Thursday 18 April 2024

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1945: Michael Redgrave in Dead of Night & Boris Karloff in The Body Snatcher & Results

Michael Redgrave did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Maxwell Frere in Dead of Night.

Dead of Night tells a series of supernatural tales.


One such supernatural tale is a doctor recounting a most unusual criminal case featuring a ventriloquist performer Maxwell Frere and his dummy Hugo. This is indeed the original horror dummy story that would influence others, yes Erich von Stroheim also was a bit dummy obsessed in The Great Gabbo, but the dummy's nature was more generalized craziness than horrifying madness. Although this film is a series of spooky tales, that one could say has a campfire style, none of the performers treat the material as anything less than something worthwhile, particularly not Michael Redgrave. Redgrave brings as much devotion as we'd later see from Anthony Hopkins in Magic in terms of portraying this very specific role, though Redgrave doesn't do the voice. Although even without that touch, Redgrave's performance is fascinating to watch in his first performance in tandem with the dummy Hugo, as Hugo entertains the crowd and Redgrave's Maxwell goes along with it. Redgrave portrays a few things at once. One being his performance as ventriloquist where he just so slightly is mouthing to be believed that this may be just the act of the man, as Hugo goes around entertaining, but watch everything Redgrave does as Hugo speaks to the audience. Redgrave is creating this sense of a piercing anxiety in the man in every conversation, and this very specific awkwardness as though Maxwell is behind the joke every time. Redgrave leaves the ambiguity if this is a clever act as he plays the "dummy" or if it is a man that genuinely doesn't know. This seems to come to light when they speak to another ventriloquist where Hugo acts as though Maxwell may be worthless, where Redgrave brings all the intensity of the sense of an immediate betrayal of an underlying being mistreated by his boss as he lashes out and slaps Hugo. Maybe the act still, but Redgrave depicts a man very much distraught at the notion. When the man comes to see both in their dressing room, where Hugo invites the man to take over. Where Redgrave then is seething in emotional distress, and a pure mania in his eyes. A man with a terrible fixation as he speaks about Hugo with this sense of dread and despair almost at the idea of Hugo moving on from him. Redgrave makes all of this eerily tangible, which could be ridiculous, but here Redgrave makes it terribly real in its strange way. There's a physical brilliance in the moments where Redgrave is in the sphere of Hugo, where there's a subtle stiffness to Redgrave almost as though he moves a bit as the dummy himself, in the way he hangs himself at a bar matching Hugo, much more than just as a man would and Maxwell is the dummy. Although a short within anthology, Redgrave doesn't waste a moment in creating this increasing insanity and descent, as he acts, perhaps as Hugo's arm, as he shoots the other ventriloquist, calling him a "dirty thieving swine", with a completely deranged performance which is altogether amazing. As Redgrave devotes fully to the idea, as particularly when now in jail they bring Hugo back to him, and Redgrave is outstanding in the way he first acts in this sudden fear, then discovery, and a near jubilant happiness of his old partner finding him worthy. Before Redgrave acts as almost a beaten partner, as he reacts as a dejected and such potent fear as Hugo says he'll rid himself of Maxwell, and Redgrave is such a brilliant festering mess of a man as he lashes out against his abuser. Even his final moment, where Maxwell is fully the dummy, Redgrave, physically sells it more so than the voice, in the chilling artificial mask of a smile as he "performs" as Hugo fully. Redgrave delivers the horror of this segment by somehow both giving into the absurd insanity of this notion while at the same time convincing one of its reality by presenting as the portrait of the breaking point of a degraded and abused partner. 
Boris Karloff did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying cab-man John Gray in The Body Snatcher.
 
The Body Snatcher follows a respected doctor, his new assistant, and the cab-man he hires to provide him with cadavers.
 
Theoretically in the long line of creepy Boris Karloff performances as a titular character of one sort or another, and to be fair to Karloff's he's often good regardless of the quality of the film. This one is a little different in that Karloff is just *that* good here. Playing a non-supernatural role, and one where his makeup is relatively limited, more striking really is his costume which is just a great look for a character regardless as this cab driver from a certain time, who we actually meet in somewhat humble circumstances as he gives a ride and helps out a little girl to visit the respected surgical professor, Dr. Wolfe MacFarlane (Henry Danielle). Karloff doesn't change his voice to any monstrous thing here, rather he seems to almost try to emphasize even more this certain English delicacy within,  to the point I'd say he sounds most similar to his narration from The Grinch Stole Christmas, and as narrator not as the Grinch. And it is with a masterstroke of this decision because Karloff has never been creepier than he is here in portraying John Gray. Karloff is so gentle with the little girl with his bright smile as he helps her in that you just know there can't be anything good that is going to come from all this. And the truth of this becomes quite clear when the next time we see Gray he's dropping off someone else at the doctor's office, with reception by our bland hero (required for all horror films of this time it would seem) Donald Fettes, although this time Gray is dropping off a corpse. Karloff though has just as much of a bright smile, and just as much of this light way of speaking that instantly is bone chilling in the ease about it. We soon find out that Gray has become the corpse provider for Dr. Wolfe, as we see him talk to the doctor at the inn, and the genius of Karloff's performance becomes all the more evident.
 
The scene between Gray and Wolfe, whom Gray calls Toddy as a nickname is just amazing because of Karloff. Karloff's manner is incredible here because technically everything he says, except the use of Toddy, even his physical way of almost bending down to the man, it is all of this servile manner, as though he is the most grateful servant to be able to speak to a "great" man like the doctor. Yet as courteous and modest as Karloff makes Gray, it is all this genius subversion where just *how* gentle he is in his voice, and his gracious eyes always have this glint that you know this is all a lie, even as he speaks to with a truth. It is absolutely an outstanding portrayal of this sort of hectoring as nothing he is saying, other than again the overly familiar use of Toddy, isn't being respectful, yet the way Karloff fashions it, he is respectful while being terrifyingly threatening and penetrating with just how "respectful" he is. And it has to be said this is one of those performances that is just magnetic in such an unusual way, that the moment Karloff appears, you can't take your eyes off of him, because he's so fascinating here in presenting John Gray's particular evil. And that's before we even know the real evil of Gray, as perhaps he's just a grave robber at this point, and our boring younger surgical student thinks so when he asks Gray to find a corpse to help heal a crippled little girl. To which Gray listens out to hear a homeless alms singer in the distance. Karloff's expression as we see Gray perhaps fully as himself as it grows this sudden ideal as an immediate prey to be found and there is a horrifying clarity upon his face. Something that is all the more disturbing when he comes over with the dead corpse of the poor woman, and Karloff comes with that genial quality as though he were delivering milk to the surgical student. We are granted a little more insight when the doctor's other assistant Joseph (Bela Lugosi, which you know a doctor is quite suspicious when he has Karloff and Lugosi working for him), comes to Gray with knowledge of his murder. To which Gray initially seems to invite him into the whole idea, telling him with the story of Burke and Hare who were real life serial killers who provided cadavers via their victims, which Karloff delivers every word of this tale as though this is a wonderful fairy tale with his whole sprite manner. Karloff is devilishly sinister as he slowly twists the notion and then turns to Joseph with clearly a different intention than a partner as he stares at him. Karloff provides the utmost vile menace but with the most "pleasant of smiles" before going in for the more literal kill. We only technically get the truth of Gray's motivation when the doctor tries to basically beg him, where Karloff changes his tone so slightly and with such potent intensity as he now speaks so calmly yet directly of the satisfaction he gets from being able to mentally torture the "superior" doctor. Karloff relishing in every word he articulates and dominates the scene by portraying so calmly yet viciously the man's motivation, which is less blood lust and more of the most diabolical of class warfare. Karloff IS this film in a way few performances are, in that the film really wouldn't be much, but Karloff is such a powerful presence that he makes the whole film worth watching because he's worth watching. He is captivating every moment he's onscreen, to the point the film is captivating every moment he's onscreen, because he makes his fiendish cab-man a most charismatic villain, though in own uniquely fiendish way.

Next: 1998 Lead

26 comments:

Luke Higham said...

Hugo Weaving in Ths Interview and James Woods in Vampires.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Any updates to the female rankings.

Ratings and thoughts on the rest of the Lead performances and supporting performances with a 4 rating.

Luke Higham said...

And I'm delighted that Redgrave and Karloff have their 2nd fives

Robert MacFarlane said...

I heard good things about Arata Iura in After Life if you need a slot. I mean, it’s a Kore-eda performance.

Jonathan Williams said...

Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the casts of Paris Thrills and Pink String and Sealing Wax.

Luke Higham said...

Robert: After Life is 1999. I checked IMDB when making the list.

Jonathan Williams said...

Louis: And Dead Of Night & The Body Snatcher.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Rating and thoughts on Mason if he's a 4.5.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

The requests (Hoskins, Hurt, Lee, Han, Mullan, Khan, Gulette and de Oliveira), plus:

Matthew Lillard in SLC Punk!
Hugo Weaving in The Interview

Luke Higham said...

I'd be fine with Lillard taking the 10th spot if Louis feels a bit apprehensive doing Vampires in the prediction contest if it's another Apt Pupil situation.

Maciej said...

I have finally decided on my request from 2023 Best Actor, and that would be Marek Kondrat in Day of the Wacko, if it's not too late.

BRAZINTERMA said...

Hello Louis and folks!
Let's talk about some 1945 movie translations in non-English speaking countries. The names that were in Brazil were:

Brief Encounter = Disenchantment
Children of Paradise = The Boulevard of Crime
The Lost Weekend = Human Rag
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn = Human Bonds
I Know Where I'm Going = I Know Where Paradise Is
Leave Her to Heaven = Loving Was My Ruin
Scarlet Street = Wicked Souls
Dead of Night = In the Solitude of the Night
Hangover Square = Macabre Concert
And Then There Were None = The Invisible Avenger
Story of G.I. Joe = We Are Also Human Beings
The Clock = The Pointer of Longing
Objective, Burma! = A Handful of Braves
Mildred Pierce = Soul in Torment
Spellbound = When the Heart Speaks
Pride of the Marines = A Light in the Dark
Perfect Strangers / Vacation From Marriage = Out of Sight
They Were Expendable = We Were the Sacrificed
Conflict = Soul Conflicts
Our Vines Have Tender Grapes = The Rose Garden of Life
State Fair = Hearts in Love
The Way to the Stars = Beyond the Clouds
The Southerner = Love For the Land
Salty O'Rourke = Almost a Betrayal
What Next, Corporal Hargrove? = An Expeditionary in Paris
The Enchanted Cottage = Your Miracle of Love
Fallen Angel = Angel or Demon?
My Name Is Julia Ross = Tragic Alibi
The Wicked Lady = Evil
Blithe Spirit = A Woman From Another World
Wonder Man = A Boy From Another World

Lucas Saavedra said...

Rufus Sewell in Dark City
Matthew Lillard in SLC Punk!

Shaggy Rogers said...

Does anyone have a link to watch TwentyFourSeven?

Luke Higham said...

Shaggy: You'll have to purchase the dvd.

GM said...

John Hurt, Love and Death on Long Island
Eamonn Owens, The Butcher Boy
Thomas Jay Ryan, Henry Fool
David Wenham, The Boys
Philippe Nahon, I Stand Alone

Stephen Rea, The Butcher Boy
James Urbaniak, Henry Fool

Tony Kim said...

Matt: I'm certainly aware of his fickle nature, but I was more interested in how determined he seems to be with protecting his legacy through the "10 films only" limit. There are plenty of directors who have continued to make worthy films into old age, after all. And it's not like other directors completely tarnished their legacies by making shitty movies later in life.

Tony Kim said...

Assuming these suggestions can be made separately from the winning requests, I'll recommend Vincent Gallo in Buffalo '66.

As for my winning request from earlier this year... I think I'll go with Nick Nolte in New York Stories.

Matt Mustin said...

In prep for 98 I started but COULD NOT finish Apt Pupil and let's just say our views on McKellen's performance are not the same.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Withers would be below O'Brien in lead.

Rydeberg - 4(His performance is slightly overshadowed particularly in terms of where the film goes, but he is effective in playing kind of the more subdued performance. Playing well the ambiguity early on and carrying a lower key sense of love though still present if not intense in the same way. He ends facilitating more so later on but is effective in that sense.)

Johns - (Just interesting to see him in this type of role more than anything, where there's not a hint of the more jovial qualities you usually get from him, and he can play sort of more merciless disinterest effectively. I wish there was anything to the part otherwise, but he's effective with the little bit he has.)

Rouleau - (Like Bernard, I think he is entirely fine but there's just not quite anything beyond that for me, limiting the work and the film as a whole because of it.)

Mason - 4.5(Didn't review him because this is a variation on a theme for him, but again he's Mason so it doesn't matter he's still entertaining as hell. And really the variation here is just the complete lack of malice he plays in the character's villainy in this version. He's always rather affable even when he's been betrayed, when he's robbing people, even when he's in a life or death situation. Mason always carries this certain ease that wonderfully portrays that even as a "bad man" he's better than the wicked lady based on his little bit of scruples and his way of enjoying life. Otherwise beyond that just Mason charisma, which is always most welcome.)

Tskigata - (Worth just checking out his scene from the film because it actually made me think much about Kilmer's scene in Maverick actually, because he brings so much genuine vulnerability and you get such a sense of connection between the lead and him in the scene. They grant the sense of growth and rapport, and when he speaks on the worse man he was, you completely believe it with such earned sense of growth.)

Bickford - (Spoiler alert, not that you need to watch this film, but he is one really effective thing about it because he seems just a tough but kind officer at first. Then the first shoe drops where Bickford is so brutally cold and brutal as the police officer goes right to beatings with this direct controlled viciousness that is quite startling. Then one more shoe drops as he's revealed to be the killer, where Bickford carries some mania with the menace and lusty psychotic quality that he again gives a real intensity to, leaving the strongest impression of anyone in that film.)

Macready - (He's fun in just portraying that he's just on the edge of being a complete nutcase in every moment and plays well in that variation between putting on the smallest act to just being completely insane a moment later. Plays particularly well off May Whitty in being this proper mama's boy, while also being completely insane.)

Johns - 4(An effective performance in just carrying so much dread in his work that creates this sense of that impending doom that he doesn't himself quite know what to make out of. He delivers such a specific sort of darkened gravitas that creates this unnerving quality because he conveys this certain type of enigmatic uncertainty of someone who knows he's down the wrong path however doesn't know how to avoid it.)

Louis Morgan said...

Jonathan:

Withers - (She is interesting but really doesn't have the right through line due to the wonkiness of the screenplay that is extremely messy. She does bring appropriate bite and the like, and this sort of false allure, however it isn't quite enough overall.)

Lugosi - (Honestly seems a bit wasted in the film, as he's good in being just kind of surprised by anything, but seems weird how little he ends up factoring in given they bothered to get him. His presence still makes an impact but gets to do little beyond his scene with Karloff.)

Danielle - (He's kind of interesting, despite the part not quite having enough to it to be a proper lead as he's too deep by time the film starts. Regardless, I do like his certain regal disregard he brings that contrasts most effectively against Karloff, and when they're together is when the film is most effective. Because Danielle shows just how much Karloff gets under his skin, while he's also getting under our skin at the same time. The arc for him is bungled by the writing overall, but Danielle does what he can.)

Wade - 1.5(Boring, bland and forgettable.)

Tony Kim said...

Louis, what do you think of these people's interviewing skills?

Howard Stern
Stephen Colbert
Conan O'Brien

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

Tarantino is being quite silly about that, particularly when he could make more excuses, since he's already made one with Kill Bill, and say oh I can go 11 since Jackie Brown was an adaptation so 10 "original" films or Death Proof was part of Grindhouse so it was different, so 10 solo films, or whatever.

Of course all of it is Tarantino ignoring directors who haven't gone the way of Walter Hill, like Scorsese, Spielberg, Miyazaki, Lynch, Wyler and Kurosawa.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

Stern I think can get some interesting things out of guests because they tend to be looser, but I also think he tends to interrupt too much or try to prod them into needlessly "drama" oriented directions.

My exposure to Colbert out of character is more limited, the few out of studio things I've seen him to have been pretty decent, in studio though I think he struggle to hit the right comedic give or take or get more life out of difficult guests.

Conan is great in terms of the comedic talk show host concept, he knows when to give more energy to help out a more difficult guest, he knows when to step back when the guest has all the energy needed. Finds a great balance, and for that type of format Conan is ideal.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Thoughts on the screenplays of The Clock and Dead of Night?

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

The Clock's nomination on part comes because original screenplay was so barren in terms of what I could even choose from. Having said that, it is a quietly charming film with a decent structural hook of meeting and getting back to clock. Finding enough life in the short-term quick romance that finds its progression naturally, particularly the scene with Gleasons as kind of the example of a healthy fulfilling marriage in later life that is particularly well implemented within the scheme of the film. It isn't anything particularly revelatory but as a straightforward romance, it is well paced, well written to its purpose.

Dead of Night's brilliance is really in the framing device, as all the stories are on a variation of good with the hook being the supernatural, and the supernatural element being more so what propels the story rather than the character. Except the Ventriloquist, although much of that is because of Redgrave regardless effective in quickly developing that strange dynamic. The farming though is key in that it manages to use all its characters as part of a conversation of the supernatural as this kind of debate while also keying into this sense of impending doom of a man seemingly stuck within a vision of the supernatural. That development works well particularly as it casts characters twice between the two stories well, and develops them in this scenario before unleashing its most potent twist as a proper climax, rather than the majority of these films that would just rely on "they were dead", as the connecting bit. This one is far more clever in execution. While also just then each story pacing its bits well, getting to them efficiently in their variations of tone well, and again connected through the specific point of the framing device effectively.