3. Fredric March in The Best Years of Our Lives- March gives a very strong performance in many moments of this film, even when he is regulated to the background.
Dana Andrews in The Best Years of Our Lives
Showing posts with label 1946. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1946. Show all posts
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Best Actor 1946: Results
Dana Andrews in The Best Years of Our Lives
Best Actor 1946: Laurence Olivier in Henry V
Laurence Olivier received his third acting nomination for playing King Henry V in Shakespeare's Henry V.
Henry V is a very well made adaptation directed by Laurence Olivier. He sets up the film very well by starting in the Globe theater then moving on to the more traditional film version. Yes there are scenes clearly on sets but Olivier directs them very well despite this hindrance. Making the language understandable with the right power.
Laurence Olivier is the first actor to be nominated for portraying Henry V, Kenneth Branagh would late do it in 1989. Comparing the two performances, allows one to see how good Olivier is and how almost incomparable he was as a Shakespearean actor. Olivier speaks the sometimes troublesome words with the best sort of naturalism. He never is ever theatrical acting at all something Branagh had trouble with throughout his performance. Olivier is just correct as Henry all the way through his performance.
Olivier always has the right dignity and grace in the role as Henry. He never overacts being to seem to be a King, but rather merely feels as if he is one. He carries himself in just the right manner that he might as well be Henry. All his motions and just the way he wears his crown fit the part perfectly. Olivier was clearly an actor who knew himself since he solely was responsible for this performance. He never let himself seem wrong ever, and is always correct in this performance, something Branagh did not do when Branagh directed himself.
Olivier uses his great voice well in this performance. He always puts the right power and effort into his speech, not only to put the power into the scenes but also he helps the non Shakespearean viewer understand the old English better. Olivier's performance is full of challenging scenes that all depend on his performance carrying the scene. Such as the big dramatic speech to the soldiers, no big epic score behind him like in Branagh's but just his voice for this scene. Olivier perfectly makes the speech just a rousing perhaps even more so than Branagh's. In fact every scene Branagh seems a little shaky Olivier is completely confidant and strong. Olivier masters every scene he is in, and I particularly liked the romantic scene with Henry and the princess of France, because it shows another side of Henry. Olivier shows the more carefree Henry just as well as the commanding Henry. A great Shakespearean performance from a great Shakespearean actor.
Laurence Olivier is the first actor to be nominated for portraying Henry V, Kenneth Branagh would late do it in 1989. Comparing the two performances, allows one to see how good Olivier is and how almost incomparable he was as a Shakespearean actor. Olivier speaks the sometimes troublesome words with the best sort of naturalism. He never is ever theatrical acting at all something Branagh had trouble with throughout his performance. Olivier is just correct as Henry all the way through his performance.
Olivier always has the right dignity and grace in the role as Henry. He never overacts being to seem to be a King, but rather merely feels as if he is one. He carries himself in just the right manner that he might as well be Henry. All his motions and just the way he wears his crown fit the part perfectly. Olivier was clearly an actor who knew himself since he solely was responsible for this performance. He never let himself seem wrong ever, and is always correct in this performance, something Branagh did not do when Branagh directed himself.
Olivier uses his great voice well in this performance. He always puts the right power and effort into his speech, not only to put the power into the scenes but also he helps the non Shakespearean viewer understand the old English better. Olivier's performance is full of challenging scenes that all depend on his performance carrying the scene. Such as the big dramatic speech to the soldiers, no big epic score behind him like in Branagh's but just his voice for this scene. Olivier perfectly makes the speech just a rousing perhaps even more so than Branagh's. In fact every scene Branagh seems a little shaky Olivier is completely confidant and strong. Olivier masters every scene he is in, and I particularly liked the romantic scene with Henry and the princess of France, because it shows another side of Henry. Olivier shows the more carefree Henry just as well as the commanding Henry. A great Shakespearean performance from a great Shakespearean actor.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Best Actor 1946: Larry Parks in The Jolson Story
Larry Parks received his only Oscar nomination for playing famous entertainer Al Jolson in the Jolson Story.
The Jolson Story is another one of those old fashioned biopics. It is an incredibly positive view of its subject, very inaccurate, and never in depth. It still is sort of enjoyable in its own particular way anyways.
Larry Parks plays Al Jolson but he does not try to sing like him. He is always dubbed by Jolson himself, which looks a little strange at times but he lip syncs well enough, so it is not all that obvious. When it is the extreme close ups though Parks face just does not fit Jolson's voice. A lot of the performance is spent singing so for portions of the film this is all Parks is doing.
Parks is technically limited by the fact that he is in an old biopic therefore he can never really get under the skin of the character that well. Parks though never goes off on his own to put more into the performance that what is in the script either. He does nothing subtle at all in this performance, but that is not exactly a problem. Jolson is shown just on the surface and that is how Parks plays him.
Larry Parks plays Al Jolson but he does not try to sing like him. He is always dubbed by Jolson himself, which looks a little strange at times but he lip syncs well enough, so it is not all that obvious. When it is the extreme close ups though Parks face just does not fit Jolson's voice. A lot of the performance is spent singing so for portions of the film this is all Parks is doing.
Parks is technically limited by the fact that he is in an old biopic therefore he can never really get under the skin of the character that well. Parks though never goes off on his own to put more into the performance that what is in the script either. He does nothing subtle at all in this performance, but that is not exactly a problem. Jolson is shown just on the surface and that is how Parks plays him.
He has the right sure of himself gestures. He smiles, and says a lot of things very excitingly. He has right amount of showmanship, and he is romantic enough with Evelyn Keyes. There is scene that requires a little more is when he talks about being a workaholic. He does an okay job in this one scene but he still does not show a deeper side of Jolson which he could have in this one scene.Parks basically does what he needs to do but that just is not that much of a feat.
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
Best Actor 1946: Fredric March in The Best Years of Our Lives
Fredric March won his second Oscar from his fourth nomination for playing Al Stephenson in The Best Years of Our Lives.
It is interesting that March was the one who was nominated and won from this film. He really is the secondary lead to Dana Andrews who was not nominated, especially in terms of the second half of the film where his character recedes into the background. March's character's problems involve ethic troubles with the bank he works at, and a drinking problem None of his problems are really given as much attention as the other characters, and his part of the film is the least interesting part of the strong film. He solves one of the problems kind of and the other one is not really truly resolved, then he gains another problem involving his daughter and the Dana Andrews's character. At this point he sort of becomes supporting to Andrew's story.
March is a bit of a mixed performance. He has many drunk scenes, scenes where actors can fall flat on their face. March does not quite do that but he does not play these particularly well. He overplays every one of the scenes when he is drinking. The first string of parties March always over does it doing standard movie drunk that feels much too obvious and sort of conflicts with the realistic tone of the film. He does a better job though when he makes a speech at the bank and is a little more natural. It is not perfectly natural but it makes the scene work fairly well. Re-watching the film however I think what March does well is convey the sense of the man's focus on drinking as this escape from a general anxiety and nervousness. Showing very much the drinking as the man's escape as there is a specific nervousness in his movements, reactions and deliveries whenever he shows Al in non-drinking mode. The man is at unease with himself and it is an effective portrayal of the man seeking "joy" in drinking by escaping all that really troubles him the rest of the time.
The Best Years of Our Lives is a very effective drama about the challenges three different veterans face after they come home from the war.
It is interesting that March was the one who was nominated and won from this film. He really is the secondary lead to Dana Andrews who was not nominated, especially in terms of the second half of the film where his character recedes into the background. March's character's problems involve ethic troubles with the bank he works at, and a drinking problem None of his problems are really given as much attention as the other characters, and his part of the film is the least interesting part of the strong film. He solves one of the problems kind of and the other one is not really truly resolved, then he gains another problem involving his daughter and the Dana Andrews's character. At this point he sort of becomes supporting to Andrew's story.
March is a bit of a mixed performance. He has many drunk scenes, scenes where actors can fall flat on their face. March does not quite do that but he does not play these particularly well. He overplays every one of the scenes when he is drinking. The first string of parties March always over does it doing standard movie drunk that feels much too obvious and sort of conflicts with the realistic tone of the film. He does a better job though when he makes a speech at the bank and is a little more natural. It is not perfectly natural but it makes the scene work fairly well. Re-watching the film however I think what March does well is convey the sense of the man's focus on drinking as this escape from a general anxiety and nervousness. Showing very much the drinking as the man's escape as there is a specific nervousness in his movements, reactions and deliveries whenever he shows Al in non-drinking mode. The man is at unease with himself and it is an effective portrayal of the man seeking "joy" in drinking by escaping all that really troubles him the rest of the time.
March though is much better when he is sober. He has many strong scenes when he tones down a little bit. Scenes where he is quietly talking to the other character March does a lot with just his face, and really shows far more emotions then when he is overacting with the drunk scenes. His scene where he just listens to the other men talk, March just knows exactly how to handle theses scenes. Yes he is background but March still gives the right amount attention to himself without trying to up show the others. His best scenes though are when he becomes at odds with Andrew's character because of his Daughter. His scene where he talks to his daughter about Andrew's character works well, as does the speech he gives to Andrews directly. He shows his concerns for his daughter well, and is very strong in those scenes. March is held back a little, since he is in the background so much, and because of his drunk scenes, but when March is strong he is very strong. I will say it is an interesting win because this is a very generous performance most of the time where he is really functioning in terms of reactions with the other performances and amplifying their work frequently by those moments of quiet. What March also delivers on is really the creating the sense of the underlying trauma that Al is also going through. An element that is ever present but quieter script wise that it is for Dana Andrews's Fred. Al is also in many ways wounded by what he saw, which March conveys effectively within the sense of someone who still seems to function within society...albeit only from a certain point of view and with quiet a bit of drink in him.
Monday, 14 June 2010
Best Actor 1946: James Stewart in It's A Wonderful Life
James Stewart received his third Oscar nomination for playing George Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life.
It's Wonderful Life is Frank Capra's best film, and just always works for me every single time I watch and I have seen it quite a few times.
One of the biggest reasons that the film is successful is because of Stewart's performance. I find this performance fascinating because Stewart sort of incorporates elements from his best performances into this single performance. There is the aw shucks romantic part of Stewart seen in many films including the Philadelphia Story, there is the good man fighting for what is right seen in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and the darker Stewart seen in films like Rope and Vertigo.
Stewart excels perfectly in this role because he puts all these elements perfectly together to create George Bailey as a fully realized person. In the early scenes of the film Stewart plays the George who is still ambitions and wishes to leave Bedford fall. Stewart shows the ambitious of George very well, his desire for "greater" things and his wish not to have to stay in the small town for the rest of his life. Also in these early scenes Stewart does his romantic aw shucks routine which work well, and creates a nice scene with Donna Reed. All the romantic scenes with Reed are very well handled by Stewart. He makes the scenes warm and nice just as they should be.
There are also the scenes of trouble in the town and Stewart's attempt to always save the town from the hands of the greedy Potter (Lionel Barrymore). Stewart puts the perfect amount of passion and power into every scene. He really shows a true feeling that gives strength to all of these scenes from the scene in the great depression or the scene where he tells Potter that he is a warp frustrated old man. Stewart is helped by the fact that Barrymore is so good as the villainous Potter. Every speech Bailey makes Stewart infuses with the right amount of energy to give it true feeling and make these scenes as effective as possible. Bailey is so important to Bedford falls because Stewart makes Bailey that way. He never seems pious but just a good man who must do what is right.
Finally the greatest part of Stewart's performance is the darker side of it. Bailey is not a perfect guy at all, and certainly has his problems and regrets as every man has. Bailey could have been played as a one dimensional nice guy but Stewart does not do this, and adds a perfect shading to his character. Throughout the film there are always glimpses of the darker side who regrets having to spend his whole life just saving one small town. Stewart handles these small indications perfectly subtly, and completely effectively. An example being when he is told he has to stay at the Bailey Building and Loan or else it will be dissolved. Stewart's reaction to being told this is just right, showing he knows what he has to do, but also that he really does not want to do it. All the way through Stewart shows the regrets just right, until the scenes just before the fantasy part of the film where Bailey breaks down. Stewart is just brilliant in these scenes showing all the pains and the frustrations of the man full view. His scene where he yells at his family is so well handled. Stewart is emotionally raw in this scene and it really shows the way a man can be when all is against him.
Equally effective scenes though appear when he sees the world if he had never been born. Stewart reactions to the way the town has changed to the way the people have changed, are perfectly emotionally tuned. For example his dark face after his mother does not recognize him to his crazed reaction when his wife does not recognize him. His slow realization to how important he was hits all the right emotional notes thanks to Stewart. Then the final joyous scene where he lives again is just greatness. Stewart joyed passion in the final scenes is again perfect. His emotional joy really transfers to the audience and Stewart was instrumental in making the ending as memorable as it is, and making the film as memorable as it is. A truly great performance.
One of the biggest reasons that the film is successful is because of Stewart's performance. I find this performance fascinating because Stewart sort of incorporates elements from his best performances into this single performance. There is the aw shucks romantic part of Stewart seen in many films including the Philadelphia Story, there is the good man fighting for what is right seen in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and the darker Stewart seen in films like Rope and Vertigo.
Stewart excels perfectly in this role because he puts all these elements perfectly together to create George Bailey as a fully realized person. In the early scenes of the film Stewart plays the George who is still ambitions and wishes to leave Bedford fall. Stewart shows the ambitious of George very well, his desire for "greater" things and his wish not to have to stay in the small town for the rest of his life. Also in these early scenes Stewart does his romantic aw shucks routine which work well, and creates a nice scene with Donna Reed. All the romantic scenes with Reed are very well handled by Stewart. He makes the scenes warm and nice just as they should be.
There are also the scenes of trouble in the town and Stewart's attempt to always save the town from the hands of the greedy Potter (Lionel Barrymore). Stewart puts the perfect amount of passion and power into every scene. He really shows a true feeling that gives strength to all of these scenes from the scene in the great depression or the scene where he tells Potter that he is a warp frustrated old man. Stewart is helped by the fact that Barrymore is so good as the villainous Potter. Every speech Bailey makes Stewart infuses with the right amount of energy to give it true feeling and make these scenes as effective as possible. Bailey is so important to Bedford falls because Stewart makes Bailey that way. He never seems pious but just a good man who must do what is right.
Finally the greatest part of Stewart's performance is the darker side of it. Bailey is not a perfect guy at all, and certainly has his problems and regrets as every man has. Bailey could have been played as a one dimensional nice guy but Stewart does not do this, and adds a perfect shading to his character. Throughout the film there are always glimpses of the darker side who regrets having to spend his whole life just saving one small town. Stewart handles these small indications perfectly subtly, and completely effectively. An example being when he is told he has to stay at the Bailey Building and Loan or else it will be dissolved. Stewart's reaction to being told this is just right, showing he knows what he has to do, but also that he really does not want to do it. All the way through Stewart shows the regrets just right, until the scenes just before the fantasy part of the film where Bailey breaks down. Stewart is just brilliant in these scenes showing all the pains and the frustrations of the man full view. His scene where he yells at his family is so well handled. Stewart is emotionally raw in this scene and it really shows the way a man can be when all is against him.
Equally effective scenes though appear when he sees the world if he had never been born. Stewart reactions to the way the town has changed to the way the people have changed, are perfectly emotionally tuned. For example his dark face after his mother does not recognize him to his crazed reaction when his wife does not recognize him. His slow realization to how important he was hits all the right emotional notes thanks to Stewart. Then the final joyous scene where he lives again is just greatness. Stewart joyed passion in the final scenes is again perfect. His emotional joy really transfers to the audience and Stewart was instrumental in making the ending as memorable as it is, and making the film as memorable as it is. A truly great performance.
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Best Actor 1946: Gregory Peck in The Yearling
Gregory Peck received his second Oscar nomination for playing Ezra "Penny" Baxter a pioneer farmer in Florida in The Yearling.
The Yearling is an okay family film, about a pioneer farming family. It is particularly about a boy and his bond with his family and his pet a Deer. This movie is interesting because the ending is a bit different from many movies about a boy and his pet.
Peck actually has a lot less screen time than the boy Jody played by Claude Jarman Jr, and he really is more supporting as the supportive father. Peck though plays the supporting father as you would probably expect him to play it. He is warm and supportive, and tells the boy an important lesson when he needs to. His character does not have that much depth nor does his character really go under any changes.
The performance is nothing great by any measure for sure, but I did enjoy his performance to a degree. He does give the right amount of warmth, and little humor that is nice. He helps the film along well enough but he does not do anything more than expected from this sort of performance. He does in fact do a little less do to the script. In the script it has Peck's character speak in this old fashioned slang dialect that Peck clearly is not that comfortable with. It never seems at all natural that Peck is speaking that way, and Peck seems slightly out of place because of that. It does not ruin his performance though and Peck still is a nice enough presence in the film. Overall Peck gives just a nice performance but never really a memorable performance.
Peck actually has a lot less screen time than the boy Jody played by Claude Jarman Jr, and he really is more supporting as the supportive father. Peck though plays the supporting father as you would probably expect him to play it. He is warm and supportive, and tells the boy an important lesson when he needs to. His character does not have that much depth nor does his character really go under any changes.
The performance is nothing great by any measure for sure, but I did enjoy his performance to a degree. He does give the right amount of warmth, and little humor that is nice. He helps the film along well enough but he does not do anything more than expected from this sort of performance. He does in fact do a little less do to the script. In the script it has Peck's character speak in this old fashioned slang dialect that Peck clearly is not that comfortable with. It never seems at all natural that Peck is speaking that way, and Peck seems slightly out of place because of that. It does not ruin his performance though and Peck still is a nice enough presence in the film. Overall Peck gives just a nice performance but never really a memorable performance.
Saturday, 12 June 2010
Best Actor 1946
James Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life
Fredric March in The Best Years of Our Lives
Larry Parks in The Jolson Story
Laurence Olivier in Henry V
Gregory Peck in The Yearling
Who do you Pick? Who Do you Predict? Will Olivier fare better than Kenneth Branagh as Henry V?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)