Philip Marlowe in Murder, My Sweet (1944)

When members of the general public think of hard boiled detectives in film, it is most likely Humphrey Bogart who comes to mind. After all, Mr. Bogart played Dashiell Hammett's Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon (1941) and Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe in The Big Sleep (1946). While the general public probably identifies Humphrey Bogart with the hardboiled detective genre more than any other actor, however, classic film buffs know better. Other actors than Humphrey Bogart and other films than The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep have made important contributions to the genre. Indeed, the 1944 film Murder, My Sweet, featuring Dick Powell as Philip Marlowe,  is every big as important to the development of the hardboiled detective films as The Maltese Falcon and may be more important than The Big Sleep. Murder, My Sweet would also play an important role in the development of film noir.

Murder, My Sweet was based on Raymond Chandler's second novel, Farewell, My Lovely, published in 1940. It was  also the second novel to feature the world weary, cynical, and yet intellectual detective Philip Marlowe (The Big Sleep, published in 1939, had been the first). While Farewell, My Lovely is now one of Raymond Chandler's best known works, it initially sold only a meagre 2,900 copies. RKO bought the film rights to the novel for only $2000 and with no intention of adapting it as a "Philip Marlowe" film. Instead RKO very loosely adapted Farewell, My Lovely as part of their "Falcon" series. The film, titled The Falcon Takes Over (1942), then featured The Falcon (played by George Sanders) rather than Philip Marlowe as the main character.

Fortunately events would unfold that would lead to a more faithful film adaptation of Farewell, My Lovely in the form of Murder, My Sweet. As World War II progressed the sales of Raymond Chanlder's novels began to improve. It was around this time that producer Adrian Scott ran upon the novel Farewell, My Lovely among RKO's various properties. Given that The Falcon Takes Over bore only a superficial resemblance to the actual novel (indeed, The Falcon himself resembled Ellery Queen or Philo Vance more than Philip Marlowe), Adrian Scott thought a more faithful adaptation of the novel could be a success. Adrian Scott brought screenwriter John Paxton on board to adapt Farewell, My Lovely as a screenplay. Edward Dmytryk, who had previously worked primarily on B movies, was hired as the film's director.

 The role of Philip Marlowe would be filled by an actor whose casting probably took both Hollywood and viewers by surprise. Dick Powell was best known as the romantic leading man in a series of musicals that spanned from the Thirties to the Forties. He had left Warner Brothers for Paramount in hope of getting more varied roles, only to find himself once more stuck in musicals. He even campaigned for the role of insurance investigator Walter Neff in 1944's Double Indemnity (ultimately played by comic actor Fred MacMurray) to no avail. When RKO's president Charles Koerner wanted to hire Dick Powell for a series of musicals, then, the actor signed with the studio on the condition that he played Philip Marlowe in the upcoming film adaptation of Farewell, My Loveliy. With Murder, My Sweet, then, Dick Powell made film history as the first actor to ever portray Philip Marlowe on the big screen.

While the casting of Dick Powell as Philip Marlowe may have been a surprise to the film industry and audiences at the time, the other characters would be played by actors one would expect to find in such roles. Claire Trevor, who had played an array of women of questionable morals over the year, was cast as the femme fatale Velma Valento. Anne Shirley, who had generally played a succession of "good girls", was cast as heiress Ann Grayle, a virtuous counterpoint to Velma. The somewhat slow witted thug Moose Mallory was played by Mike Mazurki. While he had only been acting since 1941, the towering Mr. Mazurki (he stood 6' 5") was already typecast in such roles.

Murder, My Sweet premiered on 18 December 1944 in Minneapolis under the title Farewell, My Lovely. Unfortunately it seemed audiences thought that Farewell, My Lovely was yet another Dick Powell musical and as a result they stayed away. RKO then changed the title to Murder, My Sweet, leaving no doubt that the film was not a musical. Ultimately Murder, My Sweet would prove to be very successful. What is more it would have an impact. Its most immediate impact may have been on Dick Powell's career. Once typecast as a star of light musicals, Dick Powell was cast in further "tough guy" roles in such films as Cornered (1945), Johnny O'Clock (1947), and Cry Danger (1951). On radio he played the lead on the show Richard Diamond, Private Detective.

Murder, My Sweet would also have a lasting impact on Raymond Chandler's popularity. While sales of his books had been growing during World War II, it was arguably the success of Murder, My Sweet that would turn Mr. Chandler into a best selling author and, short of Dashiell Hammett, the best known writer of hardboiled detective fiction. While The Big Sleep (1946) starring Humphrey Bogart was roughly in production at the same time as Murder, My Sweet (Warner Brothers delayed the release of The Big Sleep to 1946), there can be little doubt that the success of Murder, My Sweet would help it at the box office. The success of Murder, My Sweet would also lead to further Philip Marlowe films: Lady in the Lake starring Robert Montgomery as Marlowe and The Brasher Doubloon starring George Montgomery as Marlowe, both from 1947.

There would also be two radio shows featuring Philip Marlowe. The New Adventures Of Philip Marlowe, starring Van Helfin in the role, lasted only a few months on CBS in 1947. The Adventures of Philip Marlowe, starring Gerald Mohr in the role, proved more successful. It ran from 1948 to 1951 on NBC. Dick Powell, who had originated the role of Philip Marlowe on film, would also be the first actor to play the detective on television. On 7 October 1954 Climax aired an adaptation of The Long Goodbye starring Mr. Powell.

Of course, the most lasting impact of Murder, My Sweet may have been on the nascent genre of film noir. Indeed, Murder, My Sweet features a number of characteristics associated with the genre. Philip Marlowe and his cynical view of the world has provided the blueprint for film noir protagonists ever since. The milieu of Murder, My Sweet would also serve as a template for future films noirs. The world of Murder, My Sweet is a dangerous one, filled with corruption and betrayal. It is a world where it is difficult to know whom to trust. Even the photography of Murder, My Sweet would have a lasting impact on films noirs. Shot in stark black and white, maximum use was made of shadows on Murder, My Sweet, shadows that were in perfect keeping with the darker aspects of Philip Marlowe's world.

While Dick Powell was the first actor to ever portray Philip Marlowe on film, there has always been a small degree of debate over his performance in the role. There are those who argue that Mr. Powell's Marlowe is too light hearted. What many overlook is that Philip Marlowe was not simply a brute with a streak of cynicism. He was a thinking man who enjoyed nothing more than a game of chess and enjoys both whiskey and brandy. Even more than Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep (who did very well in the role), Dick Powell brings out the intellectual side of Marlowe. Dick Powell's Philip Marlowe is a thoughtful, even idealistic man whose toughness is a shield against a world that has consistently let him down. Like the literary Marlowe, Dick Powell's Marlowe is a man whose wisecracks and drinking hide the more philosophical and even gentle man underneath.

Ultimately Murder, My Sweet must be considered one of the most pivotal films in the history of both hardboiled detectives and film noir. At the very least it marked the first appearance of Philip Marlowe on film. It would also entirely alter the course of Dick Powell's career, transforming him from a song and dance man to a star of films noirs. Murder, My Sweet would also help increase the popularity of Raymond Chandler to the point that he is the best known writer of hardboiled detective fiction besides Dashiell Hammett. Finally it would have a lasting impact on film noir, from its stark black and white photography to its convoluted plot to its potrrayal of a world filled with corruption.

Godspeed Alain Resnais

Legendary French filmmaker Alain Resnais died on 1 March 2014 at the age of 91.

Alain Resnais was born on 3 June 1922 in Vannes, Morbihan, Brittany, France. As a child he was a voracious reader, reading everything from classic literature to comic strips (a particular favourite being Milton Caniff's Terry & the Pirates). As a boy he also developed an interest in the cinema. For his twelfth birthday he was given an 8mm film camera, with which he began to make his own movies. He was only 14 when he made his first film, L’Aventure de Guy (which is sadly lost). When he was 17 he went to Paris with the intent of becoming an actor. He studied acting at the Cours René-Simon. When L’Institut des Hautes Études Cinématographiques, France's first film school, was founded in 1943, Mr. Resnais enrolled there. He became part of the school's first graduating class.

It was in 1946 that he directed his first feature film as an adult, Ouvert pour cause d'inventaire. It was in the Fifties that Alain Resnais hit his stride, making such films as the documentary "Nuit et brouillard" (1955--"Night and Fog") and the Oscar nominated Hiroshima Mon Amour. He would see more success in the Sixties with such films as L'année dernière à Marienbad (1961--Last Year at Marienbad), Muriel ou Le temps d'un retour (1963--Muriel, or The Time of Return), and Je t’Aime Je t’Aime (1968). Over the years he would make several more remarkable films, including Stavisky (1974), Providence (1977), Mon oncle d'Amérique (1980), La vie est un roman (1983),  I Want to Go Home (1989), and Smoking/No Smoking (1993).

Among French filmmakers of his generation, Alain Resnais was unique. While Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut looked to American and British films for inspiration, Alain Resnais took inspiration. Indeed, in many respects his films could be considered the cinematic equivalent of the literary nouveau roman movement. Indeed, Mr. Resnais worked with noveau roman writers Marguerite Duras (who wrote the screenplay for Hiroshima Mon Amour) and Alain Robbe-Grillet (who wrote the screenplay for L'année dernière à Marienbad).

Of course, arguably contemporary director Éric Rohmer was also inspired by literature. What set Alain Resnais apart from Mr. Rohmer is that while Mr. Rohmer's films were often fairly straightforward, Mr. Resnais' films often were not. In the hands of Alan Resnais time and memory were malleable things. Not only were flashbacks a feature of many of his films, but so were what can only be described as "flashfowards"--scenes set in the future. At the same time Alain Resnais' films were often touched by imagination, fantasy, and outright surrealism. In many ways his films were much more about the subjective reality experienced by human beings within their own heads than any sort of objective reality.

There should be little wonder why Alain Resnais was a legendary filmmaker. He was a director of great skill who was not afraid to experiment. What is more, he was very versatile. He could make everything from documentaries (Night and Fog remains one of the greatest documentaries of all time) to comedies (I Want to Go Home, with a script by cartoonist Jules Feiffer). What is more, he was entirely singular as a director. No one made movies like Alain Resnais.

Godspeed Film Trailer Voice Artist Hal Douglas

Hal Douglas, a voice artist well known for his voice overs of film trailers, died on 7 March 2014 at the age of 89. The cause was complications from pancreatic cancer. Alongside Don LaFontanie and Don Morrow, he was among the best known voice-over men in the industry.

Hal Douglas was born Harold Cone on 1 September 1924 in Stamford, Connecticut. His mother died when he was only 9 years old and as a result he was raised by his maternal grandparents. During World War II he served as a pilot in the United States Navy.  Following the war he attended the University of Miami where he majored in acting.

It was after he left college that he began work a television and radio announcer. He moved from announcing on TV and radio to producing television commercials for the Madison Avenue advertising agencies. After around ten years in advertising he returned to working as a voice artist. Over the years Mr. Douglas would narrate thousands of movie trailers, although he also did voice over work in other media. He did thousands of commercials, as well as promos for television shows and commercials for stage plays. Among the trailers he narrated were Philadelphia, Con Air, Forrest Gump, and Men in Black. Among the cable channels for whom he narrated promos were A&E, the Disney Channel, HBO, and the History Channel, as well as the now defunct broadcast network the WB. He narrated commercials for such companies as Chevrolet, Mercedes-Benz, and Trojan. He also narrated the film Waterworld (1995).

Hal Douglas appeared in the  trailer for Jerry Seinfeld's documentary Comedian (2002), parodying the various cliché phrases of film trailers ("in a world...," When your life is no longer your own . . .," “When everything you know is wrong . . .," and so on). Like Don LaFontaine, Hal Douglas was identified with the phrase "in a world", and it has been a matter of debate as to which one actually coined the phrase.

There was a good reason that Hal Douglas was one of the top voice-over men in the business. His voice was absolutely massive, and could quite easily fill a room. At the same Mr. Douglas' voice had considerable range. He could do nearly any sort of trailer given to him, using a more booming voice for action films, a lighter voice for family films, and a more whimsical tone for comedies. What his more he was not limited in the emotions he could evoke in a trailer, everything from horror to humour. He also had perfect timing. In many respects Hal Douglas had the ideal voice for film trailers, so that there should be little wonder as to why he was one of the best in the business.

Sheila MacRae Passes On

Actress, singer, and dancer Sheila MacRae died on 6 March 2012 at the age of 92.

Sheila MacRae was born Sheila Stephens in London on 24 September 1921. In 1939 her family left England for Long Island, New York. It was in 1941 that she married actor and singer Gordon MacRae. The two of them would become a team, performing on stage and on television in the Fifties and Sixties. Mrs McRae made her film debut in the film Backfire in 1950 under her maiden name Sheila Stephens. The same year she appeared in Caged (1950) and Pretty Baby (1950).She went onto appear in the film Katie Did It (1951). She made her television debut in an episode of Hollywood Opening Night in 1953. In the Fifties she appeared on such shows as The Jackie Gleason Show, I Love Lucy (in the famous episode "Fashion Show"), Lux Video Theatre, The Dinah Shore Chevy Show, The Garry Moore Show, and Here's Hollywood.

In the Sixties she assumed the role of Alice Kramden in the "Honeymooners" sketches on The Jackie Gleason Show. She also appeared on such shows as The Red Skelton Show, The Bell Telephone Hour, Tonight Starring Jack Paar, To Tell The Truth, The Jack Paar Programme, The Man From U.N.C.L.E., The Ed Sullivan Show, The Sammy Davis Jr. Show, The Dean Martin Comedy Hour, The Trials of O'Brien, and What's My Line. She appeared in the films Bikini Beach (1964) and How to Stuff a Wild Bikini (1965).  She appeared on Broadway in a revival of Guys and Dolls.

In the Seventies Sheila MacRae had her own short lived show, The Sheila MacRae Show, alongside her daughters Heather and Meredith. She also appeared on such shows as The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, The Mike Douglas Show, The Dean Martin Celebrity Roast, and The Love Boat. She appeared on Broadway in Absurd Person Singular.

From the Eighties to the Nineties she appeared in the films as The Naked Cage (1986) and The Perils of P.K. (1986). She was a regular on the short-lived 1990-1991 show Parenthood. She also appeared on such shows as Search for Tomorrow, General Hospital, Vicki, and Murder, She Wrote.She toured with her own show, An Evening with Sheila MacRae.

Sheila MacRae was an extremely talented woman. She was a gifted singer and skilled in dancing as well. She was also a very good actress when it came to comedy. Her timing was perfect and she could deliver a line as well as any stand up comedian. Indeed, among her many skills was that of celebrity impressions. Sheila MacRae was one of those rare people with multiple talents. What is more, she was extraordinarily gifted in all of them. There should be little wonder, then,  that she appeared in so many media (stage, film, television).

NBC's Thursday Night Problem

There was a time when Thursday night belonged to NBC. For a portion of the Eighties all four of the network's sitcoms that aired on the night (The Cosby Show, Family Ties, Cheers, and Night Court) ranked in the top ten shows for the year according to ACNielsen. In the Nineties NBC continued to dominate the night with such hits as Friends and Seinfeld. Sadly, the 21st Century has not been kind to NBC on Thursday nights. For much of the Naughts and the entirely of the Teens the network has regularly found itself beaten on the night it once owned.

Sadly for NBC, their losing streak on Thursday nights has continued this season. Their comedy scheduled at 8:30PM Eastern/7:30PM Central this fall, Welcome to the Family, was more or less dead on arrival. It did so poorly in the ratings that the network cancelled it after three episodes. Their shows at 9:00PM Eastern/8:00 PM Central and 9:30PM Eastern/8:30PM Central didn't do much better. Sean Saves the World and The Michael J. Fox Show both consistently did poorly in the ratings. Sean Saves the World was cancelled on 28 February 2014. Things aren't much better for The Michael J. Fox Show. In February NBC announced The Michael J. Fox Show would not return after the Winter Olympics and would not air again until April. What must make all of this even more depressing for NBC is that they faced weaker competition on CBS than they had in previous years. Both The Crazy Ones and Two and a Half Men have been drawing lower ratings than Person of Interest had in the same time slot.

Sadly for the Peacock Network, the failures of Welcome to the Family, Sean Saves the World, and The Michael J. Fox Show have been typical of their shows on Thursday night of late. Since 2009 only two shows on NBC's Thursday night line up have lasted more than two seasons: Community and Parks and Recreation. Indeed, the lifespan of some of NBC's Thursday night comedies can be numbered in mere weeks. During the 2010-2011 season Perfect Couples only lasted for eleven episodes (with two more made available on Hulu). Its replacement, The Paul Reiser Show, did even worse. It was cancelled after only two episodes. Other shows that NBC has aired on Thursday night have only done a little better. Outsourced lasted one season. Both Up All Night and Whitney lasted only a little over a season.

Of course, the question is "Why has NBC done so badly of late on a night they once dominated?" Part of the reason may be that since 2009 the network has consistently debuted weak shows on the night. Up All Night had a good cast (Christina Applegate, Will Arnett, and Maya Rudolph), but its scripts were consistently poorly written and extremely unfunny. Whitney had two strong leads (Whitney Cummings and Chris D'Elia), but its feeble supporting characters dragged the show down. The Paul Reiser Show amounted to little more than a very poorly done imitation of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Despite a good cast Perfect Couples simply wasn't funny. With shows that were not particularly funny and, in some cases, not even particularly original, it should be little wonder that NBC would do poorly in the ratings.

To make matters worse the past several years NBC has consistently treated its few strong shows on Thursday night as odd men out. In its third season NBC did not debut Parks and Recreation until mid-season. NBC did the same thing with Community in both its fourth and its current fifth seasons. Both Parks and Recreation and Community have consistently performed better than the new shows NBC has debuted in their wakes. They also have fiercely loyal followings who are guaranteed to watch them each week (indeed, there was an uproar when fans found out Community would begin its fourth season until mid-season). It is then curious that the network has at times scheduled them so strangely. One has to wonder if NBC would not do better on Thursday nights if they would only debut both shows at the start of the season in September.

Of course, Community and Parks and Recreation aren't the only strong shows that NBC has scheduled wrongly. Unlike many of the sitcoms that have aired on NBC on Thursday mights, The Michael J. Fox Show has a particularly strong cast (including Michael J. Fox and Wendell Pierce). It is also a very funny, well written show. Unfortunately, NBC decided to schedule it at 9:30PM Eastern/8:30PM Central following the much weaker Sean Saves the World. While Sean Saves the World was not necessarily a bad show (it was much better than either Up All Night or The Paul Reiser Show at any rate), it wasn't a particularly good show either. I have to suspect many viewers opted to watch The Crazy Ones on CBS instead and did not bother to switch the channel back to NBC to watch The Michael J. Fox Show. Had The Micahel J. Fox Show been scheduled at 9:00PM Eastern/8:00PM Central, it might have done much better in the ratings.

In the end the path NBC should take with its Thursday night comedies seems fairly clear to me. The network has already renewed Parks and Recreation. They should also renew Community and The Michael J. Fox Show. What is more they should also debut all three shows in September for the 2014-2015 season. As to the fourth, new sitcom they air on Thursday nights in the 2014-2015 season, they should make sure that it not only has a strong cast, but that it also has strong scripts. It takes more than actors to make a successful sitcom. It takes good writing as well. Now I can't say that NBC will once more dominate Thursday nights with that line up. In fact, I suspect they could still well lose the night to CBS and at least part of it to ABC. That having been said, I think NBC would do better than they have the past few years.

The 86th Academy Awards

Watching the Oscar ceremony is a bit of a tradition for me. I watched it as a child with my parents when I was growing up. When I got older I watched it with my late best friend or, if we could not watch it together, my best friend and I would talk about the ceremony on the phone afterwards. Even though I didn't see any of the nominated films this year, I then watched the 86th Academy Awards ceremony as I always do.

Of course, not having seen any of the nominated films this year I really do not have an opinion on who won or who should have won. And from the buzz I heard from various web sites, news outlets, and my fellow film buffs I cannot say that there were very many surprises with regards to the Oscars. In fact, I can only think of one. Given all the talk about 12 Years a Slave, I fully expected Steve McQueen to walk away with the Oscar for Best Director. I was then a bit surprised to see Alfonso Cuarón win.

While I did not see any of the nominated films this year (the economy has forced me to cut back on how many times I visit the cinema), I did hear all but one of the songs nominated for Best Original Song. I was hoping that either "Ordinary Love" by U2 (from Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom) or "The Moon Song" by Karen O (from Her) would win. I was hoping that "Happy" by Pharrell Williams would not (in fact, I cannot understand how it was even nominated--I find the song incredibly annoying). As it turned out the one song I had not yet heard, "Let It Go" from Frozen, took the award. Having heard "Let It Go" for the first time last night, I have to say I was disappointed that neither "Ordinary Love" or "The Moon Song" won. "Let It Go" is not a bad song per se, but it seems terribly repetitive and not particularly original to me. In fact, I would class it with a number of other songs under the heading Generic Song from a Disney Animated Feature.

Of course, while I do not have an opinion on the various winners, I do have an opinion on the ceremony itself. Over all I thought the 86th Academy Awards ceremony was more entertaining than most. It was good to see Ellen DeGeneres back, and I thought she did a good job over all. Both the first time she hosted and this time Miss DeGeneres impressed me as something like the average person would be at the Oscars--a little bowled over by the stars and the spectacle of it all. At the same time, however, she seems very comfortable with the Hollywood elite to the point that she can joke around with them comfortably. Indeed, I think Ellen DeGeneres' selfie with everyone from Jennifer Lawrence to Brad Pitt was a stroke of genius. Not only was it very funny, but it strikes me as the sort of thing an average person would want to do in a room full of stars. As to the selfie itself, it became the most retweeted selfie of all time, with  871,000 in its first hour alone. Eventually Ellen's selfie even broke the Twitter website (although Twitter was still accessible from such clients as HootSutie and Tweetbot).

Over all I only have two criticisms with regards to Ellen DeGeners' hosting. The first is that I thought her joke about Liza Minnelli's expense was in poor taste. That having been said, Miss Minnelli's half-sister Lorna Luft seemed to think it was funny and Miss Minnelli herself seemed to take it all in stride.   The second is that while Ellen DeGeneres was funny as usual, at times it did seem that she lacked focus. Of course, this is a criticism that could be directed at the vast majority of Oscar hosts over the past twenty years.

While I thought that over all Ellen DeGeneres did a good job as the host of the Oscars, I was a bit disappointed in the clips they showed this year. The theme of last night's ceremony was heroes, so the clips shown centred upon that. Sadly, as has been the case the past many years, it seemed as if most of the clips were from recent films rather than the classics. The only older films to appear in the clip for "animated heroes" were all from Disney. As strange as it sounds, they did not show even one clip from a Warner Brothers cartoon, despite the fact that Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and the other Warner characters are probably still the most famous animated characters in the world. The clips for live-action heroes showed a similar bias. In fact, the only black and white films featured in the clips for live action heroes were from Casablanca and It's a Wonderful Life. I think I can speak for classic film buffs and film fans in general when I say that it would be nice if they featured more, older films in the clips than newer ones. Let's face it, The Prisoner of Zenda (1937) is much more deserving of a clip in the Oscars than any one of  the "Transformers" movies!

I do have to say that I thought the tribute to The Wizard of Oz was fairly well done. I thought Pink did a fantastic rendition of "Over the Rainbow", far better than most I have heard. I also enjoyed the clips that they selected for the tribute. That having been said, I did have two problems with the tribute. The first is that since Judy Garland's children (Liza Minnelli, Lorna Luft, and Joseph Luft) were all there, it would have been nice if they had introduced the segment. The second is I don't quite understand why The Wizard of Oz was singled out and other films from 1939 were not honoured with tributes as well. Let's face it, 1939 is widely regarded as the greatest year for film ever, so that this year is also the 75th anniversary of Gone with the Wind, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Gunga Din, The Women, and many other great films. While The Wizard of Oz may be the most popular film from 1939 (along with Gone with the Wind, of course) it was hardly the only great film released in 1939.

For the most part I thought the In Memoriam segment was much better handled than it has been the past several years. It was certainly much more inclusive than any in the past few years, especially last year when Andy Griffith, Larry Hagman  Jack Klugman, and Ann Rutherford, among many others, were all left out of the segment. Last night's In Memoriam even included Tom Laughlin and Jim Kelly, actors whose careers were primarily in B movies. Sadly there were still some notable omissions, including Tom Clancy, Dennis Farina, Jean Stapleton, Audrey Totter, and Jonathan Winters. Beyond the omissions I did have two problems with this year's In Memoriam segment. The first is that they only listed one credit per individual. Would it have really hurt the Academy to have listed three or four for each person? The second is "Did we have to be subjected to "Wind Benath My Wings" sung by Bette Midler after the In Memoriam segment?" Don't get me wrong, I like Bette Midler, but I have always disliked the song "Wind Beneath My Wings". Indeed, if one listens to the lyrics it would appear to be a very ill fitting song for an In Memoriam segment! Next year I think the Academy should do the In Memoriam segment as they did this year, but include more credits per person, more of those who have died, and absolutely no song.

One segment I would like to see returned to the Oscars ceremony that was conspicuously absent is the handing out of honorary Oscars. Last night we only got to see clips of Dame Angela Lansbury, Steve Martin, and Piero Tosi accepting their awards, which are now given out separately from the Academy Awards ceremony itself. Personally, the awarding of honorary Oscars was always the thing to which I looked forward to the most and I have missed it ever since they stopped giving them out at the ceremony. I hope next year they will return the custom of handing out honorary Oscars to the ceremony. If they want to save time, they can always cut out a song or some of the clips.

Over all I do think the 86th Academy Awards had better presenters than usual. I thought Kevin Spacey was particularly funny when he introduced the honorary Oscars winners. I also thought Jim Carrey was funny when he introduced the clips of animated heroes--Mr. Carrey does a very good imitation of Bruce Dern! Of course, what I liked best about the presenters on last night's Oscars is that the Academy actually included older stars for a change, some of which can quite rightfully be considered Film Royalty. Sally Field, Goldie Hawn, and Bill Murray numbered among the presenters, as well as movie legends Kim Novak and Sir Sidney Poitier. Indeed, Sir Sidney Poitier may have been the best presenter of the night. He was as one would expect Mr. Poitier to be: dignified, elegant, charming, and commanding.

Of course, this brings me to a situation that absolutely disgusted me last night. No sooner had Kim Novak taken to the stage did Twitter light up with tweets insulting the legendary actress because of the way her face looked. Fortunately, there were also many (perhaps more, for all I know) individuals who jumped to Miss Novak's defence. The plain fact is that Kim Novak is 81 years old and has not had a particularly easy life. Her career as an actress was not particularly enjoyable or easy. She suffers from bipolar disorder and has battled breast cancer. She also had a horse riding accident a few years ago. Even if Miss Novak's life had been easier than it has been, it would be unfair to expect her to look as she did in Bell, Book, and Candle, Boys' Night Out, or Vertigo. I might point out that other legendary beauties of Kim Novak's era, such as Brigitte Bardot and Sophia Loren, also look far different now than they did at the height of their stardom. I think the loathsome tweets directed at Kim Novak said much more about those making the tweets than they did about Miss Novak herself. Sadly, there are many out there who do not want to accept that women age as they get older. Of course, as I said earlier, there were many (perhaps more) tweets in her defence, a fact of which I am proud. Indeed, Farrah Nehme wrote a blog post on the subject at her blog Self-Styled Siren.

Getting back to the subject at hand, the Oscars are an awards ceremony so, quite naturally, there are acceptance speeches. And I must admit that I was impressed by a few. By far my favourite acceptance speech came from legendary singer Darlene Love, one of the subjects of the Best Documentary Feature winner 20 Feet from Stardom. Darlene Love did something I don't think I've ever seen at an Oscars ceremony before--she belted out a song as part of the acceptance speech. It is to be noted that she was not cut off, despite the tendency of the Oscars producers to cut off any documentary winner who runs too long! I also loved Jared Leto's acceptance speech for Best Supporting Actor as well, as he was one of the few actors who not only thanked his mother and brother, but one of the few to actually bring them to the ceremony His speech was eloquent and touching. I also loved Lupita Nyong'o's speech for Best Supporting Actress. She was charming and gracious in a way that only a few stars can be.

Over all I have to say that I am happy with last night's Oscars and if I were the producers I would only change a few things next year. First, I would make the awarding of honorary Oscars back to the ceremony. Second, I would try to include more people in the In Memoriam segment and eliminate any kind of song in proximity to it. Third, I would include clips from older films in the various clips shown. With the proper host I think that could well make for my ideal Oscars ceremony.

Three Pivotal Roles for Which Actors Did Not Receive Oscars

There are perhaps only a few subjects that classic film buffs enjoy debating more than the Oscars. We can spend hours debating which films should not have won Best Picture, which directors and actors were snubbed, and so on. When it comes to the Academy Awards, often it seems classic film buffs tend to focus on those times when the Academy "got it wrong". Indeed, last night I started thinking about the lead actor and actress categories and instances in which the most deserving actor either was not nominated or did not win. I narrowed this down to what I think could be the some of the gravest "miscarriages of justice" with regards to the Best Actor and Best Actress categories on the part of the Academy. These are three instances in which an actress lost an Oscar for what was the greatest performance of her career, an actress was nominated for entirely for the wrong role one year, and an actor who was not nominated for his best known role.

Of course, the instance that came to my mind in which an actress did not receive an Oscar for what was her greatest role is also one of the most notorious cases of what many consider the best performance of the year losing an Academy Award. As all classic film buffs know, at the 27th Academy Awards Judy Garland, who had been nominated for her role as  Vicki Lester in A Star is Born (1954), lost the award for Best Actress in a Leading Role to Grace Kelly in The Country Girl (1954). Even then there was a good deal of controversy over Grace Kelly's win, with many maintaining that it was Judy Garland who truly deserved the award. Indeed, no less than Groucho Marx would call Judy Garland's loss of the Academy Award for Best Actress, "the biggest robbery since Brink's."

Reportedly the vote for Best Actress was very close that year. According to Hedda Hopper at the time it was the closest Oscar vote to not end in a tie, with only six votes separating Miss Garfield and Miss Kelly.
As surprising as Judy Garland losing the Oscar for Best Actress is, it is perhaps even more surprising that A Star is Born won no Oscars, even though it was nominated for six awards (including Best Actor in a Leading Role for James Mason; Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Colour; Best Costume Design, Colour; Best Music, Original Song for "The Man That Got Away"; and Best Music, Scoring of a Musical Picture).

Today for many, perhaps most classic film fans, it seems incredible that Judy Garland lost the Oscar for Best Actress in a Leading Role for her part in A Star is Born. While it is not Miss Garland's most famous role (that would be Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz), I rather suspect that the vast majority of film buffs consider Judy Garland's performance as Vicki Lester in A Star is Born as the greatest performance of her career. Indeed, I rather suspect some might well regard it as one of the greatest performances of all time. It is then difficult to understand how she lost the Oscar to Grace Kelly.

It seems likely that much of it might have had to do with the performance of A Star is Born at the box office. At the time A Star is Born was one of the costliest films ever made, its budget winding up over $5 million. Unfortunately, it only made $6,100,000 at the box office, hardly enough to pay for itself. The perception of A Star is Born as a box office failure may have had an impact upon Judy Garland's chances at winning the Best Actress award. At the same time it seems possible that Grace Kelly was not actually receiving the Oscar for her performance in The Country Girl, but for her performance in Rear Window from the prior year. Giving what some consider the best performance of her career in Rear Window, Grace Kelly was not even nominated for an Oscar for the film. It then seems possible that part of the reason Judy Garland lost the Oscar for Best Actress at the 27th Academy Awards was because the Academy felt guilty that Grace Kelly had not even been nominated for Rear Window!

At least Judy Garland was nominated for Best Actress in a Leading Role for her role in A Star is Born. In another instance an actress was nominated for Best Actress, but for entirely the wrong film. Ask anyone to name one of Ingrid Bergman's roles and odds are very good that they will name Ilsa Lund in Casablanca (1942). It is definitely her most famous role and I suspect even many classic film buffs would consider it one of her best performances. Indeed, there are many who believe Casablanca to be one of the greatest films of all time. It won the Oscars for Best Picture; Best Director, and Best Writing, Screenplay for the year 1943. It also received nominations in for Best Actor in a Leading Role for Humphrey Bogart and Best Actor in a Supporting Role for Claude Rains. Despite this, Ingrid Bergman would not receive a nomination for Best Actress in a Leading Role for Casablanca.

Of course, that did not mean that Ingrid Bergman was not nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress. She was nominated for an Academy Award that year, but for her role as Maria in For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943) instead. I am sure that I am not alone when I say that it seems preposterous that Ingrid Bergman was nominated for For Whom the Bell Tolls instead Casablanca. Indeed, it is not simply a case that Ilsa Lund in Casablanca is Miss Bergman's best known role, as identified with her as Scarlett O'Hara is with Vivien Leigh or the second Mrs. de Winter is with Joan Fontaine. It is more a case that Ingrid Bergman gave a truly fine performance in Casablanca while she gave what may have been one of the worst performances of her career in For Whom the Bell Tolls. Not only did Ingrid Bergman play the role of Maria in Whom the Bell Tolls much too broadly, she also endows the part with no depth or personality. While Ilsa Lund in Casablanca seems like a real, living, breathing woman, Maria seems more like an automaton. Worse yet, Ingrid Bergman was horribly miscast in For Whom the Bell Tolls. Maria is supposed to be a Spanish refugee, yet in the role Miss Bergman seems unmistakeably, inarguably Swedish.
 
I think most classic film buffs would agree with me that Ilsa Lund is not the greatest role of Ingrid Bergman's career. I also think most classic film buffs would agree with me that it wasn't even the best performance of the year (that would be Joan Fontaine in The Constant Nymph for me), but I think most classic film fans would also agree with me that her performance in Casablanca is far better than her one in For Whom the Bell Tolls.  I also think that most classic film buffs would agree with me that Ingrid Bergman deserved a nomination for her role in Casablanca.

Given this, it is hard to explain why Ingrid Bergman was nominated for For Whom the Bell Tolls instead of Casablanca. I have to suspect part of it might have been a bit of snobbery on the part of the Academy. For Whom the Bell Tolls was based on the novel of the same name by Ernest Hemingway, who was already a highly regarded novelist. It might have also been due to the fact that For Whom the Bell Tolls simply made more money than Casablanca. Indeed, For Whom the Bell Tolls was the highest grossing film for the year. Regardless  For Whom the Bell Tolls was nominated for nine Oscars, one more than Casablanca. In the end, however, it only won one Oscar, for Best Supporting Actress for Katina Paxinou. Sadly, it would seem Ingrid Bergman would have had a better chance at winning the Oscar for Best Leading Actress had she been nominated for Casablanca instead!

Of course, at least Ingrid Bergman was nominated for an Oscar for a performance in 1943, even if it wasn't for the one she should have been. Alongside Mr. Thackeray in To Sir With Love (1967),  Sir Sidney Poitier's most famous role may well be that of Detective Virgil Tibbs in In the Heat of the Night. In fact, Sir Sidney Poitier was so successful in the role that he played Virgil Tibbs in two more films, They Call Me MISTER Tibbs! (1970) and The Organisation (1971). There can be no doubt that Mr. Poitier's portrayal of Virgil Tibbs in In the Heat of the Night was responsible for much of the film's success. Indeed, In the Heat of the Night was nominated for seven Oscars. It won five, including the Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar for Rod Steiger as Police Chief Bill Gillespie. Amazingly, among those nominations there was not one for Sir Sidney Poitier as Detective Virgil Tibbs.

The lack of a nomination for Sir Sidney Poitier as Virgil Tibbs that year seems especially curious given Mr. Poitier had previously been nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role for The Defiant Ones (1959) and won the Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role for Lilies of the Field (1963). Indeed, his win for Lilies of the Field made him the first African American to win the Best Actor award. Given his previous nominations it would have seemed that Sir Sidney Poitier would have been a sure bet to be nominated for In the Heat of the Night. Sadly, it appears he was not.

It is difficult to say why Sir Sidney Poitier was not nominated for In the Heat of the Night. I very seriously doubt it was because it was one of those rare films with two lead actors. The Academy could have easily have nominated both Rod Steiger and Sir Sidney Poitier. Indeed, it must be pointed out that The Defiant Ones also featured two lead actors and both (Sir Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis) were nominated for the award for Best Actor in a Leading Role. Instead it seems quite possible that Sir Sidney Poitier may have lost out on an Oscar nomination for In the Heat of the Night simply due to his own success. If ever there was a year for Mr. Poitier, it was 1967. Not only did the year see the release of In the Heat of the Night, but To Sir with Love (1967) and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967) as well. It seems possible that any votes for Mr. Poitier in the category of Best Actor in a Leading Role might have been divided between In the Heat of the Night and To Sir with Love. In other words, Sir Sidney Poitier lost out on a nomination for Best Actor in a Leading Role simply because he was too good.

While I don't think anyone can complain that Rod Steiger won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his role as Chief Gillespie (he was amazing in the role), it seems to me that Sir Sidney Poitier should have been nominated in the category as well. In fact, I would go so far as to say that year the Best Actor category should have ended in a tie, with both Rod Steiger and Sir Sidney Poitier receiving the award. It is impossible for me to say whose performance is better and, in fact, I would say that the two roles play off each other so much that one really can't have one without the other. Of course, here I must point out that for the year 1967 Sir Sidney Poitier was not the only actor to lose out on an Oscar for what would be his signature role. Nominated for her role as Mrs. Robinson in The Graduate (1967), Anne Bancroft lost the Oscar for Best Actress to Katharine Hepburn in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner...

Of course, Anne Bancroft's loss to Katharine Hepburn points to the fact that there are many more instances in which actors lost Oscars for what was their quintessential roles. While the the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences often awards those actors most of us would agree are most deserving, they also often fail to award those most of us agree who are most deserving. While in theory a truly great performance should be considered with regards to the acting awards, it is a sad fact that other factors can come into play as well. And it is when other factors come into play that situations such as Judy Garland losing the Oscar for A Star is Born occur.