Best Pictures #45: 1930-31 (4th) Academy Awards: My Pick for Outstanding Production

by A.J.

Best Pictures #45: 1930-31 (4^th) Academy Awards 

My Pick for Outstanding Production

According to 85 Years of Oscar by Robert Osborne, by the time the 4^th Academy Awards for films released in the Los Angeles area between August 1^st, 1930-July 31^st, 1931 was held on November 10^th, 1931, the awards had gained notoriety beyond the Hollywood community. Winners were still announced to the press before the ceremony, but the time between the announcement and the ceremony was shortened. There seems to be a greater consistency in categories and nominees from the previous year’s awards. The Academy Awards were beginning to fall into a nice groove, though there was still a hiccup or two to work out. Norma Shearer, Best Actress winner at the previous year’s Oscars for The Divorcee, was chosen to present the Best Actress award at the 1931 ceremony. However, she was also a nominee. The uncomfortable and awkward situation of Shearer announcing her own name as the winner was thankfully avoided when Marie Dressler won for Min and Bill. To prevent this type of situation from happening again, at the next year’s Oscars, and every ceremony since, the previous winner for Best Actress would present the award for Best Actor, and vice versa. 

The Outstanding Production nominees do not feel as diverse or exciting as the nominees from the previous year (1929-30). Cimarron and Trader Horn are certainly the biggest and most ambitious productions of the nominated films. Both are about (white) men overcoming wild, untamed lands. The difference between the two films thematically is that Cimarron is about a man conquering and taming a frontier, while Trader Horn is about a man existing and surviving in, but not changing, a wild exotic land. Neither treats the native peoples of those lands well. Both Yancey in Cimarron and Horn in Trader Horn treat the native people well but the overall view of Indians and tribal Africans, respectively, is severely lacking by today’s standards. It likely didn’t even cross the minds of most people at the time. Both films are the type of big budget epic productions that the Academy tends to acknowledge (Trader Horn’s sole nomination was for Outstanding Production), and sometimes honor (Cimarron was the big winner of the night). Cimarron has an edge over Trader Horn because while Trader Horn is simply a big adventure, Cimarron is a dramatization of recent history, Hollywood style. It is the story of the founding of Oklahoma, a state that was hit especially hard by the Great Depression. It is a story of triumph; history told the way grandparents tell their small grandchildren. It’s hard to keep in mind that the time span of Cimarron, from the Land Rush to 1929, from the Old West towns of wood to modern cities of steel and concrete is a period of only 40 years. Many people that were alive at the time of the film’s opening scene in 1889 were likely still around to see the film in 1931. 

I can only speculate on how East Lynne factored into that year’s decision on a winner. It is a period adaptation of a stage play and novel with good performances (according to reviews of the time) and costumes that, obviously, could not go without note. 

The Front Page sticks out amongst the nominees because it is the only subtly subversive film of the bunch. It makes witty social commentary on politics  and the media, showing likely authentic portrayal of both. 

My Pick for Outstanding Production of 1930-31: Skippy

I wasn’t expecting it, but Skippy is easily the film I enjoyed the most of the five Outstanding Production nominees and the one I would most readily watch again. I wasn’t expecting a film with a sentimental, dated tone to have such affecting pathos, especially coming from such a young actor. Jackie Cooper remains the youngest Best Actor nominee at 9 years old. Skippy, the adaptation of a comic strip about a privileged, but mischievous boy, becomes more than a light children’s/family movie as the story progresses.

The Great Depression had fully reared its ugly head by 1931, but none of the Outstanding Production nominees portray the Depression or its effects except for Skippy, though the film does so indirectly. Skippy spends his time is Shantytown, where his new friend Sookie lives. He has no prejudices or reservations about the kids that live in the shacks of Shanytown or spending his time there. Skippy is quick to offer Sookie $3 for the license fee to keep his dog. When his parents stop him from cracking open his piggy bank, he puts his mischievous mind to good use to try to raise the money for his friend. The comic strip on which Skippy is based began in 1925 well before the Depression but I’m sure that the conditions of Shanytown were not dissimilar from those many Americans found themselves in after 1929. Also, I’m sure that Shantytown conjured up the sights of Hoovervilles, a term coined in 1930 to described the shacks people found themselves living in under the term of President Hoover.

Skippy had gags that made me laugh and effective emotional moments that tugged on my heartstrings. It also has a positive message, and, I hope, got across the idea that helping people down on their luck, as Skippy does, should be second nature, as it is to Skippy. This is undoubtedly a simple and sentimental film with scenes and aspects that are undeniably dated, but more than enough of the film works for me now, as I’m sure it did for audiences back then. 1930-31 was not a very strong year for its Best Picture nominees, but Skippy is the film most worth watching and mostly likely to still entertain and connect today. Unfortunately, Skippy is a rare film and is not available on DVD/Blu-ray or streaming services but airs occasionally on TCM. If you should come across it in the TCM schedule I certainly recommend watching this enjoyable and rare classic film. 

Best Pictures #43: 1930-31 (4th) Academy Awards Outstanding Production Nominee East Lynne (1931)

by A.J.

Best Pictures #43: 1930-31 (4^th) Academy Awards Outstanding Production Nominee

East Lynne (1931)

East Lynne is fortunately not a lost film, but it is unavailable to the general public. There is only one print of the film in existence and it is kept at the UCLA Film Archive. It is a non-circulating item, but can be viewed by appointment. I fully intend to make such an appointment to view East Lynne (along with the other Best Picture nominee that only exists in their archive, The White Parade (1934)) once a trip to Los Angeles fits my schedule and budget. Until then, what I know about East Lynne I have gathered from IMDB.com, Wikipedia, the blogs of people that have seen the film at UCLA, and, most importantly, the reviews from the New York Times and Variety from the film’s initial release. 

Produced and released by the Fox Film Corporation, East Lynne is a Victorian era set melodrama based on a novel by Ellen Wood. It stars Ann Harding as Lady Isabella Carlyle, Conrad Nagel as her husband Robert, Clive Book as Sir Francis Levison, who is in love with Isabella, and is directed by Frank Lloyd. The movie follows Lady Isabella, a member of society’s upper echelon, who suffers misfortune after misfortune including the sabotaging of her marriage, a divorce, and ostracization. The film’s finale has her rushing to see her son again before she goes completely blind. The story had been adapted as a play and the movie is based on the stage version as much as the novel though it makes changes to both. 

The review in Variety (the author credited is “Variety Staff”) published on December 31st, 1930 has the has the headline: “An excellent piece of work in taking a legendary meller [melodrama] play and transposing it into a screen drama of strength and charm.” In his review for the New York Times, published on February 21^st, 1931 just as the film was released nationwide, Mordaunt Hall writes, “Many a dainty handkerchief was dabbed on a pretty face during some of the episodes in the career of the unfortunate Lady Isabella; this alone was a testimonial to Miss Harding's impressive performance.” Hall goes on to praise Harding: “when Miss Harding appears, always attractively gowned, she captures one's full attention.” The Variety review agrees, stating that Harding gave an “outstanding performance.” Both praise the sets and interior design by Joseph Urban and have positive things to say about director Frank Lloyd. Both reviews are positive overall though each has one complaint. Variety states that the scene in which Isabella meets her father in Paris is a “false note.” The sole complaint of the Times’ review is: “The actual ending of the film is a trifle too melodramatic, but what happens just before is accomplished in an appealing fashion.”

The modern reviews from the blogs of other people dedicated to watching every Best Picture nominee range from very negative to mixed. The consensus from those reviews is that East Lynne is an outdated melodrama. It will be some time before I can concur or disagree with the modern reviews or the reviews from the movie’s theatrical release. As far as I can tell only from what I have read, it seems that East Lynne, being an adaptation of a well-known novel and play with decorative sets and costumes and heavy melodrama would be considered “Oscar bait” today. Even then the Academy couldn’t resist, but only gave it one nomination, for Outstanding Production. 

Nominee: Fox

Producer: William Fox
Director: Frank Lloyd
Screenplay: Tom Barry and Bradley King, based on the novel by Ellen Wood
Cast: Ann Harding, Conrad Nagel, Clive Brook
Release Date: March 31^st, 1931
Total Nominations: 1, including Outstanding Production
Other Nominations: N/A