1935 - Les Misérables

This year's extended Oscar season finally wrapped up at the end of April and, while my prediction result was fairly average for me (17 correct out of 23 categories), my prediction about my predictions was pretty spot on. I figured I'd struggle with a few up-in-the-air categories and, indeed, I didn't succeed in the crap shoot that was the Best Actress race. I did, however, peg the similarly unpredictable Best Film Editing category, but that was essentially my only success from those unsettled races. On the other hand, I surmised that this might be the first time in six years I correctly identify the Best Picture winner, and that prophecy was indeed fulfilled, thanks to Nomadland.

While we wait (a slightly shorter amount of time than usual) for the next Oscar season, let's take a look at another nominee from the Best Picture race of 1935...


Les Misérables
Director:
Richard Boleslawski
Screenplay:
W.P. Lipscomb
(based on the novel by Victor Hugo)
Starring:
Fredric March, Charles Laughton, Cedric Hardwicke, Rochelle Hudson, Frances Drake, John Beal
Academy Awards:
4 nominations
0 wins

Not to be confused with the Hugh Jackman-Russell Crowe musical version (also nominated for Best Picture) or, for that matter, any other adaptation of Victor Hugo's classic novel, this one stars Fredric March as the 19th century French peasant Jean Valjean, who is sent to the galleys for stealing bread. While there, he encounters a humourless by-the-books guard named Javert (Laughton). Upon release, Valjean struggles to re-enter society until a kindly bishop (Hardwicke) gives him a break. Several years later, living as Monsieur Madeleine, Valjean owns a factory and has become so well-loved among his peers that he is offered the mayorship of his adopted town. But Javert, now a police inspector, is suspicious of the new mayor and may uncover his secret past as a convict.

For modern tastes, this adaptation of Les Misérables is quite stagey and contrived at times, which is perhaps something you'd expect from a musical, but alas, this version has no songs. The most egregious artificial moments, however, occur fairly early on in the film with the latter half achieving a somewhat more realistic tone. Still, it was made in the 1930s, so... well, cheese was the name of the game.

Despite all the artifice in the story's execution, Victor Hugo's source material, having clearly stood the test of time, is obviously gripping enough to keep the film entertaining, even at its most cheesy. Oddly, though, Eponine's death (sorry, spoiler alert) is mostly glossed over, a missed opportunity for a melodramatic moment, one that the famous musical adaptation would later accomplish perfectly. This film also inexplicably changed Valjean's prison number to 2906, instead of the novel's 24601, which is much catchier, though its catchiness may again be due to the Broadway musical's legacy.

But enough of these unfair comparisons to the evocative power of music. This picture is indeed very watchable, thanks in large part to some genuinely compelling performances. Fredric March as Jean Valjean is often touching, though in the first section of the film, his character seems to be perpetually confused in a rather overwrought fashion. In fact, as Valjean the pauper, March seems to have chosen to embrace the stereotype, then later, as Valjean the respected member of society, the portrayal becomes more naturalistic.

Opposite March is Charles Laughton, typecast as the stoic prig (indeed, this was the same year he played Captain Bligh in Mutiny on the Bounty), and he is exceptionally powerful as Valjean's ruthless nemesis Javert. In a standout role is Frances Drake (pictured above, with March), who makes the most of her relatively small but showy part as the jealous Eponine, despite her eyebrows being drawn all the way to her ears.

The film didn't win any Oscars from its four nominations. Along with Best Picture, it was cited for Cinematography and Film Editing, which are both well deserved since the film is beautifully cinematic. You'd think the director should have gotten recognised for that, too, but Richard Boleslawski sadly missed out. His deputy, Eric Stacey, however, did get a nod in the now defunct Best Assistant Direction category.

Oscar Winner Predictions 2020

Despite my lack of confidence in my nomination predictions, it was a fairly average showing for me in the end. Not my worst result, but certainly not my best, either.

As for predicting the winners, this feels like one of the most up-in-the-air races for a long time. Even some top categories, like Film Editing and Original Song, are completely wide open with no obvious frontrunners. Then there's Best Actress, which could go in almost any direction. In fact, at least four of the nominated leading ladies could realistically win on Oscar night. This is honestly shaping up to be a very unpredictable ceremony.

That said, despite all that unpredictability, Best Picture seems like it's Nomadland's to lose. Not since Birdman six years ago have I correctly picked the top prize, so this might be the year I finally make a successful prediction in this category. Mind you, upsets and surprises are Best Picture's specialty, so I probably shouldn't get too cocky.

We'll find out all the answers in a couple of days, but for now, here are my predictions for this year's Oscar winners.

Oscar Nomination Predictions 2020

We're nearing the home stretch of this extended awards season, so it's finally time for the Oscar nominations. Ahead of Monday's announcement, I've cobbled together my predictions of who will hear their name called out. And when I say "cobbled", I mean "cobbled". I haven't had the chance to see many of the contenders so far, so a lot of these predictions feel like stabs in the dark. Not to mention, BAFTA overhauled their voting procedures, which probably means they'll be less of a predictor than they usually are, making the prediction process that much more difficult. I've ended up relying quite heavily on the guilds for my picks, to the point that, in some cases, I've literally just matched the guild's choices precisely. We'll see how that pans out.

Despite my lack of confidence this year, for posterity's sake, here are my predictions for the 93rd Academy Award nominations.

1935 - Captain Blood

I've managed to squeak in one more review before the end of the year, which is somewhat surprising since we're well and truly in the midst of the school holidays here in Australia. It's also usually about the time of year that awards season would be heating up, but with the delay of the Oscars ceremony by a couple of months, there's a strange feeling of limbo. Still, lots of Oscar bait movies have already been released with more to come, so I'll try to cover some of that in the coming weeks.

For now, here's the next Best Picture contender from 1935...

Captain Blood
Director:
Michael Curtiz
Screenplay:
Casey Robinson
(based on the novel by Rafael Sabatini)
Starring:
Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Lionel Atwill, Basil Rathbone, Ross Alexander, Guy Kibbee, Henry Stephenson
Academy Awards:
2 nominations
0 wins

17th-century physician Peter Blood (Flynn) is arrested for treating an enemy of the crown, bundled up with other rebels, and shipped to the Caribbean colonies to become a slave. In Jamaica, a colonel's niece, Arabella Bishop (de Havilland), purchases Blood and assists in getting him the coveted role of doctor to the governor. Blood is understandably restless, though, and soon organises an escape with his fellow captives, where they plan to sail the seas as a pirate crew.

As a classic swashbuckling adventure, Captain Blood certainly doesn't disappoint. There's a lot of adventure with plenty of swashes being buckled, including an excitingly tense sword fight on a rocky beach and a spectacularly epic pirate ship battle. Granted, you have to wait a while for most of this excitement to begin since the first half of the picture is mostly straight drama, but the anticipation holds our attention well in preparation for the exhilarating second half.

Carrying the film is Aussie star Errol Flynn in his star-making role as the titular character. He's quite the steely-eyed charmer, which ironically ends up causing some disbelief at the thought of him becoming a pirate. Frankly, he comes across as too pleasant to all of a sudden embrace stealing and pillaging as a way of life, let alone become known as the "Terror of the Caribbean." In all fairness, though, there are later moments where Flynn displays appropriate ferocity, and he sells that well, but it's not a smooth transition getting there and ultimately his friendly demeanour returns (or perhaps it never really left). In any case, his on-screen persona obviously struck a chord with audiences as this was the first of many swashbuckling roles for Flynn, including arguably his most famous role in The Adventures of Robin Hood (to be reviewed on this blog at some point).

Also making a star turn was ingenue (at the time) Olivia de Havilland. This wasn't quite de Havilland's film debut - that came earlier in the same year with fellow Best Picture nominee A Midsummer Night's Dream - but it was the beginning of her on-screen pairing with Flynn. The duo (pictured) shared the screen seven more times in as many years, most notably with the aforementioned Robin Hood. Despite being a newcomer to cinema and having to portray such an underwritten stereotypical damsel, de Havilland holds her own in Captain Blood, launching a lengthy and auspicious career, in which she eventually won two Best Actress Oscars.

Of the large supporting cast, all are excellent, with standout performances from Basil Rathbone as the rival French pirate captain and Henry Stephenson as the diplomatic Lord Willoughby. Officially, the film only received two Oscar nominations - for Best Picture and Best Sound Recording - but Academy rules at the time allowed for write-in candidates and, since they also announced runners-up, we're able to see how popular Captain Blood was among voters. Along with its two official nods, the film scored second place for its director Michael Curtiz, as well as third place for its screenplay and score (and a rousing score it is). As for Best Picture, it wound up garnering yet another third place.

1935 - David Copperfield

2020 is almost over and, boy, has it been a doozy. Australia is handling the pandemic considerably well at this moment in time, though I realise that's not the case in a lot of other places around the world, so it really gives new meaning to the phrase "the lucky country". It's all the more poignant considering the fact that up until just a few months prior to the outbreak, I was a resident of California, a region that sadly does not seem to be faring as well. But with vaccines beginning to be rolled out in a few countries, let's hope that 2021 will allow us to return to some semblance of normal.

In the meantime, I've checked out another nominee from the 1935 Best Picture contest...


David Copperfield
Director:
George Cukor
Screenplay:
Hugh Walpole, Howard Estabrook, Lenore J. Coffee
(based on the novel by Charles Dickens)
Starring:
Frank Lawton, Freddie Bartholomew, W.C. Fields, Lionel Barrymore, Madge Evans, Maureen O'Sullivan, Edna May Oliver, Lewis Stone, Elizabeth Allan, Roland Young, Basil Rathbone 
Academy Awards:
3 nominations
0 wins

Born after his father's death, young David Copperfield (Bartholomew) lives with his flighty mother (Allan) until she decides to get remarried to the less-than-friendly Mr. Murdstone (Rathbone). Soon, David's mother passes away, too, so Murdstone sends the newly orphaned boy away to London, but his adventures don't stop there. He travels from place to place, meeting various characters and, as an adult (Lawton), continues his exploits, experiencing love, loss and laughter.

Perhaps shamefully, I've never read Dickens' book so was mostly unfamiliar with the story. Ironically, I still don't feel all that clear on the story even after watching this adaptation. I mean, it's not that it's hard to follow at all, but the plot moves so quickly that it feels like we're just getting highlights. David moves from one period in his life to another, meeting new people and then saying goodbye to them just as quickly. I know, I know, this has become a common critique of mine about novel adaptations, particularly in early Hollywood, where it seems screenwriters were afraid to leave anything out when adapting a long piece of literature, resulting in relationships and scenarios not given the time they need for growth in order to feel genuine. With that in mind, it seems there has been no shortage of film and TV adaptations of varying lengths of Dickens' classic (including a mini-series with a pre-Harry Potter Daniel Radcliffe as the young David). I would think, however, in these days of peak television, this story would make a fine limited series, allowing an entire episode to explore each plot point, instead of the fifteen minutes or so that this version affords. But I digress...

There is no doubt this is melodrama. Not just the performances, but a lot of the craft feels overly theatrical, too. For instance, after walking through a fierce storm, young David's clothes are suddenly and strategically ripped in a very aesthetic fashion. Shortly after that sequence, in place of smelling salts, David is offered two nondescript bottles, each with a large novelty label: Salad Dressing and, somewhat inexplicably, Anchovy Sauce.

It's not all hopeless, though. In fact, many of the short snippets of story are indeed entertaining, a testament to George Cukor's direction. Though, I suppose if I'm going to credit the director for the captivating segments, I must also hold him at least partially accountable for the broad caricatures that are most of the performances. Frank Lawton as the adult David is eternally happy and kind in a stereotypical way, which I suppose helps create a feel-good film, but his character just comes off as uninteresting. On the other end of the interesting spectrum are two actors worth mentioning: Roland Young (pictured on the right, with Lawton and W.C. Fields) is just the right amount of conniving as Uriah Heep, and Lennox Pawle is a breath of fresh comedy as the not-quite-all-there Mr. Dick. Pawle's performance is delightfully affable in its absurdity with an uncanny resemblance to both the appearance and slapstick style of Chris Farley, only slightly less erratic. Ultimately, the picture received only two other nominations beside its Best Picture nod - one for Editing and another in the now-defunct Assistant Director category. But on Oscar night, it finished empty-handed.