Yul Brynner in The Ten Commandments
Edward G. Robinson in The Ten Commandments
Ralph Richardson in Richard III
Showing posts with label 1956 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1956 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Best Supporting Actor 1956: Results
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Yul Brynner in The Ten Commandments
Edward G. Robinson in The Ten Commandments
Ralph Richardson in Richard III
Best Supporting Actor 1956: Mickey Rooney in The Bold and The Brave
Mickey Rooney received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Willie Dooley in The Bold and The Brave.
The Brave and the Bold depicts a group soldiers on the Italian front during World War II.
Mickey Rooney is an actor who is commonly derided by modern viewers for his Rooney mannerisms, and tendency to overact his parts. I must personally I have no animosity toward Rooney. Firstly he showed in The Human Comedy he is capable of giving a moving performance, secondly I personally never had a problem with his Rooneyisms. This is not to say that I do not understand people who do hold this animosity, Rooney certainly is an actor that if he rubs you the wrong way he probably really rubs you the wrong way. He simply does not annoy me in that way, although it most certainly is true that his performances tend to be better when they are further away from a typical Rooney performance than closer.
I certainly had my hopes up for this performance as it is in a war film and I assumed Rooney would attempt a more realistic approach because of that reason. Unfortunately that is not the case in the Bold and the Brave as Rooney portrays Dooley who takes a rather lighthearted approach to the war, running a craps game, drinking, treating it as a free ride of sorts. Not that he does not kick into action when his life is threatened but nevertheless he does not treat like the average soldier. Rooney takes it as a comedic turn even though it is in a mostly serious war film.
Rooney as with most of his performances when he was younger, good or bad, throws a great deal of energy into his portrayal. A large amount of this energy goes into his mannerisms he constatnly employs, but to his credit Rooney always tries to light up the screen with his presence. I won't say it really always works as well as he wants to but his efforts are not completely wasted. He does have some humorous enough moments here and there, and Rooney's own joy in his performance does come across that works well for his role whose only concern really is have pleasure in life.
He certainly does get across his character's motivations on the screen which are rather shallow to say the least he wants money and the pleasure one gets from it, and not even the war itself with take his mind away from his goal. Rooney shows an intense greed within Dooley. Rooney manages to still make him likable and charming to a degree even though Dooley is greedy to a fault. I must say if his performance was less mannered this could have been a truly great effort by Rooney. Unfortunately his obvious mannerisms keep his performance from being especially natural. He never fully becomes the character always staying somewhat aside him, not that the performance does not have it strong points the only problem is it could have been an entirely strong performance. Rooney instead gives of a somewhat weak performance with some strong points.
Mickey Rooney is an actor who is commonly derided by modern viewers for his Rooney mannerisms, and tendency to overact his parts. I must personally I have no animosity toward Rooney. Firstly he showed in The Human Comedy he is capable of giving a moving performance, secondly I personally never had a problem with his Rooneyisms. This is not to say that I do not understand people who do hold this animosity, Rooney certainly is an actor that if he rubs you the wrong way he probably really rubs you the wrong way. He simply does not annoy me in that way, although it most certainly is true that his performances tend to be better when they are further away from a typical Rooney performance than closer.
I certainly had my hopes up for this performance as it is in a war film and I assumed Rooney would attempt a more realistic approach because of that reason. Unfortunately that is not the case in the Bold and the Brave as Rooney portrays Dooley who takes a rather lighthearted approach to the war, running a craps game, drinking, treating it as a free ride of sorts. Not that he does not kick into action when his life is threatened but nevertheless he does not treat like the average soldier. Rooney takes it as a comedic turn even though it is in a mostly serious war film.
Rooney as with most of his performances when he was younger, good or bad, throws a great deal of energy into his portrayal. A large amount of this energy goes into his mannerisms he constatnly employs, but to his credit Rooney always tries to light up the screen with his presence. I won't say it really always works as well as he wants to but his efforts are not completely wasted. He does have some humorous enough moments here and there, and Rooney's own joy in his performance does come across that works well for his role whose only concern really is have pleasure in life.
He certainly does get across his character's motivations on the screen which are rather shallow to say the least he wants money and the pleasure one gets from it, and not even the war itself with take his mind away from his goal. Rooney shows an intense greed within Dooley. Rooney manages to still make him likable and charming to a degree even though Dooley is greedy to a fault. I must say if his performance was less mannered this could have been a truly great effort by Rooney. Unfortunately his obvious mannerisms keep his performance from being especially natural. He never fully becomes the character always staying somewhat aside him, not that the performance does not have it strong points the only problem is it could have been an entirely strong performance. Rooney instead gives of a somewhat weak performance with some strong points.
Best Supporting Actor 1956: Anthony Quinn in Lust for Life
Monday, April 16, 2012
Anthony Quinn won his second Oscar from his second nomination for portraying Paul Gauguin in Lust For Life.
Anthony Quinn performance as Paul Gauguin has a strange Oscar myth that goes along with his performance which is that he is only in the film for a very short eight minutes. This is a bizarre continually restated myth because he is probably in the film over twenties minutes. I must say such myths astound me because all one needs to do is watch the film to see he is obviously in the film longer than that. Either way though that is commonly used as reason he did not deserve to win, even though the size of a performance really does not matter it is the impact made by it.
Quinn most certainly does have an impact with his performance as Paul Gauguin in Lust For Life, one of those roles that seems frankly tailored made for Quinn. Gauguin is a braggart, very sure of himself and his opinions, who enjoys his pleasures, but is also very rough around the edges. Quinn is quite good in his very first scene and instantly makes an impact on the film. There are many actors playing artists that Kirk Douglas's Vincent Van Gogh meets, but Quinn even in his first relatively short scene is the only one who makes a man out of him. Quinn effortlessly becomes Gauguin from his first scene he realizes the distinct manner of Gauguin.
Quinn is pompous and pretensions, and shows that Gauguin does not mind making a scene in fact he wants to make a scene. Quinn has the perfect sort of carefree quality in his performance showing Gauguin casual disregard for any sort of common manners. In his first scene he is quite good in establishing Gauguin casual interest and supporting in Van Gogh's work. There is not an over enthusiasm in Gauguin though as Quinn carefully shows in an early indications of the problems they will have later. Also in his early moments Gauguin gives a little "wisdom" to Gauguin, Quinn is quite effective because he shows although that it might not really be the most intelligent advice given, Gauguin most surely believes in it.
The real meat of his performance comes later as Gauguin goes to live with Van Gogh as an attempt by Vincent's brother Theo to rid Vincent of his loneliness. From their first scene together Quinn and Douglas create a dynamic together that you know will not end well. Van Gogh's desperate want for a friend and fellow artist, but Quinn is effectively hard boiled in his depiction of Gauguin. Although there is the faintest hint in Quinn's performance of Gauguin's respect for Van Gogh as a person, as well as understanding of the great troubles of the man, he never avoid showing the simply truth that the main reason Gauguin went there is simply to have some room and board for free.
Their scenes together really work as Douglas is far more enthusiastic but as well as emotionally intense, and unsure as Van Gogh, whereas Quinn shows Gauguin to be in ways harder, more controlled in and simpler in his ways. Both actors really show that neither of the men match and that they are destined to have problems. Quinn is properly pompous with just the right amount of humor in his performance as Gauguin criticizes Van Gogh in various ways. He shows this as just Gauguin's way, he doesn't exactly purposefully try to upset Van Gogh but Quinn shows that Gauguin ego is so large that he really can't avoid it.
Some of Quinn's best moments come in the two of their fights together as both actors naturally show the way their simple discussions can quickly become heated and violent arguments. Quinn again contrasts well against Douglas. Douglas showing Van Gogh exacerbating tendencies, and Quinn shows a harsh reality in Gauguin simple and rough attacks on Van Gogh. My favorite moments of Quinn's performance though I think might come in when he shows Gauguin try to calm the situation by backing down, or eventually by leaving. Quinn convey that although Gauguin is a bit too quick to anger himself he is not mentally unbalanced in the way Van Gogh is. In this short subtle moments he shows an understanding and realization in Gauguin over his own treatment toward Van Gogh, and that perhaps he has gone too far himself. This may not be his best or his longest performance but Quinn manages to make the most of his role as Paul Gauguin. He not only creates an intriguing portrait of this man, but as well with Kirk Douglas delivers some of the best moments of the film.
Quinn most certainly does have an impact with his performance as Paul Gauguin in Lust For Life, one of those roles that seems frankly tailored made for Quinn. Gauguin is a braggart, very sure of himself and his opinions, who enjoys his pleasures, but is also very rough around the edges. Quinn is quite good in his very first scene and instantly makes an impact on the film. There are many actors playing artists that Kirk Douglas's Vincent Van Gogh meets, but Quinn even in his first relatively short scene is the only one who makes a man out of him. Quinn effortlessly becomes Gauguin from his first scene he realizes the distinct manner of Gauguin.
Quinn is pompous and pretensions, and shows that Gauguin does not mind making a scene in fact he wants to make a scene. Quinn has the perfect sort of carefree quality in his performance showing Gauguin casual disregard for any sort of common manners. In his first scene he is quite good in establishing Gauguin casual interest and supporting in Van Gogh's work. There is not an over enthusiasm in Gauguin though as Quinn carefully shows in an early indications of the problems they will have later. Also in his early moments Gauguin gives a little "wisdom" to Gauguin, Quinn is quite effective because he shows although that it might not really be the most intelligent advice given, Gauguin most surely believes in it.
The real meat of his performance comes later as Gauguin goes to live with Van Gogh as an attempt by Vincent's brother Theo to rid Vincent of his loneliness. From their first scene together Quinn and Douglas create a dynamic together that you know will not end well. Van Gogh's desperate want for a friend and fellow artist, but Quinn is effectively hard boiled in his depiction of Gauguin. Although there is the faintest hint in Quinn's performance of Gauguin's respect for Van Gogh as a person, as well as understanding of the great troubles of the man, he never avoid showing the simply truth that the main reason Gauguin went there is simply to have some room and board for free.
Their scenes together really work as Douglas is far more enthusiastic but as well as emotionally intense, and unsure as Van Gogh, whereas Quinn shows Gauguin to be in ways harder, more controlled in and simpler in his ways. Both actors really show that neither of the men match and that they are destined to have problems. Quinn is properly pompous with just the right amount of humor in his performance as Gauguin criticizes Van Gogh in various ways. He shows this as just Gauguin's way, he doesn't exactly purposefully try to upset Van Gogh but Quinn shows that Gauguin ego is so large that he really can't avoid it.
Some of Quinn's best moments come in the two of their fights together as both actors naturally show the way their simple discussions can quickly become heated and violent arguments. Quinn again contrasts well against Douglas. Douglas showing Van Gogh exacerbating tendencies, and Quinn shows a harsh reality in Gauguin simple and rough attacks on Van Gogh. My favorite moments of Quinn's performance though I think might come in when he shows Gauguin try to calm the situation by backing down, or eventually by leaving. Quinn convey that although Gauguin is a bit too quick to anger himself he is not mentally unbalanced in the way Van Gogh is. In this short subtle moments he shows an understanding and realization in Gauguin over his own treatment toward Van Gogh, and that perhaps he has gone too far himself. This may not be his best or his longest performance but Quinn manages to make the most of his role as Paul Gauguin. He not only creates an intriguing portrait of this man, but as well with Kirk Douglas delivers some of the best moments of the film.
Best Supporting Actor 1956: Robert Stack in Written on the Wind
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Robert Stack received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Kyle Hadley in Written on the Wind.
Written on the Wind is a melodrama that tells about the son of an Oil tycoon who marries a woman Lucy (Lauren Bacall) loved by his best friend Mitch (Rock Hudson) who in turn is lusted after the son's nymphomaniac of a sister Marylee (Dorothy Malone).
In the case of melodramas from the fifties acting usually is divided in the dull and the over the top. In this case there is the dull of Hudson and Bacall, and the over the top of Malone with Stack in the middle. I find with melodramas of this sort it is best to overact to not fade in with the dullness of the surrounding performances. Stack interestingly enough actually tries not to be dull or overact early on as Kyle the oil tycoon's son attempts to woo Lucy to be his wife while admitting his flaws to her at the same time.
I feel Stack does actually try to convey the feelings of his character by trying to be realistic. It does not really help that his character is written in as shallow of a manner as he is, yes I know that is all the point of Douglas Sirk's irony that modern critic love so much, but nevertheless it does not allow for a particularly interesting performance. I will give Stack credit in that he does try to play the part straight, and realistically but it never amounts to anything particularly moving. I would say his attempts put his performance above the level of Bacall and Hudson but still he does not create a compelling character.
Stack consistently tries as his character slowly feels anguish over his empty life and his fears over his marriage. Stack stays in a similar tone with his character which makes sense actually since he tries to take his troubles in stride at first. In the second half of the film though Stack moves more to the over the top type of performance as Kyle's troubles become worse as he finds out that he might be impudent and with coaxing by his sister that his wife might be having an affair with his best friend. Stack, as I am sure Sirk wanted, gives up his attempts to stay grounded as Kyle.
Stack as Kyle becomes alcoholic and maddened with jealousy and Kyle becomes more and more like his sister with his over the top behavior. Stack I feel never becomes bad actually and is effective enough actually in the role still. He never goes so far that it seems like acting just for acting sake. He still manages to be his character within his film which is purposefully overblown. Also I must say in his over the top moments Stack does have a few more emotionally piercing moments, in an over dramatic way sure, but they are moving nonetheless. This is not a deeply felt portrait of an alcoholic, but the portrait of an alcoholic in a Douglas Sirk film.
I can't say this a performance that ever amazed me in anyway his character early on is very dull and although Stack did his best not to fall into the dullness he could not exactly completely avoid it either. In his more of the over the top sequences he does become a little interesting but even with such big over the top emotions on display the performance still did not make a great impact. I will say this is not bad work from Stack by any means actually he does his absolute best at first to try to find something with just about nothing, and than later on he does do his best to be over the top while still being a character. It is never great work but it is far better than it could have been.
In the case of melodramas from the fifties acting usually is divided in the dull and the over the top. In this case there is the dull of Hudson and Bacall, and the over the top of Malone with Stack in the middle. I find with melodramas of this sort it is best to overact to not fade in with the dullness of the surrounding performances. Stack interestingly enough actually tries not to be dull or overact early on as Kyle the oil tycoon's son attempts to woo Lucy to be his wife while admitting his flaws to her at the same time.
I feel Stack does actually try to convey the feelings of his character by trying to be realistic. It does not really help that his character is written in as shallow of a manner as he is, yes I know that is all the point of Douglas Sirk's irony that modern critic love so much, but nevertheless it does not allow for a particularly interesting performance. I will give Stack credit in that he does try to play the part straight, and realistically but it never amounts to anything particularly moving. I would say his attempts put his performance above the level of Bacall and Hudson but still he does not create a compelling character.
Stack consistently tries as his character slowly feels anguish over his empty life and his fears over his marriage. Stack stays in a similar tone with his character which makes sense actually since he tries to take his troubles in stride at first. In the second half of the film though Stack moves more to the over the top type of performance as Kyle's troubles become worse as he finds out that he might be impudent and with coaxing by his sister that his wife might be having an affair with his best friend. Stack, as I am sure Sirk wanted, gives up his attempts to stay grounded as Kyle.
Stack as Kyle becomes alcoholic and maddened with jealousy and Kyle becomes more and more like his sister with his over the top behavior. Stack I feel never becomes bad actually and is effective enough actually in the role still. He never goes so far that it seems like acting just for acting sake. He still manages to be his character within his film which is purposefully overblown. Also I must say in his over the top moments Stack does have a few more emotionally piercing moments, in an over dramatic way sure, but they are moving nonetheless. This is not a deeply felt portrait of an alcoholic, but the portrait of an alcoholic in a Douglas Sirk film.
I can't say this a performance that ever amazed me in anyway his character early on is very dull and although Stack did his best not to fall into the dullness he could not exactly completely avoid it either. In his more of the over the top sequences he does become a little interesting but even with such big over the top emotions on display the performance still did not make a great impact. I will say this is not bad work from Stack by any means actually he does his absolute best at first to try to find something with just about nothing, and than later on he does do his best to be over the top while still being a character. It is never great work but it is far better than it could have been.
Best Supporting Actor 1956: Anthony Perkins in Friendly Persuasion
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Anthony Perkins received his only Oscar nomination Josh Birdwell in Friendly Persuasion.
Friendly Persuasion tells of a peaceful Quacker family who attempt to hold onto their values as the Civil War moves toward them.
Anthony Perkins is an interesting an enjoyable case of an actor who became famous for a certain role that held stark contrast to their previous work. Even though their most famous role was against type they their role seems to make them that type. I was able to enjoy something similar during the last year I did where I got to watch Since You Went Away with Robert Walker as an unimposing squeaky voiced soldier which stands in a rather enjoyable contrast to his performance as the psychopathic stranger in Strangers of the Train. The same is true here as Perkins portrays an unassuming kind Quaker which is a very different performance from his most famous role as Norman Bates in Psycho.
Part of the reason his performance as Norman Bates probably worked so well though was because of Perkins's ability to portray an entirely descent but somewhat shy person like the character of Josh Birdwell in this film. Josh Birdwell the older son of a Quaker family, he is a good Quaker who always tries to remain faithful to the ideals of his faith and obey his mother and father. Friendly Persuasion has a little bit of trouble like other films that try a specific antiquated style of speaking that is not Shakespearean. Usually when a film tries this it shows why actors specifically study to speak the Shakespearean language convincingly, when the actor is unfamiliar with the language style or meaning their performance can sound needlessly stilted and it sounds like they spend most of their effort just being able to remember the words without properly bringing meaning to them.
This is not as much of a problem as it could be as Friendly Persuasion only lays on the Quaker dialect heavily at first, and to Anthony Perkins' credit he is the actor who most convincingly speaks the words actually, and he does not have the same problems as some of his co-stars have ridding his performance from any unneeded distractions which riddle a few of the other performances in the film. Perkins gives a good performance early on and realistically portrays his somewhat shy and gentle Josh. He does not make a huge impact early on and nor should he is suppose to be a wholly good son. Perkins realizes this well and honestly portrays the part without being dull. He still turns Josh into a character of his own that does have his own feelings, and emotions.
Perkins offers nice support early on and does his best to help create real family element to the film with his nice warm portrayal of the son who at first tries to be a quiet modest pacifist. I have to admit Perkins does not have the rest of the cast to really support his efforts to make a memorable family portrait in the film, but Perkins most certainly does his best to do his part. His performance does not remain in the role of the good son the whole time though as Josh is faced, just as the rest of the family is with the pressing issue of the civil war as their livelihood will soon be threatened by Rebel troops. Josh is the one who actually is most troubled by the issue and his conscience over whether or not to fight and kill to protect his family and friends.
Perkins' portrayal of Josh's struggle with his conscience is the best part of his performance. Early on Perkins gives some small subtle indications of just the realistic uncertainty in Josh's mind over what he will or won't do. Later on when he finally does decide to fight Perkins gives a moving portrait of Josh's still very quiet but painful choice to fight what he does believe is right. Perkins is effective here because he conveys that it is not a simple decision for Josh and Perkins shows all of the conflicting and troubling emotions within Josh. Perkins brings us right into Josh's fears as he finally does fight, and the terrible guilt after the fight is over. Through his performance Perkins realizes the central theme of the film very well. My only wish was his character was devoted more time as he always came off as the most realistic and most interesting of the cast, and he deserved more time at the end of the film than he is given. Nevertheless this is a fine performance Perkins that succeeds in realizing his character's struggle in a honest unassuming fashion.
Anthony Perkins is an interesting an enjoyable case of an actor who became famous for a certain role that held stark contrast to their previous work. Even though their most famous role was against type they their role seems to make them that type. I was able to enjoy something similar during the last year I did where I got to watch Since You Went Away with Robert Walker as an unimposing squeaky voiced soldier which stands in a rather enjoyable contrast to his performance as the psychopathic stranger in Strangers of the Train. The same is true here as Perkins portrays an unassuming kind Quaker which is a very different performance from his most famous role as Norman Bates in Psycho.
Part of the reason his performance as Norman Bates probably worked so well though was because of Perkins's ability to portray an entirely descent but somewhat shy person like the character of Josh Birdwell in this film. Josh Birdwell the older son of a Quaker family, he is a good Quaker who always tries to remain faithful to the ideals of his faith and obey his mother and father. Friendly Persuasion has a little bit of trouble like other films that try a specific antiquated style of speaking that is not Shakespearean. Usually when a film tries this it shows why actors specifically study to speak the Shakespearean language convincingly, when the actor is unfamiliar with the language style or meaning their performance can sound needlessly stilted and it sounds like they spend most of their effort just being able to remember the words without properly bringing meaning to them.
This is not as much of a problem as it could be as Friendly Persuasion only lays on the Quaker dialect heavily at first, and to Anthony Perkins' credit he is the actor who most convincingly speaks the words actually, and he does not have the same problems as some of his co-stars have ridding his performance from any unneeded distractions which riddle a few of the other performances in the film. Perkins gives a good performance early on and realistically portrays his somewhat shy and gentle Josh. He does not make a huge impact early on and nor should he is suppose to be a wholly good son. Perkins realizes this well and honestly portrays the part without being dull. He still turns Josh into a character of his own that does have his own feelings, and emotions.
Perkins offers nice support early on and does his best to help create real family element to the film with his nice warm portrayal of the son who at first tries to be a quiet modest pacifist. I have to admit Perkins does not have the rest of the cast to really support his efforts to make a memorable family portrait in the film, but Perkins most certainly does his best to do his part. His performance does not remain in the role of the good son the whole time though as Josh is faced, just as the rest of the family is with the pressing issue of the civil war as their livelihood will soon be threatened by Rebel troops. Josh is the one who actually is most troubled by the issue and his conscience over whether or not to fight and kill to protect his family and friends.
Perkins' portrayal of Josh's struggle with his conscience is the best part of his performance. Early on Perkins gives some small subtle indications of just the realistic uncertainty in Josh's mind over what he will or won't do. Later on when he finally does decide to fight Perkins gives a moving portrait of Josh's still very quiet but painful choice to fight what he does believe is right. Perkins is effective here because he conveys that it is not a simple decision for Josh and Perkins shows all of the conflicting and troubling emotions within Josh. Perkins brings us right into Josh's fears as he finally does fight, and the terrible guilt after the fight is over. Through his performance Perkins realizes the central theme of the film very well. My only wish was his character was devoted more time as he always came off as the most realistic and most interesting of the cast, and he deserved more time at the end of the film than he is given. Nevertheless this is a fine performance Perkins that succeeds in realizing his character's struggle in a honest unassuming fashion.
Best Supporting Actor 1956: Don Murray in Bus Stop
Friday, April 13, 2012
Don Murray received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Beauregard 'Bo' Decker in Bus Stop.
Bus Stop is about a cowboy who tries to convince a saloon singer (Marilyn Monroe) to marry him.
Don Murray portrays the cowboy who loves yipping and hollering in a Richard Dix sort of fashion, which you know is never a good thing. Murray stays hooting and a hollering almost entirely throughout his performance as the very very dumb Bo Decker who goes to participate in a rodeo and at the same time thinks of picking up a woman. He goes along with his mentor of sorts Virgil (Arthur O'Connell) who tries to keep him in line. I must say it is absolutely amazing that out of the cast of Bus Stop they decided to reward Murray for his efforts since he gives the least impressive performance in the entire film.
It is made even more amazing though by the fact that he is not at all supporting and is in fact the male lead of the film, but perhaps the weakness of the performance put him supporting in their eyes, but if they noticed the weakness of his performance why would they have nominated him? Anyways Murray is extremely repetitive in his performance as he repeats the same over the top cowboy mannerisms almost throughout the performance which aren't even well done in the first place and do feel like a performance at all times. Murray stays basically one note the whole way through never trying to create anything layered about Bo.
He pretty much shows Bo to just be an idiot, or at least that is the way he plays him. He is so dumb though I questioned why we had to witness this character at all, or why the other character's took to the end of the film to give him a good beating. An extremely dumb character, and portrayal that keeps the dumbness to a maximum usually are only found in broad comedies, or if not they are usually small bit parts neither is the case with old Bo leaving him as just an obnoxious character that seems strange as a lead. It might have worked perhaps if Murray was ever funny in the role, but he does not has one moment that has the slightest bit of humor.
His two main relationships in the film have nothing special to them. He lacks any sort of chemistry with O'Connell or Monroe. Their scenes together only really illustrate how much better performers Monroe and O'Connell are than he is. He does not hold a single scene as his own since he just participates in the same unbearable shtick throughout, any scene with any other actor always belongs to the other actor in the scene it is quite insane really that Murray was nominated here. His performance is just that unremarkable, and is one of those types of work that come along every so often that is both dull and over the top which is a deadly combination.
His performance is not absolutely awful for only one reason which is his last scene after Bo is deservedly beaten for mistreating everyone and being a bully while being his hooting self. All of a sudden Murray learns subtly for his very last scene, although I would say even though he does learn subtly for this scene it still doesn't make much sense. He was almost a cartoon for the rest of the film and the Bo Murray shows in the last scene does not seem to be another side of Bo, or even a changed Bo, but an entirely different and unrelated man. As a unrelated man he is technically okay in the scene suggesting an actual person rather than a series of different loud noises. Still this one scene is not amazing by any means and only prevents this from being the worst nominated in this category, but it does not stop it from being one of the worst.
Don Murray portrays the cowboy who loves yipping and hollering in a Richard Dix sort of fashion, which you know is never a good thing. Murray stays hooting and a hollering almost entirely throughout his performance as the very very dumb Bo Decker who goes to participate in a rodeo and at the same time thinks of picking up a woman. He goes along with his mentor of sorts Virgil (Arthur O'Connell) who tries to keep him in line. I must say it is absolutely amazing that out of the cast of Bus Stop they decided to reward Murray for his efforts since he gives the least impressive performance in the entire film.
It is made even more amazing though by the fact that he is not at all supporting and is in fact the male lead of the film, but perhaps the weakness of the performance put him supporting in their eyes, but if they noticed the weakness of his performance why would they have nominated him? Anyways Murray is extremely repetitive in his performance as he repeats the same over the top cowboy mannerisms almost throughout the performance which aren't even well done in the first place and do feel like a performance at all times. Murray stays basically one note the whole way through never trying to create anything layered about Bo.
He pretty much shows Bo to just be an idiot, or at least that is the way he plays him. He is so dumb though I questioned why we had to witness this character at all, or why the other character's took to the end of the film to give him a good beating. An extremely dumb character, and portrayal that keeps the dumbness to a maximum usually are only found in broad comedies, or if not they are usually small bit parts neither is the case with old Bo leaving him as just an obnoxious character that seems strange as a lead. It might have worked perhaps if Murray was ever funny in the role, but he does not has one moment that has the slightest bit of humor.
His two main relationships in the film have nothing special to them. He lacks any sort of chemistry with O'Connell or Monroe. Their scenes together only really illustrate how much better performers Monroe and O'Connell are than he is. He does not hold a single scene as his own since he just participates in the same unbearable shtick throughout, any scene with any other actor always belongs to the other actor in the scene it is quite insane really that Murray was nominated here. His performance is just that unremarkable, and is one of those types of work that come along every so often that is both dull and over the top which is a deadly combination.
His performance is not absolutely awful for only one reason which is his last scene after Bo is deservedly beaten for mistreating everyone and being a bully while being his hooting self. All of a sudden Murray learns subtly for his very last scene, although I would say even though he does learn subtly for this scene it still doesn't make much sense. He was almost a cartoon for the rest of the film and the Bo Murray shows in the last scene does not seem to be another side of Bo, or even a changed Bo, but an entirely different and unrelated man. As a unrelated man he is technically okay in the scene suggesting an actual person rather than a series of different loud noises. Still this one scene is not amazing by any means and only prevents this from being the worst nominated in this category, but it does not stop it from being one of the worst.
Best Supporting Actor 1956
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Mickey Rooney in The Bold and the Brave
Don Murray in Bus Stop
Anthony Quinn in Lust for Life
Anthony Perkins in Friendly Persuasion
Robert Stack in Written on The Wind
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
