Alternate Best Actor 1995: Bruce Willis in 12 Monkeys

Bruce Willis did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying James Cole in 12 Monkeys.

The 12 Monkeys did receive attention for the performance of Brad Pitt as the crazed Jeffrey Goines but Bruce Willis was ignored in the film's central performance as a man from an apocalyptic future sent back to gather information that created the virus that caused the societal collapse. Willis begins the film in a way in which it seems like it might be a character more normally in his wheel house that being a man with a mission. Willis though even in these early scenes set in the future does not portray Cole as one of the hero types. Willis instead portrays him as a rather exasperated man as you can feel the wear of a man that would come from having lived in such a desolate place for the majority of his life. Also even to start though Willis conveys a definite desperation about Cole, as he seems constantly haunted by the past, and not just simply because he's currently living in a prison of sorts. Willis does not try in anyway to play the part like a Willis type hero, apparently even the directory Terry Gilliam gave Willis a list of Willis's own usual tricks that he was not to employ in this performance. Well that direction certainly pays off as even before Cole takes his mission Willis gives us a real sense of the horrible condition Cole is in as well as basically the horrible condition of the world through the individual state of this man.

The film then proceeds to jump after Cole has apparently made his journey into the past. We do not witness the time travel, but it appears it is a bit less pleasant than taking a drive in a DeLorean. When we see Cole again he has found himself in a mental institution where a psychiatrist Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) attempts to help him. Willis is excellent in his first scene as he is restrained in a room having been arrested after attacking police officers. Willis, unlike a certain co-star, portrays the "madness" of Cole incredibly well. Willis shows the way his body seems to be completely wasted almost by the journey in just the wretched state he is in. Willis though importantly depicts the ramblings of Cole especially well by conveys the extreme fear in Cole's voice as he just tries to tell the doctor his mission. Obviously trying to tell someone your from the future is not easy. Willis is terrific in making even more difficult in a believable fashion by so well realizing not only what the time travel has done to him, but also portrays just the amount of the anxiety gripping him knowing the importance of his mission. Willis also establishes instantly that this most definitely will not be a typical Bruce Willis performance.

Bruce Willis continues to be almost surprisingly good in the scenes set in the mental institution making Pitt's performance, which on re-watch come off even worse on re-watch and pretty much is just a bad version of Dennis Hopper's performance in Apocalypse Now, look quite amateurish by comparison. Willis does well to realize the whole state of Cole in these scenes within a brilliantly internalized intensity of being in a situation he does not quite understand, while still being burdened by the purpose of his mission. Along with that though Willis portrays so well the daze that Cole is in caused by the drugs that the institute is giving him. In all of that though Willis is still able to create the sense of Cole attempting to break out of all it in his attempt to find out the information he needs in the future. Willis is particularly good in a scene where he attempts to explain his purpose once again, this time calmer though also likely medicated, in front of the panel of psychiatrists. Willis conveys so well the single minded nature of Cole as well as the incredible sense of urgency as he tries to put it clearly to the psychiatrists. Willis is excellent because he does still sound completely insane, though if one believe he is from the future Willis shows the painful situation that Cole is in.

Eventually the future takes Cole back only to send him back into the past again, with the process only making Cole worse every time he is thrown through time, even at one point being shot after accidentally being sent back to World War I. Willis portrays well just how severe this treatment is damaging Cole as he presents an even more jumbled man than before. Willis plays it as though Cole is still not sure where exactly the time has left him only that he must try to finish his mission either way. He's the right jumble of emotions as he can't quite comprehend what exactly he's been through even while being wrecked with fear of the upcoming demise of humanity, as well as that nightmare that never ceases to stop haunting him. Willis though also carefully begins to show the way that Cole is finally attempting to break out of the web that he's caught in through his attachment from the future. The moments where Cole becomes violent Willis makes particularly natural as the actions of a very scared man lashing out. As well though Willis is very moving in the few instances of comfort he finds in the past, presenting him just as man trying to find a bit of comfort.

During this time Cole kidnaps Dr. Railly, and Willis is marvelous in making Cole such a mess to the point that he would much more likely be seen as a deranged mental patient. The two though technically become a bit of a Hitchcockian duo, fitting considering at one point they hide out at a Hitchcock marathon. They especially fit well into the 39 Steps duo with the kidnapping and with Railly being quite skeptical of Cole's claims. Willis and Stowe are fantastic together as Stowe acts as the very scared straight man to Willis's portrayal of Cole that is insanity though he never loses a certain sense that there still is more to him than that. What's so exceptional about both performances is how well in tune with one another as the two gradually switch positions as Railly starts to support Cole's ideas about the future, while Cole begins to doubt them as to try to fight against his apparent insanity or perhaps fight against the oppression nature of his future. I love that as Cole attempts to accept this Willis makes him even more withdrawn as a man struggling very deeply to keep his mental instability in check, all the while Stowe becomes far more manic as Railly starts to believe the severity of Cole's mission. Most remarkable of all though is how well they realize the romantic element between the two which does not really stop to declare itself but rather is well earned through just growth of understanding as well as warm that Willis and Stowe realize so wonderfully through their performances. Willis also is great in that this attachment seems to find Cole some comfort even as every new development keeps him in a state of confusion. His final scene is a tremendous final moment for Willis to finish his great work because he leaves Cole as just going through the motions of his fate of sorts that he has apparently been stuck in since the beginning, but finds just right poignancy in the moment through that one connection he does make before meeting his destiny.

Alternate Best Actor 1995: Jonathan Pryce in Carrington

Jonathan Pryce did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning Cannes and being nominated for a Bafta, for portraying Lytton Strachey in Carrington.

Carrington depicts the unusual relationship between painter Doar Carrington and writer Lytton Strachey. The film itself has interesting enough characters though it makes some odd choices, particularly in the overbearing use of its score.

Jonathan Pryce plays Lytton Strachey a homosexual writer who comes to living in the country where he comes across the somewhat peculiar painter Dora Carrington (Emma Thompson). Pryce plays Strachey himself as a bit of a character so to speak. There's very much an eccentric quality that Pryce gives the part in the way he physically portrays Strachey. Pryce gives him a very purposeful and proper sort of walk about himself. Pryce plays Strachey as very much the intellectual who is perhaps just a little too well aware of his position as an intellectual. Pryce's whole manner has a certain distance he brings in that Strachey seems to separate himself from all others just due to this very structured way he acts. This approach Pryce takes actually works quite well for the film's depiction of Strachey which is as a man who is completely aware as his position as an important writer so to speak as he goes about how he's forced himself to be a voice against the war for example. Pryce's approach matches this excessive thought that Strachey basically puts into his whole being.

Pryce though does not leave there and this is certainly not a depiction of an uptight Victorian sort of a man, as Strachey is known during the period even for his sexual preferences. Strachey does not hide this and nor does Pryce in his performance. Pryce actually comes up with a rather interesting dynamic of his character as he's two seemingly opposite things all in one in terms of both his proper manner for the time along with his purposeful rejection of that in terms of his personal preferences. Pryce portrays the scenes with Strachey presents his interest in men as especially obvious in his depiction, maybe playing it just ab it more to be the man that everyone says he is. Pryce does not go over the top, but rather carefully realizes a man who does like to make a bit of a spectacle of himself on purpose. Pryce importantly shows that it is something also very natural in Strachey and it is still him very much acting out in just the way he desires to. This extends even right to starting out one moment to being quite keen in seeing what he thinks is a boy only to suddenly be aghast to find out that it is in fact a woman, this being first time he sees Dora in fact.

Now the central element of the film is the relationship between Strachey and Carrington which has a problem in that she is unquestionably in love with him while the problem remains that Strachey just has absolutely no interest in her physically. Now Pryce is excellent in that he is able to find what it is that causes Carrington to be so fascinated with him. The interesting part though is Pryce does not suggest this when Strachey is acting out as the writer or as a passionate lover. Pryce instead finds this in the quiet moments between the two as Pryce reveals just a gentler man which carries an abundance of warmth whenever it is he drops his most overt passions as a writer or as a man. Thompson and Pryce are very good in creating that underlying connection that seems between the two, at the same time making the disconnect seem just as honest. The two though in there pivotal interactions seem just on this certain wavelength, yet Pryce importantly keeps a certain reservation or even confusion at her continued interest in him while he is simply unable to fake something that just is not there in him.

The two attempt to resolve their peculiar situation by involving a bi-sexual man which creates probably more problems than it solves since neither exactly gets what they desire. I have to say though as the film proceeds Pryce is oddly often forced into the background, as the film does keep a much close focus upon Carrington than it does Strachey, while after all Carrington is the title. It seems like a somewhat missed opportunity as at times the film feels like its forgetting about the more fascinating aspect of the film which is the relationship between Strachey and Carrington. Whenever there is a moment where the two do reexamine their positions Pryce and Thompson are great in that the two just really make sense out of the connection and the difficulties that both motivate and pain the two of them. The film never quite fully makes use of this to make something truly special leaving the final scene of the two seeming a bit simplified. To Pryce's credit he is rather moving in depicting Strachey in a state where he has absolutely no pretense, and just reveals the actual truth without reservation. It simply never quite narrows in on the greatness it seems to be trying to circle, leaving Thompson and Pryce without quite the material to go the next step themselves. Nevertheless this is a very good performance, I can't help but feel though that a much better film could have been made utilizing Jonathan Pryce's remarkable depiction of Lytton Strachey.

Alternate Best Actor 1995: Ian McKellen in Richard III

Ian McKellen did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a Golden Globe and a Bafta, for portraying the titular character in Richard III.

Richard III is a rather effective adaptation of Shakespeare's play which sets the story in an alternative version of 1930's England.

Well from perhaps Shakespeare's second most famous schemer to arguably his most famous. Richard III was previously adapted by Laurence Olivier in 1955. Olivier's version was in itself a particularly interesting adaptation for him. Unlike his Hamlet, which was cloaked in fog and smoke, or his Henry V with its most unusual way of setting the stage, the artistic license Olivier took with material was perhaps his most subtle, though also his most effective, as I say his Richard III was his most assured example as a director. This version, perhaps knowing that, takes the approach of throwing basically all subtly out of the window in order to tell the story of Shakespeare's most famous villain. McKellen, who also co-wrote this version, seemed to be well aware that successfully bringing something out of the material, without seeming to try to ape Olivier, would be to take the character to a new extreme. Now this is really saying something as Olivier did not exactly soften the nature of the character with his absurd hair, apparently modeled have the same tyrannical theater director that the Big Bad Wolf was modeled after, his blood red costumes, and of course the character itself is written to be be an obvious villain, so where is it that McKellen can go?

Well before we get to that it must be said that McKellen is another master of the language. It comes off his tongue so naturally, and with such ease. McKellen never allows a line to seem laborious or forced no matter how often repeated, Richard's opening line in particular is overused, but McKellen delivery gives it purpose once again. Back to the question of where McKellen can go. Now I would be curious to see a purely subtle approach for the character, that would actually be opposed to the point of the character. McKellen, astonishingly does find somewhere to go though, without going in the opposite direction. This even goes to his other contribution to the film as screenwriter as the film which is considerably shorter than Olivier's version, as well as a simpler telling of the play. In addition though McKellen basically sets the stage for things by having Richard opening action be him crashing a tank through a wall, and personally executing the men who are standing in his brother's way from absolute power. If Oliver's Richard was a 10 out of 10 on the evil scale again where does that leave McKellen to go? well up even more where else? If Olivier's Richard is a 10 level of evil, McKellen takes old Richard all the way to eleven.

McKellen carries himself with purposeful broad strokes in his character from the opening speech which McKellen first delivers all the bluster and proud presentation of a great general promoting his King. Of course this is instantly washed away when he finishes the speech in the bathroom while relieving himself. McKellen brilliantly changes the tone to a biting insult as he makes rapidly evident that Richard has no respect for his brother, and seems him ill fitting for his position as King. In these early scenes we are given Richard's two faces, of sorts, by McKellen particularly in his interactions with his other imprisoned brother as well as sort of with his soon to be wife. What's interesting though about McKellen's performance is that he does not necessarily do a great job of portraying the sides of Richard, but this seems intentional and is extremely effective in creating his version of Richard. McKellen makes it all a bit obvious in terms of the presentation that Richard gives to others as though it is indeed just the act of an evil man trying to look one way or another in order to fulfill whatever purpose that will bring him more power. This probably should not work, but McKellen somehow realizes it in a rather glorious fashion.

McKellen succeeds in just how much he embraces the villainy to the point that he somehow transfers it into such a persuasive personality. With his interactions with his prisoner brother McKellen throws an over audance of warmth, that's a bit too much, though why not buy into since he is giving away so much of it. Then even in his "proposal" to Anne, despite having just murdered her husband, and even making this proposal of his around his corpse McKellen somehow makes it somehow work. Again McKellen would be ridiculous if he wasn't so good in the scene, as the over the top romantic routine that McKellen makes is efficient while being so wholly false. What McKellen does is make Richard a great actor above else since even though you know its fake, he happens to do it so well that they just have to believe it. One of my favorite moments with this is when he rejects then accepts his place of King in a moments notice as McKellen again puts on such an overt show of the quiet and dignified man who will only accept power in the right circumstances, to instantly switch back to his only natural state that of the power hungry mad man using every trick to become King.

McKellen does not use these tricks to define Richard though, because it is evil that McKellen uses to define him. McKellen plays into this as much as he can, even seeming to want his place as King almost just for the suffering he can inflict on others through it. Even before he's become King I love the scenes which he shares with his sister-in-law the queen, since he believes her to hold no threat, McKellen is amazing has he brings such venom to every word as Richard makes it quite plain that he holds her in no regard whatsoever. What McKellen though does with Richard is essentially bring out more and more of Richard's true self the more he gains. It is not that he is being changed by the power, rather McKellen plays it quite bluntly that the more power he gains the more he can simply be himself. Now, like Olivier, Richard's monologues are also addressed to the audience. There's a major difference though where Olivier used them as though Richard was outlining his scheme to us, McKellen does it rather differently. McKellen never focuses a whole scene on this with his performance rather hitting some very specific moments by turning to the audience not unlike the traditional way one breaks the fourth wall in a comedy. This works brilliantly though because McKellen always uses these moments as actual punchlines as though Richard just has to take the moment to tell the audience his disdain for a particular opponent. It must also be said that McKellen also makes them work as punchlines because whenever he does this it is quite hilarious. McKellen, it must be said, is altogether ridiculously entertaining in the role because of his choice to display Richard's evil.

As he rises through the ranks, and is allowed to make himself all the more obvious McKellen let's loose all the more, and only the audience indeed benefits from this as McKellen is so much fun to watch. McKellen plays the completely unabashed evil of the man so well, since he always takes it a measure more. Whether this is just the enjoyment he seems to get from looking at the photos of a dead opponent, his complete lack of concern when his former ally is brutally murdered, or especially his continued mistreatment of the former Queen as he takes some rather uncouth liberties with his farewell kiss only to mockingly laugh at her after she has left. This is a fascinating performance to watch because McKellen proves that a simplification can be a masterstroke when done right. Instead of trying to challenge Olivier with some other reexamination, he places the focus on the character's fiendish nature and runs with it. McKellen never compromises this either even with the two moments in play that potentially give the character some humanity. The first being his nightmare as he is haunted by his victims. McKellen treats this as an unfortunate nuisance, that only acts as a slight bother. Then of course there is his demise, which might be favorite moment out of this entire performance, which is really saying something. That being when this Richard is cornered and certain to face death, McKellen plays it as Richard still refusing to accept any mistakes or blame instead taking just one more chance at villainy by going out his way. That is to fall back into the literal flames of his chaos, and what he has gotten out of this final cheat of sorts is represented through McKellen's absolutely perfect grin as he sinks into the fire. This is a great performance by Ian McKellen as proves taking a character to what might seem like a ludicrous extreme can sometimes turn out beautifully.

Alternate Best Actor 1995: Kenneth Branagh in Othello

Kenneth Branagh did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for Sag, for portraying Iago in Othello.

This is an effective adaptation of Othello which takes kind of Franco Zeffirelli style of approach for the adaptation.

This version of Othello does hold two things in common with the 1965 version starring Laurence Olivier. That being both star famous Shakespearean actors, Olivier and Branagh, who usually tend to direct their own adaptations, but in this case leave it in the hands of another. One other thing in common is just like Frank Finlay in the 65 version, the award recognition for Branagh came in the supporting category even though the story follows Iago's perspective as well as he has the most dialogue, in addition to having the most influence over the story. The similarities end as the 65 version basically took on the aesthetic of a filmed play, whereas this version attempts the Zeffirelli's approach of putting it in a setting most seem to imagine it takes place in. One other major difference, which also holds true for the Orson Welles version as well, is that the "bigger" actor plays Iago rather than Othello. Although one could argue otherwise in regards to Laurence Fishburne and Kenneth Branagh in the grander scheme of things, that certainly was the case in regards to the actor's stature in regards to Shakespeare.

This makes his Sag replacement even more ridiculous though since this version seems like it perhaps gives even more focus to Iago than usual, which is really saying something. Iago is perhaps Shakespeare's second most infamous schemer, I'll be getting to the most infamous one soon, even though this version takes a bit of a similair approach that Olivier took in his depiction of that other schemer. Like in that film, this film makes it almost as though the audience itself is a co-conspirator with Iago since Branagh instead of delivering his monologue to himself or to the stars or something, he delivers them right to those watching as though he is speaking directly to us. Now because of this perhaps Branagh takes a very distinct approach in realizing the character. Roger Ebert claimed Branagh played the role as though Iago was gay and interested in Othello, and at least in his review with Gene Siskel acted as though this ruined the film. Although apparently it seems Ebert himself may have been tricked by Branagh's approach for the character, which is not as simple as that.

Branagh plays Iago as a man of many faces, and is excellent in his realization of how it is that Iago works as a manipulator. In his scenes with the hot headed Roderigo Branagh plays them as though Iago is a bit of the man's personal instigator, always just prodding him along with some negative encouragement to make some rather harsh decision which he naturally hopes will cause him to fight the prideful Cassio, which in turn Iago hopes will cause Cassio to lose position of confidence with Othello. Now with Cassio perhaps one could interpret Branagh approaches gay, though I find it is more of the over enthusiastic hanger on, as Branagh plays Iago towards Cassio as a very soft man who just seems to be wowed to be in his presence, simply encouraging any foolish action through just how how supportive he seems. Branagh does this well as in both instances there seems to be no threat of a manipulator since he basically seems to just tell Cassio and Roderigo what they want to hear, even though that all just turns to what he wants to happen.

Branagh even continues this with the two main women of the story the first being Iago's own wife Emilia. Branagh again is terrific by showing Iago just playing with her the whole time as when she tries to give him affection he treats her as though she is a bothersome bore, but when she offers any aid in his scheme Branagh changes Iago to the passionate lover as though Iago is giving her motivation in to ensure she continues to aid in his schemes. With Othello's wife Desdemona Branagh instead portrays it as Iago is just the perfect sort of best friend in for her to espouse her fears to, and the most gentle shoulder to cry on as Branagh only suggests such an honest in his interactions with her, though without a hint of hidden motives except of course when she's not looking. The most important relationship though is obviously with Othello himself. In the early scenes, before Iago has created the trouble, Branagh presents Iago as the man with the warmest of smiles whenever Othello is around, and only ever there to lend a hand of support to his commander. Of course as Iago plants the seeds of doubts in Branagh still conveys such a trusting element in Iago, as he stays calm, even in Othello's outbursts, and just seems there to offer the righteous support of a honest right hand man. Every one of these faces shown to these people though is wholly false, and the true Iago that we see is when he addresses the viewer, which are my favorite moments of Branagh's performance. Branagh is ice cold in these moments as Iago marks out each step of his plan clearly having no emotion whatsoever in regards to the suffering he is about to cause. The only strong emotion Branagh reveals is a palatable hatred in Iago towards Othello, and this devious joy Iago seems to derive from his manipulation possibly revealing what motivates him. Although I would not necessarily classify this as one of the very best Shakespearean its very strong work, and is another example of Branagh excelling in finding an effective variation of one of the Bard's most notable creations. 

Alternate Best Actor 1995

And the Nominees Were Not:

Morgan Freeman in Seven

James Earl Jones in Cry, The Beloved Country

Jonathan Pryce in Carrington

Kenneth Branagh in Othello

Ethan Hawke in Before Sunrise

Rank Those Five or These Five or Both:

Mel Gibson in Braveheart

Richard Harris in Cry, The Beloved Country

Ian McKellen in Richard III

Bruce Willis in 12 Monkeys

Johan Widerberg in All Things Fair

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1940: Results

5. George Sanders in Foreign Correspondent - Sanders gives a very entertaining performance that finds just the right tone to both lighten the mood while still bringing the needed gravity for the thriller.

Best Scene: ffolliott saves Van Meer.

4. Frank Morgan in The Shop Around the Corner - Morgan gives a funny but also surprisingly nuanced depiction of a man whose vulnerabilities slowly get the better of him.

Best Scene: Matuschek apologizes to Alfred.

3. Herbert Marshall in Foreign Correspondent - Marshall gives a very effective performance that realizes the twist involving his character, but also never allows this to simplify his character. 

Best Scene: Fisher goes to see the captured Van Meer. 

2. George Sanders in Rebecca - Sanders gives a great performance by being just so enjoyably despicable as his selfish and vapid character.

Best Scene: Favell tries to blackmail Maxim. 

1. John Carradine in The Grapes of Wrath - I must not that this again is a year where I could go with any of my top four in any order. At the moment though my winner is John Carradine for his especially compelling and moving depiction of a former preacher attempting to find the truth again.

Best Scene: Tom meets Casy again. 

Overall Rank:

1. John Carradine in The Grapes of Wrath
2. Walter Brennan in The Westerner
3. George Sanders in Rebecca
4. Herbert Marshall in Foreign Correspondent
5. Frank Morgan in The Shop Around the Corner
6. George Sanders in Foreign Correspondent
7. John Qualen in The Grapes of Wrath
8. Joseph Schildkraut in The Shop Around the Corner 
9. Walter Catlett in Pinocchio
10. Cliff Edwards in Pinocchio 
11. Donald Crisp in Brother Orchid 
12. Edmund Gwenn in Foreign Correspondent
13. Frank Morgan in The Mortal Storm
14. Russell Simpson in The Grapes of Wrath
15. Ralph Bellamy in His Girl Friday
16. Edmund Gwenn in Pride and Prejudice
17. Robert Benchley in Foreign Correspondent 
18. Akim Tamiroff in The Great McGinty
19. Emlyn Williams in The Stars Look Down
20. Basil Rathbone in the Mark of Zorro 
21. Edward Rigby in The Stars Look Down
22. William Demarest in The Great McGinty
23. Christian Rub in Pinocchio 
24. Hay Petrie in Contraband
25. Eugene Pallette in The Mark of Zorro
26. Shemp Howard in The Bank Dick 
27. Ralph Bellamy in Brother Orchid
28. John Qualen in His Girl Friday
29. Thomas Mitchell in Our Town
30. Albert Bassermann in Foreign Correspondent
31. Randolph Scott in My Favorite Wife
32. John Carradine in The Return of Frank James
33. Claude Rains in The Sea Hawk 
34. Humphrey Bogart in Brother Orchid
35. Felix Bressart in The Shop Around The Corner
36. James Stephenson in The Letter
37. Henry Daniell in The Great Dictator 
38. Frankie Darro in Pinocchio
39. Leo G. Carroll in Rebecca
40. Herbert Marshall in The Letter
41. Charley Grapewin in The Grapes of Wrath 
42. Melville Cooper in Pride and Prejudice
43. Charles Judels in Pinocchio
44. Henry Daniell in The Sea Hawk
45. Jack Oakie in The Great Dictator 
46. Roland Young in The Philadelphia Story
47. Paul Hurst in The Westerner
48. C. Aubrey Smith in Rebecca
49. John Halliday in The Philadelphia Story 
50. J. Edward Bromberg in The Mark of Zorro
51.  Nigel Bruce in Rebecca
52. Bela Lugosi in Black Friday
53. Jackie Cooper in The Return of Frank James
54. Guy Kibbee in Our Town
55. Reginald Gardiner in The Great Dictator
56. Gene Lockhart in Abe Lincoln in Illinois
57. Reginald Denny in Rebecca
58. William Tracy in The Shop Around the Corner
59. Harry Davenport in Foreign Correspondent
60. William Tracy in Strike Up The Band
61. John Howard in The Philadelphia Story
62. Harry Carey in They Knew What They Wanted 
63. Edward Ashley-Cooper in Pride and Prejudice
64. Fred Stone in The Westerner
65. William Gargan in They Knew What They Wanted
66. Robert Young in The Mortal Storm
67. Robert Stack in The Mortal Storm
68. William T. Orr in The Mortal Storm

Next Year: 1995 Lead

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1940: John Carradine in The Grapes of Wrath

John Carradine did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jim Casy in The Grapes of Wrath.

From what I've seen John Carradine had a certain chameleon quality about him. This was isn't necessarily about a change of accent or anything like that, as Carradine always had that great booming voice of his. Carradine rather just seemed to know how to wholly alter his presence that he seemed like a different man from film to film. This was even the case in his earlier films with Ford even though he mostly played the villain or the very least a pompous sort of character such as in The Prisoner of Shark Island, The Hurricane, and Stagecoach. Carradine here plays a role that's quite the distance from those roles as Casy one of the first people that Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) sees on his way home after being released from prison. In Carradine's first scene Casy explains to Tom how it became that he no longer is a preacher. Carradine as per usual does just makes himself seem wholly different this time without that imposing quality he brought in his earlier performances in Ford's role, instead he brings a whole different sort demeanor about himself that instantly suggests the history of the man even before we get to know much about him.

In the scene Carradine is rather outstanding in just how much insight he allows into the character as he shows both the past and the current state of the man. In the moments where Tom calls upon Casy's old days as a preacher Carradine suddenly realizes a man truly in his element as a man. In the way he moves so unusually it seems as though he is being motivated by the lord himself in his strange though quite spirited way he moves and speaks when reacting an old sermon. There is an extra bit of showmanship so to speak in this moment, as a memory of the past, because something that's so effective about Carradine's performance is the way he acts which is peculiar though works extremely well in realizing the character. That is that Carradine always portrays this certain quality that Casy has never stopped being a preacher exactly, in that he's just never lost the manner in the way he speaks and behaves. What's so remarkable is the way that Carradine is able to tread this fine line for the character that on one side his behavior seems like it could be that of a man whose half mad, or it is of a truly righteous man as there is something otherworldly in Carradine's portrayal of Casy. 

Carradine captures this certain way for the character that is essential in that he makes every line of his absolutely work no matter how stylistic it may be. Anything that Casy says seems wholly honest through Carradine's delivery. Carradine makes nothing one note about this and through this even is able to allude to what lead to Casy's loss of faith. In his early talk with Tom he discusses his relationship with women, and Carradine through the enthusiasm twists his state as a preacher as it is not a religious sort of pleasure he felt when causing these women's, ahem, spiritual awakening. Carradine is able to suggest this misuse as a weakening of sorts, as it was obvious not wisdom he was giving them, and with that as Casy explains he gave up preaching due to not knowing the answers there is a resigned melancholy about. Carradine presents to be a man who no longer has a place as he still has never lost the preacher's mindset, that to be looking for something else, something more perhaps, which keeps him a distance from being just man, while also being too unsure of himself to be what he was meant to be.

As the film progresses Casy ends up going with the Joads in their journey to California to find some sort of prosperity and everyone is stuck in a certain mindset looking for a better life except Casy who comes along as well. Casy says basically that something is calling for him, and Carradine begins to portrays a spiritual re-awakening as he begins the journey with the Joads. Carradine is not given considerable individual focus in these scenes, yet if you watch him within them he adds a great deal to the power of the them, even past simply the vibrancy of Casy due to Carradine's portrayal of him. As the Joads suffer hardships or hear of the troubles of others Carradine's reactions are tremendous in the way he shows Casy taking in each story, and in a way each seems to strengthen his faith once more as though he's beginning to see his path once again. Casy is eventually separated from the Joads though Tom finds him again being part of a group of men leading a labor strike. The end of Casy's journey is powerfully realized in this final scene as Carradine creates this sense of enlightenment as Casy seems to be preaching the truth again, though a different truth than he had known before. The quick exit of Casy is made especially heartbreaking as Carradine makes into a shining light being snuffed out in a instance. This is a great performance by John Carradine.