Jackie Cooper in The Champ
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label Fredric March. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fredric March. Show all posts
Best Actor 1932: Results
Jackie Cooper in The Champ
Best Actor 1932: Fredric March in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Fredric March won his first Oscar from his second nomination for portraying the two sides of man in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
This version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is fairly well made, and interesting, with some unique techniques used in the film which work quite well.
Fredric March portrays both roles of course, one of the civilized doctor, and the other of the evil animalistic Hyde. March first portrays the doctor, in what is mostly a normal sort of leading man role. He shows that Jekyll is most upstanding fellow, as well as intelligent and very proper.
The doctor is perhaps even a little on the dull side, March is not at all dull in terms of his portrayal, but March just shows as part of his performance that the doctor is a little simple in his simple desires and wants in life. After he basically wants to marry the woman of his dreams Muriel and have his scientific ideas about the two natures of man be recognized. In that was March is properly simple in being just a honest man.
Due to the fact that his ideas are questioned, his relationship with Muriel is troubled by her reluctant father, and Jekyll is tempted by a lower class woman Ivy he encounters. Dr. Jekyll refuses to jump at such temptations himself, but instead decides to use his formula to bring out his primitive side. He does this to both prove his point, but also to allow him to pursue Ivy. It is interesting because here March shows that when everything is no longer perfect for Jekyll, he himself stops being perfect, slowly bringing out more complexity to his the character of Jekyll.
March then becomes Hyde in quite an impressive transformation scene by both the special effects, and March sells it as well even if overall he is not required to do that much. He then becomes Hyde who resembles as Neanderthal. His make up is possibly a bit much, particularly his teeth that are large, and March clearly has to speak over them in his performance. The make up though certianly works, as does the way March begins to move more like an animal, and changes his voice to show a complete transformation.
March is good as Hyde, particularly at first where he is constantly moving his arms all around, like Hyde was always there but has finally broken out. March though perhaps over does it just a little in his I am evil ha ha ha ha ha, sort of way he starts out as Hyde, but I still enjoyed what he did, becuase March infuses a lot of energy and terrible joy into Hyde, showing that Hyde loves to be Hyde.
March is best as Hyde though in his scenes with Miriam Hopkins as Ivy, because he shows the true primitive nature of Hyde. March is rather chilling in how he mixes Hyde's constant lusting after Ivy, along with his constant jealousy and cruelty toward her. It really is notable because March portrays the brutality of Hyde as non stop, as it is completely his nature to be that way. March also is quite good in his physical presentation of Hyde, as a true primitive, but also how Hyde has even more ability in his ape like abilities.
The best moments of March's performance though I think when Jekyll has realized what he has done as Hyde. March's is terrific in showing the guilt that he feels so strongly from what he has, a guilt that truly effects him deeply making Jekyll lose his uprightness at the beginning of the film. It is quite disheartening to see this other transformation of Jekyll where he loses everything he had, and breaks down as a man because of his mistake in ever wishing to become Hyde.
This is not a perfect performance, and certianly is from its time, but where it succeeds it really succeeds. I think a lot of actors would play each side of man on a one note, but Fredric March plays them both in a far more complex fashion particularly Doctor Jekyll who he develops through the film marvelously from a simple man who seems to find the complexities within himself, and as well as Hyde who he really conveys a wide range of primitive feelings coming from that character as well. This a performance that does not take the safe route with either character, and succeeds with both very well.
Fredric March portrays both roles of course, one of the civilized doctor, and the other of the evil animalistic Hyde. March first portrays the doctor, in what is mostly a normal sort of leading man role. He shows that Jekyll is most upstanding fellow, as well as intelligent and very proper.
The doctor is perhaps even a little on the dull side, March is not at all dull in terms of his portrayal, but March just shows as part of his performance that the doctor is a little simple in his simple desires and wants in life. After he basically wants to marry the woman of his dreams Muriel and have his scientific ideas about the two natures of man be recognized. In that was March is properly simple in being just a honest man.
Due to the fact that his ideas are questioned, his relationship with Muriel is troubled by her reluctant father, and Jekyll is tempted by a lower class woman Ivy he encounters. Dr. Jekyll refuses to jump at such temptations himself, but instead decides to use his formula to bring out his primitive side. He does this to both prove his point, but also to allow him to pursue Ivy. It is interesting because here March shows that when everything is no longer perfect for Jekyll, he himself stops being perfect, slowly bringing out more complexity to his the character of Jekyll.
March then becomes Hyde in quite an impressive transformation scene by both the special effects, and March sells it as well even if overall he is not required to do that much. He then becomes Hyde who resembles as Neanderthal. His make up is possibly a bit much, particularly his teeth that are large, and March clearly has to speak over them in his performance. The make up though certianly works, as does the way March begins to move more like an animal, and changes his voice to show a complete transformation.
March is good as Hyde, particularly at first where he is constantly moving his arms all around, like Hyde was always there but has finally broken out. March though perhaps over does it just a little in his I am evil ha ha ha ha ha, sort of way he starts out as Hyde, but I still enjoyed what he did, becuase March infuses a lot of energy and terrible joy into Hyde, showing that Hyde loves to be Hyde.
March is best as Hyde though in his scenes with Miriam Hopkins as Ivy, because he shows the true primitive nature of Hyde. March is rather chilling in how he mixes Hyde's constant lusting after Ivy, along with his constant jealousy and cruelty toward her. It really is notable because March portrays the brutality of Hyde as non stop, as it is completely his nature to be that way. March also is quite good in his physical presentation of Hyde, as a true primitive, but also how Hyde has even more ability in his ape like abilities.
The best moments of March's performance though I think when Jekyll has realized what he has done as Hyde. March's is terrific in showing the guilt that he feels so strongly from what he has, a guilt that truly effects him deeply making Jekyll lose his uprightness at the beginning of the film. It is quite disheartening to see this other transformation of Jekyll where he loses everything he had, and breaks down as a man because of his mistake in ever wishing to become Hyde.
This is not a perfect performance, and certianly is from its time, but where it succeeds it really succeeds. I think a lot of actors would play each side of man on a one note, but Fredric March plays them both in a far more complex fashion particularly Doctor Jekyll who he develops through the film marvelously from a simple man who seems to find the complexities within himself, and as well as Hyde who he really conveys a wide range of primitive feelings coming from that character as well. This a performance that does not take the safe route with either character, and succeeds with both very well.
Best Actor 1932
Fredric March in Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde
Wallace Beery in The Champ
Alfred Lunt in The Guardsman
Poor Alfred Lunt, that year it would have been faster to announce, and the loser is....
Best Actor 1951: Results
Alastair Sim in Scrooge
Robert Walker in Strangers on a Train
Best Actor 1951: Fredric March in Death of a Salesman
Fredric March received his fifth and final Oscar nomination for portraying Wily Loman in Death of a Salesman.
This version of Death of a Salesman is rather strange in that it portrays every flashback, as something Wily is currently seeing, no matter what the situation.
After just speaking of Stanley Kowalski it is interesting to jump to Wily Loman certianly two of the most famous leads of the modern theater. Where Marlon Brando reprised his role, the original Willy, Lee J. Cobb did not, leaving March in the role. Also what should be noted is the original director of Streetcar Elia Kazan directed the film version, Kazan did not direct the film version of Death of a Salesman, even though he was the director of the original production of the play.
I think all these changes most certianly lead to this bizarre interpretation of both the play and the character that is found in this film. A film that the movie company had so little respect for they almost put a short film "Life of a Salesman" before the main film, to basically contradict everything the film was going to say before it said. I think with that little piece of trivia, one can see why this film does not work at all, because it seems the people who made it had know idea what the play meant.
This is the most true because of the character of Wily Loman in this film, that is suppose to be a beaten down salesman, beaten down due to his failure to live up to the dream he made up for himself, as well as his disappointment in his son Biff's inability to do the same. In this film though I certianly felt he was on the end of his rope, but I felt what got him there was not so much the failure, but the fact that Wily is plainly insane, not just slowly losing as the play seems to say, and he just continued to become even more insane as time went on, with the failure simply contributing to that.
Now I do not think the filmmakers meant this really, and the original play most certianly did not mean this, but it comes out this way because of the odd direction, and March's performance. March plays basically every scene as basically a manic insane man, who only comes down on occasion, but only for a short while. It is an odd performance most certianly because of this, and I do not think it is all March's fault since it is the film who always has him talking to himself out loud, thinking he is talking to someone.
I suppose one could say this is how March is trying to show how much of a defeated man Wily is, but even that would seem an odd way to show Wily's defeat. Also he basically plays Wily in this insane fashion in many of the past remembrance scenes as well. March still plays each of these scenes in too manic of a fashion, especially his scenes with his brother Ben. Wily sees Ben as successful, and wants to achieve in the same fashion. March though does not make it like this is an idea Wily has that is extremely important, but instead just a completely insane obsession.
March is an actor I do like, but here the direction makes him go off the deep end. Now I think this is quite the misinterpretation on March's part, as well as the directors. This is an incredibly hammy performance, but Wily here basically insane, so the hamminess is not entirely misplaced. A misinterpretation that does not work, but I must say a misinterpretation that March is quite consistent about. He seems to be genuinely insane, and March's moments of clarity such as his quiet talks with his wife, or his talk with Biff, after Biff sees Willy is having an affair are well done sorta.
This is a performance I really do not know how to rate. I most certianly can't rate it highly because this is such an odd, and frankly incorrect way to play the part, but really the direction most certianly wanted him to play this part in this way as well, so I almost want to say it is not entirely March's fault, they wanted him to play it insane so he did, I guess. I don't know really his insanity is not exactly poorly done, but it does work incredibly poorly for the story and the character. All I really can say about March is watch at least part of this one for yourself, it most certainly is something, that is for sure. I will say this is one of the hardest performances I ever have had to judge just due to the strangeness of the whole thing.
After just speaking of Stanley Kowalski it is interesting to jump to Wily Loman certianly two of the most famous leads of the modern theater. Where Marlon Brando reprised his role, the original Willy, Lee J. Cobb did not, leaving March in the role. Also what should be noted is the original director of Streetcar Elia Kazan directed the film version, Kazan did not direct the film version of Death of a Salesman, even though he was the director of the original production of the play.
I think all these changes most certianly lead to this bizarre interpretation of both the play and the character that is found in this film. A film that the movie company had so little respect for they almost put a short film "Life of a Salesman" before the main film, to basically contradict everything the film was going to say before it said. I think with that little piece of trivia, one can see why this film does not work at all, because it seems the people who made it had know idea what the play meant.
This is the most true because of the character of Wily Loman in this film, that is suppose to be a beaten down salesman, beaten down due to his failure to live up to the dream he made up for himself, as well as his disappointment in his son Biff's inability to do the same. In this film though I certianly felt he was on the end of his rope, but I felt what got him there was not so much the failure, but the fact that Wily is plainly insane, not just slowly losing as the play seems to say, and he just continued to become even more insane as time went on, with the failure simply contributing to that.
Now I do not think the filmmakers meant this really, and the original play most certianly did not mean this, but it comes out this way because of the odd direction, and March's performance. March plays basically every scene as basically a manic insane man, who only comes down on occasion, but only for a short while. It is an odd performance most certianly because of this, and I do not think it is all March's fault since it is the film who always has him talking to himself out loud, thinking he is talking to someone.
I suppose one could say this is how March is trying to show how much of a defeated man Wily is, but even that would seem an odd way to show Wily's defeat. Also he basically plays Wily in this insane fashion in many of the past remembrance scenes as well. March still plays each of these scenes in too manic of a fashion, especially his scenes with his brother Ben. Wily sees Ben as successful, and wants to achieve in the same fashion. March though does not make it like this is an idea Wily has that is extremely important, but instead just a completely insane obsession.
March is an actor I do like, but here the direction makes him go off the deep end. Now I think this is quite the misinterpretation on March's part, as well as the directors. This is an incredibly hammy performance, but Wily here basically insane, so the hamminess is not entirely misplaced. A misinterpretation that does not work, but I must say a misinterpretation that March is quite consistent about. He seems to be genuinely insane, and March's moments of clarity such as his quiet talks with his wife, or his talk with Biff, after Biff sees Willy is having an affair are well done sorta.
This is a performance I really do not know how to rate. I most certianly can't rate it highly because this is such an odd, and frankly incorrect way to play the part, but really the direction most certianly wanted him to play this part in this way as well, so I almost want to say it is not entirely March's fault, they wanted him to play it insane so he did, I guess. I don't know really his insanity is not exactly poorly done, but it does work incredibly poorly for the story and the character. All I really can say about March is watch at least part of this one for yourself, it most certainly is something, that is for sure. I will say this is one of the hardest performances I ever have had to judge just due to the strangeness of the whole thing.
Best Actor 1951
Montgomery Clift in A Place in the Sun
Marlon Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire
Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen
Arthur Kennedy in Bright Victory
Fredric March in Death of a Salesman
Best Actor 1931: Results
Peter Lorre in M
Edward G. Robinson in Little Caesar
Best Actor 1931: Fredric March in The Royal Family of Broadway
Fredric March received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Tony Cavendish in The Royal Family of Broadway.
The Royal Family of Broadway is a poor film because it does not really decide what it wants to be, it could have been a screwball comedy about a crazy parody of the Barrymore family, which it is part of the time, but it also is most of the time drama about deciding whether to keep with the family's acting tradition or to change for love, that majority side is boring.
Fredric March's performance is the whole of the screwball section of the film, and therefore is the best, and only good part of the film. He plays an insane parody of John Barrymore in Tony Cavendish. March is in an odd place in this film because it is a film with straight characters and he is the only one who is not. His performance is just about entirely comedic, without only a few brief moments when he is not acting insane.
It is rather interesting to see this performance because it is parody of the hammy over the top performances of this period, meaning this is a hammy over the top performance, except it is suppose to be funny rather than serious. I also think March although stays in character, does give off the right idea that he clearly knows what he is doing in the role, and that it definitely is suppose to be a parody.
I like what he did being a completely egomaniac who never stops acting, even with his family around. Also walking with this perfect pompous walk that is just right for the role, as well as always acting like he is a larger than life constantly. March throws himself completely in every scene, and never stops. He has a few moments where he becomes sad over his mother being sick, but even in those March plays them in a comedic fashion, acting like a little kid.
Now the most important question is he funny. Well I will say his performance never quite made me laugh too much, but I enjoyed watching his performance nevertheless. I think though that the film is constantly working against his performance unfortuantely. No one is really working with his comedic pieces, and instead they stay serious and in their own boring stories. Also the film just needed even more of him, and frankly should have been built around him. Overall I liked this performance but the rating troubles me. When I think of the film I say 3.5, but when I think of his performance I think of 4, so I guess I will think of his performance last.
Fredric March's performance is the whole of the screwball section of the film, and therefore is the best, and only good part of the film. He plays an insane parody of John Barrymore in Tony Cavendish. March is in an odd place in this film because it is a film with straight characters and he is the only one who is not. His performance is just about entirely comedic, without only a few brief moments when he is not acting insane.
It is rather interesting to see this performance because it is parody of the hammy over the top performances of this period, meaning this is a hammy over the top performance, except it is suppose to be funny rather than serious. I also think March although stays in character, does give off the right idea that he clearly knows what he is doing in the role, and that it definitely is suppose to be a parody.
I like what he did being a completely egomaniac who never stops acting, even with his family around. Also walking with this perfect pompous walk that is just right for the role, as well as always acting like he is a larger than life constantly. March throws himself completely in every scene, and never stops. He has a few moments where he becomes sad over his mother being sick, but even in those March plays them in a comedic fashion, acting like a little kid.
Now the most important question is he funny. Well I will say his performance never quite made me laugh too much, but I enjoyed watching his performance nevertheless. I think though that the film is constantly working against his performance unfortuantely. No one is really working with his comedic pieces, and instead they stay serious and in their own boring stories. Also the film just needed even more of him, and frankly should have been built around him. Overall I liked this performance but the rating troubles me. When I think of the film I say 3.5, but when I think of his performance I think of 4, so I guess I will think of his performance last.
Best Actor 1931
Richard Dix in Cimarron
Adolphe Menjou in The Front Page
Lionel Barrymore in A Free Soul
Jackie Cooper in Skippy
Fredric March in The Royal Family of Broadway
With the recent passing of Jackie Cooper, I thought I ought to take a look at at this year where he received his only Oscar nomination.
Best Actor 1937: Results
Cary Grant in The Awful Truth
Stan Laurel in Way Out West
Oliver Hardy in Way Out West
Best Actor 1937: Fredric March in A Star is Born
Fredric March received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Norman Maine in A Star is Born.
The original Star is Born really does not work all too well especially when you have seen the 1954 version which is better in just about every single way. This version seems rushed, and the whole story of Vicki Lester does not work particularly well, since in this version it seems her success really is entirely because of Norman Maine.
Norman Maine actually takes little bit to show up and does not appear until being bothered by paparazzi in an opera house and violently reacting toward them bothering him. Later he meets Vicki, and that get on famously as he moves to have her become a star. March is just fine in these early scenes he has the right amount of charm as Maine in these early scenes, along with adding a little humor when he can as well.
His chemistry with Janet Gaynor as Vicki is not anything all that special unfortunately even though I feel that is because of Gaynor more than March. March tries his best to be charming and romantic scenes in their scenes together, and I think he does a good job. The problem though is Gaynor always stays basically the same throughout her performance, and really does not adjust well along with March, to really be convincing in their romantic scenes. March I do think is charming in these scenes but the scenes remain unspectacular due to Gaynor.
One aspect of Maine that is very underdeveloped is Maine's alcoholism. In the 1954 there is always an inkling of it with Maine at almost all times. Here it is not consistent, March does not make it so nor does the film. His whole presentation of Maine's alcoholism is not perfect because the film is incredibly inconsistent. It never really shows it to be that much of a problem for him, until the plot requires that it be.
I will say March is fine when showing the alcoholism or his problems involving this problem but unfortunately this whole aspect of the film is poorly done because it is not given enough time, and again it is not consistent. For example in the 1954 his drunken tirade at the Oscars is well lead to and well handled, in this version it sort of comes out of nowhere, and the actual occurrence of the scene seems strange. March handles it well, but the film certainly holds him back, from giving a great performance. Like Boyer's performance from this year there are certainly good examples of the performance throughout the film especially his final scene, but still the film has a character written fairly poorly disabling the actor to be truly effective. I moved up to a 4 because he is still very charming, and I felt he deserved more credit for what he did well.
Norman Maine actually takes little bit to show up and does not appear until being bothered by paparazzi in an opera house and violently reacting toward them bothering him. Later he meets Vicki, and that get on famously as he moves to have her become a star. March is just fine in these early scenes he has the right amount of charm as Maine in these early scenes, along with adding a little humor when he can as well.
His chemistry with Janet Gaynor as Vicki is not anything all that special unfortunately even though I feel that is because of Gaynor more than March. March tries his best to be charming and romantic scenes in their scenes together, and I think he does a good job. The problem though is Gaynor always stays basically the same throughout her performance, and really does not adjust well along with March, to really be convincing in their romantic scenes. March I do think is charming in these scenes but the scenes remain unspectacular due to Gaynor.
One aspect of Maine that is very underdeveloped is Maine's alcoholism. In the 1954 there is always an inkling of it with Maine at almost all times. Here it is not consistent, March does not make it so nor does the film. His whole presentation of Maine's alcoholism is not perfect because the film is incredibly inconsistent. It never really shows it to be that much of a problem for him, until the plot requires that it be.
I will say March is fine when showing the alcoholism or his problems involving this problem but unfortunately this whole aspect of the film is poorly done because it is not given enough time, and again it is not consistent. For example in the 1954 his drunken tirade at the Oscars is well lead to and well handled, in this version it sort of comes out of nowhere, and the actual occurrence of the scene seems strange. March handles it well, but the film certainly holds him back, from giving a great performance. Like Boyer's performance from this year there are certainly good examples of the performance throughout the film especially his final scene, but still the film has a character written fairly poorly disabling the actor to be truly effective. I moved up to a 4 because he is still very charming, and I felt he deserved more credit for what he did well.
Best Actor 1937
Fredric March in A Star Was Born
Paul Muni in The Life of Emile Zola
Spencer Tracy in Captain Courageous
Robert Montgomery in Night Must Fall
Charles Boyer in Conquest
Who do you pick, and predict? The drunken actor, Emile Zola, the guy who looks like he is drunk, the man who has more than smoking on his mind, or Napoleon Bonaparte.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
