Best Actor 1944

[bizarre]

Surprised to see mentions for Fred MacMurray here - I thought he was dull as dishwater. Could barely see the film's forest for his tree.

[ksrymy]

I'll give this to Boyer hands-down from this list of nominees.

My own personal list would be
_______________________________
Humphrey Bogart - To Have and Have Not
Charles Boyer - Gaslight
Bing Crosby - Going My Way
Cary Grant - Arsenic and Old Lace
Fred MacMurray - Double Indemnity

I'd give it to Cary Grant easily.

[Big Magilla]

Cary Grant was playing close to hisroots in None but the Lonely Heart though Ethel Barrymore wasthe revelation.

Wilson was Zanuck's pet project, Fox employees were honor bound to vote for it. The second Mrs. Wilson was still alive so they had to tiptoe around her.

[The Original BJ]

I finally put myself through Wilson, so, my belated take on this year's race...

Of the also-rans, I think it's outrageous that Fred MacMurray isn't on this list -- I'd have voted for him over all of these nominees for his witty, charismatic anti-hero in Double Indemnity. Also, Dana Andrews was a solid actor who appeared in a number of classics, and it would have been nice for him to receive at least one nomination for his career; his detective in Laura is probably his best work.

I guess Alexander Knox is decent enough in Wilson, but the movie is such a snooze, and you have to imagine that almost any actor in this role would have been singled out for awards attention (particularly given the Academy's inexplicable affection for this film.)

Cary Grant is very good in None But the Lonely Heart. No, it's not at the level of his finest dramatic performances (in Notorious and North by Northwest), but he has some powerful scenes, especially the one previously cited in which he finds out his mother has been jailed. It's an interesting change of pace for the actor -- instead of suave, charming Cary, we get poor, grimy Cary, and the actor downplays his persona without ever seeming miscast. The movie, though, is fairly lugubrious, and there are plenty of other performances (which, sadly, weren't nominated) for which I'd more enthusiastically vote for this actor.

I would probably slot Barry Fitzgerald in support, although I have less of a problem with smaller roles being cited in lead than the reverse. He's very touching in Going My Way -- that last scene with his mother is beautifully played and brings a tear to my eye. Still, the size of his role makes me want to look elsewhere; Ingrid Bergman has a ton more to do as Crosby's counterpart in the sequel than Fitzgerald does here.

As for Bing, he was obviously not an actor with great range. But what he did he did well, and no film better displays Crosby's gentle heart, twinkling sense of humor, and soothing voice than Going My Way. I think he's lovely as Father O'Malley, and I don't mind that he won an Oscar for this role. But I do think this prize awarded his appealing persona rather than any tremendous acting chops.

So I cast my vote with the majority here, for Charles Boyer, a very talented actor who is at his best as Bergman's charming, villainous husband in Gaslight. The subtle changes of expression on his face -- as we see his mind racing, constantly putting on a show for his wife -- are marvelous. And it's a great moment when this very disturbed character begins to doubt his own sanity. I also agree with the comment that there's a tenderness to his character -- it's clear why Bergman trusts him at first -- that masks his vicious intentions. A complex and wickedly fun performance.

[ITALIANO]

Needless to say, not much of this made it into the film.

No, and they definitely would have made for a more complex portrayal and for a better movie. Another aspect which wasn't explored is the role of his second wife during the period when he was sick - she seem to have taken control of all things and to have been the first, unofficial "woman president" of the US.

[Mister Tee]

Wilson - which was probably a less perfect president than he is portrayed here

Wilson stands alongside Lyndon Johnson as a president about whom any progressive has to be massively ambivalent. He, along with Teddy Roosevelt before him and FDR after, pushed the U.S. in significantly more liberal directions on many major fronts. (Check his Wikipedia page for some of his undeniably major contributions) But he was also a dyed-in-the-wool white supremacist (as were, to be fair, most Democrats -- hell, most Americans -- at the time). He demonized his political opponents in a way that would make Nixon or McCarthy seem polite. He initiated the Palmer raids and other major intrusions on Americans' civil liberties. And his foreign policy, while frequently celebrated simply because US entry into WWI led to allied victory, was as jingoistic and interventionist as the worst Bushies.

Needless to say, not much of this made it into the film.



Edited By Mister Tee on 1301188475

[ITALIANO]

I've finally got by mail Wilson, America's best kept secret. As I said, this movie was never shown in Italy - and, I mean, in Italy we used to see even those dreadful Republic things starring Vera Hruba Ralson - and seems to be quite forgotten in the US, too, especially considering that it was an important production, nominated for ten Oscars and a winner of five.
Now I know why. It may be, well, simply too embarassing - this is obviously a propaganda piece, relevant in that moment but hopelessy dated even just one year after. It's officially a biopic, but it's actually a "hagiopic" - Henry King had previously made the story of a "real" saint, but compared to this Woodrow Wilson, Jennifer Jones's Bernadette was a complex and controversial human being. Even by American standards, the movie is a bit too much on the heroic side. And it's long, endless actually, with the domestic scenes of the singing Wilson family especially excruciating. So, no, a good movie it definitely isn't (among the Best Picture nominees that year, even Since You Went Away was better - warmer, more sympathetic).
Still, it IS a fascinating movie, I think. First of all, it's a clearly expensive one - more expensive than Gone with the Wind, I've read, and while I would have never realized this, I must admit that the money spent (and at a time when no other country could have spent on such a huge scale on a film) is up there on the screen. The crowd scenes are especially impressive - of its five Oscars, Art Direction is its most deserved.
And as far as propaganda goes, I found interesting parallels with the European equivalents of the same period. True, here we had dictatorial regimes and the US was a democracy, but you wouldn't guess it from the reverential treatment reserved to Wilson. Soviet movies came to my mind, and this is a compliment in some ways, because Soviet propaganda was extremely effective. Henry King was never as inventive a director as some of his best Russian colleagues were, but I'm sure that he saw some of their movies - and Wilson here is often shot like for example the character of Lenin was shot in those movies. Which brings me to Alexander Knox. Was he a good actor? Maybe, but you'll never know from this movie, where he's used like, say, Maksim Shtraukh was used - more for his lookalike qualities than for anything else. Not completely his fault probably - idealized is never an intriguing aspect in any character - and I guess the only way one could act in this context (he only really seems to come to life during his last big speech in the movie, the speech of his breakdown), but certainly not Oscar-worthy. (Knox had an excellent fan though - one who won an Oscar that night. Years later when he was jobless - I think for political reasons - Ingrid Bergman convinced Roberto Rossellini to cast him as her husband in their next movie. The result, Europa 51, would turn out to be a masterpiece and, I'm sure, Knox's best movie).
Plus, it's easy to be cynical - an Italian movie of this kind, with this kind of adoring approach to a politician's life and career, would be unthinkable. Presidents and prime ministers, here, are never seen as heroes. Yet there is something to admire in a country, a culture which can have that approach - a bit too extreme in this case maybe, but still undeniably healthy and positive. More than a movie about Wilson - which was probably a less perfect president than he is portrayed here - this is a movie about America and about America's faith in itself and in its political role.
And it's never boring. Lamar Trotti's screenplay is sometimes witty, even. It's absolutely not subtle, it lacks subtext and it occasionally falls into unintentional self-parody, but at least it's sincere, deeply felt, committed, and it gives you the feeling of that time - of the Second World War, I mean, even more than of the First. Scenes are usually short, fast - the movie may be ponderous but it's rather agile too.
And there are some interesting details, including some rare archive footage - of Mary Pickford, Marie Dressler, Douglas Fairbanks and Al Jolson giving speeches to the soldiers, for example.
And certainly it's a must-see for any Oscar completist.



Edited By ITALIANO on 1301179145

[FilmFan720]

Not to sound like the young guy at the table, but I grew up with my own bible of the Oscars (Damien's Inside Oscar), just as I imagine a lot of my generation on the board did too (flipp, DWS, Original BJ). I don't remember when I got the book, but do know that the first one I had (which is still on my bookshelf) went up to 1994...it was the blue, paperback edition. I also had all the Videohound guides, which had a lot of award information, and Michael Gebert's last edition of his book, both of which informed a lot of my knowledge.

Needless to say, from the day that I started my Oscar obsession, I had the entire history at my fingertips. I never realized how lucky I had been.

[Big Magilla]

I first became aware of the Oscars in the wake of the 1951 awards (I was and started memorizing nominees in all the acting categories as least as far back 1955 nominations.

I started my own awards in my head (maybe on paper as well, I don't recall exactly) with the 1960 awards, but by the 1964 awards I had gone retroactively back to the beginning, utilizing actual nominees in the early years where I hadn't seen all the contenders. I continue to revise as I discover a missing film or performance or revisit one I haven't seen in a while. I know when I started I did not have a full list of supporting nominees, but I don't know exactly when that changed.

I know that by the 1968 awards I knew information about other categories as well. For instance, I knew that Ruth Gordon had been nominated three times for writing before she received her first acting nomination three years earlier.

There were other books that referenced the Oscars and other awards. One of them was Daniel Blum's A Pictorial History of the Talkies, first published in 1958, which was my original movie bible. It was updated in 1968, 1973 and 1982. I still have the 1982 edition.

[Reza]

I first came across a complete list of acting nominees via Roy Pickard's The Oscar Movies from A to Z during the late 70s. Finally found the complete list of nominees in 1984 via a shoplifted copy of Damien's epic book.



Edited By Reza on 1299552535

[Damien]

I believe you're correct about Michael's book, Damien. I recall the first time I read it, finding roughly one category per year covered in a paragraph along the lines of "And Signoret didn't have an easy fight of it. She had to best Audrey Hepburn in The Nun's Story, Elizabeth Taylor and Katharine Hepburn in Suddenly Last Summer, and Doris Day in Pillow Talk". Instead of being grateful for that info, my reaction was mostly, What about the other categories? I do believe the updated version, with the full top three category lists, came out within a year or two.

The Osborne book was, until Inside Oscar, the gold standard, offering a whole lot more information (both lists and anecdotes) than had ever been broadly available prior. But maybe the highest compliment I can pay Inside Oscar is that I went into it thinking (based on Osborne) I knew a whole lot about the subject, and being astonished at how much more you guys had unearthed. You easily increased my knowledge two or threefold.

Awww, thanks!

[Mister Tee]

I believe you're correct about Michael's book, Damien. I recall the first time I read it, finding roughly one category per year covered in a paragraph along the lines of "And Signoret didn't have an easy fight of it. She had to best Audrey Hepburn in The Nun's Story, Elizabeth Taylor and Katharine Hepburn in Suddenly Last Summer, and Doris Day in Pillow Talk". Instead of being grateful for that info, my reaction was mostly, What about the other categories? I do believe the updated version, with the full top three category lists, came out within a year or two.

The Osborne book was, until Inside Oscar, the gold standard, offering a whole lot more information (both lists and anecdotes) than had ever been broadly available prior. But maybe the highest compliment I can pay Inside Oscar is that I went into it thinking (based on Osborne) I knew a whole lot about the subject, and being astonished at how much more you guys had unearthed. You easily increased my knowledge two or threefold.

[Big Magilla]

You may be right. I no longer have a copy.

I could have sworn, though, that I was aware of past nominees by 1965, including, I think, the supporting categories.

[Damien]

It listed all the winners by year, followed by pages of pictures of the best picture and acting winners and had an index which listed all the nominees for Best Picture, Actor and Actress, but not the supporting and directing nominees. I don't recall when we first got to see those.

I could be wrong since I probably haven't looked at it in 15 years (although when I first got it, I was obsessed with it), but I don't believe the first edition had the Picture and Lead Acting nominees. Michael mentioned all 5 nominees in some of the yearly write-ups but not all, which was terribly frustrating. The index came in a subsequent version.

Robert Osborn's Academy Awards Illustrated literally changed my life. And Mason's too -- he bought his copy as a kid visiting Disneyland.

[Big Magilla]

The Academy Awards: A Pictorial History by Paul Michael with foreward by David O. Selznick, was first published in 1964, but had numerous revisions through 1985.

On the original cover were five rows of three winners each: Spencer Tracy, Humphrey Bogart, Gregory Peck, Shirley Booth (Hazel was big at the time), Patricia Neal, Ingrid Bergman, James Cagney, Jennifer Jones (Mrs. Selznick), James Stewart, Elizabeth Taylor, Gary Cooper, Bette Davis, Marlon Brando, Sidney Poitier and Clark Gable.

It listed all the winners by year, followed by pages of pictures of the best picture and acting winners and had an index which listed all the nominees for Best Picture, Actor and Actress, but not the supporting and directing nominees. I don't recall when we first got to see those.