Monday, 29 June 2026

Alternate Best Actor 1946: Michel Simon in Panique

Michel Simon did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Monsieur Hire in Panique.

Panique follows an eccentric outsider as he gets slowly set up to take the fall of a murder by the murderer and his accomplice girlfriend. 

Simon honestly doesn’t play a role too far removed from his work with Jean Renoir in La Chienne. Where both films are essentially setups for one man to be treated cruelly by a couple with the woman acting as a black widow to ensnare the unsuspecting man. A key word in both instances however is unsuspecting, not innocent. We first really see Hire from a bit of a distance as a potentially suspicious man as the film opens with the murder of a woman and the whole town wondering who might be the culprit. We see Hire lurking about and Simon in a way creates the potential doubt where the man is knowingly looking on in these moments and it seems like he knows something. Well he does know something as a new woman comes into town, Alice (Viviane Romance), who has already helped the actual murderer, Alfred (Paul Bernard), cover up a different murder before even coming to see him as a false stranger so they can be together while avoiding police suspicion. Simon plays directly a creep figure as he leers at Alice from his window then even approaches her the following day, in no way trying to soften those elements. Although one can argue a noble effort that Hire wants to warn her about Alfred, because he knows for sure that Alfred is the killer, since Hire knows it becomes a strange game he is also playing given he could easily turn over his evidence to the police at any time that he claims to have. Simon though is effective and convincing in presenting the strangeness in a very tangible way where you never doubt that Hire would proceed in this way as the man just has his own way about life and interacting with others. 

The film then progresses as Alice is instructed to ingratiate herself with Hire to eventually plant evidence of the murder, meanwhile Alfred spreads rumors around about the already disliked Hire to try to get the town to turn on him. In their interactions Simon manages an artful combination between some genuine pathos as he describes with this accepted manner his own life as an outsider in all places, while holding this cheery disposition when speaking of his own wife who died. In those moments Simon is quietly moving, although at the same time he does bring a certain overbearing quality in moments that again emphasize that eccentricity in ways that are less endearing. While we know Alice is manipulative, and the real reason why she’s there, Simon very much presents a certain obliviousness even with some bits of creepiness as the man is just fascinated by this woman who is bothering to give him the time of day. I haven’t said it in awhile but this film is a bit of a director’s film where the overall vision is most pronounced and to a certain point the characters are more so puzzle pieces in that tapestry more than fully coming to life beyond it. At a certain point Hire is given less time, particularly in the lead up to the climax, although he returns for the climax where Simon certainly is moving and makes his whole scene of becoming a pariah hard to watch. Simon emphasizing just the confusion of the moment that turns to fear and just the final sorrow in his eyes is heartbreaking. There is however a certain limitation by the nature of the script however and by comparison the similar role in La Chienne had more he could sink his teeth into, no pun intended. It’s a good performance as Simon creates the tragedy both in terms of showing why people might not trust Hire, why Hire might conceal his knowledge of the murder, but also how he still is a victim regardless. 

Wednesday, 24 June 2026

Alternate Best Actor 1946: Sydney Greenstreet & Peter Lorre in The Verdict

Sydney Greenstreet did not receive an Oscar nomination nor did Peter Lorre for portraying Superintendent George Grodman and Victor Emmric respectively in The Verdict. 


The Verdict follows the murder investigation in gaslit London. 

The film opens as we follow Greenstreet, this time on the side of the law, following the execution of a man he had led the investigation of only to learn the man was innocent due to the arrival of a key witness in the most inopportune time. Greenstreet has a most remarkable presence as a performer which certainly can be seen here. This role though I would say is far more interesting on paper than execution. Greenstreet opens with just a repeated simplistic scene of needing to present the Inspector contemplating his failure with a quietly needling guilt, not helped by his pompous replacement Buckley (George Coulouris) lording over his failure. He does that though I wouldn’t say I was deeply moved by what Greenstreet is doing but he delivers on it in a general sense. We soon find another murder that seems even more difficult to solve, which while Buckley is now leading the investigation, Greenstreet's Grodman seems always in orbit of the situation. Where the film enters its atypical section where it is constantly switching perspectives of the characters and plants so many seemingly red herrings in there just to throw everyone off the trail it would seem. One of these characters is George’s friend Victory played by Lorre, an artist also fascinated by crime. 

Where we get a legendary duo who were in many films together since their great mutual villainy in The Maltese Falcon. Unlike that film though neither man is getting to enjoy a great character as Victor is vaguely drawn, no pun intended, what is there is mostly just that Lorre is innately a little interesting. This isn’t one of Lorre’s most interesting roles though we get a bit of him being a cad and some differing moments of fascination and fear around the investigation. Again I appreciate Lorre’s presence but as Lorre performances go it isn’t all that distinctive. I think this might be in part by the design of the film to keep you guessing as Lorre must only be “kind of” things that way he might be the killer as he acts kind of creepy, however kind of innocent too, kind of fearful, and it’s all a little too little for him to really play with. Speaking of that, Greenstreet stays mainly imperious as the inspector is always there with a comment, not always very interesting and the man seems a little blank. This too is to set up the mystery to lead to the spoilers, revelation that he is in fact the killer. Although a noble killer as he’s killed the killer of the original murder, though less noble in having done it in a way that framed an innocent man and to make Buckley look foolish. So in order to make it surprising Greenstreet was just kind of there, so the revelation should be time to sink his teeth in right? Wrong. Greenstreet is surprisingly muted in the delivery of every bit of revelation. He’s not bad but it does all feel a bit too matter of fact for announcing such a grand plan to everyone. Even his final aside to Lorre is fine but also just kind of exists more than really enlivens their characters into anything more. There’s nothing special about this team-up between the pair. It’s nice to have their presences but the roles don’t allow either to really run with anything and are victims of the film needing to preserve the mystery, though in doing so I don’t think makes the film terribly compelling. If I'm being perfectly honest I was more compelled by Coulouris and Joan Lorring, because it felt like they were actually able to define their characters. Which it is quite rare for Greenstreet and Lorre not to standout in one of their films but in this instance they really don't, though they're not bad, but look to their earlier collaborations for their far more memorable work. 

Wednesday, 17 June 2026

Alternate Best Actor 1946

 And the Nominees Were Not:
 
Michel Simon in Panique
 
Michael Redgrave in The Captive Heart
 
Charles Boyer in Cluny Brown
 
Franco Interlenghi in Shoeshine
 
Sydney Greenstreet in The Verdict  

Wednesday, 10 June 2026

1930 Update

 
Next: 1946 Lead 

Monday, 1 June 2026

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1953: Hans Conried in The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T, Roland Lesaffre in Thérèse Raquin & Isao Yamagata in Gate of Hell & Updated Results

Hans Conried did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Dr. Terwilliker aka the titular character of The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T.

The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T follows a young boy imagining his imperious piano teacher as a dictator of a fantasy world. 

Hans Conried who had a long voice actor career, with probably his most notable role in that vein coming the same year as Captain Hook/Mr. Darling in Peter Pan, was given the rare opportunity for a large live action role here as the Dr. Terwilliker aka Dr. T, the piano teacher of the young boy Tommy, because of course his name is Tommy. Conried makes the most out of it and very much is the one actor in the film who is absolutely certain on how to sell the style of Dr. Seuss in the live action form. Although we do get his subtler version of his performance in the reality scene before Tommy’s dream version as we see the actual teacher Dr. Terwilliker. Conried makes good use of the scene bringing a slightly dramatic manner to his teacher who is deeply concerned that Tommy will not be up to snuff when all his students perform together. Conried though finds just enough a reality in his reactions behind his spoken overtures that shows that this Dr. T is just a slightly dramatic guy, but still just a guy. I think it’s unfortunate that we never really get him to do a final scene with this version of the character but it is what it is. So then we shift to the crazy fantasy world of Tommy’s dream version where Dr. T is a dictatorial master of this strange world, where he hypnotizes Tommy’s mother, and wants Tommy forced to be part of his large orchestra of children forced to play piano. Conried’s performance is the one that understands the tone of the material and more importantly how to sell it. He brings the proper bit of wacky bravado as this version of Dr. T in his over the top costumes and wholly over the top villainous demeanor. Conried is having a blast and it is hard not to have it with him as he sneers at everyone, makes every declaration as though they are the most important words in the world and continually torments Tommy. It’s a fun performance where Conried is both aware of how to play into the over the top qualities of the film while also bringing this certain conviction about everything he does that also sells the world. It is a nicely balancing act that Conried makes look easy. Leading to a nice contrasting climax one where he gets his own song, singing basically about his various overly flamboyant duds where Conried beautifully plays into the vast ego of Dr. T just exuding the ideal sinister job of an evil man who loves being evil. Followed by his defeat scene where Tommy gets the best of him, and Conried again does what he can in making his over the top frustrations as cathartic as he can. Conried creating the sense of that ego loss just as he loses it. Conried consistently is the highlight here, one of the few things not overshadowed by the sets rather he amplifies them, and like the sets, exhibits the potential the film had that sadly most of it is left unrealized. 
Roland Lesaffre did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Riton in Thérèse Raquin. 

Thérèse Raquin follows the titular woman (Simone Signoret) as she embarks on an affair leading to consequences. 

Roland Lesaffre enters very late in the film, in fact initially seems innocuous enough as just a sailor who is sleeping in the train car that Thérèse pretending to be sleeping in, after her lover Laurent (Raf Vallone) killed her husband Camille (Jacques Duby). Lesaffre’s initial scene is very quiet and not particularly showy however he does bring a certain charisma even as his Riton mostly goes along with Thérèse’s claim initially. Lesaffre’s eye performance though is great because you see this internal calculation of the man as though he’s filing something away even as he gives a pretty innocuous answer that seems to put Thérèse in the clear. Of course his Riton is the wrinkle in the plot and the film in the best way possible. Lesaffre instantly brings such a remarkable presence as we unexpectedly visit him again and he does so much with just a few glances as he looks over the information about the death of the man he gave an alibi to. His performance has a fantastic quiet charm about it, mainly by presenting a man who is very much taking ownership of his own questionable ethics, however is doing it in a way that does have a strange allure. Lesaffre enters into the film in a particularly fascinating way because he becomes the star of his own film and has that charisma to back it up. Where we very much become absorbed into his own conflicting noir plot as he decides to blackmail Laurent and Thérèse. Lesaffre comes into this sequence with such a wonderful mischievous quality as he asks for his share. Lesaffre’s fascinating because he really doesn’t accentuate it as an over the top villain and more so a businessman who merely wants his share given he went along with providing protection of their crime. 

Lesaffre’s wonderful as even as he takes some literal physical abuse from Laurent, while still reacting to the pain, his smile afterwards is someone taking in stride as though he understands he’ll get a few punches yet still brings this pleasant conviction of a man who knows he’ll get what he wants from the couple. He’s fascinating because he honestly is just fun to watch here and weirdly pushes the lovers out of the lead spot, and becomes the lead just through sheer presence, even if in the overall scheme of the film he definitely is a supporting role. Lesaffre brings so much life to every bit she has though that it just makes what could be a character just to do a plot point, like say the similar character in The Postman Always Rings Twice, and has this full life of his own. Lesaffre, even within a scene plot wise to set up the final twist of fate, brings so much charm and character as he speaks to a maid to set up a back up plan. Lesaffre brings a wonderful flirtatious energy of someone who is basically seeing a major financial uptick in his future and taking ownership of that joy in every second of the process. Lesaffre importantly letting us in on his scheme essentially and again just having fun with it. I love then the final transaction where we see the duplicitous man go by his word as he accepts the money and he brings in his delivery a strange honesty in his dishonesty of someone who willingly accepts the funds without any intention of breaking his promise, despite having no reason not to keep blackmailing them. Lesaffre makes it more interesting though by presenting a man with his own moral code he goes by leading perfectly to his final memorable scene where a comical misfortune strikes. I love what Lesaffre’s final reaction is because there’s basically a “oops sorry” and in his expression you see that he feels genuinely sorry that the unexpected situation will leave him unable to fulfill the promise he was paid for. Lesaffre delivers a terrific performance that doesn’t just take over the second half of the film, his chaotic presence in the second half elevates the entirety of the film by offering such an unexpected and wholly fresh style that enlivens the last act beautifully. 
Isao Yamagata did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Wataru Watanabe in Gate of Hell.

In Gate of Hell we follow mostly as the violent warrior Endo (Kazuo Hasegawa) becomes obsessed with Lady Kesa (Machiko Kyō), requesting her essentially as a prize from their overlord for his efforts in battle. Of course Lady Kesa is married to Isa Yamagata’s Watanabe. A character and performance I thought I’d highlight because of how antithetical it is to so many samurai performances. Yamagata honestly plays the part as mostly just chill. To the point that even as Endo becomes more aggressive, Yamagata’s performance projects more a bemusement at the insanity of the other guy rather than any sense of jealousy. There’s a degree of concern for his wife but Yamagata always expresses it as concern for her well being and never concern for his “claim” of her in any way shape or form. What Yamagata emphasizes instead is just how healthy of a relationship he and Kesa have. Yamagata is very sincere with her and just has a sense of a loving grace. Even as the outside conflict arises Yamagata’s performance always emphasizes the warmth and love for his wife beyond anything else. No matter what show of it Endo makes, Yamagata presents that Wataru is honestly the ideal husband for Kesa and to break it would be a horrible sin. Yamagata even when reacting to the horrible Endo, presents more of a "this guy needs some mental help" more so than "I hate this guy". This is to the point in the finale when tragedy strikes, I love again that Yamagata’s performance again does not show any hate, to frankly someone who deserves all the hate since the tragedy should’ve been easily avoided, but rather his subdued yet potent reaction is that of just a heartbroken man who has lost his wife. There’s no hate, but again just that sense of love for his wife. It is a subtle and poignant performance by Yamagata because he doesn’t show us your great samurai, jealous husband, or any of that. What he does to define the performance is just a guy who loves his wife, and no matter what the complication might be, that never changes.
 
Next: 1930 Update