Claude Rains did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Alexander Hollenius in Deception.
That famous composer is of course played by the great Claude Rains in his third performance from 1946, following his Oscar nominated performance as a lovelorn Nazi in Notorious and as a rather jovial Satan in Angel on My Shoulder. Despite playing a Nazi and the devil, strangely enough his performance here as lauded composer Alexander Hollenius might be the most actively nefarious in his manner. Rains makes his dynamic entrance as Novak and Christine decide to marry, despite it being clear that Christine had been Hollenius’s lover at the time of the couple’s reunion. Naturally Hollenius decides to crash their wedding and the intensity of Rains’s passive aggression as he comes in to "congratulate" the pair on their nuptials reveals immediately his true intentions. The direction of the character’s ire is properly conducted by Rains with an artful combination between a seething jealousy and egotistical derision. Rains’s eyes present caution immediately towards Christine, his true hatred for this development with nearly the petulance of a boy being denied his cookie, but also with the grandiosity fitting a man who has been declared as a genius by many…including Novak himself.
There is an unquestionably joy of performance within Rains’s performance that manages to easily differentiate himself from his “other man” performances including his Oscar nominated turn from 46. Rains makes a choice in this instance really not to emphasize any empathetic qualities within his Hollenius instead making an alternative choice in reinforcing the despicable nature of the character. That isn’t to say Rains forgoes any genuine emotion, quite the contrary, however in this instance, unlike Notorious where he weirdly makes one sorry to a degree for the villain in that film, he essentially plays Hollenius as an entitled brat. He has a blast, and it is hard not to enjoy it with him as Rains, even while keeping a certain regal veneer by the virtue of his innate presence and voice, goes all in to show that it is nothing but a hollow facade to the nature of the man. It is especially easy to enjoy Rains’s truly petulant delivery of describing musicians who play his music basically as Monkeys doing his bidding. Rains creates no fancy qualities in this explosion but rather enjoyably strikes right into the heart of who this man is by delivering his outburst with a decided lack of refinement.
The situation exacerbates quickly when Hollenius recruits Novak to be a musician for his next piece which gives him easy access to brow beat Christine’s love. Rains though shows a slightly different side as the conductor/composer where he still emphasizes just the general sadistic glee he gets from every second, but within it there is at least some notion of general passion in his delivery where we see the musical genius prodding for more. While Christine believes it to be purposeful torture, Novak appreciates the treatment as a method to improve his skill, which naturally leads Christine to confront her old lover for his true intentions. Rains takes complete ownership of this sequence as to be expected where he delivers every line as this long planned dictation that emphasizes the sense of planning in every word while in his eyes still bringing just this childish type of joy of victory over a playground rival. When the composer explains he will essentially make Novak brilliant, before destroying him by revealing the affair Christine had with him, Rains is delightfully diabolical in his ability to present such confidence in the plan meanwhile you sense the seething resentment behind that confidence that is his true motivation. Rains successfully finds a new avenue in playing yet another scene stealing villain that while it has shades of his other works in no way feels a copy of it. Although I wouldn’t say he quite hits the high of his Oscar nominated turn, this is another delicious slice of the Rains pie so to speak, and just another example of him being the very best when it came to character acting in that period.
21 comments:
As for 1990 lead, the only one not on the request list I’d like reviewed is Williams in Awakenings.
Louis: Any changes to the female rankings? You posted this on the leads results
Lead:
1. Jennifer Jones in Cluny Brown
2. Ingrid Bergman in Notorious
3. Olivia de Havilland in The Dark Mirror
4. Edwige Feuillère in The Idiot
5. Dolores del Rio in La Otra
6. Setsuko Hara in No Regrets for Our Youth
7. Laraine Day in The Locket
8. Deborah Kerr in I See a Dark Stranger
9. Paulette Goddard in The Diary of a Chambermaid
10. Rosalind Russell in Sister Kenny
Supporting:
1. Donna Reed in It's a Wonderful Life
2. Teresa Wright in The Best Years of Our Lives
3. Anne Baxter in The Razor's Edge
4. Leopoldine Konstantin in Notorious
5. Myrna Loy in The Best Years of Our Lives
6. Joan Lorring in Three Strangers
7. Haruko Sugimura in No Regrets for Our Youth
8. Joan Lorring in The Verdict
9. Beulah Bondi in It's a Wonderful Life
10. Joan Crawford in Humoresque
Has anyone else seen After Dark, My Sweet? I requested Patrick a few months ago, but I wanted to see if anyone else was as blown away by him as I was.
Mel Gibson in Hamlet
Tim Roth in Vincent & Theo
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on Mitchum, Perier, Vilar and Bussieres.
Louis: Also your thoughts on the rest of the 3.5 supporting performances.
My only request is that for Bullet in the Head to review Leung as well if he's a 4.5 or above, alongside Cheung. Very much looking forward to this year, lots of performances to catch up on.
Saw Brand New Day which I really liked, quite easily my favourite of the MCU Spidey films with its more ground level approach.
Holland - 4
Zendaya - 4
Sink - 3.5
Batalon - 3.5
Bernthal - 4
Pugh - 3
Tillman - 3
Tomei - 3
Ruffalo - 3
Mando - 2.5
Colón-Zayas - 3.5
Christopher Walken - King Of New York
Louis: Very minor thing, not a big deal at all, but how come you sometimes type "Cannes" in all-caps? It's not an acronym.
To those who've seen To Sleep With Anger, if Glover definitely Lead? I haven't seen it but know of at least one critic who considers him Supporting.
Harris: Yeah. It’s not a traditionally leading role, but no one else is a protagonist
Regarding Spider-Man Appreciate some of what this was trying to do in the more underdog Peter and his personal journey, it has individual moments and scenes that work but I still feel there’s fundamental flaws inherent to all. The “old guests” feel almost pulled out of a hat, one is elevated just by comedic contrast and acting, although the other two feel two much like “look who it is” rather than the writing truly threading them into the narrative in a wholly naturalistic way…yes even for a comic book. The new character honestly I felt was the worst of this, and really everything around that character I had massive issues with and the resolution didn’t work at all for me, and instead felt like a setup for other movies. And don’t get me started on Damage Control, or especially the use of The Hand, which was perhaps the worst example of “out of a hat” choice. Having said all that, when we do get Friendly Neighborhood moments, when we get Peter trying to reconnect, there are some good things here, but in the end I still felt it too fundamentally hollow in so many aspects.
Holland - 4
Zendaya - 3.5
Sink - 3
Batalon - 3
Bernthal - 4
Pugh - 3
Tillman - 2.5(Lazy use)
Tomei - 3
Ruffalo - 3
Mando - 2.5
Colón-Zayas - 3.5
Look, I haven’t seen the movie, but can we just skip the foreplay with the Khan-Talia-Blofeld “spoiler” and just say who she is? Surely everyone here either already knows or doesn’t care.
Louis: Could you add Trevor Howard and Leo Genn in Green for Danger, Brian Aherne and Gene Raymond in The Locket, and Guy Madison in Till the End of Time to your ranking?
Disclosure Day cast:
Blunt-2.5
O'Connor-3.5
Firth-2.5
Hewson-3.5
Domingo-3
Russell-3.5
Marvel-3.5
Grace-4
Lou, you okay with giving thoughts on The Invite's cast at this point?
Anonymous:
I am well aware. But two reasons: one it differentiates it from the city knowing that I’m referring to it in the context of the festival/awards and the other is that is how the festival itself lists it on the majority of its posters/promotions.
Michael:
No Changes.
Luke:
Mitchum - 4.5(Very much a performance that shows just how much he had in the tank right away. As you get some of his leading presence, despite being in a supporting role, as he just takes over every scene with maybe his first instance as the guy exasperated by life, a role he would thrive with many more times. But even more so though we also get to see his acting ability just as well. Mitchum brings a reality in his initial flashback reactions where you see internally the man slowly realizing the strange situation he is in. Then in his telling of the story Mitchum really delivers a sense of emotional urgency where he makes you care about someone who is offscreen. He’s then just terrific in his final scene where he brings this potent hollowness of someone who has tried so hard, cared so much, but now speaks the words of not caring only because that's all he can do.)
Périer - 4(Since Orpheus he has become an actor I’ve been looking out for more from and this film at the very least provided that. Périer delivers a moving if also brutal depiction of a guy swept up in a romance where Périer effectively creates the intensity of the fixation of the man being swept away by this as in order to set up the sudden fall from that grace. Périer delivers in both aspects the right sort of youthful delusions that propel him first in being brought along, then the sudden overpowering depression as though his whole world has been collapsed by just one change.)
Vilar - 4(A fascinating creepy performance where Vilar’s eyes do so much where he indeed feels like he is peering into everyone’s soul, then the way in which he moves has this strange ease about it that feels much more as a spectre than a person. Vilar manages to find just the right technique here as there’s nothing to make him not a man, but everything he does also makes you feel there is something distinctly not human about him. I only wish the film had done even more with his performance/character.)
Bussières - 4(Brings such an immediate honesty in his character who has been through so much yet comes out of the other side with just an appreciation for life. His performance has a wonderful combination between melancholy and joy where you see both naturally intertwined as the man who definitely suffered by is dealing with that suffering by appreciating all that he has. Another aspect of the film that I think it could’ve done more with because what we get has so much potential including within the performance.)
Anonymous:
Knox - (Just brings a strong presence as per usual, and while there mainly for supportive exposition, he brings such a notable warmth in the bits that he has.)
Reggiani - (Brings a nice sleaze but with nuance within it. You see the sense of genuine desperation along with genuine connection in moments with his sister, where while he presents his character as a horrible person there is complication in these emotions. Again something that could’ve been explored even more but still interesting in what we do get.)
Paulsen - (Delivers an effective contrast between the sheer unquestioned brutality of the flashback, with the more pathetic man in the present set scenes. The simplicity of the setup gives him only so much but is effective with what he has.)
Meredith - (Gets to act bonkers, and does it well with that very specific Meredith energy. Although notable that he manages to play so much older here far before he was playing the old man. Effective though in crafting the eccentricity in an entertaining but also convincing fashion.)
Devine - (Probably the best use of his very specific presence, as he tones down the excessive elements of it and gives some very moving quiet moments even within his style.)
Lorre - (Playing the villain obviously effectively, not too notable past his final scene which is good in bringing a little bit of earnest vulnerability.)
Robert:
I mean I’d give a few days even for some of the plot points from the Odyssey despite the age of that story.
Harris:
I’ll hold off on Norton given how much people are loving the film, as there’s no reason to think he couldn’t get nominated. I also feel I essentially gave my thoughts on Rogen in my review (which in case anyone ever asks, no chance in my opinion changing with that one, this is an Asteroid City level moment where not only do I have a difference of opinion but I cannot see the alternative in any way shape or form…then again I find Rogen Shtick at least a little tiresome at the default level).
Wilde - (Probably could go up as I think as the sort of deglamed role for an obviously attractive person often seems forced. Wilde though I think rightly expresses it largely in terms of this stress more than anything and doesn’t suddenly try to make her frumpy in a false way, this both in direction and her performance. In that sense Wilde is quite effective with the tension and I think particularly in terms of managing to create it as this spiraling thing between moments where it comes out in comedic ways, but other times where you see it as hiding a very horrible sadness that is the overriding truth of her situation. Creating in a way too much of her escape in the reactions as something else than to exist in that pain, and finding a great deal of nuance in playing the stressful anxieties without ever reducing it to simple terms.)
Cruz - (Probably her best English Language performance, and I don’t know maybe it helps that part of it utilizes that her English isn’t 100% perfect. In any instance Cruz is quite wonderful in very much weaponizing her sexuality in a way that manages to be inviting rather than dangerous while certainly intense in just how much she owns that. But what is more impressive even though is in it no way clashes when the character wants to make specific insights as it is all about her as someone just speaking her mind without hesitation in what she sees as the thing she is most calm and comfortable with. Creating the sense of real connection within all of it and something becomes more evident as the story goes along.)
Louis: What are your ratings and thoughts on Ian Wolfe and Billy House in Bedlam, Oscar Levant in Humoresque, Francis Lederer in The Diary of a Chambermaid, Pierre Brasseur in Gates of the Night, Lee J. Cobb in Anna and the King of Siam and Monty Woolley in Night and Day?
Post a Comment