Best Actor 1956

And The Nominees Were:

Rock Hudson in Giant

James Dean in Giant

Yul Brynner in The King and I

Kirk Douglas in Lust For Life

Laurence Olivier in Richard III

So who do you pick, and predict? The ranch owner turned oil man, the ranch hand turned oil man, the king who sings, the artist who screams, or the king who schemes.

Best Actor 1947: Results

5. Gregory Peck in Gentleman's Agreement- All Phil Green does is make speech after speech about antisemitism, or give disapproving looks. No actor could really have made these constant speeches interesting. The only other part of his performance are his romantic scenes with Dorothy McGuire which lack chemistry.

4. Michael Redgrave in Mourning Becomes Electra- Orin is very difficult character and Redgrave gives his best go at it. He mixes his performance with both a little subtlety that works fairly well, and theatrics which are interesting but are not always entirely convincing.

3. John Garfield in Body and Soul- Garfield gives a a good performance throughout but his character is a little too simple for most of the film. When he does get a chance to do more he does, it is shame his character was not more fully written for the whole film.

2. William Powell in Life With Father- Poor Powell always second place. Powell last Oscar nomination is a nice funny performance, it is not that much but certainly an entertaining performance.

1. Ronald Colman in A Double Life- A good prediction Dinasztie Colman gives a terrific performance interspersing subtlety of Anthony John with the insanity of Othello especially well. It is a risky performance for sure but one that succeeds very well. He was last Lead Actor winner I saw and I am glad the last I saw was a great one.

Best Actor 1947: John Garfield in Body and Soul

John Garfield received his second and final Oscar nomination for portraying boxer Charlie Davis in Body and Soul.

Body and Soul is a fine movie about a boxer who gets more and more involved with shadier character, even if a bit overbearing at times.

The downtrodden boxer seems to be a popular role going at least back to The Champ. Charlie Davis though is not always a downtrodden boxer throughout the film, and the film goes through his rise and his fall. Garfield is believable in the role as the boxer, and the working class guy. He is just fine as he slowly works up the ranks as a boxer, even though some of his success is unfortunately helped  by shady characters. Garfield is just fine as the man you follow throughout his career as a boxer, he shows Charlie's ambition well enough.

Garfield performance early on here is perfectly fine although never overly interesting. This is not because of Garfield but Charlie as a character is mostly reacted upon in these early scenes. Most everyone else tells him what to do, and Garfield just shows Charlie's want to succeed. There really is not all that much to his performance in these scenes, Garfield is fine, but Charlie really is incredibly simple. The moral dilemma is mostly shown by the good people like his mother played by the ever boring Anne Revere, his ill fated friend, his former opponent turned manager, his girlfriend, conflicting with the bad people such as the crooks involved with his career, and his other girlfriend. It is mostly the other people tugging on Charlie, without Charlie really reacting exactly. Garfield as I said is fine, but Charlie is simply not an active character for most of the film.

He finally reacts to his situation at the beginning before it flashes back, and at the end of the film. Charlie finally starts to see the problems of being helped by the mob since now they want him to take a dive, and he sees how poorly they treat his friends. Charlie starts to actually react, and Garfield finally can really show his acting chops. He shows well how Charlie now sees the problems in his life well, and Garfield gives a good honest and emotional performance. He shows Charlie's loss well, and his want to finally refuse the corrupt men who are now controlling him. He makes the final fight satisfying by making Charlie's refusal to be controlled very honest and powerful.  It is a strong end to his performance which I wish the whole performance was. If Charlie had been a more reactive character throughout Garfield's performance could have been great, but since Charlie is so simple for most of the film Garfield performance remain just good.

Best Actor 1947: Michael Redgrave in Mourning Becomes Electra

Micheal Redgrave received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Orin Mannon in Mourning Becomes Electra.

Mourning Becomes Electra is a strange film, not because of the subject matter but more of the film's quality. It certainly has interesting facets, yet it seems in many ways the director thought the play was so good that his effort was not required. This is a movie I will say one should see for oneself, I certainly cannot condemn as a truly bad film or praise as a good film.

I have to give Redgrave credit for taking the role, from what I see in the film Orin seems to be the most challenging character. He is an incredibly odd and strange character who goes through many extreme changes throughout his scenes. He seems to be one of the most weak willed characters ever too, or at least made by the film with him being constantly being pushed around by the other characters. He actually takes a long time to finally appear in the film. He appears very quietly after Orin's and Lavinia (Rosalind Russell)'s father (Raymond Massey) is killed by their mother (Katina Paxinou). His first scene is well handled by Redgrave as he quietly introduces the character who shows a clear haunting from his past, quite well.

This quiet moment in the performance though soon is thrown out when Orin's mother tries to persuade him to her side. His odd reaction to her with his oedipal complex, seems very unnatural and forced unfortunately. I think it would have been an outstanding achievement if any actor could have made this seem natural, but it is not. Redgrave becomes very theatrical in these moments when Orin changes from mama's boy than instantly to sister supporter, and back and forth so instantly that again if Redgrave had pulled it off it would have been amazing, but he doesn't. He instead of making it natural, goes for theatrics, which I will say have an emotional pull. Redgrave does attempt to get under Orin's skin and succeeds a little but not nearly enough.

Redgrave throughout the film has two types of scenes that juxtapose against each other bizarrely. He has his intense over the top emotional scenes, which I do not think are completely failure because I certainly liked watching him "act", but they certainly did not make his character any more believable. His other scenes are the quiet ones sprinkled throughout his scenes and conflict oddly with the theatricality of the rest of his performance. His quiet scene I feel are better and more effective especially well shown when he "speaks" with his father. That scene is terrific for that moment, but later in the scene he goes for the theatrics. Orin is obviously a tough character, and I think Redgrave made a go at it, that is at least interesting to watch if a bit disconcerting at times. This is not a bad performance at all, and certainly is more interesting in a lot of ways than performances that technically succeed more but with less odd and complex characters.

Best Actor 1947: William Powell in Life With Father

William Powell received his third and final Oscar nomination for portraying Clarence Day Senior in Life With Father.

Life is Father is a rather strange family film of sorts, but I enjoyed it in a purely old fashioned sort of way.

William Powell is an actor I almost always enjoy with his unique screen presence and style of delivery. Interestingly enough Powell as the patriarch of the red headed day family is his only Oscar nominated role without his usual sardonic delivery that I like so much. Still though that is not a fault at all of his performance. Clarence Day is purposefully over the top father, who tries his best to control things exactly way with his stern demeanor, despite never being exactly a mean man. He always wants things his way and only his way even though he does not always get them his way.

All of his complaining with constant spouting of "OH Gad" when something upsets him. The whole film is more or less based around his behavior. I will say I did certainly enjoy his performance, which I think is entirely proper for the part. I think Day could have been too overbearing or too stern, but Powell does find the right comedic tone for the film. It is not complex or complicated performance, but I found it enjoyable enough to watch which it was suppose to be. Powell does a little more than just humor when he can such as his need for his wife when she is sick, but still the character stays fairly simplistic which is completely fine. A simple comedic performance that work well enough due to the comedic actor behind it, not a huge challenge but Powell succeeds with the role.

Best Actor 1947: Ronald Colman in A Double Life

Ronald Colman won his Oscar from his fourth and final nomination for portraying stage actor Anthony John in A Double Life.

A Double Life is a very interesting film noir, about an actor who gets a little too much into his roles with deadly results. My only real problem would be that it perhaps focuses a little too much on Edmond O'Brien, playing once again the normal guy lead who has to deal with the crazy or already dead lead which he also does in The Killers, and White Heat, and goes to far from Colman.

 Colman is quite terrific in the opening scene, as the rather slick, very sure of himself stage actor Anthony John. Colman carries himself perfectly, showing the complete ease John has a stage persona, and the joy he has in theater, theater that is comedy anyways. Colman seems completely effortless in these moments, showing John's love for what he does, his utter confidence in knowing exactly what he is doing. He is the perfect theater pro which works especially well, in these early moments. Colman is especially charming early on here as he performs a charming part in a simple comedy. Colman uses his spectacular voice beautifully, and there is never at all a question of Anthony John as a theater star all because of Colman.

Along with his confidence is something else about him something darker, and rather odd about. There is a sort of sense of being lost, and even lack of confidence hidden behind his outward self. There is a man who has become so entrenched into his work that he has sort of lost his identity in his own eyes. That his own sanity is something that will be fully possible to be lost if in the use of his performance. Colman at the beginning of the film suggests all this brilliant completely subtlety through only his face here. He underplays John's insanity that it seems completely natural despite the bizarre idea itself. His very first time he "hears" the Othello music, Colman shows a loss of his mind there despite without overplaying a single moment as John begins to lose his sanity.

Anthony John begins next as he portrays Othello on stage and his performance is a spectacular success. Colman/John's portrayal of Othello is rather interesting. It is rather theatrical, but appropriately so. Colman in these scenes combines his film subtlety with stage theatrically. His voice booms out across the audience as is appropriate with the fact he is on stage, he combines this with his small showing of his utter insanity that is slowly growing even as he plays the part as Othello, and grows more and more unable to disassociate with his character. Despite not being a Shakespearean actor and being apparently uncomfortable with doing the scenes Colman actually is very believable as a Shakespearean actor.

John's sanity becomes basically completely lost in a brilliant moment in the film, as John hears voices, and sounds. Colman is terrific as degradations occur. I think he excels because as John he combines theatrics with subtlety so well. His theatrics, as John becomes dangerous work I think because that is John acting out theatrically, and his mental creation of Othello is that of a theatrical character. He could have been entirely unbelievable but I do think it is because Colman through his face of course still shows that this insanity of John's resonates throughout him completely.  I think he handled his insanity perfectly even if in a risky fashion but I think his best scene is his final one where his insanity finally subsides briefly. His final speech about the actor is who is good at a certain kind of scene, is bizarrely heartbreaking and resonating, I feel it brings his character fully around, completely fulfilling this brilliant performance. An Oscar well deserved despite being one of the least talked about ever.

Best Actor 1947: Gregory Peck in Gentleman's Agreement

Gregory Peck received third Oscar nomination for portraying crusading magazine writer Phil Green who pretends to be Jewish.

Gentleman's Agreement is most certainly very heavy handed with its constant repetition of its point over and over again. I think though it does hold a certain interest despite how obviously it is written, and directed.

I think something that makes Agreement so heavy handed is the character of Phil Green. Green is simply made far too perfect,and always more than ready to tell everyone else about their imperfectness. Now I will say because of this Peck will has a pretty much thankless role. His character is pretty one dimensional, and good guys do not have to be one dimensional but I think Phil Green here is all the way. The whole film is him saying oh the world needs to now about Antisemitism, and how others do nothing to prevent it, or do things to contribute to it.

He does two things most of the time. One are his constant speeches about what is right, and what is wrong. I think Peck does a fine job making these speeches, even though he cannot get over the fact that Phil makes the speeches over and over again. He does have the right passion, yet he seems to be forcing them after awhile. He never seems to be completely authentic, unable to get over the forced nature of the writing. This is something I feel is overcome by fellow nominee John Garfield who plays Peck's Jewish friend. Garfield really sells his couple of speeches, and makes pretty strong impact, much better than Peck's constant ones.
 His thing he does is this one look he gives to people who are antisemitic. He gives this one look, that I found sort of unintentionally funny after a while. Peck possibly could have diversified his looks a little, either way the look is not a problem exactly for old Phil's one dimensionality but it is nothing special when it comes to a performance.

The one other part of his performance that still has plenty of telling people what is right, but is slightly different is his romantic scenes with Dorothy Maguire. This romance is not at all convincing and is terribly forced feeling. I would of course blame the script, but not entirely, I think the actors themselves needed to sell the romance a little which they fail to do. Maguire and Peck lack chemistry, and their scenes together seem incredibly forced, which is very problematic since their relationship is sort of suppose a driving force of the film. Overall Peck's performance mostly simply served the purpose of a very boring and uninteresting character. Peck though does not always even serve this purpose do to the failed romantic moments, and his inability to really sell all of his character's speeches.