Too Many Girls (1940)

Film: Too Many Girls (1940)

Stars: Lucille Ball, Richard Carlson, Ann Miller, Eddie Bracken, Frances Langford, Desi Arnaz, Hal Le Roy

Director: George Abbott

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2022 Saturdays with the Stars series, we highlight a different Classical Hollywood star who made their name in the early days of television.  This month, our focus is on Lucille Ball click here to learn more about Ms. Ball (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

We are not going to go very far into Lucille Ball's career compared to last week's Dance, Girl, Dance, so you might wonder if you only look at the title of this article as to why I'm using another feminine-monikered film from 1940 to continue on our month.  After all, Lucille Ball did spend a full decade making movies before I Love Lucy came along (and she made several after that).  The reason, though, is evidenced in the cast list.  Lucille Ball was married to her husband Gary Morton for thirty years, but it was her first marriage that would attract the attention of the public, and make her a part of one of Classical Hollywood's greatest super couples.  Yes, Too Many Girls is where Desi Arnaz met his future wife Lucille Ball.

(Spoilers Ahead) Too Many Girls is a pretty standard RKO musical of the era.  It features four men (led by Carlson, but including Bracken, Arnaz, & Le Roy) who are hired by a wealthy tycoon to secretly bodyguard his daughter Connie (Ball), who has become something of a celebrity in the society pages for her romances & goings-on.  She is moving to New Mexico to attend her father's alma mater, but little known to him, she also intends to marry a much older writer.  While there, she begins to fall for Carlson's Clint, but there's a catch.  The contract that he's signed (which Connie doesn't know about until late in the film) includes an "anti-romance" clause which requires that the bodyguards not fall in love with Connie.  This is clearly a problem, as Connie & Clint do just that, and while they have to hash it out over Clint's secret job and the clause, they eventually find their happy endings.

The film is weird for a couple of reasons.  For starters, despite getting top billing, Lucille Ball (our star of the month) is hardly in the film.  The focus is more on the randy bodyguards, who are all romancing a series of women (including Ann Miller) at a university that is populated by "virginal" women (they wear a white hat to signal their virtue), but whose flirtations signal that this might be pretense.  Ball is good in this movie, but she's not really in it, which is a pity as Carlson is a charisma drain, and certainly not enough to make up for stealing screentime from proper showstoppers like Ball & Miller.

As a result, it's actually Arnaz who steals the picture.  Impossibly debonair & youthful (he was just 23 when this was made), Arnaz is, well, dead sexy as the most memorable of the four bodyguards.  It's easy to see why Ball, six years his senior, fell for him.  He's in full-throated glory (even is his main musical number is pretty racist in its lyrics), and excellent.  Arnaz, whom we'll talk about a bit in the next couple of articles in conjunction with Ball, was never the generational talent his wife was, but it's nice to see him get out of Lucy's shadow here, as he delivers well even if they rarely share the screen.

OVP: You Can't Take It With You (1938)

Film: You Can't Take It With You (1938)

Stars: Jean Arthur, Lionel Barrymore, James Stewart, Edward Arnold, Mischa Auer, Ann Miller, Spring Byington, HB Warner, Harry Davenport

Director: Frank Capra

Oscar History: 7 nominations/2 wins (Best Picture*, Director, Supporting Actress-Spring Byington, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Film Editing, Sound Recording)

(Not So) Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I remember once someone said to me that watching a primary field of presidential candidates is a bit perplexing, because they all start out looking normal, like average human beings, and yet one of them is going to become immortal, putting their stamp forever on history (for the good or the bad).  The same can be said, to a degree, about a film that wins Best Picture.  You take 5, 8, 10, 12 (the number varies) movies, and then at the end of the night, one of them gets to be immortalized (and debated) forever as the "Best Picture of the Year."  This, of course, comes with some strange side effects in the same way that presidential races do.  After all, there are some Best Pictures that even with pedigree & fame, don't really amount to much historically, and you'd be forgive for thinking of You Can't Take It With You in that way.  The film, the victor in 1938, is a movie that doesn't necessarily standout in the careers of either its actors or its director, and yet despite its passed over reputation, it's a genuinely lovely (and perhaps more modern than you'd expect) movie that deserves its time in the sun.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about Anthony Kirby (Arnold), a business mogul in the late 1920's, who only has a mind for the matter-of-fact.  He is grooming his son Tony (Stewart) to take over the family business at one point, but there's a hiccup-Tony is in love with his stenographer Alice (Arthur), and they know nothing about her family.  It turns out that Alice's family is full of eccentrics, led by the understanding & wonderful Grandpa Vanderhof (Barrymore).  As the film continues, we see a meeting of the stuffy Kirby's with the laid-back Vanderhof's which results in all of them going to jail (due to an illegal fireworks explosion).  After this, Alice breaks up with Tony, not comfortable with the way that his family has been judging hers, but as this is a Frank Capra film, we do find a happy ending for all.  Mr. Kirby, who has been trying to buy the Vanderhof's house the whole film (and successfully does when Grandpa wants to move to be closer to Alice, who has fled), gives back the house, Tony & Alice end up together, and the family is filled with a group brimming with even more eccentrics.

I have seen You Can't Take It With You before, though it has been at least 20 years (if not longer), and it was one of the first films I caught when I started watching Best Picture winners.  I remembered relatively little about the film, to the point where I remembered a woman frequently dancing, but it wasn't until I saw the movie that I suddenly understood the "no talent" hoofer in the film is actually Ann Miller, one of the greatest dancers of Hollywood's Golden Age.  As a result, I kind of had downgraded my initially pleasant interactions with the picture because I assumed that the more saccharine elements that I had encountered with the movie would hold, perhaps over-washing them, as does on occasion happen with Frank Capra's "lesser" classics.

This wasn't the case here, though.  You Can't Take It With You is genuinely charming, and like I said, thoroughly modern.  While the film's racial politics do present some problems (the white people live a life of leisure where they pursue their dreams while the two black characters are both servants who are not given the same kind of leniency with their interests), it does show a world where people don't put all of their value in money, and more importantly, don't put it on work.  Grandpa Vanderhof occasionally indulges in libertarian conversations with random people about his dislike of taxes, but really there's a lot of socialist indulgence here which is refreshing-the movie's politics basically say "pursue your dreams-life is short, and what makes you happy is the best thing for you," and I honestly can't think of a lot of movies of this era (or any era) that say to do this, even if it doesn't mean you'll make money from it.  There's something really shocking about putting value into hobbies & interests without needing to justify it through finance that I found hit a nerve with me (a man who spends much of his time watching & chronicling movies for a blog that he gets no financial compensation for), and that resonated in a way that felt refreshingly Millennial/Gen Z.

The movie's actors have all had bigger classics (Mr. Smith, It's a Wonderful Life, On the Town, Shane), but really this cast is A+ and Capra achieves something with a call sheet that reads like a Film Twitter dream list of the 1930's.   Arthur got top billing here (Stewart was still one year away from being the eternal "first name" on the poster), and shines-if you like Jean Arthur, with her omnipresent perkiness, you'll love her here as she's at her brightest (Arthur's offscreen persona was vastly different to her onscreen one, loathing publicity & regularly struggling with even the briefest of public interactions, to the point where her later theatrical career was a series of breakdowns...she'd make a good biopic if Hollywood is listening).  Stewart is charming & lovely, given a side role but one that he manages to make affable.  Edward Arnold gets to play what would become a prototypical part for him (the large-and-in-charge wealthy villain).  Arnold had to have enjoyed this film's reputation more than anyone.  Earlier in 1938, he'd been labeled "Box Office Poison" by the Hollywood Reporter, saying he was one of the actors that theater owners most loathed seeing on a movie poster...that he ended up months later starring in a movie that won Best Picture and was a financial success had to have been great revenge.

The Vanderhof's are all great too.  Barrymore, like Arthur & Stewart, could play this part in his sleep, but that doesn't mean that we should just assume that his movie star aura is easily administered.  Spring Byington & Ann Miller are both fun in small roles as people pursuing their passions without a hint of success; Byington won the only Oscar nomination of her long career for this part, and in a lot of ways it resembles some of the "character nominations" we see even today, where a longtime side favorite gets their due in a successful Best Picture contender (think June Squibb or Laurie Metcalf).  All-in-all, this is a great ensemble, one where it's difficult to single out a specific actor, but where everyone is at peak condition.

The film's Oscar nominations are all worthy.  The cinematography is standard, but well-utilized-you get a sense from the way the camera moves that they know that the house itself (a surefire Art Direction nominee if that category had existed yet) is a great supporting player in this piece.  The writing is sharp, with silly (sometimes schmaltzy, but not too bad) dialogue, while the editing is solid-giving us enough fun moments with the Vanderhof's to get you to really know them without it ever feeling long (and at 2+ hours that was a risk for a movie that doesn't really have much of a plot to speak of other than boy-meets-girl).  The sound design is also great-the film's fireworks pop & crackle, and the regular musical interludes play perfectly.  I honestly had a great time-this isn't a landmark Capra film (it's not quintessential like It Happened One Night or It's a Wonderful Life), but if all of the Best Picture winners are "immortal," similar to my presidential theory above, this is one that feels like a president you didn't realize was impressive as history books would have led you to believe.

OVP: Stage Door (1937)

Film: Stage Door (1937)

Stars: Katharine Hepburn, Ginger Rogers, Adolphe Menjou, Gail Patrick, Constance Collier, Andrea Leeds, Lucille Ball, Eve Arden, Ann Miller

Director: Gregory La Cava

Oscar History: 4 nominations (Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actress-Andrea Leeds, Adapted Screenplay)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

The "more than five" window of the Best Picture race for the modern Oscars started in 2009, but it wasn't always like that.  Prior to 1944, the Best Picture race was a rotating number, peaking at one point with as many as 12 nominations for the category.  As a result, like today, you get some films that you wonder if they would've been nominated in a five-wide field or not.  That was one of the thoughts I had while watching Stage Door recently, a movie that features a cavalcade of major actresses, not just of that era but more so of the upcoming era; women like Lucille Ball, Eve Arden, & Ann Miller were all breaking out in a big way with this movie.  I was surprised after watching that the film had also been nominated for Best Director, not because it's not well-directed (it is) but because our modern preconceptions of films starring women (and the male-friendly AMPAS) is to assume such a picture can't score both, and thus be one of the "would've made it to five" films (which it appears Stage Door was).

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about a group of women who live in a boardinghouse, many of them aspiring actresses who are trying to land their lucky break.  A new girl, Terry (Hepburn) moves into the house, and her worldly attitude & love of Shakespeare make her an object of ridicule, particularly for Jean (Rogers), a wisecracking dancer who is forced to be her roommate.  It turns out that Terry doesn't need to be there-her father is very wealthy, and she's trying to strike out on her own against his wishes.  The two start to patch things up, and Terry befriends the rest of the girls including unlucky-in-love Judy (Ball), sarcastic Eve (Arden), and especially Kay (Leeds), who is desperate for a part in Anthony Powell's (Menjou) new play.  When Terry gets the part instead (initially on the wishes of her father, who is secretly backing the play in hopes of getting his daughter back after it fails), Kay, frustrated from unemployment & starving for her art, kills herself on opening night.  Terry, bereft from the grief, gives a good performance in the play, and becomes a star.  Despite this, she stays on at the boardinghouse, where her new family resides.

The film is unusual, in that it's clearly meant to be a fluffy, light comedy for the first hour, and then it takes a dark detour in its last few minutes.  The death of Kay is a left field twist, something I didn't really expect (I assumed she'd be rushed to a hospital & get the part that she was meant for that instead went to Hepburn's Terry).  It feels like a cheat to me, and one that kind of leaves a bitter taste in the movie, as it totally upends all of the fast-talking girls, and it feels like it's trying to teach the actresses a lesson that they didn't really deserve-they're just young women trying their best (and Terry's greatest sin was *GASP* being ambitious).  The death of Kay makes the film too off, and while it's still a good movie, it disappears some of the best attributes that made you fall in love with it in the first hour.

The film won four nominations, and three of them I don't have a problem with.  Like I said, this is a good movie, a great one in parts, but it's too sporadic & spastic in the way it handles the genre shift, and so it's simply a good movie.  The direction & writing is in a similar situation-good in both its comedic & dramatic shifts, but it can't combine the two.  Leeds, though, isn't the right fit.  Yes, her character is tragic, but that's all she is-there's no depth here.  It's hard to imagine someone looking at this performance and thinking "best in cast."  Obviously Ginger Rogers & Kate Hepburn aren't supporting parts, but they're both terrific.  Rogers is delicious, some of the best I've seen from her (Rogers was always better in comedy than in drama), and Hepburn is glorious, especially when she has to perform right after Kay's suicide.  If I had to pick a supporting player to honor from the movie, I might go with Eve Arden (though Lucille Ball is good in the role that put her on the map as a character player)-she's quintessential Arden (there's nothing to her Eve), but she (and her cat) steal every scene they do together.

12 Best Actors Without an Oscar Nomination

Okay, here we go!  This isn't going to mean much to you, probably, since it's just another article, but this is the first day of NaNoWriMo for me!  Right now I am probably, frantically, wondering how on earth I am going to write 50,000 words in a month, and fretting about my writerly process, or perhaps (I can occasionally be an optimist) I'm knee-deep in my book, writing to my heart's content because I've spent the past month heartily preparing and am ready for this adventure (I'm writing this on October 7th, so who knows what's happened in the world in the past few weeks).

As a result of this being NaNoWriMo, you're going to be noticing some things might be a little unusual on the blog, namely that I'm not going to be reacting to the events of the day as often as I usually do, and the focus is going to be more on timeless issues (like movies, reviews, OVP, and history) than the events of the day.  Hopefully you don't mind, as this is me trying to do something new and exciting in my life, while also maintaining TMROJ to the best of my abilities.  If there's something truly groundbreaking in the news (something I feel I would be remiss to comment on like a major political/entertainment announcement or where I need to write an obituary), I might come back from my sabbatical early, but otherwise the only current event I'm allowing myself time to discuss on the blog is the election (you'll get a recap of what happened in Virginia, New Jersey, and across the country).  Otherwise, all of these articles will have been written in advance for the next thirty days.

One of the fun things about doing this is that I get to create a lot of lists, as those are the easiest to package in advance, and we're going to start out with a doozy, one that I've been sitting on for a while-the actors that I most think deserve an Academy Award nomination, but for some reason never received one.  This is, bizarrely, a list I've never actually put together on this blog before despite my obsession with the Oscars, and I can't exactly explain why (I've done write-ups about people most "owed" an Oscar, but never my personal tastes).  Perhaps it's because, as I've documented in the past, I don't think there's a lot of actors who really cry out in a major way "why haven't they ever been nominated?!?"  I'm sure there are performers who are giving me side eye right now (if somehow one of them came across this blog), but while it's easy to list actors who have never won an Oscar who should deserved one, most of the major, critically-acclaimed actors at some point in their careers have won at least a nomination.  Even actors who are principally known for commercial work like Doris Day and Harrison Ford wound up in Oscar's good graces during their careers.

It's also because most long lists of actor's who deserved an Oscar nomination in the past end up being written as if there are an unlimited number of nominations in a year-there aren't.  Yes, it's very, very easy to come up with occasional nominations that were undeserved, but those aren't always in the right year to warrant a nomination.  If you're going to call someone out as a "snub," you need to also be willing to get rid of some of the nominees that made it instead, and most writers won't do that.  Frequently on lists like this I see a name like John Cusack, a major movie star who probably, collectively, deserved a nomination at some point, but for what, exactly?  Was John Cusack ever actually one of the five best nominees in a year?  The people below I include because I think they had careers that were/are huge in the motion pictures AND because they have given at least one performance that I'd argue was one of the five best of that year (if not higher), that they would have displaced one of the nominees in my book.  It's genuinely hard for me to find people who fit both of those criteria, but the below twelve are the actors who most make my blood boil when I think about them not having been cited at some point in their careers.  Without further adieu...

12. Jeanne Moreau

Why She Was Never Nominated: With this sole exception, I largely stuck to actors who worked primarily in English-language films, as those are overwhelmingly the ones favored by Oscar.  This list could entirely have been made up just of brilliant actors who didn't work in English-language films that have been amongst the year's bests in the past (Lu Chen, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Toshiro Mifune...).  But considering that Isabelle Huppert finally broke the mold this past year, it seems a shame that Jeanne Moreau, the great French actress, never joined those who had similar crossover appeal and insane talent (Huppert, Catherine Deneuve, Juliette Binoche, Marion Cotillard, Anouk Aimee, Isabelle Adjani) in winning just one dance with Oscar.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Moreau won the BAFTA Award for Viva Villa!, and was nominated for Jules and Jim.  She also took Best Actress at Cannes for Seven Days...Seven Nights, and grabbed the Cesar for The Old Lady Who Walked in the Sea.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: I certainly would buy an argument for La Notte or Bay of Angels, but honestly-how did she not make it for Jules and Jim?  I get that 1962 was a tough year for Best Actress, but I'd probably be willing to displace pretty much anyone for what Moreau accomplishes as Catherine, a careless, cruel, intensely beautiful and magnetic presence in Francois Truffaut's greatest masterpiece (and one of my personal favorite pictures).
Chances in the Future: Moreau died earlier this year, meaning that we'll never get to hear her name while an envelope is announced (and somehow she never took the Governor's Award).

11. Ann Miller

Why She Was Never Nominated: Ann Miller's career has always perplexed me.  Despite talent, beauty, and tap dancing skills that were pretty much unrivaled in Hollywood, she was never really a leading lady.  In fact, I couldn't find a single movie that she was ever the headliner of, which is strange because she wasn't your typical "character actress."  This is perhaps why she was never cited-she didn't play the doting mother or wife in a drama all that often (denying her the ability to be someone like Thelma Ritter or Claire Trevor), instead providing the comic relief in musicals and insane dancing ability.  Perhaps her career was too comical, and she was too shapely, to be taken seriously?
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Other than a spot on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, Miller's only reward was a long tenure in Hollywood.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: Some may go with Miller's most serious role, and the one that she is most well-known for to modern audiences as Coco in Mulholland Drive (she, is, indeed a strange link to the failed dreams of Hollywood in that film), but I'd go with something flat-out marvelous like her work in Kiss Me Kate.  Miller steals the entire movie away from Kathryn Grayson, and is, well, spectacular.
Chances in the Future: Miller passed away in 2004, so we'll never have the opportunity.  Perhaps the best reward is that she is still seen regularly on Turner Classic Movies nearly every month, something some of her leading lady costars can't even claim.  #Revenge?

10. Jim Carrey

Why He Was Never Nominated: Carrey is that classic conundrum of the comedian who has talent, and yet can't make it work with Oscar.  Similarly to others like Danny Kaye or Bob Hope, Carrey went from being a comedic leading man to showing that he had real ability in the late 1990's and early 2000's, but Oscar never seemed interested.  As a result, he's actually the most Golden Globe-nominated film actor EVER to never land an Oscar nomination.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Carrey has been cited for six Golden Globes, winning two back-to-back trophies (he made the wisecrack that he was now "the Tom Hanks of the Golden Globes,"), as well as a BAFTA nomination and a Grammy nomination.  Plus, he had one of the best "Loser Moments" ever when he showed up at the 1998 Oscars after just missing.
When He Should Have Been Nominated: Carrey deserved two nominations (I've never seen Man on the Moon, so quite frankly he might be the most overdue actor, period, if you look at just actual nominations and their collective careers): The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  1998 was admittedly a very good year, and someone worthy was bound to miss, but 2004 wasn't, and there's really no excuse for his losing as Joel Barish-he should have won the damn thing.
Chances in the Future: Probably not.  Carrey isn't an actor that does this sort of work anymore-quite frankly.  He kind of stopped working in major movies after he bad-mouthed Kick-Ass 2 publicly (he did have a hit the following year, but that was already in the can at that point, and was a sequel to one of his biggest pictures).  His interviews have grown increasingly erratic in recent years, as has his off-screen behavior, and at this point even an Honorary Oscar would be a surprise.

9. Meg Ryan

Why She Was Never Nominated: Ryan never had quite the luck that her fellow 90's "America's Sweethearts" did with Oscar (Julia Roberts & Sandra Bullock both of course have their own statues). This is a pity as Ryan is a superb actress and arguably starred in the best actual films during her heyday as a Rom-Com queen.  That said, she couldn't land it for her dramatic turn in Courage Under Fire, and her career got destroyed after she was caught cheating on Dennis Quaid with Russell Crowe (sexism of course rears its ugly head here, as Crowe went on to become a major movie star and an Oscar-winner in the wake of such publicity).  Since then, she's never really landed a major role and has largely disappeared from Hollywood, particularly after The Women was universally-panned (though it did better than you remember at the Box Office).
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Ryan picked up a trio of Golden Globe nominations for her rom-com triumvirate When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle, and You've Got Mail.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: The critic in me wants to say When Harry Met Sally, perhaps her breeziest performance, but the ardent fan in me will stick to one of my all-time favorite movies Sleepless in Seattle.  Her Annie is wonderfully-felt, charming, lived-in, lonely, heartbreaking, relatable, and layered-it's one of my favorite romantic performances, and I literally watch it every year at Christmas.  That she couldn't make it for either is a crime.
Chances in the Future: Doubtful-she's not famous enough anymore to get an Honorary Oscar, and she hardly works at all.  She seems to want to move into direction-maybe she'll have a knack for that?  It is how Clint Eastwood, Kevin Costner, and Mel Gibson finally started getting nominated after being skipped over for commercial acting fare.

8. Joseph Cotten

Why He Was Never Nominated: Cotten was that leading man who never really caught on as an icon, despite starring in some of the biggest films of all-time, and being a favorite of two of Hollywood's best directors (Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock).  This wasn't for a lack of talent, though, as Cotten always delivered with his characters, bringing forward complicated men who blurred the line between righteous & sinister.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Like Ann Miller, he got a spot on the Walk of Fame, but really that was it for this leading man, whose greatest trophy might be the place that Citizen Kane ended up taking in the history of the movies (not many people get to have second billing on the "greatest film of all-time").
When He Should Have Been Nominated: Citizen Kane is a perfect movie, truly one of the cinema's greatest, but Cotten's performance there isn't why he should have been nominated.  Instead, he should have been cited for his work in The Third Man, an achievement also over-shadowed by Welles (who should have made Supporting Actor that year), but Cotten himself is marvelous as the complicated, slow-march-into-hell man at the center of Harry Lime's plot.
Chances in the Future: Cotten passed away in 1994, leaving behind a laundry list of great film credits but no Oscar.

7. Oscar Isaac

Why He Was Never Nominated: His performances have so far been the right kind, wrong picture.  Isaac is emerging onto the stage of superstardom with the Star Wars franchise giving him the kind of exposure that turned Harrison Ford from a player in low-budget movies decades ago into an action superstar.  Isaac, though, seems to care a lot more about arthouse fare than Ford ever appeared to, starring in complicated movies like Inside Llewyn Davis, A Most Violent Year, and Ex Machina.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Picked up a Golden Globe for Show Me a Hero, as well as a second nomination for Llewyn Davis.  He's also won the position as my future husband, truly the greatest prize of all.
When He Should Have Been Nominated: I genuinely would have nominated him for all three of those performances.  Honestly-Isaac is such a good and exciting actor it's staggering to me he hasn't gotten more traction yet; the only reason he's not higher on this list is that he's so new to the public consciousness & that I'm sure he'll make it eventually, so I'm less perturbed than I am for the next six.  I think his best performance may well have been Ex Machina, a movie that seems destined to gain stature as the years go by, it's like a cross between Elon Musk and John Huston in Chinatown.
Chances in the Future: Solid.  Isaac is too good of an actor and working too often to stay off of Oscar's shortlist for a long.  The better question is, though, whether he is cited for work as good as what he's done before now (ala Michael Fassbender) or is eventually cited for a performance that's not nearly as fascinating (ala Andrew Garfield).

6. Peter Lorre

Why He Was Never Nominated: Lorre's that strange supporting player who never really took off in the supporting categories.  His best shot may have arguably been for his work with Humphrey Bogart in classics like The Maltese Falcon, but for some reason noir was very hit-or-miss when it came to actual acting nominations (Bogart himself was never even nominated for his work in one of these films), and his star in the 1930's wasn't strong enough to grab the Academy's attention during its formative years.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Aside from his Walk of Fame star (a gimme for major actors of his generation), Lorre's only other public honor was being nominated for the Golden Lion at Venice, but this was a director, not an actor.
When He Should Have Been Nominated: I would have cited Lorre for The Maltese Falcon, as his work as Joel Cairo was spectacular, and considering the film's Best Picture nomination, he should have joined costar Sydney Greenstreet as a nominee.  But Lorre's best performance was one of his first, as a child killer in M, a seismic achievement in acting and one of the most powerful performances of the 1930's.
Chances in the Future: Lorre died in 1964, leaving behind several film classics, the largest of being his small role as Ugarte in Casablanca.

5. Scarlett Johansson

Why She Was Never Nominated: Some of the actors on this list I'm postulating as to why they were never nominated, and would invite those who are more associated with these actors' past Oscar campaigns to weigh in, but here's a case where I'm old enough to remember why Johansson missed, and it was greed.  In 2003, ScarJo had two major roles competing for Best Actress (Girl with a Pearl Earring and Lost in Translation), and while it seemed probable that the surging LiT was the better shot at a nomination, the studios didn't want to get into each other's way and so they commit massive category fraud moving her to supporting in LiT, likely killing her traction in the race and leaving room for surprise nominees Samantha Morton and Keisha Castle-Hughes instead.  Had they just stuck with a lead campaign, I think her work for Sofia Coppola probably would have snuck her in in one of the most bizarre Best Actress fields I remember seeing.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Johansson has yet to score with Oscar, but she's a favorite of the HFPA, boasting four nominations at the Golden Globes.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: Her work in Lost in Translation remains, in my opinion, her best, and better than most of the nominees that year (and I'd even argue, the winner).  I also would have cited her for Under the Skin, a film that was never going to catch on with Oscar but was proof that a decade of lounging in bad rom-com's and action flicks didn't dim her star when it came to acting talent.
Chances in the Future: If she's going to get it, it's going to have to be soon.  She's a major star, obviously, but she's 33 now and while that's not an acting death knell for Oscar, it is a time when you need to start making your move on a trophy.  I still think she makes it at some point though-she feels too famous not to land at least once.

4. Myrna Loy

Why She Was Never Nominated: Loy's best performances were always light comedy, and she made them look incredibly easy.  While the early Academy wasn't nearly as allergic to comedy as later generations of voters, they still had a propensity to favor melodrama, which wasn't Loy's strong suit (even her best dramatic performance, in The Best Years of Our Lives, is arguably the 4th or 5th best performance in that movie).  Even so, it's a pity that one of the finest performers of the 1930's never joined women like Carole Lombard or Jean Arthur with at least one nomination.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Loy actually does have an Oscar even if she never won a nomination, due to an Honorary trophy she won at the 63rd Academy Awards.  Her victory was actually a result over an uproar when Sophia Loren, who already had a trophy, picked up a statue despite numerous longtime performers like Myrna Loy who had never won an Oscar.  The Academy agreed with those complaining and gave them both statues.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: It seems truly bizarre to me, even in a year where Best Actress was pretty competitive (just ask Bette Davis!) that Loy couldn't get in for her pitch-perfect work in The Thin Man while her leading man William Powell was included.  This would have been the perfect moment to cite her gifts.
Chances in the Future: Thankfully Loy won as a result of that petition, as she would die just two years later.

3. Edward G. Robinson

Why He Was Never Nominated: For the most part, Robinson's career as a leading man wasn't in the sorts of films that won Oscars, but instead just made oodles of money.  Though longtime player as a tough-guy gangster in pictures like Little Caesar and Kid Galahad, he was apparently a kind and sensitive man off-screen (who fell victim to the McCarthy-era political climate when he was forced to name names before HUAC), his tough guy exterior and the public demand for it meant that he only occasionally did the sort of movies that AMPAS loves, even though he was always a deeply-talented actor.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Robinson won an Honorary Oscar in 1973 for his lifetime of movie-making, as well as the SAG Life Achievement Award in 1970.  He also won the Best Actor prize from both the National Board of Review (for Tales of Manhattan) and the Cannes Best Actor prize (for House of Strangers).
When She Should Have Been Nominated: Robinson not being nominated for his spectacular work in Double Indemnity is, in my opinion, one of the biggest snubs in Supporting Actor Oscar history.  It would have been such a fine time to honor a man who had made most of Hollywood rich, and it's easily his best performance.  A crime.
Chances in the Future: Robinson sadly died in 1973, two months before he was able to win his Academy Award.

2. Mia Farrow

Why She Was Never Nominated: Mia Farrow's lack of a nomination is more perplexing than literally any other person on this list.  It's hard to understand right now (Farrow has become synonymous with her ex-partner Woody Allen and their decades-long public feud more than her actual career as a performer at this point), but Farrow was a major star in Hollywood for decades, and starred in a number of classic pictures.  Plus, Allen has a gift for getting actresses nominated for an Oscar like few others, and Farrow has starred in more of Woody's movies than literally any other actor (and she was the lead in most of them).  All-in-all, I have no explanation other than bad luck.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Farrow won the Golden Globe for Best Newcomer in 1965, and during her career would win 9 nominations from the HFPA, five of which were for individual film performances.  She was also nominated for the BAFTA three times.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: This is where I have to admit that I'm not as familiar with Allen's filmography during the Mia Years as I am pre and post that time period (it's an issue I'm hoping to rectify), though I've heard The Purple Rose of Cairo and Broadway Danny Rose are the standouts.  What I CAN vouch for is that Farrow surely deserved a nomination for her brilliant work in Rosemary's Baby, which even in the standout 1968 lineup deserved mention.
Chances in the Future: Doubtful.  Farrow would make a worthy recipient of the Honorary Oscar or the Jean Hersholt, but Hollywood seems to want to forget the entire Woody/Mia feud, and unlike Woody, Mia would probably show up to grab her Oscar and remind them of it.

1. Rita Hayworth

Why She Was Never Nominated: How do you pick the most Oscar-worthy actor ever who's never won a nomination?  Simple-you pick a woman who deserved two trophies and yet wasn't nominated for any.  Hayworth was insanely beautiful and took on glam-doll roles, but Oscar has proven in the past to be fine with giving beautiful women Academy Awards without issue.  Why it was that Hayworth, a box office star who regularly worked with serious directors, couldn't get this nomination is beyond me.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Hayworth would be named one of the 25 Greatest Actresses of All-Time by the American Film Institute (a posthumous honor, but still), and would be nominated for the Golden Globe one time, for the dramatic western Circus World with John Wayne & Claudia Cardinale.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: 1946 and 1947.  I admittedly still have a few performances before I say this officially (and YEARS until we tackle these in the OVP, unfortunately), but I feel absolutely confident that Hayworth would have gotten nominations from me for Gilda and The Lady from Shanghai, polar opposite roles that bring out her best traits as an actress.  Give or take Celia Johnson in Brief Encounter and Gloria Grahame in Crossfire, they may well be the best performances given by a woman in either of those years, regardless of category. That she missed for both-I just can't stand it.
Chances in the Future: Hayworth died in 1987 at the sadly young age of 67.

Those are my list-how about yours?  I know you have quibbles or people you can throw "but what about..." at me, so let's have it.  And which of these do you think was the biggest snub or has the best shot in the future (my money's on Oscar Isaac)?  Share below!

OVP: Small Town Girl (1953)

Film: Small Town Girl (1953)
Stars: Jane Powell, Farley Granger, Ann Miller, S.Z. Sakall, Robert Keith, Bobby Van, Billie Burke
Director: Laszlo Kardos
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Song-"My Flaming Heart")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

With the Oscar Viewing Project, frequently I find myself stumbling across films that I have never even heard of, even with spending most of my life perusing the annals of movie history, and it's always something I find as kind of a delight.  I genuinely love movies (regardless of the era) and would happily watch one every day until the day I leave this earth without any qualms or worries about boredom.  As a result, I occasionally go on a bit of a binge, and did that this weekend watching four, and am already itching to start a fifth this evening before going into a pantheon of Olympics.  Before I get there, though, I want to talk about the sweet, lovely Small Town Girl which I caught Sunday afternoon.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is something of a trifle, one of those below-the-line type films that major stars like Jane Powell seemed to churn out at a staggering pace during the 1950's.  She stars as Cindy, the daughter of the local judge (Keith) who has sentenced the handsome playboy Rick (Granger) to thirty days in jail for speeding through town with his Broadway star girlfriend Lisa Bellmount (Miller).  While in town, Rick begins to find the country life quaint, and after nearly freezing Cindy to death in a coat closet (long story), he falls in love with her on a Manhattan night out, eventually breaking her from her boyfriend Ludwig (Van) who is happily pursuing stardom, and it's implied, Lisa, and they fall madly in love all while finding a few moments for singing and hoofing.

It's not a difficult-to-predict plotline, of course, and there's nothing here that's intensely groundbreaking, but the movie is innocent fun.  For those who are seeing his name on a musical, yes, Farley Granger does sing, but he isn't particularly strong at it and all of the actual musical numbers are done by Powell, Van, and Miller.  His principle role here is to be devastatingly handsome (he is, and is one of those guys that would still be considered handsome even by modern standards) and kind of a cad, and he relishes in both, while Powell is saintly with spunk, and since that's pretty much the description of every Jane Powell role, she holds up admirably.  My favorite parts were the two supporting lovers, but mostly because I have a joyous and undying love for Ann Miller (literally my favorite moment in any musical's opening credits is when I see Miller's name, as I know I'm going to like it), and Bobby Van is wonderfully charming as a Broadway-loving beau.  This film features the most famous moment of Van's career, where he acrobatically hops through town for four straight minutes, jumping repeatedly.  It's wildly entertaining even if it sounds a bit loopy, and worth catching on YouTube even if you can't get access to the picture.

The film only received one Oscar nomination, one of those random Best Song citations, and it's completely outside the tone of the film and really feels oddly more-suited for another film.  The song, sung by Nat King Cole in a cameo in the picture, is a marvelous piece of music.  It's rich, lovely, and perfectly-suited for Cole's love-lost vocals, but it's completely alien to the rest of the picture.  The film is a lighthearted musical comedy, and this is a song that you sing to Celia Johnson while she's contemplating a love affair, not while two young paramours are on a first date in the city.  Half of me thought that they must have had Cole under contract or the studio had this piece of music and wanted to profit off of it as a single, but it feels very out-of-place in the film.  If we were judging solely based on the merits of the song I'd give it five stars (I'm buying it on iTunes right now), but as it pulls me almost entirely out of the picture, I have to dock some of that Oscar love.

Still, it's a fun little picture, one I wouldn't have seen without the OVP so once again the breadth of this endeavor is rewarded.  If you've seen the film, what are your thoughts?  Were you equally charmed by Van and Miller, or were you all about our principle leads?  Did you like "My Flaming Heart" or find it an unusual detour?  And just in general-what's your favorite Jane Powell musical?  Share in the comments!

OVP: Kiss Me Kate (1953)

Film: Kiss Me Kate (1953)
Stars: Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel, Ann Miller, Tommy Rall, Keenan Wynn, James Whitmore, Bob Fosse
Director: George Sidney
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Scoring of a Musical)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Occasionally I watch movies and I wonder what the casting director was thinking.  I look and see the supporting players and compare them to the actual leads and wonder at what point the director realized that they had made a mistake with the casting and should have gone in a different direction.  This was my reaction to the charming but uneven Kiss Me Kate, a musical from the mind of Cole Porter (so you know you're in for some quality there) that occasionally veers into sheer brilliance but mostly just muddles along in a series of dated attitudes toward women and toward the vanity of actors.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is about a pair of former paramours Lilli (Grayson) and Fred (Keel) who are brought together in a musical version of The Taming of the Shrew, which is partially what Kiss Me Kate is (for a 1950's musical, it's meta to the highest-order).  The film unfolds with them having a story offscreen while also telling the story onscreen and the story offscreen mirrors the story onscreen...it sounds confusing but it's not when you actually watch it.

The plot itself is incredibly fun, if occasionally a bit sexist (the scene of Keel spanking Grayson on stage made me wildly uncomfortable).  I am a fan of older musicals in general, and so I eat up the lack of plot (there's so many of them running around) and the random series of misunderstandings even if they would never happen that way in real life.  The film, though, is too reliant on the questionable comedic talents of the stars.  This is my first real introduction to Kathryn Grayson as a leading woman, and I have to say I'm not impressed.  While her voice is insane (I love that we used to have straight up opera singers in movies-someone call Renee Fleming's agent), her acting is wooden and stiff.  I think that everyone sort of loved the gameness that she brought at the time, since it was out-of-character for her specifically, but not being familiar with her she feels way too stiff here.

Keel, on the other hand, I've seen in numerous movies, but he always plays the same character and doesn't have the great sense to choose particularly compelling costars like Cary Grant did when he kept playing Cary Grant.  Keel's chauvinism and machismo doesn't play as well today as it did then, partially because standards of male beauty have changed through the years, and today the Brawny-paper towel appeal that Keel's broad shoulders exudes doesn't click as well.  It's harder to tell why women keep throwing themselves at him despite his resonant basso cantante being an admittedly attractive trait.  These styles of musicals, though, don't echo as well and their voices seem more suited for a Broadway or opera stage than the movies-we don't get the far more pleasurable jazzy musical numbers that someone like Rita Moreno or Gwen Verdon would soon make popular.

This is why I think the casting director may have looked back on the charmless lack of chemistry between the two leads and wondered why Ann Miller and Tommy Rall couldn't have been out in front.  Ann Miller has never been better than she is in the role of Lois Lane (a marvelous moniker, I must admit), a randy dancer who is constantly in the arms of her beau Bill (Rall) but also ends up charming other fellas as well.  Miller's dancing is perfection here-she's so well-known for her hoofing abilities that you almost would be forgiven for not being aware of flawless comic timing and fun, brassy vocals).  All-in-all, the film dies whenever she's not onscreen, and she's at her best when paired with Tommy Rall.  Rall, known for roles in films like Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, is insanely fun and sexy as one of her suitors, and also dances with great aplomb.  Also, and it has to be said, but his costume of pink tights may be the most revealing outfit I've ever seen in a movie from the 1950's (think Billy Magnussen's leather pants in Into the Woods), and probably taught a generation of young gays, headed to this for the outfits and the musical numbers, that they were leaning toward the fellas.

The film received a nomination for Best Scoring, and like the rest of the movie, this is a split, as the numbers featuring Grayson and Keel fall flat and are unmemorable, while the brilliant "Too Darn Hot" (Miller) and "Always True to You in My Fashion" (Miller/Rall) hum off the screen and are wildly addictive in terms of singing them the next day.  It's also worth noting that the dancing overpowers the singing in all cases, particularly the ballet number late in the film that is danced and performed by Bob Fosse (this movie was a big break in his career).  All-in-all, it's a tough bill when you have films like Calamity Jane and The Band Wagon as competition, but Kiss Me Kate at least earns its spot at the door.

Those are my thoughts on this musical (which, despite its difficulty in finding on DVD, many of you have likely heard of and perhaps even seen), what are yours?  Do you agree with me that this is the Miller and Rall show, and not the Grayson/Keel hour?  Do you have a favorite Cole Porter musical, or a favorite 1953 musical?  And did anyone else have a similar reaction to Tommy Rall's pants?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

The Opposite Sex (1956)

Film: The Opposite Sex (1956)
Stars: June Allyson, Joan Collins, Dolores Gray, Jeff Richards, Ann Sheridan, Ann Miller, Leslie Nielsen, Agnes Moorehead, Joan Blondell, Carolyn Jones
Director: David Miller
Oscar History: None to speak of, but you just know they were close, considering the film received a Best Comedy/Musical Picture nomination from the Golden Globes and 10-time Oscar nominee Helen Rose did the costumes
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Do you ever have that moment when you're flipping through the channels, waiting for something to speak to you, and suddenly, there it is, a Turner Classic Movies commercial break?  My stomach lifts, and I don't dare hit the "Guide" button on the television, as I am so excited to see what film is about to grace my living room.  Maybe I'll watch it, maybe I won't, but I suddenly have the opportunity to watch a movie from start-to-finish as it airs live on television.  I found myself there this morning, and before I knew it, I had watched all of The Opposite Sex.

I am a little embarrassed to say how long it took me to realize that this was a musical-version of The Women, the classic 1939 tale of comedic bitchiness that you simply must investigate (it stars a Many Rantings favorite, Joan Crawford with one of her arch-rivals, Norma Shearer).  Let's just say it took until they went to Reno before it started to sink in, which is at least half of the movie.  This film doesn't boast quite that iconic talent, but it isn't missing star power when you have a cast list that features June Allyson and Joan Collins in the lead roles.  Unlike the 1939 original, Sex does in-fact have men featured onscreen, though they're more props (the hunktastic Richards) or dopes (the "I'll-go-where-you're-leading-me" Nielsen) than anything else.

For those not familiar with the original or the awful Meg Ryan-remake, the story is about a gaggle of women who gossip about their friends, and in particular, Allyson's Kay, whose husband (Nielsen) has cheated with Collins' Crystal.  Allyson is told of this news by her frenemy Sylvia (well-played by the glamorous Dolores Gray), and bitchy madness ensues as the women exchange men and barbs with a frenetic speed.  For any actressexual, it's a necessary viewing and you'l find yourself falling all over one character or another.  The ones that spoke most to me were Gray, the eternally pregnant Blondell, and in an extremely bit role Carolyn Jones (who, like she did in The Bachelor Party, makes the most of a small part).

I can't say that I loved either of the two leads, both ladies having names I'm more familiar with than their filmographies.  June Allyson is a star whose face I could have attributed to any number of other actors prior to this, and whose husky voice and onscreen demeanor are both traits to admire and pursue in other films, even if I thought her mousy character was a bit too wimpy for the lioness's den of women that she's dealing with; additionally, Collins, who has curves like the Indy Speedway, is fun to watch vamp it up, but also seems a bit out-of-her-element when she is trying to act sweet-it's hard to believe anyone couldn't see right through her.  And though this is a musical, it doesn't boast a lot of music-the only numbers come from Allyson (who is dubbed in one of her numbers despite her wheelhouse including an excellent singing voice) and two bizarre musical numbers from "guest stars" to the movie.  This is particularly upsetting when you consider that Ann Miller of all people is in this cast and never once taps, shakes, or croons, and that the musical is made from the greatest studio to ever churn out the song-and-dance routine, MGM.

There's more I could delve into (how much do you love Agnes Moorehead and how weird does Leslie Nielsen look before his prematurely grey/white hair set in?), but I want to hear from you.  What did you think of The Opposite Sex, and where does it rank in your personal rankings of the multiple Women films?  Did you have a best in show?  And with Allyson and Collins-what would you recommend I look into first to get the best showcase of their talents?