Sullivan’s Travels (1941) **

Preston Sturges is one of my favorite Classic Hollywood directors; I am especially fond of his The Lady Eve (1941) and The Palm Beach Story (1942). His brand of sophisticated comedy is risqué and witty, just like my other favorite director from the period: Ernst Lubitsch.  What I appreciate most about Sturges’ is his ability to successfully blend sophistication into a screwball comedy—that’s why I adore The Lady Eve. And, that is also why I was somewhat let down by Sullivan’s Travels (1941). Now, I’m not saying it’s not a good film—I just found it uneven. If I were a psychiatrist I would diagnose it as manic depressive. At times it is a screwball comedy and then it turns into a drama, and then it’s a comedy and then back to a dramatic social commentary. 

John L. Sullivan, aka Sully, (Joel McCrea) is a successful Hollywood director who specializes in lightweight comedies but longs to make movies about the human condition.  No more Ants in Your Pants for Sully—he wants the studio to back his O Brother Where Art Thou?  To prove he’s capable of telling an honest and powerful story about the sufferings of everyday people in the Depression Era, Sully decides to disguise himself as a hobo and live amongst them. However, the head of the studio (Robert Warwick) wants none of this and enlists a team to follow his prized director around in a RV.  Of course, this would never work, and so Sully gets them to leave him alone after an incredibly wild, slapstick chase scene that would have made the Keystone Cops green with envy. Soon after this he meets a young Hollywood ingénue (Veronica Lake) at a diner who buys him a cup of coffee and some ham and eggs.  Down on her luck and wanting to escape the perils of the casting couch, the girl (really, she’s never given a name) becomes his traveling companion.  Even after she learns who he really is and that he’s involved in a “noble experiment” she continues on the road with him to soup kitchens and shelters.  Eventually they return to Hollywood and seem to be destined for happiness (if he can ever get a divorce from his harpy wife [Jan Buckingham]), but things go awry when Sully is mugged by a hobo and believed to be dead. 

Okay, how can you start your film off with a rip-roaring, hilarious chase scene and then about halfway into the movie launch into a heavy social commentary about the hardships of the poor?  Heck, not only is it heavy, but it’s also silent.  That’s right, the master of witty repartee made a mini-silent film around the halfway mark of this movie.  Yes, it’s quite effective in conveying the despair of the downtrodden, but I thought this was supposed to be a comedy? What the hell?  And, then it goes back to being a comedy for a few minutes and the next thing I know Sully is working on a chain gang run by the father (Alan Bridge) of the Captain from Cool Hand Luke (1967) and Jess Lee Brooks is leading a black church congregation in singing “Go Down Moses” (i.e. the classic refrain, “Let My People Go”). Double what the hell? Can you see how I found Sullivan’s Travels a tad uneven and in need of a bottle of lithium? I know Sturges was attempting to poke fun at the likes of Frank Capra and Leo McCarey, but he fell in league with them here with this script.  Perhaps this is why Sullivan’s Travels didn’t receive one single Oscar nomination.

Overall, the acting performances are quite good. McCrea is his usual even self, and I must admit, he does shine in the dramatic scenes.  Like any Sturges production, there are some stock character actors who steal several scenes. Robert Grieg and Eric Blore are delightful as Sully’s servants. They had some of the best lines in the film. I wish they’d been in more scenes—perhaps some of the ones in which Veronica Lake stood around doe-eyed and pouty.  Not long after she said, “Give him some ham and eggs,” I couldn’t get over the fact that I knew both Sturges and McCrea grew to despise her over the course of the production.  To say that her acting range was limited would be kind.

I think I would have liked Sullivan’s Travels more if it had been more Ants in Your Pants and less O Brother Where Art Thou?—of course, I don’t mean the Coen Brother’s 2000 film starring my husband, Mr. Clooney. They named their film that in honor of Sturges and this movie, though.  I agree about Sturges…a little less about Sullivan’s Travels, though. 

286. All-American Co-Ed

286. (24 Nov) All-American Co-Ed (1941, LeRoy Prinz) 42



What a curious opening scene this has, where a chorus line of fraternity brothers in full drag singing in falsetto. The film goes out of its way to dispel there being any sissiness in the cross-dressing, as the boys enter one of their own in a beauty contest at an all girls' school. A questionable reporter takes an interest in the "lady," adding wacky subtext since he's attracted by the maleness in "her" appearance and freaks out the young man in drag in the process. There's more than a little gay panic the gender-bender experiences when he's basically sexually assaulted by a local boy. The romantic Oscar-nominated tune "Out of the Silence" is nice, but like all of the songs here it's instantly forgotten. Overall, this is an inoffensive, almost deserving nominee for Best Musical Score.

285. Tanks a Million

285. (24 Nov) Tanks a Million (1941, Fred Guiol) 33



This 50-minute army comedy depends on broad and physical humor. Despite rapidfire gags, including tried and true gimmicks like mistaken identity, there's literally not one laugh to be had in the entire runtime. The Oscar nomination for Original Score must be one of the most baffling on record. The only music cues are military marches, none of which are original.

Double Feature: Blossoms in the Dust (1941) & The Ox-Bow Incident (1943)

Blossoms in the Dust:

Greer Garson teams up with Walter Pidgeon in their first of many pairings, as Edna Gladney and her husband Sam. After losing their child, Edna starts a nursery for children with working mothers, which she runs from home while Sam runs his wheat mill. She feels fulfilled caring for these children now that she hasn't a child of her own. When they go bankrupt and lose the mill, Edna operates a small adoption service, finding unwanted orphans new homes with respectable families. Unfortunately, she is forced out of her establishment for legal reasons and must start from scratch to acquire better facilities. It is here that she is inspired to pursue legal action against the "illegitimate" label that orphans must face, placing shame on them for their entire lives. While she pursues this, she continues to care for the orphans, trying to give them better homes and better lives in the process.

The film received nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Art Direction (Color), and Best Cinematography (Color). It deservedly won Best Art Direction (Color).

The Ox-Bow Incident:

This classic western stars Henry Fonda as a visiting cowboy named Gil who gets mixed up in the murder of a local farmer. When the news comes through, he and his friend join the posse, which will track down the three men who stole some of the deceased's cattle and killed him. Once they find the men, the story really turns on its head. The three men appear to be innocent, claiming they bought the cattle from the farmer and that he was alive when they left him. Although this is possible, it isn't believed by most of the posse because the three men have the man's cattle, his gun, and no bill of sale. How can either side prove their case? The posse must decide what to do with the men, as both sides argue back and forth and amongst themselves. On a side note, this would make a great double feature with 12 Angry Men.

The film received a single nomination for Best Picture. Though it had no shot at beating Casablanca, it's a very worthy nominee that benefited from the Academy's ten-film lineup.

Trivia: Both films feature Marc Lawrence in a small, but pivotal, role.

Dumbo Does Debauchery (1941) **

Have you ever watched a film as a child and then later as an adult?  What your childhood memory usually holds for you is not exactly a full representation.  Upon adult reintroduction you notice all sorts of things that just flew right over your kiddie head.  This is what recently happened to me while watching the Walt Disney animated classic, Dumbo (1941).  Who knew a Disney film could have so much debauchery!

If you have a child, know a child, or once were a child yourself, you no doubt have seen Dumbo.  Yet, as I believe it is possible that aliens walk amongst us, let me do a quick synopsis. Dumbo is a baby elephant who has inordinately large ears which make him both clumsy and the object of ridicule.  When his mother is locked up for trying to protect him, Dumbo finds himself shunned by the other elephants. His only friend in the world is a mouse named Timothy who is always trying to find ways to make Dumbo a star. Reduced to the ultimate humiliation of becoming a clown, Dumbo’s redemption is found in the most unlikely place—his ears! At this point, aliens, if you want to know the rest you’ll have to watch the film—world domination will have to wait for 60 minutes.

Now, let’s talk about the wickedness of the movie.  Am I the only one whose mind just jumped into the gutter when Timothy overhears the circus owners discussing how they need a climax for the show and Tim yells, “You’re a climax , Dumbo!”  Here we have a film that begins with storks delivering animal babies and a train that chants “I think I can” when going up hills and steaming through tunnels, and soon thereafter we have characters screaming they need a climax. I read in the credits that Ben Sharpsteen was the director, but by this scene I thought it was a Lubitsch film!

And then there is the uber-famous “Pink Elephants on Parade” sequence—when did drunken hallucinations become a common Disney theme?  First, they have the clowns tearing into the hooch (by the way, isn’t this a stereotype?), and then they have Dumbo and Timothy inebriated and seeing dancing pink elephants!  If the film had been made 20 years later I would have sworn there was LSD in that bucket of booze. Psychedelic colors, hallucinogenic images—it was a hippie fest before there were hippies.  Oliver Wallace and Ned Washington even wrote a tripped-out song for the sequence, with lyrics like:

Look out! Look out!
They're walking around the bed
On their head
Clippety cloppety
Arrayed in braid
Pink elephants on parade
What'll I do? What'll I do?
What an unusual view!
I could stand the sight of worms
And look at microscopic germs
But Technicolor pachyderms
Is really much for me

Is this really a positive message to send to children?  Oh, but how many adults really knew (some very personally) what Disney was trying to say: recapture your youth and have a big glass of gin after you put your kid to bed!  Thankfully, I have no children, so I’ve never been asked to explain why Dumbo and Tim were blowing bubbles and seeing creepy pink elephants; yet, I wouldn’t have minded hearing such an explanation being given. 

Another wicked thing about the film, at least I have been told, is the crow scene.  Some say it was racial stereotyping to have black crows singing a song that was reminiscent of a minstrel show. Granted, naming the head crow Jim Crow was not an Einstein moment, but the last time I checked most crows are black. In addition, the crows were played by African American men from the Hall Johnson choir, so I don’t know that this equates to stereotyping. Now, if they had Bing Crosby singing the track in blackface there might be an issue, but I didn’t find anything shocking about black men singing “When I See an Elephant Fly”.  As I stated above, if anyone has a grievance against Disney about stereotyping it’s the clowns! I have it on high authority that not all clowns are drunkards—just the ones my parents would hire for birthday parties were, or so my mother says. 

And, finally, the last wicked thing is that magic feather. Why was it black?  Was Disney encouraging children to dabble in the black arts, “Light as a feather, stiff as a board…” Is this how this creepy slumber party “game” got its start? 

Hopefully, after reading this analysis you too will give Dumbo a new viewing. Perhaps you will gain a new appreciation for the wonderful world of Disney, too. 

 

Grift Tips from The Lady Eve (1941) ****

(While this is my own unique retelling of the story, there are spoilers.)

Good God, I do look good!  Oh, hello there, suckers.  My name’s Jean Harrington (some of the time at least), and I’ve been asked to discuss the art of the grift (con, scam, swindle—got it now, schmuck?).  This is a complicated subject and can take years to master, so I’m gonna dumb it down for those of you who weren’t raised in the racket and focus on my own personal story.

Some people are just born to be grifters—in my case, literally. I was raised by a card sharp named ‘Colonel’ ‘Harry’ Harrington (Charles Coburn). Grift Tip No. 1: Anyone who has ‘ ’ around their name is not to be trusted. You see, you’re either a colonel or you’re not—there’s a big difference between Colonel Custard and ‘Colonel’ Sanders…unless you’re a hungry Indian craving white meat.  Now, don’t get me wrong, I trust Harry, but that’s because I know all of his tricks and I never take my eyes off of him. 

As far back as I can remember Harry and I worked the luxury liners with our ‘valet’ Gerald (Melville Cooper).  There are lots of rich mugs who think they know how to play cards—problem is, they’re always under the illusion that everybody plays fair and square.  Yes, there’s a sucker born every minute—even in a silver spoon nursery. Grift Tip No. 2: If you want to be seen as rich all you have to do is wear designer clothes and tasteful jewelry;  hint at an oil field or a gold mine; and, appear affable and sophisticated.  And, that brings me to the greatest mark in grifter history—Charles ‘Hopsie’ Pike (Henry Fonda).

Heir to a brewery fortune, Hopsie was a snake enthusiast and a chump I met on an outbound boat from South America.  My first impression of him was that he needed more fiber in his diet, so I dropped an apple on the lunkhead.  This not being a proper introduction, I bided my time by picking out my sexiest outfit (a two-piece number: long black skirt with a slit up to heaven and a short black beaded top which exposed my flat midriff) designed by my personal couturier, Edith Head. I then strategically placed myself in the dining room and waited for an '”accidental” meeting. 

Grift Tip No. 3: The best way to appear disinterested but still keep your eyes on the prize is to use a pocket mirror to spy on your prey—plus, you can reassure yourself that you are definitely worth it. Once your mark has been spooked by countless hapless fortune hunters and attempts his escape, nonchalantly stick your glamorous gam out and trip him. And, that’s exactly what I did to Hopsie.  I just had a feeling that man was a klutz!  While he was still on the defensive I feigned indignation and outrage that he broke one of my pricey heels.  I then demanded that he escort me to my cabin to exchange my evening slippers. Once I had him alone in my room I turned up the heat and showed off my assets—first impressions are everything, you see.  Men who have been trapped in the jungle for an extended amount of time are susceptible to intoxicating perfume, sexual repartee, and light, but not so innocent, petting.  Suffice to say, Hopsie was quickly on the hook and all I had to do was reel him in, but then something quite shameful happened—I fell in love with my mark.

I don’t know how it happened: one minute I’m thinking what a schmuck this guy is for showing Harry and me how to palm a card and counting all the money we’re gonna take from him, and then the next thing I know I’m planning on marrying him and going straight.  Surely, I must have caught some strange jungle disease when I ran my fingers through his hair and canoodled with him!  I started spending my time double-dealing Harry and conducting business on moonlit decks.  When I look back on it all I should have seen the signs of fever-induced delusions: wearing a Christmas stocking as a hat, acting out scenes from Titanic, and believing that I could settle down with an ophiologist—a word and an occupation that decent people should never have to learn about!  It was all going so fast and I didn’t know whether to jump ship or get on board with love.  Then, something inexplicable happened: the grifter became the grifted.  Seems I’d been played for a fool by Hopsie—he’d known all along that Harry and I were con artists and he just wanted to teach us a lesson. Grift Tip No. 4: Love is for suckers! No explanation needed, I’m sure!

You’d think this is where the story ends, but what kind of grifter would I be if I told a story where I ended up with the shortest matchstick? No, I knew I couldn’t be so wrong about how much of a dope Hopsie was and I kept an eye out for an opportunity to settle the score.  Due to pesky U-boats in the Atlantic, my crew and I had to settle in the Big Apple for awhile. One day, after losing a good chunk of change on a horse that ran fifth in a five-horse race (really, what did we expect when we bet on a goat called "After You?"), we ran into Alfie, or Sir Alfred McGlennan Keith to his common American marks (Eric Blore).  When I learned Sir Alfie  was on his way to Bridgefield, Connecticut, I instantly thought of Hopsie. As fate would have it, Alfie was acquainted with the Pike family.  My mind did a quick checklist of all the reasons it knew Hopsie was a fool, and then I asked Alfie if I could pose as his niece on his displaced nobility grift. I brushed up on my British accent and colloquialisms and assumed the name Lady Eve Sidwich.  I know what you’re thinking, but rest assured it wasn’t love I was after (that would be Bette Davis).  No, I needed Hopsie like the axe needs the turkey, and I was going to have my revenge.

Looking back on it all it seems so biblical.  There I was in the Garden of Eden of all grifters: a Connecticut mansion filled with shiny apples ready to have their pockets plucked.  Hell, there was even a real snake on the loose—no, not me (but I see how you might infer that).  I arrived at the Pike mansion under cloak (really a huge fur), as I was still a bit unsure of my plan.  Once I got past Hopsie’s bodyguard and babysitter Muggsy (William Demarest), I entered the great hall as the guest of honor and proceeded to have every man hang on my every word.  Quite simply, and British, I looked smashing.  The first to succumb to my charms was Mr. Pike himself (Eugene Pallette)—the father, not the son (didn’t I say it was biblical?). At first, Hopsie was nowhere to be found (I suppose he was playing with his snake somewhere).  Ah, but then he appeared—and what a perplexed look he had on his face. Grift Tip No. 5: When you happen upon a previous mark ask them if you know them from somewhere. This confirms their belief they’ve crossed your path before. Plus, it looks like you don’t have anything to hide from them. 

You’d think it would be more difficult to convince a man with whom you canoodled that you weren’t the same woman who tried to con him on the high seas.  In a way, I was a bit peeved at how easily I pushed my real identity out of Hopsie’s mind. Of course, this feeling was quickly usurped by an overriding disbelief that I once loved a man who could be fooled by a royal title, a British accent, and a small tiara.  It didn’t take long before I had Hopsie back under my spell, but what did I want to do with him?  What better punishment was there for a bachelor than marriage?  And, so, yes, I did it: I married my mark. Ah, but I wasn’t quite done with that idiot just yet. Grift Tip No. 6: Sell the game to the bitter end and then have a well-designed escape route. 

We opted to spend our wedding night on a train. I donned my best sheer negligee and eagerly awaited the entrance of Hopsie into my cozy compartment.  He was nervous—it was obvious this was his first ride on a train. I tried to calm him down by recounting other train rides I’d taken. Surely if men like Angus, Herman, Vernon, Cecil, John, Hubert…or was it Herbert…could enjoy a train ride with me, so could Hopsie!  Perhaps he was afraid of tunnels—I always found entering and exiting them to be exhilarating.  It was all just so odd! You’d think a man who liked to play with snakes wouldn’t be so frightened of a speeding train.  It was like being in one of those Preston Sturges’ films, except there was no sex.  Maybe I shouldn’t have told him about those other guys, because he got off the train at the first stop.

And, so there I was—married and abandoned in a day by an heir to millions.  Somehow I just didn’t feel like I had exacted enough revenge on old Hopsie. Grift Tip No. 8: If you can have your cake and eat it too, eat the entire thing.  Why should I settle for a piece of the Pike pie when I could have the whole thing? Yes, I know I have mixed my food metaphors, but they are both desserts and that’s what I was going to have: my just desserts! So, when the lawyers called about divorce proceedings I ignored them.  Knowing Hopsie to be a creature of habit I returned to the high seas armed with my pocket mirror, my long, shapely legs, and my real name.  It wasn’t too long before Hopsie was escorting Jean Harrington…um, Pike…to her cabin.  Yes, he was a bit shocked when I revealed to him that Jean and Eve were one in the same—but this time I waited until he got used to the motion of the ocean.  Grift Tip No. 7: There is no greater con game than love. 

(This post was honored with a 2012 CiMBA for Best Musical or Comedy Review.  Obviously, this was a comedy.)

 

 

 

 

Going My Way

Going My Way, 1944
Directed by Leo McCarey
Nominated for 10 Oscars, Won 7
Won BP over: Double Indemnity, Gaslight, Wilson, Since You Went Away

Synopsis: Father Fitzgibbon has been with St. Dominics Parish for 45 years ("46 this October!") and is getting older. When he meets Father Chuck O'Malley, the new assistant, he isn't too keen on him. He's young, and very different from Fitzgibbon. He has a different way of doing so many things. But the church is in trouble, financially, and they need to find a way to turn it around. Though Father O'Malley may just be what the church needs. He connects with the trouble-making youth gang, but also handle the business and the busy-bodies of the church. But can he win over the trust and adoration of the superior Fitzgibbon?

This film won Bing Crosby his first and only Oscar. However, this film wasn't exactly Oscar material. It was a collection of stories, surrounding the church, and the two Fathers, O'Malley and Fitzgibbon. It's a humorous story, but not exactly the most deep of films. It's light-hearted, but it doesn't go a whole lot deeper than that.

The story is cliche at best. The old man not so welcoming of the younger guy, and the new way he's heading, and while the younger guy tries to appeal to him, it can't be done. But eventually it does, through his showing of potential, and his general charm and how much he cares.

The acting is well done, though, I must say. Bing was great, and the Oscar was well-deserved. He was light-hearted and charming, though was solemn and serious when he needed to be. Barry Fitzgerald (Father Fitzgibbon) was also quite charming. In an interesting circumstance, Fitzgerald was nominated for Both Lead and Supporting Actor, for the same role. However, being more of a supporting role, it was more fitting he should win for that. He was so cute and funny, and just charming as the old Father, and played his part so well.

That being put aside, this film was average at best, filled with cliche story lines, and while it made a nice film to watch once and appreciate Bing Crosby and the films he made, this was certainly not his best, nor was it Best Picture worthy. There were random smatterings of stories that were unnecessary, and storylines that could've and should've been played up more but weren't (the taming of the local troublemaker children, the forming of their choir, etc). Though, undeniably, the chemistry between Crosby and Fitzgerald was great.

Overall, the film wasn't that great, was a little too long for the subject it was about, and was just an okay film. There were a handful of good songs, and Bing Crosby is undeniably a very good actor, as is Barry Fitzgerald, but it didn't have much to it other than that.

6/10

How Green Was My Valley

How Green Was My Valley, 1941
Directed by John Ford
Nominated for 10 Oscars, Won 5
Won BP Over Blossoms in the Dust, Citizen Kane, Here Comes Mr. Jordan, Hold Back the Dawn, The Little Foxes, The Maltese Falcon, One Foot in Heaven, Sergeant York, Suspicion.

Synopsis: We see the story of The Morgan family, living in a Welsh mining town, through the eyes of the youngest son, Huw.

Overall, this film didn't really have a structured plot line, and was more a series of anecdotes, and smaller subplots. We have the subplot of Huw's father and brothers working in the mines, pay getting cut, going on strike, etc. We have the story of Huw's only sister, Angharad, the prettiest girl in the town, who's in love with the preacher, but she cannot be with him. And then we have Huw, who is trying to become a man, we see him learn to walk after an accident, and going to school, and working in the mines.

I was a big fan of the acting in this film, specifically, the little boy who played Huw (Roddy McDowall). He was natural, didn't overact, and was charming as the young boy telling the story. While he didn't really carry the film, he gave off the innocence of a little boy so well, from when we first see him, to the very end, and we're on his side all the way. I thought he was the most interesting character overall, and wasn't too interested in the scenes without him (there were many). Additionally, both his parents were quite good (the father, Donald Crisp, who Best Supporting Actor), as well as his sister.

Also the film looked very good, as it had won Best Cinematography. And the Original Score was quite good, too. Fun fact about the score: Alfred Newman is the most nominated composer in Best Original Score (He was 43 Nominations, John Williams has 40 (many saw JW has more, but I'm not including best original song, this is score only), is the 2nd most Oscar nominated individual (lost to Disney, tied with JW), scored the 20th Century Fox, then 20th Century Pictures, theme that's still in use today, and he is father to famous composer Thomas Newman (Finding Nemo, American Beauty) and uncle to Randy Newman (Toy Story, Monsters Inc, etc), and is considered one of the three Godfathers of film music, and is still considered one of the greatest composers to work with film. That being said, he didn't win an Oscar for this film, but the music was fantastic anyway.

The set design was also very good. The Welsh city looked great, and had a small, homey feel to it. The small stone houses, the church, the little shops, everything was quaint, and fit the story very well. 

Overall, I didn't find the story all that interesting, and found myself quickly bored with it. While everything concerning Huw was interesting (his accident, going to school, etc), everything else wasn't that remarkable. The stories were realistic, and so honest, but at the same time, they didn't quite capture me. It was a bland story, and so many of the characters you didn't get to know enough. I hardly knew the names, much less the character of all of Huw's brothers, and we only kind of know the sister, and only really in the aspect that she loves the new preacher.

Unpopular opinion, but this is my least favourite Best Picture winner yet. Many complain it beat out Citizen Kane, which is a classic. Frankly, it was an okay film, but I don't see what made it the best film of the year. It was a boring story about a Welsh mining family, and in the end, I felt no impact or emotional connection from it.

4/10

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1941

1941

The much anticipated ranking:

5. Joan Fontaine in Suspicion

This is a good performance by a great actress, who's unfortunately rarely talked about nowadays. Although Joan's achievement as Lina is quite uneven and a bit unimpressive, there's something interesting and enjoyable about her that makes you keep watching.

4. Greer Garson in Blossoms in the Dust

After all, I can say that this is a beautiful performance, which might a bit weak and rushed at times, but it's often very moving. Although it's quite forgotten nowadays, I think it shouldn't be, since it is one of the most lovely performances of a great talent. Although it may not be flawless, I still liked it a lot.

3. Olivia de Havilland in Hold Back the Dawn

Although sometimes Olivia's performance in this movie is a bit slow-paced, she's still able to be very impressive and loveable. I'm not saying that I was blown away, but I was quite impressed by her this time around. Well done.

2. Barbara Stanwyck in Ball of Fire

I can say that Barbara Stanwyck is just great as Sugarpuss O'Shea in Ball of Fire, and despite the fact that I did not expect that much from this performance and that the screentime was working against her, I was certainly really impressed by Barbara and wanted to see more of her.

1. Bette Davis in The Little Foxes

I can say after all, that Bette Davis gives one of her strongest and most memorable performances as Regina Giddens, the greedy Southern woman. She put all her experience and knowledge into it, worked hard, made it all look easy and created one of the greatest and most complex characters of the 1940s. An excellent, chilling work of a great actress. Bravo.

So I can proudly announce

that my winner is...

Bette Davis

in

The Little Foxes

You could at least stand up Bette! :)

Omissions:

• Barbara Stanwyck in The Lady Eve *My Pick*

Final thoughts: A very strong year. Ranking was quite easy this time, everything went smoothly, I'm quite sure about myself this time. And I like that. This was pretty much unpredictable, since I did not know myself what I would think about this year. Bette was the clear winner (predictably), but the others were very good too. Olivia was the pleasant surprise for me as I usually don't like her, but this time she really impressed me. She grew on me, really. Greer and Barbara (love her) were very-very good and Joan was simply good. After all, I was happy to do this year finally (and I wanted to do it for a while).

The ranking of the already reviewed years:

1. 1969
2. 1974
3. 1989
4. 1959
5. 1939
6. 2009
7. 1980
8. 1941
9. 1963
10. 1966
11. 1973
12. 1990
13. 1978
14. 1954
15. 1948
16. 2002
17. 1940
18. 1998

About the next year: It's going to be a very-very exciting and strong year, which I'm really looking forward to reviewing. I'm just saying the clues that are quotes from the movies.

• I just want to be perfect!
• Marriage is hard.
• I'm not feeling bad enough for you!

Joan Fontaine in Suspicion

Joan Fontaine received her second Oscar nomination and only Oscar for playing Lina McLaidlaw, a scared young wife in Alfred Hitchcock's movie, Suspicion. It's easy to see why Joan won for this performance: the Academy realised how incredibly stupid they were when they did not give her the award for Rebecca, one of the greatest performances of the 1940s. This is another proof for what Katharine Hepburn once said, that always the right actors win Oscars, but for the wrong roles. Moreover, Joan's case became much more interesting since her win worsened the feud between her and her sister, Olivia de Havilland.

Suspicion is a fascinating movie, but what else do you expect from the great Alfred Hitchcock? It's certainly one of his lesser and least memorable works (it's not even close to, say, Vertigo or Rear Window), however, Suspicion is just great to watch. Although the exposition is a bit slow and lazy (yes, probably a bit boring), the rest of the movie really makes up for it. After a while, the whole thing becomes really tense. Plus, Hitchcock's mixture of genres (romantic movie and thriller) is just brilliant. Also, Cary Grant is one of my favorite actors, so I always like him very much. This is not his best performance, though.

Joan Fontaine (as I said) deserved an Oscar for Rebecca, hands down. She was so incredible in that movie, covering such a wide range of emotions: fear, desperation and so on. Although she was only 23 at the time, she was already so masterful with the emotions (better than her sister ever was) and I would have expected something like that from this performance hadn't I seen it beforehand. I knew that this wouldn't live up to that great work, but I remember really enjoying it for the first time. I wasn't even influenced by the many negative reviews about her.

And Joan Fontaine is indeed quite enjoyable as the terrified Lina. However, this time I couldn't overlook the flaws in this performance, which are mostly obvious in the beginning. The whole beginning of the movie is rather slow, so it's the actor's task to make it enjoyable, however, I think they failed at doing so. At first the chemistry between Joan and Cary Grant is not that strong and it has to develop a lot as the film progresses. Fortunately, the chemistry somehow becomes much better between them.

Although Joan's work here is quite uneven, it's positive thing about it that her performance really develops and gets better and better in time. It starts out extremely weak and her presence doesn't have very much weight. It might be, though, that it was the aim of those scene to show Lina a very boring and grey person, who's not very interesting. If that was the purpose, than Joan really succeeded. I wasn't fully convinced that Lina was really seduced by Johnnie. Or she just wanted to get married and not to be called a spinster. Well, that's an interesting option. However, there isn't much mystery in this performance.

When the story gets a bit more exciting, Joan's performance also becomes very good. There were scenes where I said "wow, she's quite good actually". Her presence became so much stronger, plus she was somehow able to deal with the emotions much better, she perfectly showed how terrified and uncertain she is. You can defend her that you couldn't make such a character interesting, but I feel that Joan could have added more to it in the beginning. And the second part proves my point. I actually did develop an interest in Lina and I really cared about her.

Still, she's not very impressive even in the second half since the direction is so masterful there that it totally overshadows the rest, everything pales in comparision with it. Although Joan's performance improves a lot in the second half, she's not an exception. I'm not saying that she's not enjoyable, but she did not completely satisfy me. That's too bad, because that's what I hate the most: mediocre performances. I don't want to take anything from Joan, but this is not better than average, unfortunately. I really-really wanted to love her, but I wasn't able to.

All things considered, this is a good performance by a great actress, who's unfortunately rarely talked about nowadays. Although Joan's achievement as Lina is quite uneven and a bit unimpressive, there's something interesting and enjoyable about her that makes you keep watching. Not close to Rebecca, but I think that I shouldn't make comparisions.

A weak 3,5.

What do you think?

Bette Davis in The Little Foxes

Bette Davis received her fifth/sixth Best Actress nomination for playing Regina Giddens, a greedy and heartless Southern woman in William Wyler's Best Picture nominted classic, The Little Foxes. I really don't know what to think about her chances of winning that year. I can even imagine that she was the least likely to win. She was the only previous Oscar-winner of the line-up, she even had two of them. However, Bette was always a threat to win the award. If the rumour is true about Olivia being second, than I would say that Bette was fourth. Stanwyck had a great year, which I think gave her the edge over Bette. Still, we'll never know.

The Little Foxes is an excellent movie about greed. I remembered it being more of an ensemble movie, and I remembered much less of Davis. The screenplay (the work of Lilian Hellman) is simply terrific, full of great, memorable lines, and I think it should have won an Oscar. This story is so universal and it still hasn't lost its credibility. A brilliant job. Well, it's true that the authors write the best adaptations of their works. All the actors give very strong performances and I would say that Patricia Collinge even deserved the Oscar. Wright is also very good, though she's always a bit underwhelming.

However (I like using this term so much, I admit), The Little Fox is The Bette Davis show. I'll also admit that Davis was a brilliant actress. Although I dislike some of her movies/performances (I'd like to forget The Letter, for example), I still think she's marvelously talented and versatile. Moreover, she's versatile, even by playing basically two types of roles: the bitch and the tragic heroine. She gives different characteristics to all of them. Let me explain this: Margo Channing and Regina Giddens both belong to the bitchy group and yet the two characters cannot be more different. Regina is cold-hearted, even heartless, vicious, moneyed, greedy, manipulative and fake-nice. It's interesting that although these characters are highly unlikeable, they have an enormous popularity among people. What's the reason for that? I guess, it's basically two words: Bette Davis.

Regina is so realistic and hateful (quite rarely seen in a 40s movie), and this great achievement is 100% because of Bette. She even fell out with William Wyler because of her interpretation of Regina. Wyler wanted to make her more likeable (and it seems to have been the better decision at the time). This would have resulted in more love from the audience and probably even a third Oscar win for Bette. However, Bette made a right decision and by this she created one of the most memorable characters of the silver screen. Not only did she make Regina immortal, but she also put on a performance that so lacks the obvious 40s acting. While watching some 40s nominees and their overly sentimental acting, I seriously consider blowing my own brains out. With Bette, everythign went so smoothly.

From the very beginning, we can see that Regina is a very controlling woman. I read in Alex's review about the movie about Regina meaning queen in many languages, and it's really interesting. It was the best decision of Lillian hellman to name her Queen and by this, she showed Regina's superiority to her environment. I guess Bette also realised this and put this crucial thing into this performance, and by this, she created such a dazzling portrait of this woman.

Naturally, the bitchy line deliveries are dead on, still it's not the thign I like most about Bette in The Little Foxes. What I like the most, is the really wide range of emotions that Davis covers with her acting, and she's able to show so many faces of Regina. She's confident when she's negotiating with her stupid, greedy brothers, desperate when she has to achiveve everything she wants, and terrified when she has to face the conequences of her acts. She comes out triumphant out of all the battles and yet she somehow loses the war, because of her coldness. Actually, I feel that Regina had some love for her daughter, quite much I think. The reason for her actions is also the benefit of her child. Despite being very greedy, I don't think that Regina is that selfish. Davis showed so thrillingly that Regina wanted to give everything to her daughter which she did not have at her age. Their last scene together is really chilling: Regina asks Alexandra to sleep in her room and talk to her. Davis' face in this scene is unbelievably expressive and she blew me away.

So, I can say after all, that Bette Davis gives one of her strongest and most memorable performances as Regina Giddens, the greedy Southern woman. She put all her experience and knowledge into it, worked hard, made it all look easy and created one of the greatest and most complex characters of the 1940s. An excellent, chilling work of a great actress. Bravo.

I know I said I would leave her last, but I just couldn't resist.

Time for the final predictions!

Olivia de Havilland in Hold Back the Dawn

Olivia de Havilland received her second Oscar nomination for playing Emmy Brown, a naive young woman falling for a Romanian gigolo in the Best Picture nominee, Hold Back the Dawn. The relationship between Joan Fontaine and Olivia has always been extremely complicated, they've always been extremely competitive. And it all became worse when Joan won her first Oscar over her sister in 1942. Apparently (though I don't really know how credible an imdb board can be), it was later revealed to Olivia that she lost only by seven votes and she would have won in a tie if she had voted for herself instead of the great Barbara Stanwyck. Now figure...

Hold Back the Dawn was quite boring when I was watching it. Now, however, I feel much better about it and in conclusion, I can say that I actually liked it very much. It was well-written and directed, it wasn't too clichéd and there was something engaging about it that did not let you take your eyes off the screen. Charles Boyer was a great actor in my opinion (moreover, Olivia also spoke about him with real fondness) and he was always able to avoid the most typical flaws. I think he would have deserved a Best Actor nomination for this movie. Paulette Godard was also good, though I wasn't that impressed by her.

Olivia de Havilland is a strange case, for me at the very least. On the one hand, I cannot overlook her overall effect on American cinema and the 1940s. On the other hand, sometimes I just cannot put up with her. To those who need further explanation, I'll tell that I hate when I suspect that something/someone is fake. It really gets on my nerves to see typical, obvious acting by anyone. In To Each His Own and The Snake Pit, that was the case with Olivia. She sacrificed the credibility of her whole performance in order to make the audience sob and care about her. Why? I really don't understand that, I would have cared about her anyway. Second, her presence is not strong enough I think in many cases. It might also be the fact that she was given these good Christian virgin roles, which is not very complicated.

Now you can imagine how much prejudice I had with this performance. However, I must also say, that there were two sides of my expectations. I thought she would both fail and succeed for me, and by this I ended up expecting absolutely nothing. I sat down and watched her. And that was the very best decision. Ironically, one of the expectations has proven right (yes, I am going to tell which).

The character is called Emmy Brown. Every time I heard her name, either the Emmy award or Doctor Emmett Brown came to my mind. Although it did not mean anything at the time, now it's quite funny. At least for me. Emmy (in a way) is extremely similar to Catharine Sloper in the fascinating movie, The Heiress. They are both extremely naive, shy and sensitive, and they are so easily influenced by a kind word from a man. They are not saying much, however they have a real depth. However, I never heard that silent scream on Olivia's face now, which was apparent in The Heiress. Emmy is not a bitter spinster yet, she's young, caring, loving, inexperienced. Olivia perfected these naive roles and Emmy perfectly represents this. Olivia really understood Emmy, I think and somehow I felt this, I barely noticed those obvious moments. It's very strange that she worked quite well with me this time around.

I was quite scared in the beginning that she was going to be weak once again, but everything went smoothly and easily after a while (exactly when Emmy starts her relationship with Georges). There's a kissing scene, where Olivia is so brilliant at showing how scared this young woman is from that man. Her chemistry with Charles Boyer is just fantastic and I feel that both performers were able to benefit from this fruitful working relationship.

Still, there's one scene which totally blew me away, and there I said, 'OK Olivia, I give up! You won.' Those who have seen the movie must know which scene I'm talking about (yes, it's the blessing in the church). Olivia's playing with her face is so thrillingly brilliant. It was simply terrific to follow her emotions all the way. It was a very interesting and memorable sequence which totally won me over. The other one was her confrontation scene with Paulette Godard, where a more bitchy side of Emmy is shown apart from her naivete. It's so interesting to see her stick to her beliefs about Georges so staunchly. It was again an excellent sequence.

Although sometimes Olivia's performance in this movie is a bit slow-paced, she's still able to be very impressive and loveable. I'm not saying that I was blown away, I was quite impressed by her this time around. This was the perfect prologue to her once-in-a-lifetime work in The Heiress. I might even reconsider my thoughts about her. Well done.

I think I'll leave Bette last to let the big Bette fans wait. Plus I feel the need to make Joan the next. We'll see.

Barbara Stanwyck in Ball of Fire

Barbara Stanwyck received her second Best Actress nomination for playing Shugarpuss O'Shea in the comedy Ball of Fire. Nowadays, some consider Barbara to be the best actress who never won an Oscar, though I would argue with that statement. Although she was definitely extremely talented, I feel that Irene Dunne owns that title. I don't know how much chance Barbara had of winning, but I know that Olivia de Havilland voted for her. Ball of Fire must have been pretty loved back then, which gained some votes for Barbara.

I am a huge fan of Billy Wilder. I admire his quick wit so much and many of his movies are among my favorites. Although he did not direct this movie, he wrote its screenplay and it's obvious after the opening titles. Ball of fire is very entertaining, though I thought that it would feel very dated now. It's dated in a way, but it's still highly entertaining and extremely lovely. It's full of great lines and funny scenes. Gary Cooper is not among my favorite actors. Although I respect him, he never left me speechless. The same goes for his performance here: it's very proper, but nothing special.

As I just said, Barbara Stanwyck was really talented. Contrary to Greer Garson, Stanwyck was indeed very versatile. Although she was quite typecast on TV in the 70s and 80s, it wasn't the case in the 40s. She played a femme fatale in Double Indemnity, a possible murder victim in Sorry, Wrong Number and the self-sacrificing mother in Stella Dallas, just to mention only her Oscar-nominated works. In Ball of Fire, it's again a whole different character, the comic heroine. Even the name of Sugarpuss is extraordinary and really funny. Sugarpuss herself is truly a ball of fire, full of energy and lust, which makes Barbara the perfect choice for this part. Her easily recognisable voice, her strong presence really justifies this casting choice.

I love when great comedy performances are recognised by the Academy. In my opinion, comedy is really hard to do well, because if the lines are not delivered well enough, the whole work is ruined. If there's a false note in a drama performance, the rest of it might make up for it. However, in a comedy, you have nothing, but your lines and situations, which should be handled perfectly. And Barbara Stanwyck really nailed the comedy part of this performance. Although Sugarpuss doesn't get the best material (since it belongs to the other scientists), she's able to be very funny and memorable.

I consider Sugarpuss to be a character just like Deloris Van Cartier in Sister Act. She's a thunderball, turning the life of a very quiet and peaceful community upside down, while annoying a conservative woman, who naturally doesn't approve her behavior. Barabara Stanwyck's comedy is, however much less hysterical than the one of Whoopi Goldberg. Under the circumstances of Babara's era, Sugarpuss wasn't what she could have been: a foul-mouthed, utterly adorable bad girl. And yet, Stanwyck was so memorable and delightful here.

I always keep marvelling at how well Stanwyk develops her characters, and how invisibly she goes from point A to B, therefore creating a very real character. Sugarpuss is very wild and cheeky in the beginning, and she's simply using these ultra-innocent man to basically run away. First she's only amused by their naive nature, but very soon, she becomes very fond of them, and doesn't want to let them down. Sugarpuss is an immoral woman, but Barbara showed well, that in a way she is an honest person. Yes, she uses these guys, but she doesn't make excuses when she could. She's always able to see the consequences of her action, and she's not afraid of talking back to anyone. She has this "I'm just like this, otherwise damn you" attitude, which could seem very distracting if you read about it, but it was very attractive for me on-screen. To tell the truth, I was seduced by her from the very beginning. Her scenes, her lines are also perfectly handled by Barbara, and I loved that she used these comic elements to underline certain attributes of this woman. For Barbara, comedy is only a tool to make Sugarpuss even more attracitve, and with me she succeeded.

Although the screentime is working against her, every times, when we see her, there's something great going on there. Even in her first shot when we only see her fingernails, we know that "yeah, this is gonna be great". I felt that, though I'm quite sure that Stanwyck's acting style is not for everyone. It's very divisive, since some may find her a bit artificial, but for me, her performances always work.

So, I can say that Barbara Stanwyck is just great as Sugarpuss O'Shea in Ball of Fire, and despite the fact that I did not expect that much from this performance and that the screentime was working against her, I was certainly really impressed by Barbara and wanted to see more of her. A great comedy performance.

I try not to get too carried away and I give her 4,5 Meryls, though I might change it to a 5 if she grows one me.

Any thoughts? Who should be the next one? (I will only read the comments on Saturday.

Greer Garson in Blossoms in the Dust

Greer Garson received her second Oscar nomination for playing Edna Gladney, who opens a home for orphan and illegitimate children in Blossoms in the Dust. The Academy loved Greer Garson. Basically, she was the Meryl Streep of the forties. She received five consecutive nominations and a win for the title role of Mrs. Miniver. I doubt it, though that she had much of a chance of winning in 1941. I'm not really sure as (just like I said), they loved Greer. Wow, years were so open when there were not other award (except for NYFCC).

Blossoms in the Dust is movie that is almost impossible to find. If it wasn't for a saint called kkiimmiissiipp, I would still search for it. And I actually enjoyed it. Of coure, it's really sentimental and corny, but it was also very entertaining and loveable. It's a typical 40s movie, which is not my cup of tea, but there were certain things I really liked about it. This was the first of the eight movies that featured both Greer Garson and Walter Pidgeon, who really doesn't have much of a role in this one. He's there until the middle and we don't see more of him. Blossoms in the Dust is the story of Edna and the movie of Greer.

Greer Garson is a really interesting actress. On the one hand, she's a typical 40s actress starring in sentimental melodramas. On the other hand, there's something about her personality, which doesn't let you take your eyes off her. Although nowadays she seems to be quite forgotten, I actually visited a fansite of hers, where there were poems about her. And I can understand this, since she has such a unique and heartwarming on-screen presence. I wouldn't say though, that she was very versatile: she kept on playing the same characters for an entire decade, the strong, but loving mother and wife.

I couldn't really imagine anyone else playing the role of Edna this effectively. It's a very standard role in a standard movie. There's not much to say about her. She's a woman, who's life is turned upside down because of the death of her own child and her childhood friend, and despite these difficulites she remains strong and unbeatable.

My first real problem is that Edna is never really developed in this movie. I mean there are small, interesting things about her, but the melodrama of the screenplay really keeps us from really knowing her. The effect of one scene is more important than the overall achievement and therefore, it is never really impressive. And Greer suffers from this, too. At the beginning of it, I was certainly very charmed by her effective and radiant presence, but later on, I felt that it was not enough for me. First of all, everything is really unbelievable. I understand that after the death of her son, she wants to party in order to forget her grief and in the next scene she's taking care of children. Everything is really rushed (it's mostly the screenplay's fault), though Greer really tried to make everything believable.

However, I must say that I was truly captivated by Greer Garson's very natural and subtle acting in soem of the scenes: she has a great chemistry with Walter Pidgeon, and I felt that this was really a match made in Heaven. Also, she's brilliant with the kids. Although Edna cannot be a mother again, she loves and cares about. Edna is a loveable and sympathetic character, one that you could root for. Greer delivers the huge, theatrical monologues excellently. They are very emotional, and thanks to Greer, not that sentimental.

Edna becomes extremely close to one kid, whom she considers her son and it's such a moving scene where she says goodbye to him when she has to give him away. Greer was able to do it with such ease and warmth, that it never became too sentimental. And I salute her for that, because this was a real challenge solved excellently by Greer.

After all, I can say that this is a beautiful performance, which might a bit weak and rushed at times, but it's often very moving. Although it's quite forgotten nowadays, I think it shouldn't be, since it is one of the most lovely performances of a great talent. Although it may not be flawless, I still liked it a lot.

What do you think?

The next entry is timed for Sunday, but I won't be available then. The post will be automatically posted.