Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Your Favourite Performances from 1929 to present are...


Recommended Posts

You're not kidding . . .

 

s-l300.jpg

 

Somebody widen that door. Loretta's coming!

Tom-- Loretta loved clothes so much that she eventually married her costume designer Jean Louis, who had been the head of the costume design department at Columbia Pictures and was nominated 14 times for the Oscar.

 

Besides the Loretta Young Show on TV, he was most famous for designing clothes for the female stars in the following iconic movies: Doris Day in Pillow Talk, Rita Hayworth in Gilda, Judy in A Star Is Born and Lana in all those Ross Hunter movies.

 

Jean Louis' pièce de résistance was Marilyn Monroe's Happy Birthday

Mr. President dress, a tight-fitting gown of 2,500 shimmering rhinestones.

 

What's not to love about Jean Louis?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are Danny Peary’s Alternate Oscar choices for 1938.  Winners in bold. 

 

1938 Best Actor

James Cagney, Angels With Dirty Faces* 

Robert Donat, The Citadel

Cary Grant, Bringing Up Baby

Charles Laughton, The Beachcomber

Charles Laughton, St.Martin’s Lane

Spencer Tracy, Boys Town

 

1938 Best Actress

Margaret Sullavan, Three Comrades* 

Katharine Hepburn, Bringing Up Baby

Katharine Hepburn, Holiday

Norma Shearer, Marie Antoinette

 

 

And here are Michael Gerbert’s Golden Armchair choices for 1938:

 

Best Actor

J. Carrol Naish, King of Alcatraz*

 

Best Actress

Katharine Hepburn, Holiday*

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's safe to say that 1938 was one of the outstanding years in the career of Basil Rathbone. He was prominently cast in four big budget releases for three different studios this year, with at least two of those films among the big box office hits of the year.

 

Adventures of Marco Polo. Samuel Goldwyn, as a villain (Ahmed).

 

Adventures of Robin Hood. Warner Brothers, as Sir Guy of Gisbourne

 

If I Were King. Paramount, as King Louis XI

 

The Dawn Patrol. Warners Brothers, as Major Brand.

 

A number of posters on this thread, myself included, have listed his performances in either Robin Hood or The Dawn Patrol as among the year's best. I think that those two films have portrayals from Rathbone that rank among the very best in his career.

 

Yet it was his more unconventional character performance as Louis XI in If I Were King that received attention from the Motion Picture Academy, giving Basil his second and last Oscar nomination in the process.

 

I think that Rathbone is fun to watch in the role, but, unlike Sir Guy or Major Brand, it is far more of an "actorish" turn by Basil. Call it more theatrical or, if you will, "busy." He has a straight, uncomplimentary hair style, and greyish makeup to give his character an unhealthy pallor. Basil adopts slightly stooped shoulders, a high pitched voice and cackles when he laughs. He looks nothing like the imposing physical presence of Sir Guy.

 

iiwk04.jpg

 

Basil looks like the actor within him is having fun with the role. But, to me, I see the actor's wheels turning maybe a little too much here (not that that can't also be fun, at times). I suppose it's rather typical of the Motion Picture Academy that it's in a role in which Rathbone is clearly playing against type that they acknowledged his work.

 

For my own taste, and this exasperates me a little, his best work of the year (as well as his career) in both Robin Hood and The Dawn Patrol ("It's a slaughterhouse and I'm the butcher!") was ignored by the Motion Picture Academy for his more overtly character portrayal as the French king. At least on this thread, we have the opportunity to rightly celebrate Rathbone's brilliance in the other two roles.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's safe to say that 1938 was one of the outstanding years in the career of Basil Rathbone. He was prominently cast in four big budget releases for three different studios this year, with at least two of those films among the big box office hits of the year.

 

 

He will turn up in my 1939 list, in a film in which he also gets to show off his singing/dancing skills.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He will turn up in my 1939 list, in a film in which he also gets to show off his singing/dancing skills.

 

I know the film you're talking about, Swithin, and that scene you mentioned is wonderful. I will also be acknowledging his performance for that film. (Rathbone, by the way, loved the opportunity that singing/dancing scene gave him).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my choices of the 59 films I've seen from 1938 for…

 

Best Actress of 1938

 

1.  WENDY HILLER (Eliza Doolittle), Pygmalion

2.  BETTE DAVIS (Julie Morrison), Jezebel

3.  NORMA SHEARER (Marie Antoinette), Marie Antoinette

4.  KATHARINE HEPBURN (Susan Vance/"Swinging Door Suzie"), Bringing Up Baby

5.  BEULAH BONDI (Mary Wilkins), Of Human Hearts

 

6.  JEAN ARTHUR (Alice Sycamore), You Can't Take It With You

7.  INGRID BERGMAN (Anna Holm/“Anna Paulsson”), A Woman’s Face

8.  MERLE OBERON (Leslie Steele/“Lady Claire Mere”), The Divorce of Lady X

9.  ELSA LANCHESTER (Martha Jones), The Beachcomber

10. BETTE DAVIS (Louise Elliott Medlin), The Sisters

 

and...

 

PRISCILLA LANE (Ann Lemp), Four Daughters

MARGARET SULLAVAN (Patricia Hollmann), Three Comrades

GINGER ROGERS (Francis Grant), Vivacious Lady

SIMONE SIMON (Severine Roubaud), La Bete Humaine

OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND (Lady Marion Fitzwalter), The Adventures of Robin Hood

MARGARET LOCKWOOD (Iris Henderson), The Lady Vanishes

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

With so much love going to Michael Curtiz, Errol, Basil, and everyone else connected with The Adventures of Robin Hood, I checked to see if Curtiz was nominated for Best Director. He was, but for two other films: Angels with Dirty Faces and Four Daughters. The rules were subsequently changed to prevent directors from having to compete against themselves. Curtiz had five films released in 1938, Four's a Crowd and Gold Is Where You Find It being the other two.

 

The other three nominated directors were the winner, Frank Capra for You Can't Take It With You; King Vidor for The Citadel; and Norman Taurog for Boys Town.

 

Setting aside foreign films like Port of Shadows, La Bete Humaine, and Alexander Nevsky, and also Sidewalks of London, not released in America until after GWTW, I'm pretty sure that a consensus of film buffs today would nominate these four directors: Curtiz, for The Adventures of Robin Hood; Howard Hawks, Bringing Up Baby; Alfred Hitchcock, The Lady Vanishes; and William Wyler, Jezebel.

 

Tom, I really enjoyed your tribute to Basil Rathbone.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Best Film Debut EVER... of 1938

 

(also Best Silent Comedy Recreation)

 

Joseph Cotten in Too Much Johnson (under the direction of Orson Welles)

 

orsonwellesfilm03.jpg

 

Thanks for posting this picture, Kay.  I love this film.  I was so excited when I found out that Canada was able to get this film and watched it as it aired.  What a fabulous team J.C. and O.W were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Setting aside foreign films like Port of Shadows, La Bete Humaine, and Alexander Nevsky, and also Sidewalks of London, not released in America until after GWTW, I'm pretty sure that a consensus of film buffs today would nominate these four directors: Curtiz, for The Adventures of Robin Hood; Howard Hawks, Bringing Up Baby; Alfred Hitchcock, The Lady Vanishes; and William Wyler, Jezebel.

 

 

 

kingrat, keep in mind that Curtiz split directorial credit with William Keighley for Robin Hood. Possibly that's the reason he didn't get a nomination for it. It's my understanding that the Sherwood Forest scenes were done by Keighley while the castle scenes (including the duel) were Curtiz. The archery tournament is Curtiz. Amazing that this film works so seamlessly well with scenes directed by two different men.

 

The balcony love scene in the film is directed by Curtiz, after they scrapped one directed by Keighley, for whatever reason. Olivia's famous account of doing endless re-shoots of the love scene to get Flynn aroused was, I believe, the Keighley directed one which, to the best of my knowledge, no longer exists (it would be fun to see the difference between the two versions).

 

Curtiz had a remarkable 1938, directing both Cagney and Garfield to Oscar nominations for Angels with Dirty Faces and Four Daughters.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

With so much love going to Michael Curtiz, Errol, Basil, and everyone else connected with The Adventures of Robin Hood, I checked to see if Curtiz was nominated for Best Director.

 

Yes, there are a lot of Robin Hood lovers here, it seems. I've got a question for them about one scene in the film.

 

Do you remember that scene in the forest when Robin takes Maid Marian to see all the poor people who came come to him for protection? They're all saying a lot of "Bless you, Robin Hoods," as he walks by, bound to impress the lady beside him, methinks (sorry a little Olde English snuck in there). It's a key scene in the film in which Marian sees the nobility in Robin for giving up his castle and wealth in order to help all these poor wretches.

 

So how come none of those poor folk get invited to the feast in the forest going on then? You know, the one where Friar Tuck and Little John and all the other merry men are laughing and stuffing their faces full of mutton. Heck, Robin even let's Sir Guy have something to eat there. But those poor folk - stuck off in a darker part of the woods all acting meek and quiet and just glad that nobody's beating them up. Don't they get some of the goodies, too, before it all goes down Eugene Pallette's throat?

 

Always wondered about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are a lot of Robin Hood lovers here, it seems. I've got a question for them about one scene in the film.

 

Do you remember that scene in the forest when Robin takes Maid Marian to see all the poor people who came come to him for protection? They're all saying a lot of "Bless you, Robin Hoods," as he walks by, bound to impress the lady beside him, methinks (sorry a little Olde English snuck in there). It's a key scene in the film in which Marian sees the nobility in Robin for giving up his castle and wealth in order to help all these poor wretches.

 

So how come none of those poor folk get invited to the feast in the forest going on then? You know, the one where Friar Tuck and Little John and all the other merry men are laughing and stuffing their faces full of mutton. Heck, Robin even let's Sir Guy have something to eat there. But those poor folk - stuck off in a darker part of the woods all acting meek and quiet and just glad that nobody's beating them up. Don't they get some of the goodies, too, before it all goes down Eugene Pallette's throat?

 

Always wondered about that.

This has always irritated me.  I know, of course, that Robin Hood's version of King John - and yes it was King John, not Prince John in real life - John is evil and Richard comes back to England.

 

Richard never did return from the crusades.    And King John wrote the Magna Carta.

 

My ability to enjoy films like this relies upon me having a suspension of belief.

 

I think they should have ben given something to eat, even if they ate in their own area.  But, well, that I suppose is a minor point.

 

One does wonder why they could not have had a line or two written in like them saying "We loved the meal you gave us.  Thanks for the dinner, we could not possible eat more today."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are a lot of Robin Hood lovers here, it seems. I've got a question for them about one scene in the film.

 

Do you remember that scene in the forest when Robin takes Maid Marian to see all the poor people who came come to him for protection? They're all saying a lot of "Bless you, Robin Hoods," as he walks by, bound to impress the lady beside him, methinks (sorry a little Olde English snuck in there). It's a key scene in the film in which Marian sees the nobility in Robin for giving up his castle and wealth in order to help all these poor wretches.

 

So how come none of those poor folk get invited to the feast in the forest going on then? You know, the one where Friar Tuck and Little John and all the other merry men are laughing and stuffing their faces full of mutton. Heck, Robin even let's Sir Guy have something to eat there. But those poor folk - stuck off in a darker part of the woods all acting meek and quiet and just glad that nobody's beating them up. Don't they get some of the goodies, too, before it all goes down Eugene Pallette's throat?

 

Always wondered about that.

 

One very solid reason for any separation is that these 'poor people' were NOT members of Robin's gang of killers and thieves.   Members of the gang would be arrested (at best),  or killed on sight by the legal authorities (the Sheriff and his troops) since they were outlaws.  

 

Shielding the identities of the poor people,  who were not outlaws, from the Sheriff, Sir Guy, etc... was done to protect these poor folks and therefore very logical.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One very solid reason for any separation is that these 'poor people' were NOT members of Robin's gang of killers and thieves.   Members of the gang would be arrested (at best),  or killed on sight by the legal authorities (the Sheriff and his troops) since they were outlaws.  

 

Shielding the identities of the poor people,  who were not outlaws, from the Sheriff, Sir Guy, etc... was done to protect these poor folks and therefore very logical.

 

So Robin still can't sneak them some of that mutton?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So Robin still can't sneak them some of that mutton?

 

I assume that these folks got a fair share of the grub.    Really based on the noble character of Robin and his band as portrayed in the film,  I can't assume Robin said to them 'let them eat cake!'.    :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that these folks got a fair share of the grub.    Really based on the noble character of Robin and his band as portrayed in the film,  I can't assume Robin said to them 'let them eat cake!'.    :)

 

Maybe. But I don't recall seeing any of those poor people eating anything (while all that merry men partying is going on right beside them), the reason for my question in the first place.

 

Maybe I should just accept the film for the Technicolor fairy tale that it is, and forget the nit picking that a more realistic film would require.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough of the Sherwood Forest fairy tale legend. Let's get to the real nitty-gritty.

 

Was Rocky Sullivan a coward ?

 

Did he or did he not walk the last mile as a screaming coward or as a selfless hero.

 

Jimmy Cagney wouldn't reveal this in his autobiography - -

 

Rocky Sullivan is the greatest male performance of 1938, apparently not just my opinion.

 

I thought maybe others would have viewpoint about that last mile walk in Angels with Dirty Faces.

 

A moment of consideration for the boy who couldn't run fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough of the Sherwood Forest fairy tale legend. Let's get to the real nitty-gritty.

 

Was Rocky Sullivan a coward ?

 

Did he or did he not walk the last mile as a screaming coward or as a selfless hero.

 

It was a put-on. For the kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough of the Sherwood Forest fairy tale legend. Let's get to the real nitty-gritty.

 

Was Rocky Sullivan a coward ?

I was amazed that Cagney wrote in his autobiography that they kept it deliberately ambiguous as to whether or not Rocky was a coward. I don't think there's any ambiguity at all!

 

I have never for a second doubted that Rocky Sullivan faked his cowardice for the sake of the kids.

 

You don't actually see him die., You hear Cagney's shreaks and his pleading (okay, you see his hands, as well), along with all those shadows on the wall that Curtiz liked so much.

 

This is the final image that we have of Rocky, about a minute before his death . . .

 

index_zpsdofnh84j.jpg

 

An expression of pure defiance. And it's that look, our final image of him, that is sending a message to the viewers by the filmmakers, because this is the lasting memory that we have of his face at the end. THIS is the REAL Rocky! Does that look like a man who is a coward?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe. But I don't recall seeing any of those poor people eating anything (while all that merry men partying is going on right beside them), the reason for my question in the first place.

 

Maybe I should just accept the film for the Technicolor fairy tale that it is, and forget the nit picking that a more realistic film would require.

 

Yes I say you should.  as  said, the real King did NOT come back to England.  And John was a great King.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom- as it's been said, a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

Well Done

 

Thanks, Princess. I also think that Rocky Sullivan is Cagney's ultimate '30s characterization as the man child. It's a great performance, and he got my nod as the year's best actor with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm late, but here's my choices for 1937:

 

Best Actor Academy:  Spencer Tracy, Captain Courageous

My Choice:  Jean Gabin, Pepe le Moko

Other Nominees:  Cary Grant (The Awful Truth), Victor Moore (Make way for tomorrow), Fred Astaire (Shall We Dance), Sacha Guitry (Pearls of the Crown),

 

Best Actress Academy:  Luise Rainer, The Good Earth

My choice: Zhou Xuan (Street Angel)

Other Nominees:  Marlene Dietrich (Angel), Greta Garbo (Camille), Katherine Hepburn (Stage Door), Beulah Bondi (Make Way for Tomorrow), Ginger Rogers (Stage Door),

 

My choice Best Supporting Actor:  Edward Everett Horton (Angel, Shall we Dance)

 

My Choice Best Supporting Actress:  Gracie Allen (A Damsel in Distress)

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Bogie56 changed the title to Your Favourite Performances from 1929 to present are...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...