John Wayne in The Quiet Man
Showing posts with label 1952. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1952. Show all posts
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Best Actor 1952: Results
John Wayne in The Quiet Man
Best Actor: Gary Cooper in High Noon
Gary Cooper won his second Oscar from his fifth and final Oscar nomination for portraying Marshal Will Kane in High Noon.
High Noon tells the story of Will Kane who must stand alone, due to the cowardice of the towns people against four men seeking revenge against him.
Gary Cooper is not one of my favorite actors, I find he has a lack of presence and power, especially in his voice, his performances can be incredibly dull as well. This performance though is his most iconic though, and usually regarded as his best as well. What he looks like in the film certainly is iconic and notable, his Marshal uniform, and the way he walks down the streets all alone certianly is memorable, but how good is his actual performance.
A major aspect of Cooper's performance that I usually criticize in his performance is a certain lack of passion or power behind many of his performances, but I will say this usually results from being too unemotional, and too withdrawn. Here his withdrawn personality actually works quite well for his performance. Will Kane stands in the middle of the film as a moral center, who must do the right thing no matter what will come of him. Cooper stands in the middle this time his face expresses honest emotion of sadness and dread but also am urgent responsibility to justice and what is right.
I think despite the effectiveness of Cooper's quiet expression that carry through film, many other aspects of the film threaten to undermine Cooper's portrayal. For example I really feel many of the other actors really overplay their roles, or underplay them sometimes quite terribly. This does leave Cooper to carry all of the wight in the film. Another threat to his performance is the back story the film attempts to, quite poorly in my opinion, juxtapose on Will Kane. The back story such his involvement with Katy Jurado's character seems out of place, certainly poorly fleshed out and does nothing for the film, and works against the effectiveness of the film.
Cooper manages against this though to give an honestly honest and effective performance. A simple performance but a truthful and powerful one. His performance of Will Kane is one that the audience can follow through his struggle of his hour before his destiny comes. Cooper gains empathy in this film during each of his disappointments and his entire struggle in the film. Cooper does this not really pleading for sympathy but truly earning with iconic characterization of Kane that really is effective. Overall this is a performance from Cooper which fulfills his role without effort, and creating what is his best performance.
Gary Cooper is not one of my favorite actors, I find he has a lack of presence and power, especially in his voice, his performances can be incredibly dull as well. This performance though is his most iconic though, and usually regarded as his best as well. What he looks like in the film certainly is iconic and notable, his Marshal uniform, and the way he walks down the streets all alone certianly is memorable, but how good is his actual performance.
A major aspect of Cooper's performance that I usually criticize in his performance is a certain lack of passion or power behind many of his performances, but I will say this usually results from being too unemotional, and too withdrawn. Here his withdrawn personality actually works quite well for his performance. Will Kane stands in the middle of the film as a moral center, who must do the right thing no matter what will come of him. Cooper stands in the middle this time his face expresses honest emotion of sadness and dread but also am urgent responsibility to justice and what is right.
I think despite the effectiveness of Cooper's quiet expression that carry through film, many other aspects of the film threaten to undermine Cooper's portrayal. For example I really feel many of the other actors really overplay their roles, or underplay them sometimes quite terribly. This does leave Cooper to carry all of the wight in the film. Another threat to his performance is the back story the film attempts to, quite poorly in my opinion, juxtapose on Will Kane. The back story such his involvement with Katy Jurado's character seems out of place, certainly poorly fleshed out and does nothing for the film, and works against the effectiveness of the film.
Cooper manages against this though to give an honestly honest and effective performance. A simple performance but a truthful and powerful one. His performance of Will Kane is one that the audience can follow through his struggle of his hour before his destiny comes. Cooper gains empathy in this film during each of his disappointments and his entire struggle in the film. Cooper does this not really pleading for sympathy but truly earning with iconic characterization of Kane that really is effective. Overall this is a performance from Cooper which fulfills his role without effort, and creating what is his best performance.
Best Actor 1952: Marlon Brando in Viva Zapata!
Marlon Brando received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Emiliano Zapata in Viva Zapata!
Viva Zapata! is a fairly effective fictionalized telling of the exploits of Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata.
Marlon Brando portrays Zapata and something that must be addressed is his Mexican face. He has his darkened make up and his big mustache, that is noticeable, distracting at times especially when standing next to the real Mexicans like Anthony Quinn, but still it can be gotten over pretty easily since Brando still manages, despite this handicap, to give a strong performance.
I like Brando's performance because he really does not try to make Zapata a larger than life figure. He actually makes him a pretty simple man, who has strong morals, and a strong passion for his cause. Brando really keeps him a down to earth man, but shows a real honest desire to bring freedom, and land to his people he holds dear. Brando underplays Zapata always, and quite well, as he shows a certain anger deep within Zapata. An anger that has built slowly through his life through the mistreatment he has received from his unfair government. He always shows this deep anger he always clearly shows that he must contain to be a levelheaded leader.
He is equally effective as a quiet reserved leader. He has the proper passion and power into his performance, that really does not leave any question that he convince his men to follow him so easily. Brando's performance is effective in that he does manage to really show his strength as a leader without acting like a great leader, but rather a normal man who has just had this duty thrust upon him.
Zapata though does slowly change as a man due to becoming tired of the betrayals and the pains involved in the war in Mexico. He changes in two ways in that he slowly does become more disillusioned and begins to in turn become a more brutal leader. Brando earns this change well because he slowly shows the wears of his situation build up over time. His coldness he gains later in his treatment of his prisoners or his betrayers is made an honest coldness that has grown within Zapata due to what he has been through.
Another challenging change is made breifly when he is the leader of Mexico, and as he acts toward his neighbors just as the president did at the beginning acted towards him. This is a real challenge to make this sort of change believable but Brando handles it well because he showed the way time in battle built up on him. Of course Zapata quickly sees the errors of what he is doing, and does in fact handle this quick change just well showing what he did earlier was a result of almost his exhaustion of the wars he fought.
Overall Brando gives a strong performance. Brando never overplays his role, and never falls into any of the pitfalls one would expect he easily could have fallen into. A performance that gets over easily his technical miscasting because of his passion, subtlety and strength he brings to his role. It is not Brando's greatest role by any means, nor his greatest performance, but it is certainly a strong piece of acting from the great actor.
Marlon Brando portrays Zapata and something that must be addressed is his Mexican face. He has his darkened make up and his big mustache, that is noticeable, distracting at times especially when standing next to the real Mexicans like Anthony Quinn, but still it can be gotten over pretty easily since Brando still manages, despite this handicap, to give a strong performance.
I like Brando's performance because he really does not try to make Zapata a larger than life figure. He actually makes him a pretty simple man, who has strong morals, and a strong passion for his cause. Brando really keeps him a down to earth man, but shows a real honest desire to bring freedom, and land to his people he holds dear. Brando underplays Zapata always, and quite well, as he shows a certain anger deep within Zapata. An anger that has built slowly through his life through the mistreatment he has received from his unfair government. He always shows this deep anger he always clearly shows that he must contain to be a levelheaded leader.
He is equally effective as a quiet reserved leader. He has the proper passion and power into his performance, that really does not leave any question that he convince his men to follow him so easily. Brando's performance is effective in that he does manage to really show his strength as a leader without acting like a great leader, but rather a normal man who has just had this duty thrust upon him.
Zapata though does slowly change as a man due to becoming tired of the betrayals and the pains involved in the war in Mexico. He changes in two ways in that he slowly does become more disillusioned and begins to in turn become a more brutal leader. Brando earns this change well because he slowly shows the wears of his situation build up over time. His coldness he gains later in his treatment of his prisoners or his betrayers is made an honest coldness that has grown within Zapata due to what he has been through.
Another challenging change is made breifly when he is the leader of Mexico, and as he acts toward his neighbors just as the president did at the beginning acted towards him. This is a real challenge to make this sort of change believable but Brando handles it well because he showed the way time in battle built up on him. Of course Zapata quickly sees the errors of what he is doing, and does in fact handle this quick change just well showing what he did earlier was a result of almost his exhaustion of the wars he fought.
Overall Brando gives a strong performance. Brando never overplays his role, and never falls into any of the pitfalls one would expect he easily could have fallen into. A performance that gets over easily his technical miscasting because of his passion, subtlety and strength he brings to his role. It is not Brando's greatest role by any means, nor his greatest performance, but it is certainly a strong piece of acting from the great actor.
Monday, 14 March 2011
Best Actor 1952: Jose Ferrer in Moulin Rouge
Jose Ferrer received his third and final Oscar nomination for portraying Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and actually his father The Comte de Toulouse-Lautrec.
Moulin Rouge tells the story of troubled dwarfish painter Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and his time in Paris.
First the father Comte de Toulouse-Lautrec is a short role, and I must say that it is strange they chose to have Ferrer play the son and the father. He is in flashbacks as a prideful man, and happy one who wants his son be like him. Ferrer is fine but we see little of him as the father. He also has one scene where he is in the same scene as Henri. It is a strange scene to see Ferrer act as himself, and frankly it probably would have been better for someone else to play the father, since it ended up just being mostly distracting. He is basically functional as the father, except at the end where he shows some honest concern for his son, which is well handled actually.
As Henri himself Ferrer seems lacking. I must say it is visually striking to see Ferrer as the dwarfish Lautrec, but this aspect of the character requires little acting from Ferrer. Although when he is clearly actually walking I suppose he had to hide the pain he had from walking on his knees, which to tell you the truth I do not think he managed to completely hide.
Ferrer plays a sad weakened man but he does not try to really ever gain the viewers pity. He never though manages to really bring in the viewers of his feelings too well though. I never really felt what he was feeling most of the time. I will grant that at times in some quiet reaction shots he was fairly effective, but still these are short and most of the time, he does very little to create any honest feeling from his portrayal.
Despite looking like Henri well enough he never really gets under his skin with his performance. He always stays at a distance much like the film. He also fails to really to show any of the brilliance of the painter, or any desire or cause for his artistic desire. He equally has trouble really suggesting the self destruction of his character otherwise than his disability. He drinks in the film, but Ferrer fails to create any underlying causes otherwise that this single facet of his.
Overall Ferrer's performance just is lacking. He has a moment or two, always the quiet reactions that show some promise, but he never capitalizes well on this, and he offsets this a bit with his overacting in many scenes when he is trying to show louder emotions. Ferrer performance overall simply is a missed opportunity. Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec should have or could have been a great characterization if an actor really delved deep into the mind of this man, but Ferrer never does this in this lacking performance.
First the father Comte de Toulouse-Lautrec is a short role, and I must say that it is strange they chose to have Ferrer play the son and the father. He is in flashbacks as a prideful man, and happy one who wants his son be like him. Ferrer is fine but we see little of him as the father. He also has one scene where he is in the same scene as Henri. It is a strange scene to see Ferrer act as himself, and frankly it probably would have been better for someone else to play the father, since it ended up just being mostly distracting. He is basically functional as the father, except at the end where he shows some honest concern for his son, which is well handled actually.
As Henri himself Ferrer seems lacking. I must say it is visually striking to see Ferrer as the dwarfish Lautrec, but this aspect of the character requires little acting from Ferrer. Although when he is clearly actually walking I suppose he had to hide the pain he had from walking on his knees, which to tell you the truth I do not think he managed to completely hide.
Ferrer plays a sad weakened man but he does not try to really ever gain the viewers pity. He never though manages to really bring in the viewers of his feelings too well though. I never really felt what he was feeling most of the time. I will grant that at times in some quiet reaction shots he was fairly effective, but still these are short and most of the time, he does very little to create any honest feeling from his portrayal.
Despite looking like Henri well enough he never really gets under his skin with his performance. He always stays at a distance much like the film. He also fails to really to show any of the brilliance of the painter, or any desire or cause for his artistic desire. He equally has trouble really suggesting the self destruction of his character otherwise than his disability. He drinks in the film, but Ferrer fails to create any underlying causes otherwise that this single facet of his.
Overall Ferrer's performance just is lacking. He has a moment or two, always the quiet reactions that show some promise, but he never capitalizes well on this, and he offsets this a bit with his overacting in many scenes when he is trying to show louder emotions. Ferrer performance overall simply is a missed opportunity. Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec should have or could have been a great characterization if an actor really delved deep into the mind of this man, but Ferrer never does this in this lacking performance.
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Best Actor 1952: Alec Guinness in The Lavender Hill Mob
Alec Guinness received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Henry 'Dutch' Holland in The Lavender Hill Mob.
The Lavender Hill Mob I find is an extremely enjoyable heist film, that is both thrilling, and quite hilarious.
Alec Guinness portrays Henry Holland who is a man who makes sure that the gold is transferred from the foundry to the bank safely and soundly. He though has been planning on stealing it for along time, and gets the help from a lead novelty manufacturer Alfred Pendlebury (Stanley Holloway) and two low level thugs to steal the gold, disguise it as lead Eiffel tower miniatures to smuggle it out of England and become rich. Guinness is the one we follow through his scheme who I for one felt it was a pleasure to go with Holland through his journey thanks to Guinness. Guinness is one of my favorite actors and he almost always has a certain joy, and gusto to his performances which I love. Guinness as Holland gives a charming performance that leads the film quite well.
The main reason though I really like the performance is how enjoyable and funny I found Guinness throughout the film. I loved scheming with him through his plan, and that going through, and than dealing with the unexpected, it was joy all the way through. I usually empathize so much, not even with more serious performances but I just could not get enough of Holland. Guinness delivers all his lines with perfect timing, to add the right amusement, but I think he is best when he is doing his silent and physical reactions. I just find some of his perfect reactions downright hilarious in particular his reaction to being called boss, I just loved his reaction there, and another gem I think is when he is called an honest chap by one his fellow criminals. Guinness could have done just a reaction of happiness and it could have been nothing, but Guinness's timing and expression turn it into pure gold for me.
His performance is hilarious to me from beginning to end. I love the fun he has with the role, while always staying quite in character. Now describing comedy is not always easy, and honestly you either find it funny or you do not, you cannot be told something is funny than suddenly find it funny. So I personally found what Guinness did in the role comedic gold from when he beats himself up, to gets delirious running down the Eiffel Tower, to running and tricking the police at the end, He did it was grace and gusto and never missed a beat, and I laughed and smiled all the way through. Now there are prudes who need performances to be more emotional, more technical more dramatic in the tradional sense well Guinness does do some of that as well.
He makes his desire for the gold well attuned, and his constant thinking and dissecting at the beginning of the film is subtle but terrifically handled by Guinness. Also he puts on a facade all the time when he is with the bank people and everyone else, of a humble unambitious man. Guinness makes it completely believable that no one would ever suspect him of ever thinking of stealing the gold. He slowly peals it away and reveals more when he meets his accomplish Pendlebury, Guinness as well does this quite well, and shows a rather different man underneath. He equally is good and his loss of his facade though as his plans start to fall apart, and he fumbles a talk with the detective. Guinness shows him restless, but attempting to keep the facade but ultimately failing showing too much of the schemer within.
Another part that is equally well done is his chemistry with Stanley Holloway they are terrific together. I am surprised they did not make more films together since they are a true comedic duo in the best sense of the word. They work wonderfully together playing off each other well with the differences in their characters' traits, and attitudes. Also they show their joy, and friendship together very naturally and incredibly effectively. Overall this is a wonderful performance by Alec Guinness that is both effective and well done acting, but more importantly just a great comic performance, that I just love to watch.
Alec Guinness portrays Henry Holland who is a man who makes sure that the gold is transferred from the foundry to the bank safely and soundly. He though has been planning on stealing it for along time, and gets the help from a lead novelty manufacturer Alfred Pendlebury (Stanley Holloway) and two low level thugs to steal the gold, disguise it as lead Eiffel tower miniatures to smuggle it out of England and become rich. Guinness is the one we follow through his scheme who I for one felt it was a pleasure to go with Holland through his journey thanks to Guinness. Guinness is one of my favorite actors and he almost always has a certain joy, and gusto to his performances which I love. Guinness as Holland gives a charming performance that leads the film quite well.
The main reason though I really like the performance is how enjoyable and funny I found Guinness throughout the film. I loved scheming with him through his plan, and that going through, and than dealing with the unexpected, it was joy all the way through. I usually empathize so much, not even with more serious performances but I just could not get enough of Holland. Guinness delivers all his lines with perfect timing, to add the right amusement, but I think he is best when he is doing his silent and physical reactions. I just find some of his perfect reactions downright hilarious in particular his reaction to being called boss, I just loved his reaction there, and another gem I think is when he is called an honest chap by one his fellow criminals. Guinness could have done just a reaction of happiness and it could have been nothing, but Guinness's timing and expression turn it into pure gold for me.
His performance is hilarious to me from beginning to end. I love the fun he has with the role, while always staying quite in character. Now describing comedy is not always easy, and honestly you either find it funny or you do not, you cannot be told something is funny than suddenly find it funny. So I personally found what Guinness did in the role comedic gold from when he beats himself up, to gets delirious running down the Eiffel Tower, to running and tricking the police at the end, He did it was grace and gusto and never missed a beat, and I laughed and smiled all the way through. Now there are prudes who need performances to be more emotional, more technical more dramatic in the tradional sense well Guinness does do some of that as well.
He makes his desire for the gold well attuned, and his constant thinking and dissecting at the beginning of the film is subtle but terrifically handled by Guinness. Also he puts on a facade all the time when he is with the bank people and everyone else, of a humble unambitious man. Guinness makes it completely believable that no one would ever suspect him of ever thinking of stealing the gold. He slowly peals it away and reveals more when he meets his accomplish Pendlebury, Guinness as well does this quite well, and shows a rather different man underneath. He equally is good and his loss of his facade though as his plans start to fall apart, and he fumbles a talk with the detective. Guinness shows him restless, but attempting to keep the facade but ultimately failing showing too much of the schemer within.
Another part that is equally well done is his chemistry with Stanley Holloway they are terrific together. I am surprised they did not make more films together since they are a true comedic duo in the best sense of the word. They work wonderfully together playing off each other well with the differences in their characters' traits, and attitudes. Also they show their joy, and friendship together very naturally and incredibly effectively. Overall this is a wonderful performance by Alec Guinness that is both effective and well done acting, but more importantly just a great comic performance, that I just love to watch.
Best Actor 1952: Kirk Douglas in The Bad and the Beautiful
Kirk Douglas received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Hollywood producer Johnathan Shields in the Bad and the Beautiful.
The Bad the Beautiful tells an episodic story of how Shields has helped and hurt three people a screen writer, a movie star actress, and a director. It is terribly repetitive story, and when it ended I really thought, "that's it?".
Johnathan Shields is the son of a old filmmaker who has died, and had so little mourners Shields paid extras to go to his funeral. He uses his father's legacy, or lack thereof as an ambition to become a great filmmaker, along with a wannabe director. So they work together to make something special and become noticed. Early in these moments Douglas is his usual charming self which cannot be faulted. He also shows an to ambitious personality which is well handled too. He puts the right passion into his performance that reflects well the passion of Shields in his desire to make it to the top. Well he does, but Shields hurt his director friend by not giving the director the star directing job for Shields' first major film, something the director was integral part of. This first betrayal was well handled by Douglas, but it was only a slight one and really something Shields had do to in the situation.
Shields' next challenge is to turn a downtrodden daughter of a late movie star, Georgia Lorrison (Lana Turner) into a star. Douglas is good early in these scenes with Turner, as they are not so romantic together but rather passionate. It is a strange concept, but Douglas handles the relationship as something Shields utilizes to make her into a star. He again shows the right passion, and power in her molding of her that is effective. He does bring her to stardom, but again he betrays her by not returning her love after their triumph together. This time a far larger betrayal and one unfortuantely Douglas does not really portray well enough. He really did not indicate it quite well enough beforehand, and his whole big statement of not wanting to be manipulated by anyone else seems to come out of nowhere. I will blame both the film and Douglas as well on this one. The film always brought it on a little too quickly, but Douglas needed to make a better transition. It is not a terrible part of his performance but it is a weakness especially since he was so successful with a similar character in Champion, here he falls short.
Finally the last person he helps is a novelist/screenwriter (Dick Powell). Douglas in this third of the film actually seems almost transparent and it really does not focus enough on him, and perhaps too much on Powell. He is shown to help the screenwriter by bringing his brilliance out as a writer. Shields though has a flop due to his own direction, and hurts Powell's character by leading his southern belle of a wife into an affair with a movie star, which leads to her death in a airplane crash. Douglas' performance here became pretty much old hat, as he repeated but to an lesser extent what he did in the other two thirds of the film. Not that he is bad, but he just did not add anything to Shields here. He again though did not make Shields' brutal edge entirely believable, although again the film did not give it enough time for it to be really effective. So that's Douglas performance, charming as usual, and properly passionate but lacking in ways. My review might seem like an abrupt cut off but that is the way the film deals with his performance, it just cuts off. Douglas and the film probably have benefited by giving his one scene at the end to show what Shields has become after all these events that have transpired, but the film does not give it to him. I still think it is a good enough performance overall, but it is lacking in some aspects.
Johnathan Shields is the son of a old filmmaker who has died, and had so little mourners Shields paid extras to go to his funeral. He uses his father's legacy, or lack thereof as an ambition to become a great filmmaker, along with a wannabe director. So they work together to make something special and become noticed. Early in these moments Douglas is his usual charming self which cannot be faulted. He also shows an to ambitious personality which is well handled too. He puts the right passion into his performance that reflects well the passion of Shields in his desire to make it to the top. Well he does, but Shields hurt his director friend by not giving the director the star directing job for Shields' first major film, something the director was integral part of. This first betrayal was well handled by Douglas, but it was only a slight one and really something Shields had do to in the situation.
Shields' next challenge is to turn a downtrodden daughter of a late movie star, Georgia Lorrison (Lana Turner) into a star. Douglas is good early in these scenes with Turner, as they are not so romantic together but rather passionate. It is a strange concept, but Douglas handles the relationship as something Shields utilizes to make her into a star. He again shows the right passion, and power in her molding of her that is effective. He does bring her to stardom, but again he betrays her by not returning her love after their triumph together. This time a far larger betrayal and one unfortuantely Douglas does not really portray well enough. He really did not indicate it quite well enough beforehand, and his whole big statement of not wanting to be manipulated by anyone else seems to come out of nowhere. I will blame both the film and Douglas as well on this one. The film always brought it on a little too quickly, but Douglas needed to make a better transition. It is not a terrible part of his performance but it is a weakness especially since he was so successful with a similar character in Champion, here he falls short.
Finally the last person he helps is a novelist/screenwriter (Dick Powell). Douglas in this third of the film actually seems almost transparent and it really does not focus enough on him, and perhaps too much on Powell. He is shown to help the screenwriter by bringing his brilliance out as a writer. Shields though has a flop due to his own direction, and hurts Powell's character by leading his southern belle of a wife into an affair with a movie star, which leads to her death in a airplane crash. Douglas' performance here became pretty much old hat, as he repeated but to an lesser extent what he did in the other two thirds of the film. Not that he is bad, but he just did not add anything to Shields here. He again though did not make Shields' brutal edge entirely believable, although again the film did not give it enough time for it to be really effective. So that's Douglas performance, charming as usual, and properly passionate but lacking in ways. My review might seem like an abrupt cut off but that is the way the film deals with his performance, it just cuts off. Douglas and the film probably have benefited by giving his one scene at the end to show what Shields has become after all these events that have transpired, but the film does not give it to him. I still think it is a good enough performance overall, but it is lacking in some aspects.
Friday, 11 March 2011
Best Actor 1952
Kirk Douglas in The Bad and the Beautiful
Marlon Brando in Viva Zapata!
Gary Cooper in High Noon
Jose Ferrer in Moulin Rouge
Alec Guinness in The Lavender Hill Mob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)