Claude Rains in Now Voyager
Roddy McDowall in The Pied Piper
Showing posts with label 1942 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1942 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Thursday, 10 May 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1942: Results
Claude Rains in Now Voyager
Roddy McDowall in The Pied Piper
Best Supporting Actor 1942: William Bendix in Wake Island
William Bendix received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Pvt. Aloysius K. 'Smacksie' Randall in Wake Island.
Wake Island depicts the World War II battle of Wake Island in the pacific against the Japanese shortly after Pearl Harbor.
William Bendix portrays one of the men on Wake Island who is soon to be out of the service. Bendix basically is just there for comic relief as the man who is constantly bickering with another soldier as they comment on various aspects of their life on the island. Bendix does not stand out in the film, he comes in and out whenever the film wants a funny scene. He really does not have much of a character arc, there is a change in the middle of his character, but even that is not really a transition for the Smacksie, but rather a decision he had wanted to make the entire time anyways.
His whole point is really just to be a nice humorous presence during the film to help off set the dread of the impending attack. Bendix is actually humorous enough in the role of the gruff talking Smacksie. He does not over do it either which would have made it out of place when the film becomes the serious. It is not as if Bendix is hilarious by any means, but he is an enjoyable diversion in the film. Also his antagonistic friendship with Robert Preston as a fellow private is fairly enjoyable. It is not an unforgettable comedic team up by any measure, but the two have a chemistry together that works.
As I said his character does have a change, and that is for the first half of the film his character keeps bringing up that he is leaving, but about half way through he is finally out. Bendix actually again is entertaining enough as Smacksie who doesn't have any idea what to do with himself when he finally is not following orders. When Smacksie re-enters the service since he was just stalling not leaving it is not really a change as shown by Bendix. Bendix rather shows that Smacksie really does prefer being in the service than out of it since he really does not know of anything else.
This is not a complex depiction of this soldier, but Bendix does actually invest himself enough in the part that he is as believable in the serious scenes of war, as he is enjoyable in his scenes of humor. This is really a performance just serving a need of the film which is to add humor to the proceedings. Bendix does this effectively enough and deserves credit for doing so. He never is amazing in the part but I would say if someone did need to be recognized for this film, he was a fine choice.
William Bendix portrays one of the men on Wake Island who is soon to be out of the service. Bendix basically is just there for comic relief as the man who is constantly bickering with another soldier as they comment on various aspects of their life on the island. Bendix does not stand out in the film, he comes in and out whenever the film wants a funny scene. He really does not have much of a character arc, there is a change in the middle of his character, but even that is not really a transition for the Smacksie, but rather a decision he had wanted to make the entire time anyways.
His whole point is really just to be a nice humorous presence during the film to help off set the dread of the impending attack. Bendix is actually humorous enough in the role of the gruff talking Smacksie. He does not over do it either which would have made it out of place when the film becomes the serious. It is not as if Bendix is hilarious by any means, but he is an enjoyable diversion in the film. Also his antagonistic friendship with Robert Preston as a fellow private is fairly enjoyable. It is not an unforgettable comedic team up by any measure, but the two have a chemistry together that works.
As I said his character does have a change, and that is for the first half of the film his character keeps bringing up that he is leaving, but about half way through he is finally out. Bendix actually again is entertaining enough as Smacksie who doesn't have any idea what to do with himself when he finally is not following orders. When Smacksie re-enters the service since he was just stalling not leaving it is not really a change as shown by Bendix. Bendix rather shows that Smacksie really does prefer being in the service than out of it since he really does not know of anything else.
This is not a complex depiction of this soldier, but Bendix does actually invest himself enough in the part that he is as believable in the serious scenes of war, as he is enjoyable in his scenes of humor. This is really a performance just serving a need of the film which is to add humor to the proceedings. Bendix does this effectively enough and deserves credit for doing so. He never is amazing in the part but I would say if someone did need to be recognized for this film, he was a fine choice.
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1942: Van Heflin in Johnny Eager
Van Heflin won his Oscar from his only Oscar nomination for portraying Jeff Hartnett in Johnny Eager.
Johnny Eager is a crime melodrama about a gangster Johnny Eager (Robert Taylor) who tries to use everyone including a prosecutor's daughter (Lana Turner) to run his illegal operations.
Although the academy certainly deserves a great deal of the criticism it receives one must give them credit sometimes when they make a great decision. Johnny Eager is actually a finely made, but in many ways a standard crime melodrama. One facet of the film it is not at all standard, and it is the only aspect of the film that the academy rewarded or even nominated. This facet is that of he character of Jeff Hartnett, and Van Heflin's portrayal of him. Jeff is the closest confidant of Johnny Eager, he is not really is right hand man because although he helps Johnny out he really is not one of his men. Jeff instead stands as the only real friend that Johnny has, and the only one he can truly trust.
Heflin is terrific in his realization of the philosophical alcoholic Jeff who is a constant observer and commentator on Johnny. Heflin in just the way he sits, the way he holds his cigarette, the way he is constantly gripping his alcohol as if it is one of the few thing he can grasp onto creates a portrait of a very unique character in Jeff. Heflin creates a sort of history in Jeff that we certainly never hear of where he came from exactly, and the film never tells us. Heflin's performance though so vividly realizes this man that undeniably shows us something of Jeff history. Jeff has been in this role of confidant for sometime, and Heflin shows that it has slowly brought him to this place.
To say that Van Heflin steals every scene that he is in as Jeff is quite an understatement, he owns every single one of his scenes from beginning to end. There is not one moment that is not his, he even takes away a scene from the rest of the actors even when he has only a single reaction shot that is how effective Heflin is in the role. Heflin's portrayal is simply consistently fascinating in the way he realizes the character of Jeff's constant observations and reactions to the various dealings in Johnny life. His brief statement he makes or a small glance always conveys so much in what is so little. Heflin brings a far greater power to every scene simply through his presence.
The central part of his performance is of course Jeff's relationship with Johnny. Heflin makes Jeff as always the moral judge to Johnny, even though Van Heflin never acts as some sort of pompous individual looking down upon Johnny's action, rather he is merely the man constantly soaking up everything Johnny does. Heflin shows that really everything Johnny does only bares down on his soul when it really should be bearing down on Johnny. Heflin makes Jeff the soul of Johnny, he is the way who feels the pain over what Johnny does to get his ways in the criminal underworld. Heflin realizes this pain perfectly as something slowly wearing Jeff down, and only making his depression only worse.
Heflin brings this pain to life brilliantly and brings to life the conflict of the film wholly in his performance. His scene when Jeff finally does confront Johnny over his immoral actions is an incredible scene for Heflin. When he finally tells Johnny that he was going to turn him in only to do the right there where Johnny has consistently failed to do so, Heflin intensely shows us the full toll of Johnny's actions on Jeff's conscious. It is a great scene made by Heflin absolutely honest portrayal. He never shows that Jeff is at all disappointed in his own stance really, but rather he cannot believe the way his friend has allowed himself to continue his selfish streak no matter how many lives it ruins.
The riskiest aspect of Heflin's portrayal is probably showing the fact that Jeff loves Johnny. How exactly Jeff loves him, or in what way Van Heflin appropriately keeps a mystery, yet he still shows that in some way he does care for his friend very deeply. What is outstanding about this is that Heflin never has a forced moment in his portrayal of this. He makes it clear that Jeff can never bring himself to become detached to Johnny even if common sense says he probably should. Heflin honestly makes this a moving portrait of Jeff genuine love for Johnny, and his disappointment knowing what Johnny could have been in another life. Heflin's final scene, which could have meant very little without him there, is absolutely heartbreaking. He is entirely devastating in his depiction of just how crushed Jeff is to see that Johnny never will be able to live to the potential that Jeff was always assured he could have been. He made me actually care more for Johnny in his heartfelt portrayal than Robert Taylor ever made me feel for him in his actually portrayal of Johnny. This is an excellent performance by Heflin, this could not be a better supporting performance, that not only is the best part of the film, but his presence only makes the film far greater than it would have been otherwise.
Although the academy certainly deserves a great deal of the criticism it receives one must give them credit sometimes when they make a great decision. Johnny Eager is actually a finely made, but in many ways a standard crime melodrama. One facet of the film it is not at all standard, and it is the only aspect of the film that the academy rewarded or even nominated. This facet is that of he character of Jeff Hartnett, and Van Heflin's portrayal of him. Jeff is the closest confidant of Johnny Eager, he is not really is right hand man because although he helps Johnny out he really is not one of his men. Jeff instead stands as the only real friend that Johnny has, and the only one he can truly trust.
Heflin is terrific in his realization of the philosophical alcoholic Jeff who is a constant observer and commentator on Johnny. Heflin in just the way he sits, the way he holds his cigarette, the way he is constantly gripping his alcohol as if it is one of the few thing he can grasp onto creates a portrait of a very unique character in Jeff. Heflin creates a sort of history in Jeff that we certainly never hear of where he came from exactly, and the film never tells us. Heflin's performance though so vividly realizes this man that undeniably shows us something of Jeff history. Jeff has been in this role of confidant for sometime, and Heflin shows that it has slowly brought him to this place.
To say that Van Heflin steals every scene that he is in as Jeff is quite an understatement, he owns every single one of his scenes from beginning to end. There is not one moment that is not his, he even takes away a scene from the rest of the actors even when he has only a single reaction shot that is how effective Heflin is in the role. Heflin's portrayal is simply consistently fascinating in the way he realizes the character of Jeff's constant observations and reactions to the various dealings in Johnny life. His brief statement he makes or a small glance always conveys so much in what is so little. Heflin brings a far greater power to every scene simply through his presence.
The central part of his performance is of course Jeff's relationship with Johnny. Heflin makes Jeff as always the moral judge to Johnny, even though Van Heflin never acts as some sort of pompous individual looking down upon Johnny's action, rather he is merely the man constantly soaking up everything Johnny does. Heflin shows that really everything Johnny does only bares down on his soul when it really should be bearing down on Johnny. Heflin makes Jeff the soul of Johnny, he is the way who feels the pain over what Johnny does to get his ways in the criminal underworld. Heflin realizes this pain perfectly as something slowly wearing Jeff down, and only making his depression only worse.
Heflin brings this pain to life brilliantly and brings to life the conflict of the film wholly in his performance. His scene when Jeff finally does confront Johnny over his immoral actions is an incredible scene for Heflin. When he finally tells Johnny that he was going to turn him in only to do the right there where Johnny has consistently failed to do so, Heflin intensely shows us the full toll of Johnny's actions on Jeff's conscious. It is a great scene made by Heflin absolutely honest portrayal. He never shows that Jeff is at all disappointed in his own stance really, but rather he cannot believe the way his friend has allowed himself to continue his selfish streak no matter how many lives it ruins.
The riskiest aspect of Heflin's portrayal is probably showing the fact that Jeff loves Johnny. How exactly Jeff loves him, or in what way Van Heflin appropriately keeps a mystery, yet he still shows that in some way he does care for his friend very deeply. What is outstanding about this is that Heflin never has a forced moment in his portrayal of this. He makes it clear that Jeff can never bring himself to become detached to Johnny even if common sense says he probably should. Heflin honestly makes this a moving portrait of Jeff genuine love for Johnny, and his disappointment knowing what Johnny could have been in another life. Heflin's final scene, which could have meant very little without him there, is absolutely heartbreaking. He is entirely devastating in his depiction of just how crushed Jeff is to see that Johnny never will be able to live to the potential that Jeff was always assured he could have been. He made me actually care more for Johnny in his heartfelt portrayal than Robert Taylor ever made me feel for him in his actually portrayal of Johnny. This is an excellent performance by Heflin, this could not be a better supporting performance, that not only is the best part of the film, but his presence only makes the film far greater than it would have been otherwise.
Best Supporting Actor 1942: Frank Morgan in Tortilla Flat
Frank Morgan received his second and final Oscar nomination for portraying Pirate in Tortilla Flat.
Tortilla Flat is about a group of poor Californian Mexican Americans, one of them becomes rich from inheritance which includes houses. His poor friends soon use one of the houses to their own ends.
Frank Morgan plays Pirate who doesn't once go arrr, or have an eye patch or a peg leg. That is because his name just happens to be Pirate in this film, and I thought I would mention this misconception could use up some space in this review since there is not all that much to this performance. Pirate here is an old man in the village who loves dogs, has money and for some mysterious reason is saving up money. I will give Frank Morgan credit out of the actors attempting to be Mexican Americans he probably does the best. This is not to say Frank Morgan is in anyway authentic, but hey he is most certainly much more believable than Spencer Tracy doing basically a reprise of his Captains Courageous accent.
Frank Morgan portrays Pirate sweetly enough who loves his dogs so much that he has saved up a great deal of money just to by a golden candle for remembrance of one of his former dogs. Pirate's story of wanting to save money for this candle and give to a church for Saint Francis is far more interesting and moving than anything else in the film. The only problem is well anything will look pretty good when compared to the rest of the film which is quite bad. It is not that the story is really incredible, or even all that interesting but at least there is something moving about Pirate's rather simple story. Frank Morgan though might have just too easy of a time being the best thing about this film, especially when compared to the inconsistency of Tracy, and the the obnoxiousness of John Garfield.
I really am in a bit of a spot because I do not want to be too hard on Morgan as he is fine in the role, but I really do not want to be too easy on him since the reason he sticks out in the film is mainly because of the lackluster quality of his surroundings. Morgan does put a great deal of heart in his performance showing the genuine love he has for his dogs that is unwavering. It is a nice tender performance of a nice tender character. He is not particularly complicated his main facet is just his love for his dogs, and later his joy when he is told he has friends besides just his dogs. Morgan does realize this main facet quite well though, and I certainly did care for his character unlike the rest of the film's characters. This is not anything amazing but I must say Morgan did steal the movie so he should be given credit for that, but not too much credit I guess.
Frank Morgan plays Pirate who doesn't once go arrr, or have an eye patch or a peg leg. That is because his name just happens to be Pirate in this film, and I thought I would mention this misconception could use up some space in this review since there is not all that much to this performance. Pirate here is an old man in the village who loves dogs, has money and for some mysterious reason is saving up money. I will give Frank Morgan credit out of the actors attempting to be Mexican Americans he probably does the best. This is not to say Frank Morgan is in anyway authentic, but hey he is most certainly much more believable than Spencer Tracy doing basically a reprise of his Captains Courageous accent.
Frank Morgan portrays Pirate sweetly enough who loves his dogs so much that he has saved up a great deal of money just to by a golden candle for remembrance of one of his former dogs. Pirate's story of wanting to save money for this candle and give to a church for Saint Francis is far more interesting and moving than anything else in the film. The only problem is well anything will look pretty good when compared to the rest of the film which is quite bad. It is not that the story is really incredible, or even all that interesting but at least there is something moving about Pirate's rather simple story. Frank Morgan though might have just too easy of a time being the best thing about this film, especially when compared to the inconsistency of Tracy, and the the obnoxiousness of John Garfield.
I really am in a bit of a spot because I do not want to be too hard on Morgan as he is fine in the role, but I really do not want to be too easy on him since the reason he sticks out in the film is mainly because of the lackluster quality of his surroundings. Morgan does put a great deal of heart in his performance showing the genuine love he has for his dogs that is unwavering. It is a nice tender performance of a nice tender character. He is not particularly complicated his main facet is just his love for his dogs, and later his joy when he is told he has friends besides just his dogs. Morgan does realize this main facet quite well though, and I certainly did care for his character unlike the rest of the film's characters. This is not anything amazing but I must say Morgan did steal the movie so he should be given credit for that, but not too much credit I guess.
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1942: Walter Huston in Yankee Doodle Dandy
Walter Huston received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Jerry Cohan in Yankee Doodle Dandy.
Walter Huston became tied with Frank Morgan for being the first person nominated in the supporting actor after being nominated in the lead category for portraying Jerry Cohan the father of the individual this biography film is about George M. Cohan (James Cagney). Walter Huston's performance is sort of a miniature version of James Cagney's performance in this film. A great deal of his performance is in his vaudevillian scenes. He like Cagney is a believable vaudevillian having a high level energy in these scenes, and successfully portrays the acts. He does not have have as substantial of scenes as Cagney, but Huston certainly still makes a believable vaudevillian.
Off the stage Huston portrays Jerry as an entirely nice man who's only negative quality is perhaps he is slightly jealous of his son's greater success. Nevertheless Huston just portrays Jerry charmingly, as a good man who loves his family, and work hard to make them successes. It is a rather limited his portrayal and his most substantial scene is probably when he tries to tell the young George that it is better to be a great man than a great actor. Huston is good in that scene showing the fatherly wisdom and warmth of Jerry well. Huston basically gets everything he can out of the part through his typical energetic and charming approach he used in all of his roles.
The only problem with Huston's performance really is his role. The film is absolutely about George M. Cohan, and only about George M. Cohan. The only time he is really the focus at all is at the very beginning of the film. As soon as Cagney appears he fades into the background even in many of the vaudevillian scenes. He does have a single scene where he reads a letter from George, which Huston handles well and brings genuine heart to the scene. After this scene though he fades once again even his final death scene is about Cagney's performance not Huston's. There just is not a lot of material for Huston to turn this into a classic Huston performance, it is fine work from Huston nevertheless though.
Off the stage Huston portrays Jerry as an entirely nice man who's only negative quality is perhaps he is slightly jealous of his son's greater success. Nevertheless Huston just portrays Jerry charmingly, as a good man who loves his family, and work hard to make them successes. It is a rather limited his portrayal and his most substantial scene is probably when he tries to tell the young George that it is better to be a great man than a great actor. Huston is good in that scene showing the fatherly wisdom and warmth of Jerry well. Huston basically gets everything he can out of the part through his typical energetic and charming approach he used in all of his roles.
The only problem with Huston's performance really is his role. The film is absolutely about George M. Cohan, and only about George M. Cohan. The only time he is really the focus at all is at the very beginning of the film. As soon as Cagney appears he fades into the background even in many of the vaudevillian scenes. He does have a single scene where he reads a letter from George, which Huston handles well and brings genuine heart to the scene. After this scene though he fades once again even his final death scene is about Cagney's performance not Huston's. There just is not a lot of material for Huston to turn this into a classic Huston performance, it is fine work from Huston nevertheless though.
Best Supporting Actor 1942: Henry Travers in Mrs. Miniver
Henry Travers received his only Oscar nomination for portraying James Ballard in Mrs. Miniver.
Henry Travers I must say is one of the pleasant actors I have seen on screen. Everything about him just seems to say very nice old man. In turn he mostly played nice old men. His best nice old man portrayal was as Clarence in It's A Wonderful Life, and he would have been very deserving had he been nominated for that, but instead he was only nominated for his performance for the popular Mrs. Miniver. Here he plays once again a nice old man who is a friend of the Miniver family, and has named his prize rose after Mrs. Miniver.
As usual with a Travers character he is a somewhat shy and timid man, who has a very good heart. Henry Travers certainly is playing in type here, but why not he is so good at it, in fact I would say he was the best at it actually. He is always a genuinely sweet man here, and there is no doubt that every nice thing he says he absolutely does believe. Travers in just extremely likable in his unique unassuming charm that certianly works for the character of James Ballard who is just suppose to be a likable old man.
Besides being a sweet old man in a few scenes the main point of his character is his Miniver Rose which James puts his whole into, and Travers in turn does show that he puts his whole into the rose. Travers always makes it abundantly clear that James has an unwavering passion for his rose growing. In each moment when he talks about it or about roses in general Travers shows a sweet passionate love for what James does brings it out marvelously. His whole story could seem overly saccharine, but Travers always manages to avoid this by never ringing a false note in his performance.
His most pivotal scene comes in at the very end at the flower contest, and here Travers is simply wonderful. His realization of just how much joy, and ever disbelief he has over the fact that his flower has finally gained recognition could not be better. Travers brings the most genuine of emotions to this scene, and does make it quite moving actually. This is a good performance by Travers he always puts a lot of heart into his part, and never has a false moment. The only problem is he really is only in a few scenes, and most of his appearances are very brief. His part is quite limited, and I really wish there had been more of him. This still a fine portrayal of a nice old man, it just is not Travers's very best portrayal of a nice old man.
As usual with a Travers character he is a somewhat shy and timid man, who has a very good heart. Henry Travers certainly is playing in type here, but why not he is so good at it, in fact I would say he was the best at it actually. He is always a genuinely sweet man here, and there is no doubt that every nice thing he says he absolutely does believe. Travers in just extremely likable in his unique unassuming charm that certianly works for the character of James Ballard who is just suppose to be a likable old man.
Besides being a sweet old man in a few scenes the main point of his character is his Miniver Rose which James puts his whole into, and Travers in turn does show that he puts his whole into the rose. Travers always makes it abundantly clear that James has an unwavering passion for his rose growing. In each moment when he talks about it or about roses in general Travers shows a sweet passionate love for what James does brings it out marvelously. His whole story could seem overly saccharine, but Travers always manages to avoid this by never ringing a false note in his performance.
His most pivotal scene comes in at the very end at the flower contest, and here Travers is simply wonderful. His realization of just how much joy, and ever disbelief he has over the fact that his flower has finally gained recognition could not be better. Travers brings the most genuine of emotions to this scene, and does make it quite moving actually. This is a good performance by Travers he always puts a lot of heart into his part, and never has a false moment. The only problem is he really is only in a few scenes, and most of his appearances are very brief. His part is quite limited, and I really wish there had been more of him. This still a fine portrayal of a nice old man, it just is not Travers's very best portrayal of a nice old man.
Sunday, 6 May 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1942
Frank Morgan in Tortilla Flat
Henry Travers in Mrs. Miniver
Van Heflin in Johnny Eager
William Bendix in Wake Island
Walter Huston in Yankee Doodle Dandy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)