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.
I think Stewart stood out more in this than in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, where he did a fine job, but in a role that was more typical for him. In The Philadelpia Story he plays the most difficult role in the movie, and still he steals every scene he is in. Cary Grant on the other hand, one of the finest actors of all time, had his strongest appearances in other movies (especially The Awful Truth and North By Northwest). His role in The Philadelphia Story helped make the film what it was, but it was Stewart that had the Oscar winning role to me. I don't always agree with the Oscars, but in this case I do.
Henry Fonda was outstanding in The Grapes Of Wrath, and would also have been a deserving winner. Still Stewart's win was no steal.
Its not to say Jimmy Stewart wasnt deserving, but rather Henry Fonda desrved it more....but I wish Fonda had won for a differant reason, becuase if Jimmy Stewart had gone Oscarless till 1946 he might have won for his finest performance, in "Its a Wonderful Life".
It is not our abilities that show who we truly are...it is our choices
On one hand, there were other performances that year might've been more deserving, and maybe it should've gone to Olivier or Fonda, as you suggest, and you're probably right that he won mostly because the Academy was making up for NOT giving him the Oscar for "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (which remains one of his greatest performances). But on the other, I think he WAS better than Grant here, and at least as good as Hepburn. Stewart was one of the greatest actors of classic Hollywood - though few people seem to give him credit for it, likeable though he may be - but he DID give other, even better performances that were overlooked by the Academy.
Recently just watched the movie, & I do think it is one of Stewart's finest. Playing the everyman who ends up carrying the mantle for most of the movie, showing Tracey what she's missing, nailing his drunk scenes with a patient Grant, his passionate scenes with Kate... it really is a tour de force.
Even if it's not his name on the marquee- had the other 2 been no name actors, this probably wouldn't even be an argument.
Honestly, I don't think that Stewart gave an Oscar-worthy performance in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. It is huge and I think it's his greatest role in many ways, but it is way over-done in the "aw shucks" department. The filibuster scene is laced all throughout with typical Stewart mannerisms and turns of phrase and one can easily hear echoes of so many of his other performances. I think that Jean Arthur makes Stewart look great in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. Through her we see how to feel about him. Mr. Smith Goes To Washington is, I am sorry to have to say, not a great work of film making, in spite of some truly great moments, but, I think that the characteristic Capra touch of too many cartoon characters on parade combined with too much sentimentality, along with Stewart's "aw shucks" in spades make this a film that is well-loved by very many (thankfully. I count myself as one who loves Mr. Smith deeply), but in the end, it is a film which cannot hold up so well to critical assessment.
Stewart in The Philadelphia Story is resorting to many of the same lines (I assume he included them?) which we can hear in other films. He is slightly more interesting and he gives a pretty good performance but we still get a lot of that trade mark "aw shucks" schtick and other rather cartoony behavior on shamelessly on display. I would not have voted the Oscar for him for The Philadelphia Story, but I'm glad that he did get the award all the same. I'm glad that he won the award at least once.
one can easily hear echoes of so many of his other performances
Echo or prefigure? If you're going to talk about "echos" then it's only fair to count roles that preceded the one in question. I'm not completely sure that the "so many" characterization is the best phrasing at that relatively early point in his career.
reply share
I think that there's some of both. I can't validate my argument in detail right now at this moment, nor refute yours, but, one thing I've noticed is that many of his casual, colloquial and characteristic turns of phrase, peppered throughout his lines of dialogue, are used more than once across various films with the net effect being that he is playing the same character again and again, viz, that he had limited range in portraying different characters. Granted, his appeal is immense, his ability to "go for it" and work a larger emotional range (albeit in a hammy sort of way) is substantive and his place in the pantheon of best-loved American film actors is assured, but his body of work shows a lot of sameness as though he were just playing himself.
There's nothing 'aw, shucks' about his performance in The Philadelphia Story. Mike is a cynic and an intellectual who couldn't be more different from Jefferson Smith. He's a man of secret idealism (which contributes to what Tracy calls his snobbery), but he's not starry-eyed and in no way naive. His arc in the film is basically the opposite of Jeff's arc in Mr Smith.
Colloquialisms are not intrinsically characterisation and they don't tell us anything about Mike or many of Stewart's other urbane characters. He stills sounds educated and erudite, not like 'just plain folks': which is, of course intentionally, how he sounds in Mr Smith. If he's not changing his accent (and he doesn't, he actually started to exaggerate it in his post-war work), he needn't change related bits of speech patterns that don't say anything about the character other than approximately where he's from. His behaviour, bearing, attitude, and emotional style all change; those are the elements that make a character.
"It's that kind of idiocy that I empathize with." ~David Bowie
trinity-destler, I came away with a different reading of Mike, based upon Stewart's portrayal. "Urbane" is not a word that ever comes to mind when I think of James Stewart and in spite of his playing a character whom happens to be educated, he never seems exactly erudite to me. The "just plain folks" is always much more present to me when I see him play any character, including his reading of Mike. His speech patterns do say much about his character, or, they do in my perception of his characters. Despite the fact that Mike is a thoughtful man, with some education and the ability to write interestingly and whom has also acquired something of a cynical and misanthropic view of the world, he still comes across, as portrayed by Stewart, as showing his rural, small town roots.
All behavior, added together, equals what we are able to perceive of someone's art and craft in creating a character, including their own particular turns of phrase and use of colloquy and folk idioms, whether scripted, chosen by the actor in attempt at creating a character or as what the actor brings of themselves to the job. Speech is very much an outward reflection of his attitude, bearing and emotional style, as you rightly enumerate, and his speech is an important element of his behavior. In the end, we see how actors walk and talk and it is their behavior which informs us as to just what sort of character they are. The fact that Stewart brings so many of the same detailed "bits," to borrow your term, to so many of his roles, regardless of whether they are hayseeds or city-dwelling writers, would seem to tip me off that I am hearing James Stewart and his own personal devices of his own speech and not that of studied actor whom has spent much time and effort using his acquired skills to create believable characters. We get Stewart as a personality who is playing Stewart in various roles as a man who brings much of the same behavior to his many roles. I think this is particularly true of his earlier films. He came to the work as an amateur and "learned on the job" by his own accounting. The fact that we are even discussing him at all is a small testament to his tremendous charisma and staying power as a great American film actor and he is one of my favorites.
His attitude and bearing, his speech and his attempts at characterization still add up to showing his humble, rural American roots regardless of the fact that Mike has been living more recently as a city dwelling writer with a cynical outlook on the world. That is what I take away from his performance.
And yet, Stewart himself went to an exclusive prep school, worked in performance with 'theatre people' from a young age, graduated Princeton, and was awarded a scholarship for further studies (that he didn't use). So if you feel you're seeing his own totally uniform speech pattern in his performances (I wouldn't agree with that assessment myself), it is in fact the speech of a highly educated and thoroughly cultured man. He was not just plain folks in real life.
Perhaps simply his accent is suggesting more to you than you realise. Which would be interesting come to think of it, because even though it has connotations to most viewers of country simplicity and yokels, this is supposed to be the Philadelphia Story and he's the only one in the film genuinely from Pennsylvania, so his accent is probably appropriate.
Although it is impressive to me when actors completely transform their accent/inflection/vocal mannerisms, it is not necessary to do so in order to play many vastly different characters. Especially in the thirties and forties, somewhat superficial trappings like accent didn't seem important. See Leslie Howard as a southern gentleman in Gone With the Wind. Now that we care so much more about verisimilitude as 'realism', it becomes more of an issue, but it doesn't have to be. Character is more complex than that. Nevermind the fact that you can play hundreds of distinct human beings that are all from the same small town. Being from the Southern United States doesn't make you backward or stupid, though that is what the accent is generally used for in fiction. Being from Cambridge doesn't make you posh, etc.
Regardless, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Mike and Stewart's performance.
"It's that kind of idiocy that I empathize with." ~David Bowie
T.D., good points one and all. I still tend to differ with you a bit.
You're from the U.K.? I'm making a sweeping generalization based on some of your choices of language and spelling. I ask only because I am wondering, have you ever been to Indiana, Pa., Jimmy Stewart's home town??? It is about as far from Philadelphia, in miles and even more so culturally as Carlisle is from London (http://bit.ly/OBJCNI, http://bit.ly/SfFMgM. It's a little town, near the Appalachian mountains, in coal mining country, not too far from Pittsburgh, Pa. Being on the far side of the Appalachian mountains from Philadelphia, and hundreds of miles away, the accents are quite different there. It's a very different world from Philly.
I am second to no one in my admiration for Jimmy Stewart's accomplishments in his private life as well as in his professional working life as an actor. i still maintain that he kept much of his small town charm throughout life. I think that he brought a lot of that to his work as an actor. Whether that is because that was all that he had in his arsenal or whether those in the business only saw him in roles meeting that narrow view, I say that he stayed pretty close to that small town persona in most all of his roles.
I still maintain that one's manner of speech speaks volumes in communicating character. It is one of the most important arrows in the actor's quiver. In an instant an actor can convey social standing, status, personality, emotional state and more through speech. I would argue that Leslie Howard's native accent did not enhance his portrayal of Ashley Wilkes. Having lived much of my life in the American South, I am well familiar with the stigma that is widely attached to those who speak with various southern accents.
Thank you sincerely for your thought provoking comments and discussion.
Wow, people, are you so naive that you think the Academy Awards are the most reliable measure of talent?
My 1940 Best Actor ranking:
001. James Stewart, The Shop Around the Corner***** 002. Cary Grant, His Girl Friday 003. Henry Fonda, The Grapes of Wrath 004. Anton Walbrook, Gaslight 005. Charlie Chaplin, The Great Dictator
So technically Fonda, in my opinion, deserved his Oscar just for a different film.
well someone's Oscar was undeserved... it always happened in recetly year(for me) and i think it just depend on personal opinion(i mean deserved or undeserved) so just be glad for the person who won Oscar ---------------------------------------------------------------- well English is not my first Language....