Those of you who know me at least a little bit know well that this is the topic I always adored bing discussed. So, here is my analysis, and wait for more!
The very first and still one of the youngerst winners in her category was Janet Gaynor. She always seemed somehow like a child to me, a fragile one. But she gave some powerful performances in the mid 20s and she gained much respect for it, beginning with an Oscar. I remember watching a video when she was given her tropheum. A tiny girl with a nice smile. Maybe not marevlously beautiful, but she was pretty ok for those "naive parts". It's quite hard to me to discuss it: did she was the one who should have won the Oscar? Anyway, she did. Personally I'm still thinking of Gloria Swanson - undoubtedly better, superb actress who was skipped via the whole Oscar history while she was alive, and she lived a little bit, believe me. ;) She deserved an Oscar for her talkie, "Sunset Boulvard", but wasn't Judy Holliday worth it as well? Well, not to talk about it now, as we are in 20s!
I'm much more convinced that the Oscar given year later to Mary Pickford was not because she was better than other nominees. Everyone who knows Hollywood's history knows as well that there was no any such powerful lady there as Mary Pickford in the 20s. And so she won. I would give this award this year to Jeanne Eagels. She died just weeks after completing "The Letter", but she was such a personality!
There is also a question why Greta Garbo was twice skipped in 1930, being nominated for "Romance", as well as for "Anna Christie". Norma Shearer won, and it is true that she developed into somehow a very good actress, though never great, as with work only, and little talent, it was just impossible. In contrary, Garbo had to be content with her honorary statuette, given years after she retired from screen forever.
There was always much to discuss after Claudette Colbert took home her Oscar for "It
Happened One Night". No one ever exactly critisized the Academy for giving her to award, but it was Bette Davis who felt that she deserved the Oscar for her part of Mildred Rogers in "Of Human Bondage" ever before she played it. LOL But, indeed, she was VERY good in the part. But I personally always felt that Myrna Loy should have received at least a nom for Nora Charles in "The Thin Man". She never did for any part, and some time before she passed away as an aged lady, she was given a prize of consolation as a honorary award. A shameful thing, as Myrna had a natural talent, for comedy, as well as for dramatic parts.One year later Bette Davis was still feeling hurt and so the Academy gave her the Oscar for "Dangerous". It was not ok for her, because she always felt she should have won for Mildred, as well as in her opinion it was Kate Hepburn who should have won in 1935 for "Alice Adams", as she was simply the best (very rare statement for Bette, who always considered herself the one and only BEST). I think that that year the nominees were very interesting portrayals, including Miriam Hopkins, Elisabeth Bergner, and Merle Oberon with their only adnotations from the Academy in their whole career. Bergner had little chance for winning, as "Escape Me Never" was a British movie, but she was a star, and years later she was said to be the basic person for creating the Margo Channing part.
Luise Rainer was the Jew star that triumphed in Hollywood by winning two Oscars year by year. She was not a beauty, and she ended her career very shortly after, though it made her a legend forever, also because she is still alive at the tender age of 98! Anyway, I ALWAYS felt it should have been Carole Lombard who should take the Oscar. She was great as Irene Bullock in "My Man Godfrey", with Bill Powell as the elegant butler. Simply great! She had this electric comedy skill I always admired. She was a great actress, and it is a shame she was never given what she deserved.Rainer was awarded her second Academy Award for her part in "The Good Earth", a movie which I personally consider a mediocre and, besides, the performance was much a make-up department work, I think. There was some competition she had, like Greta Garbo as "Camille", or Barbara Stanwyck with her first nom, for "Stella Douglas". Ironically, the same year Janet Gaynor, the winner fo the very first Oscar, was nominated for her portrayal in "A Star Is Born", loosely based on... Barbara Stanwyck story. Quite odd, but that is how life goes on, isn't it?
I never understood what the Academy saw in Bette Davis' performance in "Jezebel". While being nominated 11 times, Bette gave much award-worthy portrayal in each of all other movies she was nominated for. I think she should have been awarded for "Now, Voyager", rather than this. I'm just wondering how Margaret Sullavan did with "Three Comrades", or Norma Shearer for "Marie Antoinette".
As for me, Vivien Leigh will stay world's best actress ever known. She showed she was a master in acting with her powerful portrayal of Scarlett O'Hara. She was great at her drama moments, as well as those comedy ones. She deserved the Oscar better than anyone. She should have been given every award possible for her work. She had a very big comptetition. Bette Davis was good in "Dark Victory", and Greta Garbo showed her comedy skills with "Ninotchka", also Greer Garson was subtelle and delicate as Mrs. Chips. Not to forget Irene Dunne in "Love Affair".
And the last issue is Ginger Rogers' winning in the great competition in 1940. I always felt there was something Ginger lacked, I do not know what, maybe it is a combination of beauty and talent? She was a very good dancer, making a great couple with unforgettable Fred Astaire. She later established herself as a dramatic actress, but was it worth an Oscar? It was her only nomination and the only win. I always felt Joan Fontaine should have won for "Rebecca", she was very good as I de Winter, and I feel that the Oscar she was given one year later was a kind of reward, a consolation prize, like this of Bette Davis in 1935 for "Dangerous".More to come...
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz