Best Actor 1943: Results

5. Walter Pidgeon in Madame Curie- I think Pidgeon does a fine job with the role, but the role is just a bit too simple for anything amazing to come from it.

4. Gary Cooper in For Whom The Bell Tolls- Cooper gives a okay performance since he relies on his strengths in terms of his silent abilities, rather than his weaknesses.

3. Mickey Rooney in The Human Comedy- Rooney is actually surprisingly good, toning down his star persona to give an honest and very effective portrayal of a young man, who must deal with certain aspects of his life including the sad losses of World War II.

2. Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca- Bogart gives a completely iconic performance, and everything he does as Rick Blaine seems to be perfectly Rick Blaine, that's all I can really say about his performance. Maybe it really is as perfect as some claim, or perhaps it is a weaker performance protected by its own iconic nature, very hard to tell for me.

1. Paul Lukas in Watch on The Rhine- Bogart's performance may be more iconic but Lukas's is the greater achievement in pure acting. I read one article that described Lukas's win as bad because any descent actor could have given the same performance, I must say that reviewer is completely wrong. Lukas's performance is brilliantly fleshed out by Lukas in scenes when he is not talking suggesting everything without words, and equally powerful showing the conflicting emotions involved with the character's fight with fascism. This was not a run of the mill performance, any actor could have done, Lukas went beyond that creating a fascinating portrait of man struggling with the world.

Deserving Performances:
Joseph Cotton in Shadow of A Doubt

Best Actor 1943: Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca

Humphrey Bogart received his first Oscar Nomination for portraying Rick Blaine in Casablanca.

Casablanca is a film that routinely bored me, and disappointed me the first time I watched it, when I watched it again I will say it has grown on me a bit. I still think it far from one of the greatest films of all time, but I did certainly find it to be good this time around.

Humphrey Bogart's performance is one of the most iconic performance in film history, usually when thinking of Bogart or the film, the though is of Bogart in that white suit, and in that iconic Cafe. Still being iconic does not automatically mean a high quality performance. I actually really like his second most iconic role, that of Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon, and think that is a perfect display of him excelling completely in his comfort zone but anyways. Bogart's performance is interesting in that most people would say no one else could have played Rick better. Now today that is most certainly true, if anyone else tried the part, it would seem that they just could not be the same iconic character as Bogart. But perhaps someone else had played Rick originally, perhaps a better performance could possibly be given. But because he did play the role it now seems no one else could have ever played it well as he does.

Now does he play the role perfectly. That is an interesting question because Rick and Bogart seem one and the same when it comes to this role, and that whatever he does is purely Rick.  He just is the type of man Rick is the way he stands, smokes his cigarette and carries himself. Who else could be like that but Bogart. Perhaps someone but the iconic nature of the Rick prevents me from seeing this, and Bogart seems to still be correct.  This performance does vex me because for me it is hard to critically examine, because of the conflict between the actual performance and the Iconic Bogart/Rick. I suppose whatever he did must of worked, because even the suit, and the club were important to make Rick, the film could not have technically be done without Bogart.

I will say that the first time I viewed the film, I found him to be rather dull at times, but this time, his performance did grow on me like the film. His acting as Rick just seemed to be technically correct. He now never seemed dull, if he was not emotional it was because Rick was simply too calm and collected to be so. Bogart must deserve credit I say since his performance I truly thrown off my ability to criticize. I do not think his chemistry with Ingrid Bergman is actually perfect in a technical sense, but for someone reason it deservedly earns to be a romance of cinematic legend. I do not know how but for some reason it all works, is it Bogart's acting, or Michael Curtiz's directing, I am not sure, but Bogart can technically do no wrong as Rick. Is this performance perfect as some say, I hesitate to agree, because I can name many greater performance in terms of acting. Is it something unique and something somehow impossible to replicate since no one else can could really be Bogart's Rick.

I  must admit when I was planning on doing this year I was full and ready to let Bogart's heavily praised performance have it  so to speak, due to the first time I saw it. I thought it was dull and boring, and I do think others could easily see it the same way. I no longer really do and I could also see how others could see it as underacting. I would partially agree with that, but not entirely because this time around his performance simply did work despite such potential flaws. I will say frankly this performance was incredibly difficult to review due to its overly iconic nature, and I will stop here for my own sanity, and just give Bogart:

Best Actor 1943: Paul Lukas in Watch on the Rhine

Paul Lukas won an Oscar from his only nomination for portraying fascist fighter Kurt Muller in Watch on the Rhine.

Watch on the Rhine is not a very good film. It is another World War II support and moral film from this year, and seems far too heavy handed in its approach to the matter, far more than The Human Comedy. Many scenes are very boring, and it has three horrendous performances, by the actors who player Lukas, and Bette Davis's Children. Especially the youngest boy who is atrocious, they are suppose to have some sort of emotional power but they fail completely. The film itself does have some strength but all of that comes from Paul Lukas.

Paul Lukas is the only interesting part of the film, because he makes every scene he is in interesting because he is in. His character is actually the best written too, and Lukas makes more than the most of him.  No other actor comes close to him at all in this performance, not Bette Davis who is always emotional as Muller's wife, but she is all emotion without real substance. For most of the film, Lukas as Muller shows some emotions brief at times, but always suggest more than the obvious emotions on display. He is always doing something in a scene, where others may be overacting, or just dull, he is routinely excellent, always showing that his character is constantly thinking, and understanding his situation. Lukas shows the most, without ever seeming to do anything in certain scenes. 

I like the charm, and passion he always displays as Muller. He shows him to be a loving father and husband, very devoted, but even more concerned with the troubled way of the world, and how he must do what he can to make the world a better place. He really shows an incredible want and need to do this, and I find the scenes where he tells of his fascist fighting to be particularly powerful due to Lukas's powerful portrayal. I think Lukas really is superb with the intensity in his voice, and the memories he presents, when he speaks about his efforts against fascist. He is exceptionally spectacular in his scene where he plays the piano and sings about his efforts. He shows a hatred for Fascism, that really give the sense of a true hatred, but also a love and energy for his fight, that really gives a spectacular display of combining emotions to create an incredibly effective scene.

Lukas still even when he is talking about fascism, he keeps his emotions mostly conveyed in a restrained but brilliantly way through his face and only somewhat through his voice. He greatest scene though involves when he must deal with a Nazi sympathizer who threatens to prevent him from potentially saving other Anti-Facist friends of his. What is so interesting, and perfect about Lukas here is how he stays almost completely quiet at first. In the way he just listens and comprehends the situation while the sympathizer tells of want for money to keep quiet. Though eventually Muller takes matters into his own hands, and deals with the situation, after allowing the man to think he has had his way. Lukas in his final scenes is absolutely compelling and chilling in his own way. It is an astounding scene because Lukas is so incredibly powerful. He commands the scene, and finally shows absolute truth of the character and his true extent in terms of his devotion to the cause. This final scene actually stands far above the rest of his scenes simply due to how great it is, and I would say is one of the best scenes of any Oscar winner performance. Still though his whole performance is brilliant, and almost makes the film worth watching simply because of its power.

Best Actor 1943: Mickey Rooney in The Human Comedy

Mickey Rooney received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Homer Macauley in The Human Comedy.

The Human Comedy is a film that certainly has an intro that grabs you from the very beginning. I will admit its hold does not stay throughout the film, but it has a truly great introduction. After that it tells the story of people effected by World War II, and people in the town of Ithaca. Not every story was effective but some were, and I will admit to having my heart tugged a bit at the end.

Mickey Rooney as Homer is the center of the film, the person in which the other stories interact with. He plays a young man, whose father has died and his brother is in the Army. To support his family he must go to work for a telegram service, delivery singing telegrams, and sometimes telegrams that deliver cryptic news. I must say that Rooney usually can be looked at as a chronic over actor. Usually going too much with his manic energy, but that is not the case in this film, and I was really glad to see he tones it down here. He tries to really be this young man who does what he can during war time.

I like his youthful exuberance here because he never does over do it this time around. He really seemed like a young high school kid here, and I felt he did a good job in being authentically the part, especially since there are so many times were he plays the same age group in a completely different way. I really liked him here and I felt he properly fleshed out Homer very well, rather than doing the standard Rooney character. For he really showed the relationships between his character and everyone else very well. He always seemed natural when Homer was with his brother, his mother, his sister, in school, or his two employers. He always seemed like a really young man in these different scenes, which worked well. He still enabled himself to have a particular charm in his performance, but keeps as part of the performance rather than overtaking in it.

Mickey Rooney actually shows a very moving side of his acting abilities in certain scenes of the films. The scenes where he must deal with the death involved with the war. Rooney makes this scenes as powerful as they are because of his spot on performance. He really conveys the truest emotions possible in these scenes, when he reads the sad news on the telegraph, his face really makes these scenes of the emotional edge needed. All of the scenes where he must deal with the death, every single one, Rooney does as well with them, and they always hit the right emotional note. Especially when he sees the final telegram, and meets his brother's army friend. Rooney absolutely makes these scene honest, and they became truly emotionally effective moments in the film, and the best moments of the film. The performance was another pleasant surprise for me, and Rooney shows at least something of what must of contributed to Laurence Olivier calling him the greatest actor ever.

Best Actor 1943: Gary Cooper in For Whom The Bell Tolls

Gary Cooper received his fourth Oscar nomination for portraying Robert Jordan who helps the Republic side during the Spanish Civil war.

For Whom the Bell Tolls, is a semi epic war film that is much too long, and has many problems, even though I must admit I was not entirely bored well watching it.

Robert Jordan is an American who has come over to help the republic side in the Spanish Civil War. He is a man in command of his situation and fully aware of what he has to do. I will say that Gary Cooper is an actor I have a minor problem with automatically is that his voice can simply be too soft at times. It is just his voice, but I fell it does not always command as much presence as it should. In this performance Cooper is suppose to be rather commanding as Jordan, and his voice usually keeps me from fully believing his command in some of his other performance. Still though this is not automatically true for this performance.

I said it before and I will say it a second time Gary Cooper is an actor who is best when he is not talking. This not meant to be really a negative remark, I just find that he really is truly silent actor in many ways, since he conveys the most with his face and his eyes. Jordan is a man of few words and this work very well for Cooper. I do believe his command completely actually when he is just showing it through the way he stands and the way he looks at others. His ability to show this through his fully makes up for his voice completely for me. His voice still seems a little too soft, but I feel Cooper this time uses his physical command very well.

Most of the film Jordan is just trying to get the job done despite having to deal with an odd group of guerrillas and their odd former leader Pablo (Akim Tamirof). Cooper keeps Jordan in command at all times and that works out just fine for the performance, Jordan is a man who simply never really loses his cool. His romantic scenes with Maria(Ingrid Bergman) are rather odd though because Bergman and Cooper take such widely different approaches in these scenes. Cooper keeps it subtle and calm, while Bergman gives one of her needy emotional type performance. I think Cooper is actually more effective in these scenes because he remains far more subtle conveying truer emotions than Bergman with her obvious display of emotion. I think Cooper is actually weakened a little bit by her performance actually, but I think he still stays very effective.

Cooper's performance I expected not to really like at all, partially due to his huge failure as Sergeant York, but here I was pleasantly surprised actually. He stays a strong presence throughout the film, and he has some truly great scenes because of the power of his silent facial abilities. He really shows much more than I expected because of this, and made his character a little more complicated than I expected. Cooper is weakened by the other actors and the film itself, but he still has good scenes.

Best Actor 1943: Walter Pidgeon in Madame Curie

Walter Pidgeon received his second and final Oscar nomination for portraying scientist Pierre Curie in Madame Curie.

Madame Curie I found to be a biography picture which at times was good, but also rather boring, such as the actual scenes of discovering radium seemed like they needed something more visually.

Walter Pidgeon plays the french scientist Pierre Curie, without a french accent which is fine with me, since it just fits with how things were done most of the time back then. Walter Pidgeon performance and character here is somewhat similar to Paul Muni's performance in The Story of Louis Pasteur. He plays a scientist who is right in his thinking and only wants to improve the knowledge of mankind. He just is around a smart and decent guy, and I feel there is nothing wrong with such a portrayal. His portrayal is similar acceptable, suitable, and enjoyable at times, nothing less and it really does not have to be all that more. He has one difference and that is his partner in science is also his wife Marie Curie.

His scenes with Marie (Greer Garson) are not of the big romantic scene style, but rather far more simple scenes of showing affection for one another. There is not all that romantic tension, but I feel both of the actors do a very good job of showing just a more subtle love for one another that is simpler but properly sweet when it needs to be. I particularly thought he was strong in his final scene of the film where he shows his true love for Marie incredibly well. Besides that he was just good never all that great with Garson.

There are a few flaws that hold back his performance. I could see how many could see Pidgeon as dull, or to bland. I never thought he really was, and almost always thought his performance worked well enough in the film it was in even if it was never amazing. There was one scene I felt his performance was a little lacking, and that was in a scene where he was fighting to support the research of the Curies, and then defending his wife as a scientist. I felt he just needed a little more passion in his performance, not that much more, but a little more. I never felt his performacne truly failed and was just suitable fine performance that I enjoyed.

Best Actor 1943

And the Nominees Were:

Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca

Walter Pidgeon in Madam Curie

Paul Lukas in Watch on The Rhine

Gary Cooper in For Whom the Bell Tolls

Mickey Rooney in The Human Comedy


So who do you pick, and who do you predict? The iconic bar owner involved with Nazis, the Anti-Nazi, the solider in the Spanish American War, the death messenger, or Pierre Curie?