Some time last week I wanted to get into the characters of Nothing Sacred, but I found myself having a hard time, mostly because I was distracted by what I consider the miscasting of two crucial characters. No matter how many times I tried to go about it, I couldn't get past the performances, when I really wanted to just focus on the characters. So I decided to go ahead and read the screenplay first, and while I'm not going to get into that today, some of the characters there are completely different than the ones you see on screen, but then the script is different than the eventual film. But whereas Carole Lombard is able to mold the character of Hazel Flagg into a screwball heroine, Fredric March and Walter Connolly fail to give convincing let alone really entertaining performances in their respective roles of the ace reporter chasing whichever story comes his way and the newspaper editor who will do whatever it takes to get dibs on the lead.
There's not a whole lot more to say about Lombard than what I've already raved about. Is there another actress who can top her in the genre? Probably not. She has a way of taking on roles and just making them endearing. Her way of approaching scenes and reacting to them as almost a child would are completely brilliant. Her face molds itself into so many different reactions, but mostly it gives a wide-eyed wonder. While in My Man Godfrey she plays like a spoiled five-year-old, here Lombard plays like a sheltered rural school girl, out in the city for the first time. And even though she gets spoiled after some time in New York, you still like Hazel. One of the scenes that stand out is after the Heroines of History night in which she takes to the stage only to pass out drunk. That same night she had been complaining to Wally how she was tired of everyone looking at her so miserable. The next day, she's nursing a hangover when a group of school children arrive to sing to her. She declares clearly, like a spoiled heiress, that she'll go mad, but then she relents and says to go ahead and let them up. Hazel's still got a heart underneath it all. And throughout the film, she feels bad that she's deceiving so many people, but of course you laugh at it because she continues with the deception. But with Lombard as Hazel, it's hard to stay angry at her for too long.
Unfortunately, I wasn't quite taken by March's performance as Wally. Here's an ace reporter who just wants to do a great job. All he wants is to get a great scoop and deliver it and make his boss happy, in essence, he just wants to be the best reporter the world has seen. But I was never quite convinced of it. I wasn't sure if he was a crooked reporter or if he just wasn't smart. I mean, really? I'm supposed to sympathize with someone who keeps getting false leads? But I know this is supposed to be exaggerated, but March just didn't play the part. Why wasn't he gullible then like in a Ralph Bellamy sort of way? I'd prefer him to be smarter, though. And I think that was the point, just a reporter who's good but he kind of always gets such bad luck, no matter how hard he tries. But the comedic timing just wasn't there. Granted, it might not be entirely his fault. The finished film's script didn't provide really great lines for him. The line about the greatest fire in Rome. He delivered it at such an awkward time that I always thought it was his fault, but after reading an earlier draft of the screenplay I saw it wasn't him. Even still, he looks pretty ridiculous trying to be funny. It's hard to judge his comedic skills as I haven't seen his other comedies, but from this one alone, I'd say he's not really a natural. Most of his scenes with Lombard, he plays them so seriously that I often wondered if he was in the wrong film. They should've been a little more exaggerated, melodramatic even. I wanted to see him squirm more, but it just didn't happen. I don't think it was for lack of chemistry, I just think March wasn't the right man for the role, or maybe he didn't get the proper lines or the right direction.
Then there's Connolly as Oliver Stone, the supposed ruthless newspaper editor of the Morning Star. Connolly knows how to act, no doubt in my mind, but for some reason, once again as with March, he was miscast in this film. I didn't see anything ruthless about Connolly's performance except only in what came out of his mouth, but the way he actually performed, didn't show money-hungry to me. At first I thought I was biased, having seen him It Happened One Night, but I was convinced there that he's a ruthless business man willing to do whatever it takes to get his daughter back, and yet somehow I wasn't convinced here. I think part of the problem is that I found him trying too hard to be funny. And here's a crucial role that if anything should steal away the show from the two leads, but instead there's a guy whose voice rises and lowers from what seems like out of nowhere, and who tries desperately to look menacingly to a shoe-shiner, but really it's not very funny. I suppose it goes down to a matter of taste, but I really wasn't impressed by it. I do wonder if here it's William Wellman's direction. I feel as if there are too many things going wrong at this point that it boils down to writing and direction, and while there are story problems, this particular one seems like a direction problem. Wellman should've caught on that there was something lacking in Connolly's performance, but he didn't address it. And again, it could be me, but I can't help thinking if a more domineering actor would've been better, or even a funnier one.
One of the things looking at the characters and the actors cast in their roles has helped me see is how important getting the right cast truly is. Lombard, March, and Connolly are all fine actors, but somehow March and Connolly didn't serve their roles up to their utmost potential, which is a shame, because Nothing Sacred has a lot of promise. Unfortunately, I think it comes down on Wellman. Lombard is the only who makes the most of the script changes and truly gives a wonderful performance in which you can love Hazel, but March and Connolly weren't given great direction. It seems as if Wellman and David O Selznick really wanted to make a screwball comedy, but what I'm seeing more as I watch and read up on the film is that Nothing Sacred isn't a screwball comedy; it's really a satire. And that's really why the characters don't seem to come across the way they should.
No comments:
Post a Comment