____________________________________________________________________________
Best Picture

THE WINNER:
Grand Hotel (Directed by Edmund Goulding)
The Nominees: Arrowsmith, Bad Girl, Five Star Final, One Hour With You, Shanghai Express, The Champ, The Smiling Lieutenant

MY CHOICE:
Scarface: The Shame of a Nation (Directed by Howard Hawks)
My Nominees: A Farewell to Arms (Frank Borzage), Blonde Venus (Josef von Sternberg), Destry Rides Again (Benjamin Stoloff), Dracula (James Whale), Freaks (Tod Browning), Horse Feathers (Norman Z. MacLeod), Red-Headed Woman (Jack Conway)

I suspect that Grand Hotel was the first Best Picture winner to win strictly on it's star power - after all, half the academy was in the cast!  Based on a best selling book "Menschen im Hotel" by Austrian author Vickie Baum and adapted by William A. Drake, Grand Hotel is a movable feast of various personality types who converge on one Berlin hotel with their various underlying problems, sex scandals and backroom shenanigans.  The film is suppose to be one of those peek-a-boo exposes on the kinds of scandalous good-for-nothings that keep the tabloids in business but today, in this era of tabloid trash, reality TV, Howard Stern and Bridezillas, the material has lost some of it's bite.

Grand Hotel was a box office smash and no small part of it's popularity came from the presence of stars like Greta Garbo, John Barrymore, Joan Crawford, Jean Hersholt, Lewis Stone, Lionel Barrymore and Wallace Beery but none is really given a memorable character to play.  The grouping of this cast may have been thrilling to the films initial audience but, for me, there was no bigger thrill from nineteen thirty-two than Howard Hawk's gangster epic Scarface, the best gangster film of the early years of talking pictures.

Paul Muni gives an explosive performance as gun-happy Tony Camonte, who works as a hired gun for Johnny Lovo and helps rub out the competition. There is a rift in their friendship because Tony has taken an interest in Johnny's mistress Poppy who doesn't much like Tony personally but is drawn to his dangerous nature. Tony would happily make time with Poppy but he is too busy keeping an eye on his sister Cesca (Anne Dvorak).  With an obsessiveness that borders on incestuous, Tony refuses to allow Cesca to date men probably because he knows the evil that men do.

On the business end, Johnny begins to suspect that Tony is trying to muscle in on his business and, just to be safe, tries to have Tony killed.  He fails and, in retaliation, Tony sends his friend Guino (George Raft) to kill Johnny.  Tony goes away on business as an alibi and comes back to find that Guino and Cesca have married. In a rage, he kills Guino and an outraged Cesca orders him to never to see her again.
 
Where Tony's obsession, greed and lust for violence eventually lead him is not a surprise but it is not the point of Scarface.  The point is the lifestyle that Tony has created for himself.  He is clearly insane and his whole life is a violent high-wire act fueled by his obsessions.  He laughs while he mows his enemies down with a machine gun and there is a scary ferocity in his eyes when he becomes angry.
 
The violence in Scarface remains shocking even after the studio ordered that the violent scenes trimmed.  Some of the violent moments the remain are punctuated by the presence of bold X's to signal when a murder is about to take place.  Even during the St. Valentine's Massacre the camera pans up to feature a wooden overhang made of X's.  The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, by the way, takes place off-screen.  While the movie is exceedingly violent, most of the gorier scenes are left to our imagination.
 
Tony Camonte, at all time in Scarface, seems exaggerated.  His personality seems outsized and more theatrical than it should be.  This is off-set by the fact that director Howard Hawks creates a story around him that is make mostly in fact.  Many of the elements of Tony's story echo that of Al Capone (who went to prison the year this movie was released). In the beginning Tony rubs out Johnny Lovo just as, in real-life, Capone killed Chicago boss Big Jim Colosimo. He suggests that the ugly scar on his face came from a confrontation in the brothel, just like the one the Capone got while working in a saloon. Capone apparently loved the film and it was rumored that he owned a copy for himself. However, some of Capone's cronies were not so joyous. Legend has it that screenwriter Ben Hecht was visited by two of Capone's gunmen who asked him if the film was about Capone. The writer explained that the story was based more on gangster "Big Jim" Colosimo and Chicago mob boss Dion O'Bannion (both of whom Capone had killed) and that it meant that more people would come and see the film. They were flattered and left him be.

The Hays office - the self-appointed Hollywood watchdog outfit that was appointed with cutting and trimming adult content from American films - wasn't so easily sated. They demanded cuts in the violence and the addition of an opening and closing scene in a police station that would drive home the point that this is NOT a glorification of the gang lifestyle. They insisted that the subtitle "Shame of a Nation" be added for fear that audiences would think that it was affirming the violence (It think it works well without it). A scene involving Tony's mother was added in which she scolds her son for his choice of career and there were additions to the dialogue to downplay Camonte's image (a police officer opens the film by bad mouthing his foul deeds).

But no matter what dissenting element was glued to the film, nothing could deaden the impact. Scarface is still brutal, still shocking and still brilliant. No matter what true-life or fictional elements are employed in Scarface, it displays the prohibition gang-life as the public heard about it. It seems to follow the pattern of a sensational news story (it helped that Ben Hecht had been a journalist).

What Scarface has that no other gangster film of the era had was fearlessness and the courage to tackle subject matter that no other film would dare touch, it was a film ahead of it's time. So, in that way, maybe it was fitting that after it's initial release it was pulled from release never to be seen again until the late 1970s.

____________________________________________________________________________
Best Actor

THE WINNER:
Fredrich March (Dr. Jeckyll and Mr Hyde) and Wallace Beery (The Champ)
The Nominees: Alfred Lunt (The Gaurdsman)

MY CHOICE:
Bela Lugosi (Dracula)
My Nominees: Wallace Beery (The Champ), Groucho Marx (Monkey Business), Paul Muni (Scarface: Shame of a Nation)

By a margin of a single vote, Fredric March and Wallace Beery became the only actors in Oscar history who tied in the Best Actor category. 
 
March won for playing Robert Lewis Stevenson's tortured duo in the Rouben Mamoulian's adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Beery won for playing a boozed-up boxer redeemed by the love of his son in King Vidor's The Champ.

Of the two, I prefer Beery because his character seemed a little more natural. March's performance, to me, is marred by overacting and the fact that Mr. Hyde is so inhuman that we have trouble believing that Jekyll and Hyde are one in the same. March gives his all but I always notice the make-up first. I was also put off by Mamoulian's distracting experimental camera tricks..

Fredric March was in good company, because Nineteen Thirty-One was a great year for actors in character roles. Aside from March as Jeckyll and Hyde, there was also Boris Karloff as the monster in Frankenstein, Groucho in Monkey Business and to a lesser degree, Paul Muni in Scarface (I wouldn't classify his work as a character role though he does play it as one).

They were all excellent but, let's face it, Bela Lugosi leaves them all behind. It is one thing to play a part brilliantly, but it is something else to occupy a role so well that you end up owning the part forever.  Lugosi's performance as Dracula has been lauded and exalted as one of the best performances in the horror film genre.  So, it is a mystery to me why the academy chose to ignore his work.

Perhaps because Dracula was deemed a simple-minded horror film, both Lugosi and the film went completely unnominated. That's a shame because between his performance and the brilliant set decoration by the legendary Karl Freund, Dracula contains some of the best work of the early years of talking pictures.  The film is as much art as it is entertainment, and Lugosi is most of the reason why.

Lugosi had been in America for a decade, working mostly on the stage. In 1927, he had even starred in Dracula - the version upon which the film is based. He was Hungarian and spoke with a thick accent. He was a very theatrical man who was rarely off-stage and that lends the character an elegance and charm.
 
Through Lugosi’s performance, we sense a creature that seems to have spent centuries on earth but has remained outside normal human contact. His speech is slow and deliberate. When he speaks, his words are evenly spaced.  His physical movements are odd too.  When he walks, it almost seems as if he is floating.  We know that he periodically transforms himself into a vampire bat, and his movement suggests that his brain has forgotten that his feet are suppose to be firmly planted to the ground.

What Bela Lugosi created in Dracula would cement the vampire myth in the public imagination: The bloodsucking, the transformation into a bat, the eastern-european accent, the regal cape, his fear of daylight, the fact that he sleeps in a coffin and, of course, his erotic charm.  These vampire myths had been set forth in Bram Stoker's original novel, but Lugosi made the character live and breathe.

Sadly, while Bela Lugosi gave us the definitive vision of Dracula, the role seems to have doomed his career.  With his odd mannerisms and deliberate speech he seemed resigned to cheap horror films, playing looney scientists and other eccentrics (even Frankenstein's monster!). Though he was obsessed with the part of Bram Stoker's nightcrawler, he only played the character again in a negligible Abbott and Costello comedy. His later years found him even worse roles in Ed Wood pictures and he made his swan song Plan 9 From Outer Space - the movie that is, today, hailed as the worst movie ever made. It is left to wonder what might have become of Lugosi's career had he won an Oscar for his performance. He gained immortality as Stoker's vampire but I always wonder if a little more affection from Hollywood might have shed some daylight on his career.
____________________________________________________________________________
Best Actress

THE WINNER:
Helen Hayes (The Sin of Madelon Claudet)
The Nominees: Marie Dressler (Emma), Lynn Fontanne (The Guardsman)

MY CHOICE:
Jean Harlow (Red-Headed Woman)
My Nominees: Marlene Dietrich (Shanghai Express), Ann Dvorak (Scarface: Shame of a Nation), Barbara Stanwyck (The Miracle Woman)

In 1932, Helen Hayes, "The First Lady of the American Theater" made her film debut in The Sin of Madelon Claudet and became the first actress to win an Oscar for playing a prostitute.  The screenplay, written by Charles McArthur (her husband) and Ben Hecht, was adaptation of an Edward Knoblock play “The Lullaby” that runs the melodrama playbook from A to Z and features Hayes as, a sweet-natured French farm girl who gets mixed up with a man who dumps her after getting her pregnant, then falls for a jewel thief who commits suicide upon his arrest, forcing her to have to turn tricks to make enough money to keep her son in medical school.

Hayes was a legend in her own time, she was a great actress who deserved her reputation, but even she couldn’t save this script (she openly admitted that she hated it).  It is so soppy and forced and pushes poor Madelon down into the depths of despair before jamming her into a sappy, half-baked happy ending.

The film is emotional, it is hard not to be moved by the plight of a woman who sells her dignity to make a better life for her son, but I think Hayes’ Oscar came mostly for her reputation and for the physical transformation of Madelon from young and beautiful to a tired-looking old hag - a credit that really goes to the make-up artists.  It is the script that sinks her performance.

Madelon Claudet’s journey may have been emotional but the journey of my choice for Best Actress was a devilish bit of fun.  Hayes character was forced into a life of debauchery but the character played by Jean Harlow in Red-Headed Woman went willingly and with a wicked smile.

Based on the book by Katherine Brush and adapted by Anita Loos, Red-Headed Woman finds the usually blonde Harlow playing carrot-topped Lil Andrews - a happy, mischievous gold-digger whose hours of enjoyment come from withering the inhibitions of married men. It is all an effort to climb the social ladder, and she won't stop until she gets there. That is why she hooks up with Bill (Chester Morris), her boss, who is passionately in love with his wife Irene (Leila Hyams) but who can't help himself when Lil throws herself into his arms.

Lil convinces Bill to divorce Irene - not because she loves him but because it will get her in with the "in crowd." Bill's society friends, however, don't feel the need to associate with a tramp, Lil tires of Bill and tries another target - his best friend Charles. He wants nothing to do with her but she marches ahead anyway and eventually he melts. Bill isn't so unhappy with the results, it gets Lil out of his hair and he can get down to the business of regrouping what remains of his marriage to Irene.

We understand what makes men fall for Lil. She works on her seductive appearance, like an actor getting ready for a role. Buying a new dress she asks the sales girl if the dress is see-thru, when she is told that it is, she smile and says "I'll wear it." Later, when putting Bill's picture into her garter she remarks "It'll get me more there then it will hanging on the wall."

When she is with a man, Lil a way with men by pushing her body against his. She doesn't lie back as an invitation, she thrusts herself upon her prey, kissing them and pressing herself against them like a predator. There's a look in her eyes, a tremble of her bottom lip, a turn of her hip that we sense she has worked to perfection. Her slight body, short stature and little girl voice suggest to her prey a woman who is naive and easily taken. She has a perfected way with men, which makes even the viewer tremble.

There are no wounds to Lil, no shattered past that makes her this way. She's sexy - she likes it and she likes what it does to men. Harlow displays such a joy at breaking down a man's moral wall that for a while, we are happy to go along. We can't believe that these men would be such dopes but if you study her body language you can see the seductive power. Her performance is not all that different from another gold-digger, the one played by Barbara Stanwyck a year later in a film called Baby Face. In that film, an equally trashy Stanwyck literally sexes her way from the gutter to the gold, seducing one man after another. But Stanwyck's Lily Powers had a reason for her machinations - she was trying to pull herself out of the gutter of prostitution provided by her no-good father. Harlow's character has no such reasoning, she just wants to get to the top because she has the organic tools to do so. She laughs at her seductive powers when they work but she gets vindictive when they don't.

There is only one weakness in the film and that comes at the end. After her shenanigans nearly get her killed, she skips down and we meet up with her two years later at a horse track in Paris but we never figure out if that even has affected her or not.  We see that she has taken a new lover and the film ends apparently (and abruptly) on the happy note but the scene plays almost as if the previous scene never happened.  That doesn't speak to Harlow's performance - just some bad writing. Harlow's performance is an act of depraved giddiness but as the film goes along, we begin to sympathize with those she is attempting to destroy. There comes a point at which every time she shows up in a doorway, we feel pity for anyone who tries to leave the room.

____________________________________________________________________________
Year by Year Reviews | What is this? | Contact | Home



This site is neither endorsed nor affiliated with The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
The opinions expressed are purely those of the author.