Alternate Best Actor 1990: Danny Glover in To Sleep With Anger

Danny Glover did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning an Independent Spirit Award, for portraying Harry in To Sleep With Anger. 

To Sleep With Anger follows the growing discord within a family in Los Angeles while being visited by an old friend from the south. 

Danny Glover plays the enigmatic visitor whose nature as someone from the south and this force of chaos immediately makes one think of the likes of Ray Milland in Alias Nick Beal or Max von Sydow in Needful Things. It is never quite as overt as those films in the implication but Glover’s performance is a natural fit in that type. As like those performances Glover comes in with a very welcoming smile as he enters into the home. Glover brings a theoretical warmth within that as he seems to want to want to be the best guest towards everyone and seemingly get to know everyone related to the house or reintegrate himself with the people. Glover has a definite charm within Harry as he brightens up every little bit of screentime as this focal point within the film, and I don’t mind placing him lead like those aforementioned performances as he serves a similar prodding role even though he isn’t obviously the main character in a traditional sense. Glover’s quite effective as well in the way we get the first instance that there’s something off about Harry as we see him looking over and touching the family pictures and messing with the clock on the mantle. Where Glover was naturally charming in his entrance, in this moment there’s a very strange manner that effectively makes Harry off, not in an overt way, but one where you do sense there’s something not on the level about him. 

Harry continues as he meets the younger generation where he presents himself as an outgoing “modern” man who doesn’t go on about sin as he shows off his knife. Glover in the sequence very much evokes Robert Mitchum in Night of the Hunter as he speaks about the nature of good and evil. Glover is quite captivating in his folksy way of telling about his “travels” and his keepsakes, though with these little changes there's the sudden sinister glint that switches for a moment and a sadism occasionally. One particular moment where he’s asked if he’s ever used his knife, Glover’s delivery is amazing as he goes from seeming wholly to deliver himself when he says it was for “bad monkeys” before then his voice switching to a lighthearted follow up joke. Glover effectively keeps this certain combination between the facade of normalcy and the real nefarious nature that pierces out in key moments. A continuation when he speaks to the husband and wife of one of the younger couples about their charity habits. Speaking first in glowing terms of support before cutting it down with his own hideous logic and expectation as though to eliminate the idea of goodness. Glover again so effectively doing this coin flip from the friendly visitor to the truly devious man who thrives on cultivating darkness in others.  

Harry is perhaps his most obvious with the older people, including a woman Hattie who knew Harry well and has since changed substantially, or when he’s discussing two men who died including one who was lynched, that it is speculated on that it was only meant to look like a lynching. In both of these scenes Glover’s performance seems to shed any notion of the disguise and rather seems as though in these moments Harry is directly feeding on what fits more directly in his morality. His voice becomes deeper, his eyes entirely filled with that sinister glow of someone truly in his element. In this moment Glover makes the most of the devil seemingly coming out as he seems to want to pull the sin out of one and almost glory in the deaths that seem potentially connected to him. Glover presents just the wolf in these moments as an effective contrast to his scenes with the younger people, where we see his quiet manipulations to push everyone towards bad behaviors and potential bad ends. Where Glover succeeds in creating a convincing quality to the manipulations of the man going along with what anyone is saying, but then just with a quick smile and work twisting it effectively around towards to take something innocuous and make it insidious. I suppose the simple nature of his entrance, Glover’s exit and Harry losing his influence is pretty subtle, and even darkly comical in the immediacy of it. Although kind of a simple choice, Glover’s presentation of this sort of meek acceptance of his need to “leave” suggests more than anything a limitation of what Harry can do if no one is listening. Glover delivers a captivating turn here in successfully playing the little layers of his mischievous fiend knowing exactly when to deliver the smile of a false love and the smile of a real hate. 

Alternate Best Actor 1990

And the Nominees Were Not:

 

Jacky Cheung in Bullet in the Head

 

Danny Glover in To Sleep With Anger 

 

Al Pacino in The Godfather Part III

 

Wojciech Pszoniak in Korczak

 

Gabriel Byrne in Miller's Crossing

 

Feel Free to Predict These Five, Those Five or Both.  

 

Tim Robbins in Jacob's Ladder

 

John Lone in Shadow of China

 

Jason Patric in After Dark, My Sweet

 

Nicolas Cage in Wild At Heart

 

Robin Williams in Awakenings 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1946: Claude Rains in Deception & Results

Claude Rains did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Alexander Hollenius in Deception.

Deception follows as a cellist Karel Novak (Paul Henreid) reunites with his lover Christine (Bette Davis) after the end of WWII, unfortunately a famous composer might complicate things.

 

That famous composer is of course played by the great Claude Rains in his third performance from 1946, following his Oscar nominated performance as a lovelorn Nazi in Notorious and as a rather jovial Satan in Angel on My Shoulder. Despite playing a Nazi and the devil, strangely enough his performance here as lauded composer Alexander Hollenius might be the most actively nefarious in his manner. Rains makes his dynamic entrance as Novak and Christine decide to marry, despite it being clear that Christine had been Hollenius’s lover at the time of the couple’s reunion. Naturally Hollenius decides to crash their wedding and the intensity of Rains’s passive aggression as he comes in to "congratulate" the pair on their nuptials reveals immediately his true intentions. The direction of the character’s ire is properly conducted by Rains with an artful combination between a seething jealousy and egotistical derision. Rains’s eyes present caution immediately towards Christine, his true hatred for this development with nearly the petulance of a boy being denied his cookie, but also with the grandiosity fitting a man who has been declared as a genius by many…including Novak himself. 

There is an unquestionably joy of performance within Rains’s performance that manages to easily differentiate himself from his “other man” performances including his Oscar nominated turn from 46. Rains makes a choice in this instance really not to emphasize any empathetic qualities within his Hollenius instead making an alternative choice in reinforcing the despicable nature of the character. That isn’t to say Rains forgoes any genuine emotion, quite the contrary, however in this instance, unlike Notorious where he weirdly makes one sorry to a degree for the villain in that film, he essentially plays Hollenius as an entitled brat. He has a blast, and it is hard not to enjoy it with him as Rains, even while keeping a certain regal veneer by the virtue of his innate presence and voice, goes all in to show that it is nothing but a hollow facade to the nature of the man. It is especially easy to enjoy Rains’s truly petulant delivery of describing musicians who play his music basically as Monkeys doing his bidding. Rains creates no fancy qualities in this explosion but rather enjoyably strikes right into the heart of who this man is by delivering his outburst with a decided lack of refinement. 

The situation exacerbates quickly when Hollenius recruits Novak to be a musician for his next piece which gives him easy access to brow beat Christine’s love. Rains though shows a slightly different side as the conductor/composer where he still emphasizes just the general sadistic glee he gets from every second, but within it there is at least some notion of general passion in his delivery where we see the musical genius prodding for more. While Christine believes it to be purposeful torture, Novak appreciates the treatment as a method to improve his skill, which naturally leads Christine to confront her old lover for his true intentions. Rains takes complete ownership of this sequence as to be expected where he delivers every line as this long planned dictation that emphasizes the sense of planning in every word while in his eyes still bringing just this childish type of joy of victory over a playground rival. When the composer explains he will essentially make Novak brilliant, before destroying him by revealing the affair Christine had with him, Rains is delightfully diabolical in his ability to present such confidence in the plan meanwhile you sense the seething resentment behind that confidence that is his true motivation. Rains successfully finds a new avenue in playing yet another scene stealing villain that while it has shades of his other works in no way feels a copy of it. Although I wouldn’t say he quite hits the high of his Oscar nominated turn, this is another delicious slice of the Rains pie so to speak, and just another example of him being the very best when it came to character acting in that period.

Updated Overall

Next: 1990 Lead

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1946: Alastair Sim in Green For Danger

Alastair Sim did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Inspector Cockrill in Green For Danger. 

Green For Danger is a hospital soap opera that becomes a murder mystery because everyone chooses to act a little too dramatically for their own good. 

This is the second time I’ve covered an Alastair Sim performance as an inspector. Although this is in no way a copy of his mysterious and imperious inspector Poole, Sim’s Cockrill is earthy in comparison which Sim makes great use of. Sim begins as a narrator before we meet him where he offers a nice alternative delivery where he adds a nice slightly comedic manner to Cockrill’s recitation even while still finding the needed gravity as he describes that the hospital staff consists of victims, a murderer and the suspects. Sim comes in after two murders have taken place in the hospital and a group of two doctors and a few nurses are the suspects. Sim’s great ease for comedy comes into play as we immediately undercut the Inspector a little bit as we emphasize his constant worry about a German bomber throughout the film. Sim really makes the most out of the comedy in his instant switch to the upward reactions of worry and a run and hide that in no way brings any vanity to the character. Leading eventually to a rather enjoyable punchline at the end of the film where Sim’s reaction of slightly frustrated disbelief is some comedic gold. 

His main purpose within the film is to solve the case and where Sim is most welcome as the alternative voice within the constant various emotional compromises of the other characters. Sim arrives with an ease of presence within the Inspector’s role to find out the truth. Sim though is very different here than as Poole, because where Poole already knew everything, Sim very much gives a different style of someone who intends to find out everything, is quite capable of doing so, but has yet to figure it out. Sim conveying an intelligence intent on finding out more despite not having all the answers. Sim brings a wonderful ease and a distinct lack of putting on any airs when dealing with the hospital staff. Sim finding a directness and I especially love the use of his eyes which are always seeming peering through the nonsense being spotted by his list of suspects who all have something to hide even beyond the mystery. Sim provides a directness with a combination between determination with wit as highlights that cut through every scene. Amplifying this only with his physical manner of confident movement within the case and particularly his brandishing of the truth, including my favorite moment in the film with his wholly casual manner of cutting down a bush to reveal an eavesdropper in a rather hilarious fashion. 

Naturally we give Sim a natural detective summation sequence, though in this instance via surgery, where Sim manages to convey a direct urgency of the detective genuinely wishing to avoid any further death with also the wonderful intelligence in his eyes as we see the spark of the man figuring it all out. He manages to even sell a completely ludicrous moment where one character basically acts nefarious for no reason that leads to someone’s death, but Sim’s reactions towards hearing the truth of the situation is pretty great as we get the man completely surprised. Sim earns the change up for the character on an acting level even if the setup is completely unbelievable. Sim offers the right steady presence here that enlivens the mystery and the overall film with ease. He naturally segues between his comedic and dramatic moments in crafting detective that manages to be both exact in his intelligence yet properly humorous in his very much human foibles. Inspector Cockrill evidently is a literary detectives with multiple entries and it's a shame that this was Sim's only go around as it certainly would've been a treat to go through a few more mysteries with him. 

Alternate Best Actor 1946: Results

5. Sydney Greenstreet in The Verdict - Greenstreet is innately an interesting performer but even that struggles under the often repetitive role he has here. 

 

Best Scene: Summary.  

4. Michel Simon in Panique - Simon gives a convincing performance as an eccentric but mostly innocent man being played as the fool.

 

Best Scene:  Finale.

3. Franco Interlenghi in Shoeshine - Interlenghi gives a moving and convincing portrayal of a boy's friendship but also his hardened state slowly being worn away by a cruel system.

 

Best Scene: Interrogation.  

2. Michael Redgrave in The Captive Heart - Redgrave gives a moving portrayal of the quiet tension but also determination of a man living under constant threat yet still trying to maintain his humanity. 

 

Best Scene: Explaining his story. 

1. Charles Boyer in Cluny Brown - Good prediction Robert. Boyer is at his most charming here in delivering on the wonderful wit of his character where he manages to be the smartest man in the room so effortlessly and delightfully.  

 

Best Scene:  Final talk with Cluny.

Updated Overall 

 

Next: A few supporting reviews for 46. 

Alternate Best Actor 1946: Franco Interlenghi in Shoeshine

Franco Interlenghi did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Pasquale Maggi in Shoeshine

Shoeshine follows two shoeshine boys who essentially inadvertently get involved in a robbery that leads them to a juvenile detention center. 

Shoeshine falls into the neorealist work of Vittorio De Sica, who at his best found such emotional power in often very simple yet potent stories set in a very real world. Shoeshine falls into such a film where we very tangible experience the world through the eyes of our two boys Pasquale and Giuseppe (Rinaldo Smordoni), as they traverse a world of poverty where they take on jobs eagerly to squeak by though with dreams of one day buying a horse. Child leads in this period were notable and really only tolerable in European films where we got actual performances from child performers. This film is a clear example of such as with Interlenghi and Smordoni there is a natural reality of their work where you simply believe both boys are boys in this life. Something that might sound simple enough but watch one American child performance from the time and you will see it was hardly the standard for cinema as a whole. Interlenghi in particular has a bit more of a striking presence about him where his face has this quiet simmering sense of determination but also the weight of his life in his eyes at all times. Where you do see De Sica’s approach very much has a pivotal choice in capturing those faces and finding power of those faces, something one would see again in short order in the Bicycle Thieves.  

We follow the boys going through their lives until they get basically set up to be fall guys for some adult criminals and end up in the detention center. The lead up to this is where we see both actors as this unit of just togetherness, and while we don’t spend too much time speaking of complications there is a natural sense of connection and warmth that grants you the idea of their friendship. Within the detention center what we get within De Sica’s overall vision is showing the community of the boys within the center, both good and bad, along with the nature of the system designed to be quite callous to the poverty stricken and in many ways seeks to quite brutally find out anything incriminating that they can out of the boys. Within that however it does lean the film towards the old bingo word of “director’s film” where I will say the performances are of this tapestry. I should note a fundamental part because to craft reality the boys must be wholly convincing which they are. The presentation of them though is showing them very stuck within the progression of this system where there is a very specific intention of setting the boys against each other in order for them to determine the information around their crime. 

Interlenghi’s often reaction based work is always good in reflecting the harshness of the system, although we only get a few very specific moments where we have the direct emphasis of his performance. To his credit he does make the most of these moments, the first being when he is being interrogated and Pasquale thinks they are torturing Giuseppe, cruelly using his love for his friend to actually betray his friend by confessing information about the crime. Interlenghi’s work is moving in the scene because you see in the reaction less fear for himself but rather the sensitive devastation of hearing what he thinks is his friend, suffering so severely. Interlenghi finds power in showing the tough kid as just a real kid in pain and particularly representing the real love for his friend. Unfortunately this causes a rift between the friends as Pasquale is labeled an informant by the other boys, creating a distinct rift between the friends. Where again Interlenghi’s work becomes mostly reactive again however he’s good in bringing a bit more emotional vulnerability in those reactions reflecting the changes from the situation and creating the sense of isolation. Leading to the end of the film where Giuseppe joins an escape attempt without his friend, leading Pasquale to openly inform this time. Interlenghi’s very good in his delivery of this betrayal with the desperate rage not of a man, but of just a heartbroken boy making an immature, yet very much a boy’s choice to get back at his friend. As a boy or as an adult, the betrayal is regardless of reality so far that Pasquale chooses to directly and tragically confront Giuseppe. Interlenghi’s great thought in creating the two contrasts even in such immediacy, capturing the ferocity of his anger at his friend to then his direct uncompromising horror of what comes immediately afterwards. Interlenghi finds the pain so honestly, and very much through the experience of a boy struggling with his emotions so earnestly and seeing the real victim within a cruel system. And while part of the large tapestry I would say Interlenghi manages to still find his impact in showing that progression of the tough kid with a friend to really a wholly broken kid without one. 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1946: Michael Redgrave in The Captive Heart

Michael Redgrave did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Capt. Karel Hašek alias Geoffrey Mitchell in The Captive Heart. 

The Captive Heart follows the story of various British POW’s during WWII. 

Michael Redgrave is the most dominant but technically just one of many stories among a handful that we follow throughout the film. He is featured in the one with the most dramatic tension as we are first introduced to him as an officer who is fluent in German, though we quickly flashback to see Redgrave as a distraught man who hurriedly takes the clothes of a dead British officer who dies in front of him. Redgrave leaves a fine and quick impression as he brings just so much innate emotion within his face here. There’s the sense of a lot of years within the man, though I think this distinct combination between wear but also empathy. Even though we see him as a false soldier initially, we suspect better of him with the care within Redgrave’s performance as he tries to help the British soldiers before they are sent to the camp. Within the camp the other soldiers soon begin to suspect the fake captain due to his suspicious behavior and fluency in German leading to a confrontation. A scene where you really see the power of Redgrave’s presence, which is one honestly built on silences more than declarations. As the man actually named Karel’s reply is to admit the truth, which is that he is in fact a Czech concentration camp survivor, whose only chance was to replace the captain, and within this delivery Redgrave is wonderful as you can feel the intensity of position of isolation, however also this quiet degree of shame but also determination with needing to take the measures he did. Redgrave convinces you that Karel’s actions were justified and in turn makes it wholly believable that not only are the men willing to believe him, they eventually champion his survival. 

A situation that is all the more difficult as the camp’s gestapo agent was also at Karel’s concentration camp, though this initially enabled him to prove his story to the British. Redgrave brings such a striking emotional power within largely his silent reactions where you can see him taking in the severity of the situation while in the silence still presenting the man just being a soldier no more no less. Through the film then we follow him as he tries to maintain his identity which becomes all the trickier when the agent is wondering why he doesn’t send any letters home leading to Karel not only needing to break his hand but also write the unknowing widow Celia (Rachel Kempson, Redgrave’s actual wife) as the man he is impersonating. It speaks to Redgrave’s specific abilities as a performer as he does bring so much nuance within these moments of wording the letters and even contemplating the weight of the ruse. Something that is initially a survival necessity slowly becomes more with each letter and within each letter Redgrave’s performance in a few words but mostly just in thoughtful reflection conveys the connection. A connection all the more meaningful as Karel learns of the deaths of his own family and Redgrave presents a man in a personal purgatory reaching out to another, albeit in a most curious fashion. 

While having that more emotional story we follow one step after another of the specific deceits that eventually lead to Karel needing to find a way out in a large prisoner release through a daring mission, which again Redgrave adds a bit more gravity just in embodying the tension that Karel is going through as witnesses the difficult steps to get him out. Leading to probably the weakest aspect of the film, though it isn’t bad, where the film runs through everyone returning home and Karel having the strange duty of not only revealing to the captain’s wife that her husband’s dead but that she’s also had been corresponding with him the whole time. We do get a good scene of Karel telling the truth to her where again Redgrave is able to weaponize the empathy in such a moving fashion where you do sense completely his understanding of her plight but also brings just as much assurance that he had to do it. Finding though with just the right glint of appreciation and warmth, fittingly not to push too far given the nature of the moment but laying the seed that their connection might’ve been more than ruse. Unfortunately I will say the last bit of the film that basically is a montage of the two coming together feels less like the natural realization of the relationship and more of a “let’s wrap this up”, though this is no fault of Redgrave. Redgrave gives a strong performance that often is working in the silences and naturally finds the needed power in those silences.