Ernest Schoedsack | Through the Shattered Lens

1937 Oscar Banquet

Continuing our look at good films that were not nominated for best picture, here are 6 films from the 1930s.

Frankenstein (1931, dir by James Whale)

Henry Frankenstein may have created life and revolutionized the horror genre but his creation got absolutely no love from the Academy. Starting a very long history of snubbing successful horror films, the Academy failed to nominate Frankenstein for Best Picture. Not even Boris Karloff got a nomination! Fortunately, the public recognized what the Academy failed to see and Frankenstein remains a classic film.

Scarface (1932, dir by Howard Hawks)

Gangster films may have been all the rage with the public in the 1930s but the Academy felt different. Little Caesar, The Public Enemy, and Scarface may have excited audiences but none of them received much love from the Academy. It was hard to decide which gangster film to specifically use for this post. In the end, I went with Scarface because of George Raft and his sexy way with a coin.

King Kong (1933, directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack)

King Kong thrilled audiences, impressed critics, made a ton of money, and has gone on to influence just about every monster film made since. It received zero Oscar nominations.

My Man Godfrey (1936, dir by Gregory La Cava)

My Man Godfrey, one of the best of the screwball comedies of the 1930s, received a total of 6 Oscar nominations. It was nominated in all four of the acting categories. It was nominated for best screenplay. It was nominated for best director. However, it was not nominated for Best Picture. (My Man Godfrey is the first and, as of this writing, only film to receive four acting nominations without also receiving a nomination for best picture.) Best Picture that year would go to The Great Ziegfield, which, like My Man Godfrey, starred William Powell.

Bringing Up Baby (1938, dir by Howard Hawks)

My Man Godfrey was not the only screwball comedy to be ignored by the Academy. Bringing Up Baby features Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn at their best. It also features an absolutely adorable leopard. Somehow, it was not nominated for best picture.

The Women (1939, dir by George Cukor)

The competition was fierce in 1939. If you want to know why 1939 is considered to be one of the best years in Academy History, just consider the ten films that actually were nominated for best picture: Dark Victory, Gone With The Wind, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Love Affair, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, Ninotchka, Of Mice and Men, Stagecoach, The Wizard of Oz, and Wuthering Heights. Amazingly, even with that list of nominees, some equally good film went unnominated. One of those films was The Women.

Based on Clare Boothe Luce’s play, The Women features a witty script, assured direction from George Cukor, and an amazing talented, all-female ensemble cast. Though the competition was undeniably fierce in 1939, it’s still a shock that this film received not a single nomination.

Up next, in about an hour or so, the 1940s!

Scarface (1932)

(Lisa is currently in the process of trying to clean out her DVR by watching and reviewing all 40 of the movies that she recorded from the start of March to the end of June. She’s trying to get it all done by July 11th! Will she make it!? Keep visiting the site to find out!)

Before I talk about the 1927 oddity Chang (which also happened to be the 25th film on DVR), here’s a little Oscar history. If this sounds familiar, it’s probably because I already talked about all this in my review of Sunrise but there’s nothing wrong with repeating a history lesson, right?

At the first Oscar ceremony, two awards were given for Best Picture of the year. The first award — for Outstanding Production — went to Wings, a big budget action spectacular about World War I. The other award — for Unique And Artistic Presentation — went to Sunrise. I’ve read a lot of speculation about which film the Academy meant to name the best of the year but, to me, it’s fairly obvious that the Academy meant for Outstanding Production to honor the year’s big blockbusters while Unique and Artistic Presentation would honor the “art” films.

And, to be honest, I think that, way back in 1928, the Academy had the right idea. Why should they only give out one award for best picture, as if all films can be judged by only one standard? Why not give out separate awards for the best comedy or the best thriller or the best film made for a certain amount of money? Why not bring back the Oscar for Unique and Artistic Presentation?

For whatever reason, the Academy discontinued the Unique and Artistic Presentation Award after the 1st ceremony and, in the future, only one film would be named best of the year. Since Outstanding Production eventually become known as Best Picture, Wings has been immortalized as the first film to win best picture.

One of the films that Sunrise defeated was Chang. If, like me, you accept the idea that the Unique and Artistic Presentation Award was meant to be a second award for best picture, then that means that Chang might possibly be the only documentary ever nominated for the top prize. I say possibly because 1) some people would probably argue that Hollywood Revue should be considered a documentary as well and 2) it’s debatable whether or not Chang actually qualifies as a documentary.

Clocking in at only 67 minutes, Chang is a nearly plotless look at the life of a farmer in what is now Thailand and what was then called Siam. Kru the farmer plays himself and the film follows him as he takes care of his family, builds a house, and deals with the constant threat of wild animals. The animals are really the main stars of Chang and, all these years later, some of the footage is still impressive. (There’s a scene in which a tiger literally bumps his nose against the camera lens, which I imagine was a huge deal for audiences in the pre-YouTube, pre-television days of 1927.) However, despite the use of real wild animals and all the villagers playing themselves, it’s also obvious that several of the scenes have been staged. Chang itself never claims to be a documentary and, in fact, one of the title cards even announces that Chang is “a drama of the wilderness.”

Yes, there are title cards. Chang is a silent film and, to really appreciate it, modern viewers have to be willing to adjust. That said, I actually enjoyed the fact that it was silent. The title cards were all either endearingly portentous or surprisingly witty. I especially enjoyed the “ROAR!” title card that popped up whenever a tiger appeared.

In many ways, Chang serves as a precursor for the original King Kong, which was directed by the same team behind Chang, Merian C. Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack. If it can be argued that King Kong forever changed the course of American filmmaking, it can also be argued that, without the success of Chang, there would have been no King Kong.

(Another interesting bit of trivia: Chang reportedly only cost $60 to shoot. Apparently, neither Kru nor any of the other villagers were paid for starring in a movie.)

Chang is something of an oddity but I’d still recommend seeing it. It is a piece of history after all!