Friday, January 16, 2015

Oscar Got It Wrong!: Best Actor 1939

The Contenders:
Mickey Rooney: Babes in Arms
Clark Gable: Gone with the Wind
Robert Donat: Goodbye, Mr. Chips (winner)
James Stewart: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Laurence Olivier: Wuthering Heights

What’s Missing

I’m tempted—only tempted, mind you—to suggest that John Wayne’s performance in Stagecoach should have been nominated and just leave it at that. I do like Wayne’s performance and I could see a nomination for him over at least one of the real nominees, but he’s not the choice I’d make. I’d be more inclined to suggest Cary Grant’s performance in Only Angels Have Wings. Grant turns in his trademark great performance in front of the camera, and does so in a role that (at least in my opinion) has influence over modern action movie heroes. The Rules of the Game, unfortunately, has so many roles of importance that I’d be hard pressed to determine who should get the nod. The same could be said of the male roles in The Wizard of Oz. Ultimately, if I was going to add anyone, it would be either (or both) Burgess Meredith or Lon Chaney Jr. for their work in Of Mice and Men. For those who want to say it, I still haven’t seen The Hunchback of Notre Dame, so I can’t mention it with any legitimacy.

Weeding through the Nominees

5: Of all the nominees, Mickey Rooney seems the most out of place. There were too many great films in 1939 for one of five nominations to go to a performance in a film that is little more than “Let’s put on a show!” fluff. I have no problem with Mickey Rooney and I even understand the appeal of a film like Babes in Arms even if I don’t share it. But compared with some of the great performances of 1939, Rooney’s being sat next to Gable, Stewart, and Donat is a complete headscratcher. Of all the nominations, this is the one I’d pitch first.

4: I understand the desire to put Laurence Olivier on the dais as well. While he might not be my pick for the title, there are plenty of people who will happily suggest that Olivier was the greatest actor of his generation. A part of this might be his talent at adapting Shakespeare, but no matter—the man had the goods. My problem here isn’t so much Olivier, but the film itself. I’m not at all a fan of the story of Wuthering Heights, and that fact may be what’s holding me back from rating the performance higher. It’s true that he’s my favorite part of the film, but it’s still a film I dislike.

3: Robert Donat won this Oscar for his role in Goodbye, Mr. Chips. It might seem strange for me, a writing professor, to put a heartfelt story about a teacher third. I like this film pretty well, and I liked Donat’s performance in it. The problem is that I don’t see it as an exceptional performance. It’s a good one, but a lot of Donat’s likability here comes not from him but from the screenplay. This is a role I can see a lot of other people doing and doing just about as well as Donat did, and that very much counts against him. Good, yes, but hardly unique.

2: I think a case could well be made for Clark Gable and his role as Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind. Much of the appeal of that film comes from Gable. Butler needed to be played as a rogue, but as a charming rogue. Errol Flynn might have been able to pull it off, but it’s hard to imagine someone other than Gable playing the part. He’s got everything the role needs. He’s good looking, he’s charming, there’s a touch of the pirate about him, and there are moments when he’s on screen that you keep your eye on him even if he’s not the focus. I could be persuaded to give him the statue, but it’s not the performance I’d pick.

My Choice

1: As it happens, I like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington probably more than it deserves. It’s a goofy, sappy, naïve little film, but it also demonstrates the real qualities of James Stewart in front of the camera. Because it is so naïve, there’s a real danger of this film becoming an unintentional comedy. It doesn’t, and one of the main reasons it doesn’t is because of Stewart’s completely earnest performance as Jefferson Smith. Stewart is the one who keeps us caring about what happens. He’s the reason (although Claude Rains and Jean Arthur help) that we stick around to the end. James Stewart is the movie and is the reason it’s still regarded as a classic today. He should’ve won.

Final Analysis

16 comments:

  1. I could argue for Stewart or Gable. They are both good choices. Great analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't be terribly upset with Gable winning. It;s a hell of a good role and a great performance in it.

      Delete
  2. I'd definitely nominate Charles Laughton from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and consider him for the win, too. In another year it might not even be a question.

    Mr. Smith is my favorite movie from that year, and I agree with what you wrote about Stewart in the role. In some ways Gable is playing himself, or at least his known screen persona. There aren't many movies where he's not the charming rogue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said above, I wouldn't have minded terribly if Gable had won, but I think you've named why I wouldn't have voted for him. For as good as the performance is, it wasn't a huge stretch for the man.

      Delete
  3. I like Donat a lot and am contented with his win though I absolutely love Stewart in Mr. Smith. Stewart probably won the following year as much for his 1939 performance as for his role in Philadelphia Story.

    Without looking at the actual nominees, I would say that Chaney Jr. rated a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could see Chaney with a Best Supporting nod instead of a Best Actor. I think it's a shame he didn't get any recognition for the role, though, because he was genuinely great in it.

      Delete
  4. Consider this another vote for Laughton, but I'd have accepted Gable, Grant, Meredith or Chaney.

    Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is an OK movie, but it really doesn't do a whole lot for me. I want to see the remake with Mel Gibson that they feature on an episode of The Simpsons. (Or maybe Too Many Grandmas or Leper in the Backfield or the one with the talking pie.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like Mr. Smith, but I agree that it doesn't translate to the modern world as well as a number of other films do. I've a feeling that even my kids would find it too naive to be that believable. But I like it anyway, mainly for Stewart.

      Delete
  5. Curiously the greatest movies of 39 were also very strong in roles for women, but less so for men. Clark Gable was almost supporting actor for Vivien Leigh and None of the men in The Wizard or Oz really qualified as male lead. I disliked Wuthering Height, Babes in Arms and Mr. Smith... and that would strongly affect my choice. That leaves Goodbye Mr. Chips and that one I have not seen. My choice would have been... ta-da... John Wayne.
    Grudingly however, I will admit that both James Stewart and Clark Gable were good at what they did and my finger would tip toward Gable for being über-cool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Mr. Smith almost requires being an American to fully appreciate. My guess is that the fans of that film are close to exclusively American because of that.

      I like Wayne in Stagecoach. I love that he plays against the type he ended up playing in most of his films.

      Delete
    2. He's not really playing against type so much in Stagecoach when you consider his early films. He made dozens of cheap Westerns in the 1930s, with names like Randy Rides Alone, The Man from Utah and Winds of the Wasteland. (My personal favorite is Lawless Frontier, which has a villain I named Mariachi Fu Manchu.)

      Wayne is always a good guy and he's usually working for the law. But he does play a good-natured bandit or a disreputable hombre who's a good guy at heart much of the time. He's a charming rogue in most of these films, much like the Ringo Kid in Stagecoach.

      But you're right, he was definitely playing a different character from what he became known for AFTER Stagecoach.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, that exactly. "Lovable rogue" is a good way to put it, but most of his films after this put him very much in the white hat category.

      Delete
  6. Both Gable and Stewart are fine by me – haven't seen Mr Chips, though.

    And with Sweden being so embarrassingly americanized when it comes to culture, I'd say Mr Smith has probably been much appreciated here too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Chips is good, but I'm not sure I'm ready to call it great.

      As for the Americanization of Sweden, it is without tongue in cheek that I say that America's greatest export is its culture.

      Delete
  7. I know Robert Donat won this category and I like him as an actor but I've always been rather immune to the charms of Goodbye, Mr. Chips. I’d pluck him right out of the lineup and replace him with George Brent in The Rains Came, the one performance that I think he ever gave that comes close to any kind of award notice. I’m in complete agreement about Rooney, how did that happen?, and again would take him out to be replaced by Charles Laughton, so awesome in Hunchback. Stewart makes Mr. Smith but my choice would be between Olivier and Gable. Olivier's gets under the skin of Emily Bronte's Heathcliff somehow transforming that revenge fueled psychopath into an incredibly sensual tortured anti-hero but Gable and Rhett Butler are another of those unions of perfect actor and ideal part. I'll never understand how he lost when the picture was such an awards monster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could be persuaded to pick Grant, I think. I agree that it's one of those rare instances where the role is so perfectly cast that a change would be almost unimaginable.

      I should really watch Laughton's Hunchback one of these days.

      Delete