MovieChat Forums > The Philadelphia Story (1941) Discussion > James Stewart's Oscar was undeserved

James Stewart's Oscar was undeserved

posted 18 years ago by isidro_garcia_15
47 replies | jump to latest

As far as I am concerned, Jimmy didn't deserve the Oscar mainly because there were better performances that year such as Laurence Olivier in Rebecca or especially Henry Fonda in The grapes of wrath. In addition, it wasn't the best performance in the film because Katharine Hepburn and Ruth Hussey(who was amazing) were far better. Don't get me wrong, I love James Stewart and he was quite good but he should have won for Mr.Smith goes to Washington or Anatomy of a murder and not for this film. However, I really liked this movie and it really deserved best adapted screenplay Oscar.

This would have been my choices in the acting categories:
Best actor- Henry Fonda-The grapes of wrath
Best actress-Joan Fontaine-Rebecca(I don't know how Ginger Rogers won)
Best supporting actor-Walter Brennan-The foreigner
Best supporting actress- It would have been difficult to choose because all were just amazing but perhaps Jane Darwell would have been my choice.

[–] Prom_Queen_Carrie 16 years ago

I have to disagree with you there. I just love Jimmy Stewart in this film. He is so good in it. I love Hepburn and Grant too. I'm glad Jimmy won though. Even though I like Henry Fonda, I'm certainly not mad that Jimmy won because I really loved his performance here.

"Farewell Ethel Barrymore, I must tear myself from your side" *rip*

[–] bigbluecheese 16 years ago

Didnt Katherine Hepburn say that all the right actors get their oscars, just for the wrong films.

I wouldnt say James Stewarts Oscar was undeserved, I would give him an Oscar for almost everything he did, But I was very surprised Henry Fonda didnt get the award that year.

When you're slapped, you'll take it and like it.

[–] pacwarbuff 16 years ago

I disagree! Stewart was charming, witty, and displayed more characterization and nuance than in virtually any role he's done--perhaps Anatomy of a Murder comes close-- and I'm betting that his drunk scene *alone* earned him his Oscar! Apparently, much of the scene was ad libbed and the results make for the best scene in the whole movie. I wish to heck Stewart had played more roles like this, instead of the "aw, shucks" stuff he usually played. And while Henry Fonda's role in The Grapes of Wrath is tremendous, comedy almost never wins the lead actor awards and the fact that Stewart's performance won indicates something special. If he hadn't gone to war during the peak of his career, who knows what he might have achieved Oscarwise.

One more thing about the Stewart/Fonda argument: Maybe Jimmy won by one vote!

Consilio et prudentia

[–] JuanMacready 16 years ago

Totally undeserved Oscar. There was NOTHING good about his miscast peformance at all.

[–] HarlowMGM 16 years ago

I won't disagree his was not the best performance - certainly Oliver in REBECCA, Fonda in THE GRAPES OF WRATH, and Chaplin in THE GREAT DICTATOR are all far more iconic roles and deeper performances. However, had he not won James Stewart likely would have been Oscar-less and that would have been an outrage. I do wish he had won instead for his brillant HARVEY in 1950 - if he had, I would have liked to have seen one of the other three get this 1940 trophy, not sure which one of the trio though is the best.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] snsurone 15 years ago

In the 80+ years of the Academy Oscar, there have been many instances of undeserving people winning and more deserving people losing.
The latest was just last year. I mean, Kate Winslet over Meryl Streep? Gimme a break!

BTW, I believe the Best Actor winner of 1939--Robert Donat in GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS--definately deserved the Oscar.

[–] KenanP 15 years ago

I didn't know about this until now and I've got to say I'm pretty surprised. Both Fonda and Olivier were far more deserving imo. This was just another case of Jimmy Stewart playing Jimmy Stewart.

Those saying "it was not undeserved, he should have gotten it for Mr Smith" need to realize that the award is given for this specific performance, it's not a lifetime achievement award. And therefore it's undeserved.

--------------------------------
Oh you mad cuz I'm stylin on you

[–] yippeeskippy2002 15 years ago

Those saying "it was not undeserved, he should have gotten it for Mr Smith" need to realize that the award is given for this specific performance, it's not a lifetime achievement award. And therefore it's undeserved.

Tell that to the Academy. They've been pulling that crap for almost as long as they've been doling awards. Those posters were just stating what the Academy practices, and I heartily agree. It was a consolation prize for "Sorry, Robert Donat was the deserving, clear winner, but we wish there was a second place award, so here it is. A year later."

As much as it is disheartening every time I watch Mr. Smith that James Stewart did not win an Oscar for that, I keep coming across articles that declare Robert Donat as one of the few "rightful and correct" Oscar winners.

Entering a silly, asinine flame war? Read my profile for assistance.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]