Monday 11 January 2021

Best Actor 1928: Richard Barthelmess in The Patent Leather Kid

Richard Barthelmess received one of his two Oscar nominations for portraying the titular character of The Patent Leather Kid.

The Patent Leather Kid is a slow and overlong, though not really terrible film, that follows a boxer turned soldier.
 
Often times silent performers often had a pretty distinct look, I would say that isn't really true for Richard Barthelmess. He honestly just looks like "some guy", which does make it as easy to stand out within silence as some performers. Although I think to be fair to Barthelmess he doesn't have a lot of the qualities that are immediately more problematic in attempted dramatic silent actors. This as he doesn't immediately start doing the bug eyes and wild expressions, in fact it must be said he acts quite well in his opening scene, where we see the kid entering a boxing ring, described as having a great ego. Well Barthelmess exudes that with this sly grin on his face towards the crowd and just the manner of a man on top the world. A flaw I suppose with the film actually is this is not a silent film that makes use of the "handicapped" version of the medium particularly well. This as it often times kept me wishing we could actually hear the characters, which isn't always the case with silent films. I suppose one has to give credit to Barthelmess's performance however that I wished that. This as in his romantic scene, one can see the manner of the seduction in the instance, a seduction still with a certain narcissistic glint. This even as there is some ego felt, but in a way perhaps even more needed to be conveyed however that sits on the film rather than what Barthelmess is doing. Of course as much as Barthelmess establishes the character, he perhaps struggles a bit in making us care about him in any particular way, although I wouldn't say this is his fault.

I'll admit the film isn't helping him there when early on the film he punches out his love interest to shut her up, in what I believe is intended as a comic scene. I suppose Barthelmess handles that moment as best as he can but it doesn't endear us to the kid, even in a self-destructive protagonist kind of way. I suppose thankfully he gets knocked out himself, and again the break of that ego is actually a well performed moment. This in conveying the moment of disbelief and distress effectively to be sure. Afterwards even in his presentation of the man just with a bitterness within his expression. The film then shifts to being about World War I somewhat randomly, where the kid initially avoids fighting, but I guess enough people guilt him into it, to eventually do it. So as a soldier it must be said that Barthelmess continues to acquit himself well enough. We are given consistent understanding of his emotion, whether it be frustration of his position or eventually the natural wartime concerns. He kind of takes a backseat to the depiction of the war more often than not, but when it does cut to him he does deliver well enough. This even in a moment of dealing with a dying comrade, Barthelmess artfully goes from empathy, to sadness, to anger within the moment. It is without a doubt some fine performing. Although the film struggled to hold my attention whenever I saw what Barthelmess was actually doing, he was delivering on the story of the kid. This in his transformation from selfish boxer to selfless hero. I wouldn't say this is well articulated in the film, but Barthelmess creates the appropriate arc with just his own performance, at least to the best of his abilities given the limitations of the film. Although I felt particularly clinical when watching this film, I can't fault Barthelmess. This is a good performance that conveys the emotions of the piece without resorting to the standard overacting of the period, even if I never cared about the piece. 

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Woah. This is unfinished business? Loved it, really unexpected.

Luke Higham said...

Very Nice. :)

Luke Higham said...

The Return Of The Jacks. :)

Anonymous said...

Awesome, can I recommend a relook at Jeff Bridges in True Grit and The Big Lebowski.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: I already made True Grit my first recommendation so expect a Bridges rewrite soon.

Anonymous said...

^Thank you!

Mitchell Murray said...

Anonymous(s): Might I ask, what would be your thoughts/ratings for Bridges in "True Grit". Because if I'm being honest, that's a performance I'm simply not crazy about. I gave him a mere 3 in my own review long ago, and looking back, his work from "Hell or High Water" is more of what his portrayal should've been like.

Mitchell Murray said...

Also, little side note: I'm now up to Episode 19 of FMA.

Anonymous said...

Mitchell: Personally, I preferred his portrayal over Wayne's and thought he gave a very good performance. A 4 would be about right and I agree that he was greater in Hell Or High Water but I mainly picked it in the hope that Steinfeld would go up.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mitchell. I used to feel the same, but for me it's the range in the performance in how Bridges can be someone you can simultaneously laugh at but also manages to be completely convincing as a deadly killer in addition to developing his love for Maddie in a believable way. He also manages to develop without saying a word or exposition his rivalry with Lucky Ned in a believable way (also assisted by a Barry Pepper's brilliant performance). I would give him a 5.

Calvin Law said...

Thoroughly enjoyed this surprise of a read, great write up Louis.

Calvin Law said...

And Bridges is an easy 5 for me in True Grit, but I do think he’ll probably stay at the same level for Louis, it’s a take it or leave it performance.

Anonymous said...

Calvin: Do you think Steinfeld might go up to a 4.5 at least. I read somewhere on the blog that Louis hadn't seen it since its release.

Matt Mustin said...

Bridges in True Grit for me is a firm 4.5, but that performance really is one that you either like or you don't. I will say though, having recently read the novel, I think he got that character down beautifully.

Anonymous said...

Louis, just wanted to say I'm been following this website for 10 years, thanks for the great work you do.

Matt Mustin said...

I will also say that I don't know how anyone could have ever read that book and thought that Rooster Cogburn was meant to be the main character.

Emi Grant said...

Wow, A review from an original nominee from 1928 definitely wasn't what I expected. How did you come by it, Louis?

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: Are you looking forward to the Hopkins rewrite, I certainly am.

Anonymous said...

Luke, it may or may not be a 5 but he should be a 4.5 at the very least.

Luke Higham said...

And I hope he'll rewatch Mean Streets tonight.

Louis Morgan said...

Emi Grant:

Well the cartel boss was easier to take down than expected....so I had some extra time.

It's actually on youtube.

Emi Grant said...

Louis: Lol, to think your 10 year expedition to find one of those films and performances you were missing to review ended thanks to some random guy uploading it. Might check it out, even though it doesn't sound too good.

Calvin Law said...

I really, really want to think that Riz Ahmed is a lock, but something keeps nagging at me. I think my mind will only be settled once we see nominations for the industry awards.

Anonymous said...

I think the predictions for the Oscars could change drastically, since there’s surprisingly a lot of contenders this year and more to come. Cherry, for example, is apparently being backed by Apple (after On the Rocks failed to make that much noise) for Picture and Actor, and Zendaya could be part of the conversation even if her movie isn’t good, since she’s been on a roll ever since her Emmy win. And many of the locks could lose attention and be snubbed in the industry awards, which are much farther than they seem.

Anonymous said...

Also, regarding Mank, I'm getting a Curious Case of Benjamin Button vibes from it, since both are historical Mank, both kinda disappointed with critics and audiences but both appeal to the taste of Oscar voters, so I think it not having made that much hype with the critics doesn’t matter much; Benjamin Button didn’t either and it’s the most successful Fincher movie in the Oscar, with 13 noms (geez). If Netflix campaigns right, I think Mank's fine.

Anonymous said...

*historical Fincher