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 complication 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 reactionary 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 reactionary 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. 

Alternate Best Actor 1946: Charles Boyer in Cluny Brown

Charles Boyer did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Adam Belinski in Cluny Brown.

Cluny Brown is a wonderful romantic satire of a European professor and the niece of a plumber who together don’t quite fit into the rigid expectations of English society. 

We return to Charles Boyer quite swiftly after his long absence to another un-nominated turn of his. Boyer in this instance plays the atypical lead as a European professor and writer escaping from the Nazi’s for his expressly anti-Nazi views. Although that may sound very dramatic, we actually begin with Adam Belinski just arriving to some random party in England early and in fact being mistaken for a plumber. Boyer is really taking upon two challenges of this role that I would necessarily have pegged him as being ideal for before watching this film yet he absolutely is. The first challenge really is the dialogue itself which is fairly rapid fire for Belinski specifically as he talks circles around everyone, and while Boyer frequently has a more deliberate delivery in most films, in this film he thrives with the far greater tempo. Boyer has an ease with his dialogue and it really just so naturally flows throughout where Boyer through this exudes the intelligence of his Belinski with such considerable ease. There’s the next challenge though is that all this superior intelligence could easily come off as pompous, but Boyer is damn charming here. Boyer’s magnificent in the way he’s able to articulate the nature of Belinski who is smarter than everyone, knows this fact, yet I think he manages to find the tricky high wire of owning but still making Belinski so likable. I think Boyer knows how to emphasize the fun of it all and only brings a more admonishing quality in his quick asides when Belinski is being more corrective against societal foolishness. We even have the opening meeting where he basically gets the host to let him sleep somewhere through this word juggling that Boyer makes so easy to in a way talking down to the man’s manner yet doing so in a way in which he seems the most gracious of teachers. 

The party though leads to two different meetings, one is meeting a young man of wealthy family Andrew (Peter Lawford) who is currently struggling to confirm his romantic relationship Betty Cream (Helen Walker) who is purposefully playing a love triangle between him and another man. Andrew knows of Belinski and offers him a place to stay at his parent’s mansion. I love Boyer’s reactions to the young man’s earnest but also political posturing, where he so naturally manages to bring a graciousness while wholly sarcastically appreciating the young man’s act of writing letters to a newspaper as his great act. Regardless Belinski takes up the offer, and I think what Boyer manages to do though is create in even his sarcasm this genuine glint of appreciation of any passion for his cause even if perhaps the safest. The even more important meeting though comes from the titular Cluny Brown (Jennifer Jones) who acts on her uncle’s behalf, though not with his knowledge, to fix the man’s plumbing issues. Cluny, who loves to plumb, is a ball of fire of enthusiasm though too she ignores the expectations of society though more so in being exactly who she is than coming at Belinski’s intellectual superiority. Either way Boyer’s great in being as impressed with the young woman’s candor, as frankly we the audience are. Boyer’s wonderful in presenting this utter fascination towards Cluny as someone far above and beyond the norm, while offering even this minor self-depication as a non-romantic pact to support each other in their ill-fitting ways. 

Belinski becomes a guest at the house of Andrew’s family which by chance, at the same time Cluny is hired as their new maid, in an attempt by her uncle to set her on the "right path". Although she is almost immediately fired for speaking freely at meals by earnestly suggesting the best food, only saved by Belinski’s intercession pointing out that the host indeed took the piece she suggested. Boyer’s great in just his work of his eyes of admiration but also kind of taking in each scene with the sense of criticism being prepared before he says them, though delivered again in that fantastic way of confronting without confrontation that Boyer makes feel so natural each time. Belinski’s indirect methods get the best of him when he learns Cluny is seeing a local chemist as a romantic partner just as he realizes his own interest in her as such. Something I think Boyer again thrives in his way of cultivating the sense of true admiration that goes beyond just enjoying her rejection of norms but loving everything she does. Boyer’s fantastic in showing this as even something that knocks Belinski back in the moments where he gives his hand away particularly in the almost childlike enthusiasm he brings as Belinski questions Betty if the talkative Cluny ever mentions him. Meanwhile Belinski is still plying his methods beyond that such as directly trying to resolve the Betty, Arthur issue by simply asking her what’s the deal. Where I do love Boyer is just playing the directness of it so well but with his natural humorous touches. Even the moment of commenting on the need to press on in his Anti-Nazi effort, Boyer I think beautifully hits that passionate note with a quiet conviction that reveals the real heart of Belinski. Speaking of my favorite moment of his performance actually isn’t the wit, as much as I’ve enjoyed that, it is a moment of certain earnestness. That is when he’s leaving, thinking Cluny will be married off, she rushes to meet him before he leaves. Where we do get the key chemistry between Jones, where it is less of lusty eyes but rather the combination of Cluny getting to be herself while Boyer projecting nothing but the purest appreciation where both honestly glow as one. I love the pivotal moment where Boyer shows Belinski taking his usual appreciation of Cluny’s one of a kind qualities, until she notes that she was coldly dismissed by the chemist, his mother and other guests for daring to do some needed plumbing. There’s a surprising power in the humor completely lifting from Boyer’s face and there being nothing but deep concern for this horrible treatment of Cluny. Boyer unlocks the key of the moment so naturally in seeing as much as he adores the idiosyncrasy of her, he also hates the rejection of her. A relatively swift wrap up to the film, however honestly it wholly worked for me greatly because I feel both Boyer and Jones deliver the moment so honestly you can’t help but feel they should be together.