not think so, because I find Beery does not really work with Cooper a lot of the time, and seems to visibly try to do his own thing to separate himself from Cooper. Cooper who gives the better performance, frankly creates a more fully realized character, and Beery fails to capitalize on this in most of the film, failing to create a real father and son relationship between the two.
Is Beery's performance entirely without quality, no it is not. Beery still does have a screen presence, he knows how to act with the camera in mind, rather than some actors of this time who cannot even do that. Beery also has a certain charm, and appeal in his whole big gentle guy persona. Although most of his relationship with Cooper seems off, he has two good moments that do suggest what the rest of the performance could have been where he shows a real love and care for his son, that is when Champ tells Dink to live with his mother, as well as when Champ is boxing at the end refuses to lose the fight for Dink. Beery is likable enough, but honestly I want to like this performance more than I really do. It is not entirely bad, but I just can't say that it really is good either.
Wallace Beery I think has one major problem with his performance that is extremely hard to forget, and that is he is not a very believable boxer. He does not seem like he had ever been a boxer, and certainly not the champion of the world. Beery is never for a moment convincing as a boxer, nor does he suggest of any of the supposed greatness that the Champ once had.
Wallace Beery I think has another problem in that he read some of his lines in a very memorized way. He really dials to put behind certian lines the right emotion, and frankly just sort of says some of his lines. He does not say them in a stilted fashion really, but in a fashion that conveys nothing. Also there are plenty of really obvious acting moments when he does big smile to indicate happiness, and a big frown to indicate sadness, without very much in between sometimes.
Another problem with Beery is Champ seems to a be a little more complicated of a character as written than as Beery played him. Champ is washed up because he failed to ever stop gambling, and to stop drinking. Champ in Beery's performance just seems to do these thing, Beery really never suggests any deeper reason for why the Champ does this self destructive behavior, he just simply does it.
His on-screen relationship with Jackie Cooper has been described as movie magic, but is it really. Well I do not think so, because I find Beery does not really work with Cooper a lot of the time, and seems to visibly try to do his own thing to separate himself from Cooper. Cooper who gives the better performance, frankly creates a more fully realized character, and Beery fails to capitalize on this in most of the film, failing to create a real father and son relationship between the two.
Is Beery's performance entirely without quality, no it is not. Beery still does have a screen presence, he knows how to act with the camera in mind, rather than some actors of this time who cannot even do that. Beery also has a certain charm, and appeal in his whole big gentle guy persona. Although most of his relationship with Cooper seems off, he has two good moments that do suggest what the rest of the performance could have been where he shows a real love and care for his son, that is when Champ tells Dink to live with his mother, as well as when Champ is boxing at the end refuses to lose the fight for Dink. Beery is likable enough, but honestly I want to like this performance more than I really do. It is not entirely bad, but I just can't say that it really is good either.
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Best Actor 1932
Fredric March in Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde
Wallace Beery in The Champ
Alfred Lunt in The Guardsman
Poor Alfred Lunt, that year it would have been faster to announce, and the loser is....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)