Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1961: Alan Bates in Whistle Down the Wind

Alan Bates did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Arthur Blakely aka the man in Whistle Down the Wind. 

Whistle Down the Wind, which would make a good double feature with The Secret of the Beehive, is an effective mood piece about a group of children who discover a stranger hiding in their barn who they mistake for Jesus. 

This is a performance as good as any to examine the idea of screen presence and how much it matters to the way an actor can connect with an audience or not. The reason being the role of Arthur Blakely, though really the man is a better descriptor in so many ways, is a fairly limited one. In truth, the character has a scant few lines early on as the children discovered the man a bit disheveled and often rather silent as they presume him to be sent by a divine hand. The story is not about the manipulation of children but rather the perspective of them, because the man doesn't guide this delusion, he rather just doesn't correct it in order to maintain his hiding spot. While the part is limited, the character though does stand out, and not just because of the mistaken interpretations of the man by the children. Rather it is the charismatic Bates who does so, and fascinating as it is, he doesn't appear to be doing a great deal. In terms of the more direct acting, Bates's expression conveys initially the fear and desperation of a probable criminal hiding. That is in simple terms, but there is something about his steely eyes, his intensity that makes him all the more fascinating. It is the quality though that seems innate, but also is without question an essential facet to a performer. As this captivating quality of the work exists via Bates's striking screen presence, just his being on screen carries something with it, and Bates wields that here, not overtly but unquestionably so all the same. Put an actor without such presence, the man is a non-entity, or overtly creepy but with Bates he makes him fascinating even though there is nothing technically that the character does to make him so. 

Bates's presence therefore is particularly key to this film because the children fashion him as Christ without much insistence from anyone, certainly not from the man himself, however, Bates the performer allows it because of the magnetism of his presence as a performer. As the man becomes more verbal, he still just doesn't dissuade but rather just allows, as Bates's expression always carries with it the sense that the man is touched confused, and delivers any lines that might support the theory of the children with a kind of gentle patronizing. Bates doesn't make the man into the Christ, nor does he make him a true villain exploiting the naivety. That exploitation he always depicts as the man still in this sad state of desperation that never completely leaves him. Bates shows a man always filled with a certain somberness that perhaps alludes to his crime or his condition, but the man remains a bit of an enigma throughout. Even when the desperation increases, Bates carries himself still firmly as a man just stuck within his own suffering and his own existence, with the children being largely a distraction with maybe just a hint of solace via Bates's always gentle manner with them. As the film concludes we don't really know much more about the man than when we started, mostly we could've guessed as much, and even as such we learn any truth from a poster, not from the character who leaves his words limited. Regardless he remains a fascinating character largely because Bates himself is a bit innately fascinating, particularly young Bates, and as a performer captures your attention, even though, much like the children's faith, your attention is awarded with any answers, but regardless he still seemed deserving of such attention.