Gloria Swanson's Best Actress Bid

A friend and I recently went to a special screening of Sunset Boulevard in Dallas and, as all of our outings together end after viewing classic films, we discussed the merits of the Billy Wilder movie on the drive home.  One such topic for this film noir/black comedy was the Oscar nominated role of Norma Desmond, played by Gloria Swanson.

 

Much like the Sunset Boulevard character, Swanson was a silent film star who did not successfully make the transition over to “talkies.”  In the beginning Swanson had mild success in talking features, however, unlike Desmond she bowed out gracefully from Hollywood, withdrawing permanently to New York City in 1938.  Among her activities while in New York were painting, sculpting, writing a syndicated column, engaging in political activism, designing clothing and accessories, marketing, and radio and television work.  She also started an effective enterprise that during World War II was able to liberate Jewish scientists from war-torn Europe, resulting in the creation of a few valuable inventions.

 

Following several refusals from other “has-been” actresses, Wilder approached Swanson for the role of Norma Desmond, a faded and delusional Hollywood actress hoping to mount a comeback with a picture she has written herself.  Desmond elicits the help of a young screenwriter, played by William Holden, with the two eventually becoming romantically involved.  Swanson’s similar background to draw from for the role surely helped with the creation of the irrational Norma Desmond, and with the aid of several legendary quotes that are still known today it is no wonder an Academy Award nomination was bestowed to Swanson.  After watching her performance again it was mindboggling how she did not win the Oscar that year.  I said multiple times that it was inconceivable as to how she was passed up that year, but then I actually looked at the other nominees and realized why.

 

1950 was a tough year to be nominated for an Academy Award in the Best Actress category.  First of all, Bette Davis was involved for her role in All About Eve.  Davis was the Meryl Streep of her time, or I guess it should be Streep is the Davis of now.  If Davis was in it, there was a good chance she was getting nominated.  In all, Davis received 10 nominations for Best Actress, with another honorary nomination that is not recognized by the Academy, and two wins.  Being up against Bette Davis was hard enough for Swanson to overcome, but Davis’s costar inadvertently helped Swanson’s case.

 

Another Best Actress nomination came from All About Eve for Anne Baxter.  It is generally accepted Davis and Baxter negated one another’s votes, resulting in the other three nominees receiving better odds of winning the golden statue.  Baxter was an adequate starlet to the say the least, with the latter days being spent making appearances on popular television series of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s.  It is safe to say the highlight of her career was the Best Supporting Actress Oscar she received for The Razor’s Edge in 1946.

 

With Davis and Baxter cancelling one another out, Judy Holliday ultimately went home a winner for Born Yesterday.  Holliday carried over the success she had in the role as Billie Dawn from stage to screen, not only winning an Oscar, but also the first Golden Globe for Best Actress – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy.  Holliday is ultimately known for her work on the Broadway stage, but besting Bette Davis, Anne Baxter, and Gloria Swanson in the Oscar race of 1950 is certainly a fine feather in her cap.

 

That leaves Eleanor Parker’s performance in Caged.  I’ve never seen the movie, so I really can’t evaluate her much.  Her filmography includes a role in The Sound of Music, The Man with the Golden Arm, three Oscar nominations for Best Actress, and a Volpi Cup for Best Actress at the Venice Film Festival.

 

Even without a good knowledge of Parker’s role or how she did with it, I feel comfortable stating that 1950 was one of the tightest races ever for the Best Actress category.  A little over a week ago I couldn’t fathom Swanson not winning the award, but now I see what she was contending against.  It was really a tough race to win.

Superhero characteristic weaknesses

Following a recent late-night cinema-going outing to view Captain America: The Winter Soldier I got to thinking about something involving comic book superheroes.  What character flaws are found in today’s superheroes, and does Captain America have any sort of negative traits?

The flawed hero is nothing new in literature or film, but the manifestation of a flawed comic book superhero in movies has become a new development in the past decade or so.  Previously, our mutant/alien/superior-being protagonists have had to overcome only the villains diabolical plot and at the core they were everything good inherently found in mankind.  This lack of a humanistic portrayal of our favorite super-powered hero was mostly a result of characterization not being very prevalent in the comic book genre prior to the turn of the century, but that doesn’t mean the personality defects weren’t always there.

Comic book readers have been dealing with individual character flaws in their favorite hero and over the course of countless issues those flaws were either overcome as the individual bettered themselves or were exacerbated by the circumstances that befell them.  Yet, that sort of dark representation didn’t normally translate over to film until this genre of moviemaking became more “gritty” and “realistic” (you can read between the lines there and see I am mostly pointing toward Nolan’s Batman franchise as the epicenter of this movement).

Take Bruce Banner/Hulk for example.  His obvious character trait that makes him an imperfect hero is the temper.  When Banner becomes angry, the Hulk emerges.  The 1970s/80s television series was able to carry over the temper issue Banner/Hulk had to deal with from page to screen, but it wasn’t generally used as a character-driven device to better or worsen the man.  Instead, it was a method of instigating action.  Obviously the Hulk movies of today still lean heavily on the transformation into the Hulk for action sequences, but when Bruce Banner is running around as the man, and not the monster, the main focus is on his humanity and trying to control the beast within.

It is clearly evident what Bruce Wayne/Batman struggles with: guilt and anger, which both feed off one another creating a ruthless cocktail of vengeance. For Spider-man, his arrogance seems to be a character trait they focused on in the reboot starring Andrew Garfield.  The Tony Stark/Ironman blemishes include narcissism, which is dominant in every movie he makes an appearance, and alcoholism.  Logan/Wolverine is a hot mess of raw, animalistic emotion, especially when it comes to rage.

Finally there is Clark Kent/Superman, the Boy Scout with alienation issues (pun intended).  You might not think always doing the right thing would be a character flaw, but Superman takes it to such an extreme level that even his most ardent fans wonder whether he should sometimes bend the rules a little for the greater good.  Like Superman, Batman also has a code of not killing.  However, on film, this ethos is occasionally circumvented by the quote “I won’t kill you … but I don’t have to save you.”  While that technically goes against the “No Killing” rule, Batman understands that sometimes death is the only proper punishment for the villain.  This generally is only seen in the film versions of these characters, as nobody, and I mean nobody, ever dies for good in the comic books.  Writers always find a way to bring someone back from what appeared to be death.

But let’s get back to Superman.  You might argue that Superman is seen killing in his most recent film outing.  I would agree with that observation.  That definitely was not the Superman audiences had become accustomed to, but I think that single act of killing is what puts this new version of Superman on the path of the “No Killing” code.  Furthermore, once the code is in place for Superman, there is absolutely no faltering from it.  Once the Man of Steel decides to go down that righteous path, he never breaks the vow, which becomes a little monotonous.  We know Superman is going to win in the end, so there has to be some sort of internal struggle for him to maintain fan interest.  Yet, the lack of having a characteristic flaw for Superman is his character flaw.

So this brings us to Steve Rogers/Captain America.  Watching his latest film outing had me wondering if he has any character flaws.  He loves America (obviously).  He seems to always stand up for what is morally right.  Therefore, are there any conflicts he battles within himself regarding some personality trait?  I have not read up enough on Captain America to know whether he struggles with the same type of things other superheroes, like the ones on this list, do.  Surely over the course of 70 years of comic book issues some writer has established something he deals with that makes him vulnerable and human, but from the three Marvel movies that have featured Cap I have yet to see it.  With the amount of films Marvel has lined up for its future, surely we will come across some sort of defect that the audience would be able to relate to.  I guess only time will tell.