The 8th Academy Awards Assessed (1936)

The 8th Academy Awards is somewhat defined by write-in nominations (and one winner), a practice that would be done away with in a couple years. But for this 1936 ceremony, celebrating the best in film of 1935, the “controversy” of Bette Davis’ loss of the write-in nomination for Best Actress for OF HUMAN BONDAGE (1934) the previous year was supposedly made up for with DANGEROUS. Davis would show up to the Awards at the Biltmore Hotel in an informal dress and would later say Katharine Hepburn should have won for her title role in ALICE ADAMS.

Besides this more famed example, a few other write-ins (more later) reflect the uncertainty that still seemed to define what was becoming increasingly called “the Oscars.” A shift in categories also denotes this; the Academy added the “Best Dance Direction” award in 1936, which would be removed from the proceedings after just three short years. In the meantime, however, that brought the number of categories up to 17. Although the number of nominees for each category seemed to fluctuate arbitrarily (again, more later), this served to increase the overall number of “Oscar-nominated” films at the 8th Academy Awards, and of course, in the overall history of the ceremony, even if some don’t immediately read as such films.

Director Frank Capra, who was also the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at the time, presided over a ceremony where MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY was the most nominated film with eight nominations. Ultimately, THE INFORMER would be the winningest movie, though, with four awards. Indeed, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY would be the final film in Oscar history to win Best Picture yet nothing else, and the only single film to have produced three nominated actors.

D.W. Griffith, who had directed his final film THE STRUGGLE in 1931, was awarded a Special Award “for his distinguished creative achievements as director and producer and his invaluable initiative and lasting contributions to the progress of the motion picture arts.” Griffith was helping out on films here and there by this point and his reputation would basically wane by the time of his death in 1948, although his ultimate impact (and infamy) would be acknowledged through today.

As for snubs, most of my favorite Hollywood films of 1935 were represented in some form or another at the Oscars, even the usually distanced horror genre in the form of BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. However, with British films having made the only international impact thus far at the Oscars, THE 39 STEPS could have made an appearance, and THE WHOLE TOWN’S TALKING, a 1935 favorite, would not have been an odd choice to recognize at least for its writing.

As always, though, this exercise isn’t to relitigate something that ultimately doesn’t quite matter. There were many more great films than what was nominated here, American or otherwise. And there certainly isn’t any true regret or disappointment that a group of Hollywood figures from many decades ago didn’t pick something I like more, which still holds true for contemporary awards ceremonies. But it’s a fun journey and thought experiment to reflect on what the industry felt it should self-congratulate at the time, especially since many of these nominated and winning films have fallen out of the film history spotlight. In any event, I’ll rank the films in each category from top to bottom, bolding my “what should have won” choice and marking the actual winner with a * and lost films/films that are not easy or possible to track down with a ~, removing the latter from consideration.

All films released in 1935 unless noted otherwise.

Best Picture

• TOP HAT
• THE INFORMER
• RUGGLES OF RED GAP
• A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM
• MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY*
• LES MISÉRABLES
• THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER
• CAPTAIN BLOOD
• DAVID COPPERFIELD
• ALICE ADAMS
• NAUGHTY MARIETTA
• BROADWAY MELODY OF 1936

TOP HAT is my favorite film of 1935, period, so of course I find the exceptional Astaire-Rogers musical to be a delightful rhapsody above any of its fellow nominees. But John Ford’s THE INFORMER is indeed a special film, a sentiment the Academy of 1936 and I share, as you’ll see. RUGGLES OF RED GAP, a Leo McCarey classic, certainly grew on me while watching, with Charles Laughton giving a very different performance than the one he gives in MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY. Speaking of which: the actual Best Picture winner is a decent showcase of its three main performers (Laughton, Clark Gable, and Franchot Tone), but I feel its drama is sometimes stretched thin. It shares that in common with the nominee I nevertheless find better, A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM. This Max Reinhardt adaptation is tremendously dreamy and faithful (while expanding with gorgeous ballet sequences), but the commitment to the text, combined with the style of comedy practiced by Joe E. Brown, make the final act lag. I do think these five nominees are, conveniently, in a different class than the other five. I must admit a certain bias against the Hollywood-ified LES MISÉRABLES, as the epic French adaptation of 1934 is my favorite film of that year. This 1935 version is admirable for its scope and mise-en-scene, but as much as I appreciate Fredric March and Laughton, I feel they aren’t quite calibrated to the characters in the right way, which makes the story a little too simple. I feel kind of the reverse about THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER, with its conquering Orientalist bent. While it certainly falls into the tropes associated with such a story, there are nuances to its victories, helped along by Gary Cooper’s and Tone’s performances. CAPTAIN BLOOD is a good demonstration of director Michael Curtiz’s refinement of the Hollywood style and is a pretty slick adventure story, with Errol Flynn in his breakout role. It does communicate an “epic” story, like DAVID COPPERFIELD, the latter of which unfortunately does fall prey to the “plot point whiplash” that comes from condensing such lengthy source material into a still relatively lengthy Hollywood movie. ALICE ADAMS is a decent showcase of Hepburn’s talent, and its culminating dinner scene captures “cringe” awkwardness in a way that very few films of its time did, but it doesn’t offer a particularly compelling resolution to its tale of social climbing. NAUGHTY MARIETTA began the successful run of Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy operettas, but their style of singing and the run-of-the-mill story don’t hit very hard. Finally, BROADWAY MELODY OF 1936 is very clearly the worst film in the bunch, a rote backstage musical that is only at times lifted by Jack Benny’s performance.

Best Directing

• John Ford — THE INFORMER*
• Henry Hathaway — THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER
• Michael Curtiz — CAPTAIN BLOOD
• Frank Lloyd — MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY

The Academy continues to give out fewer Best Director noms than Best Picture, but at the 8th iteration of the Awards, it officially only nominated three directors, with Curtiz coming in as a write-in nominee. His inclusion is essentially an also-ran because Ford’s handling of the deeply moody and paranoiac THE INFORMER makes it one of the most gorgeous and politically razor-sharp American films of 1935. Hathaway, who also directed the unconventional but often beautiful PETER IBBETSON the same year, may have been recognized for the orchestration of the big battles of THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER. But I’m just as impressed, or even more, by the quiet moments in shadowy halls and moments of rest for its soldiers. As implied earlier, Curtiz was incredibly instrumental in developing the Classic Hollywood style as we know it and CAPTAIN BLOOD began a kind of transition from the churned-out (yet often great) features of his Pre-Code era to the more expansive productions for which he is better known. Finally, Lloyd may have had a hand in developing the standout performances in MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, but I’ve always felt he was kind of a chameleon (a compliment and dig at the same time, I suppose), so there isn’t a particular eye or treatment of themes that calls out his direction. But then, that’s always the question of the Best Director category, especially in a Hollywood system that praises an “invisible” narration: what exactly are we awarding here?

Best Actor

• Victor McLaglen — THE INFORMER*
• Clark Gable — MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY
• Charles Laughton — MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY
• Franchot Tone — MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY
• Paul Muni — BLACK FURY

I used the word “paranoiac” to describe THE INFORMER earlier and that certainly describes the performance of its star Victor McLaglen. His performance as the titular traitor is suffused with sympathy, absolute weakness, and intriguing hypocrisies. As with Best Director, this is an easy category to align with the real historical choice. From there, though, it’s hard to distinguish the three nominated MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY performances. Oh sure, Gable, Laughton, and Tone all play very different characters. But evaluating their power in relation to each other is a bit more challenging. I suppose it’s easier to see Gable and Laughton as the powerhouses, as Tone ably does his “naive” bit. There are many Tone films I really like and I think he is a reliable and warm presence in many a ’30s film, his heyday, but I can’t say he’s exactly electrifying like some of his more famous peers. Between Gable and Laughton, the former certainly plays the more realistic character with an “arc,” if such things are important to you. Laughton is an overwhelmingly villainous performance with only a touch of humanity (I can really only think of one scene that demonstrates this). That is perhaps more accredited to the writing, but it makes Gable’s performance feel the more fleshed out. Finally, Paul Muni’s radicalized coal miner in BLACK FURY has a touch too much scenery chewing (his affected accent doesn’t help), but the movie still demonstrates the previously and to-be-nominated (and winning) actor’s skills.

Best Actress

• Claudette Colbert — PRIVATE WORLDS
• Katharine Hepburn — ALICE ADAMS
• Bette Davis — DANGEROUS*
• Miriam Hopkins — BECKY SHARP
• Merle Oberon — THE DARK ANGEL
• Elisabeth Bergner — ESCAPE ME NEVER~

I can’t really find a reason for why the Best Actress category got one more nominee than Actor (no write-in this time!), but sure, why not!? In practice, it’s all the same quantity for me, as ESCAPE ME NEVER, which starred Elisabeth Bergner, survives (online at least) in such rough shape that it’s essentially not legible visually or audibly. I could sit through it, but I feel I couldn’t properly assess the film or Bergner’s performance. In any event, selecting my favorite performance out of the other five was tough. Ultimately, though, I had to give it to Claudette Colbert in the, I’d imagine, underseen PRIVATE WORLDS. The film isn’t outrageously good, but Colbert’s portrayal of an assured and empathetic “insane asylum” doctor is progressive and isn’t undercut by a glaringly patriarchal resolution. But even though I’ve expressed the ultimate impact of ALICE ADAMS, it must be acknowledged that Hepburn’s titular social climber is a bundle of nerves and insecurities. Bear with this comparison: she’s almost a ’30s predecessor to Michael Scott, with how much Alice is preoccupied with being appreciated and integrated into a perceived desirable “society” and how potently Hepburn makes the ensuing awkwardness felt. In DANGEROUS, Davis plays a character similar to the one she portrayed in OF HUMAN BONDAGE, but with a bit more nuance and sympathy. That makes the performance both more palatable and less fun to watch. Miriam Hopkins is one of my favorite actors of this period. But BECKY SHARP, for all its Technicolor beauty (it was the first feature shot in the three-strip format), isn’t the greatest showcase of her talents, as it makes her titular character exceedingly one note, a more grating and less developed social climber not unlike Alice Adams. Finally, Merle Oberon gives off a graceful and beautiful demeanor in THE DARK ANGEL, but as with Hopkins, she’s underserved by the thin nature of the story.

Best Writing (Original Story)

• THE GAY DECEPTION
• THE SCOUNDREL*
• G MEN
• BROADWAY MELODY OF 1936

As ever, this category gives me a bit of pause. Best Writing (Original Story) is not a predecessor to the Best Original Screenplay category, but rather a recognition of the base story treatment that could be handed off to a totally different screenwriter(s). So in just evaluating the basic premises and unfolding of the plots of these films, I easily came to the conclusion that the underseen and -rated William Wyler comedy THE GAY DECEPTION is at the top of this heap. Don Hartman and Stephen Morehouse Avery’s tale of the meeting of a European prince posing as a bellboy in a luxurious American hotel and a small-town girl visiting on the windfall of a casaba melon sweepstakes (wow, what an idea) is full of great twists and endearing characterizations. Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur’s story for the Noël Coward-starring THE SCOUNDREL, which they also directed, has some interesting ideas, including a bit of supernatural business. But that comes a bit too late and doesn’t do enough to enrich the development of Coward’s character. G MEN, written by Darryl F. Zanuck under his Gregory Rogers pseudonym, was a write-in, but why, I’m not sure. This reversal of the gangster genre, probably meant to appease the newly minted Hays Code era while keeping the same kind of violence, stars James Cagney, and meanders in a way that doesn’t quite keep the thrill alive. But it’s still more engaging, in the pure story department, than the cliché backstage musical premise of Moss Hart’s BROADWAY MELODY OF 1936.

Best Writing (Screenplay)

• THE INFORMER*
• MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY
• THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER
• CAPTAIN BLOOD

Dudley Nichols’ screenplay THE INFORMER is a politically pointed adaptation of Liam O’Flaherty’s novel. The structural beauty that brings Gypo into contact and conflict with so many individuals and groups feels almost mythical, especially being contained to one night. Nichols actually refused the statue due to a dispute between the Screen Writers Guild and the Academy, but accepted it a couple years later. Jules Furthman, Talbot Jennings, and Carey Wilson’s treatment of MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY admirably paints a picture of three temperaments in the face of militaristic authority. THE LIVES OF BENGAL LANCER was adapted, from Francis Yeats Brown’s autobiography, by a whole team: Achmed Abdullah, John L. Balderston, Waldemar Young, Grover Jones, and William Slavens McNutt. Perhaps the number of cooks in the kitchen, and consequently drafts and revisions, accounts for the film feeling like it’s being pulled in a few different directions thematically. And finally, CAPTAIN BLOOD is represented once again as the result of a write-in campaign. Casey Robinson’s adaptation of Rafael Sabatini’s novel is pulpy fun, but lacks the dramatic heft that defines its competitors.

Best Short Subject (Comedy)

• TIT FOR TAT
• HOW TO SLEEP*
• OH, MY NERVES~

In what world is a Pete Smith-esque sarcastic narration (it was actually done by Robert Benchley) piece better than a Laurel and Hardy short? And indeed, one of the better shorts of the end of that era (they went exclusively feature-length after ‘35)? TIT FOR TAT is a tremendous escalation of funny business, built on gags the boys had done in some form before, but re-contextualized for delightful mayhem. HOW TO SLEEP is clever at times, I suppose, but the best thing these kinds of shorts did was inspire the Goofy cartoons that aped them. OH, MY NERVES apparently survives, but isn’t available online.

Best Short Subject (Novelty)

• WINGS OVER EVEREST (1934)*
• AUDIOSCOPIKS
• CAMERA THRILLS

WINGS OVER EVEREST was actually a 1934 release, but it was a British film, so presumably it came over to the US in ’35. In any event, its triumph over the other two nominees doesn’t mean it’s incredible. It is indeed a novelty, a document of the 1933 Everest flight expedition, mixing actual footage from the event and staged scenes with the real people involved. I suppose it demonstrates “the ingenuity of humankind,” but it’s not electrifying cinema. It is more watchable than the 3D experiment AUDIOSCOPIKS, though (which is narrated by Smith). It is interesting to see communication about the technology from the time, but again, it is indeed a novelty. CAMERA THRILLS, on the other hand, is a grim exhibition of grievous losses of life and bodily injury, filtered through the conceit that the poor newsreel cameramen went through a lot to get this footage. It’s uniquely tasteless!

Best Short Subject (Cartoon)

• THREE ORPHAN KITTENS*
• WHO KILLED COCK ROBIN?
• THE CALICO DRAGON

THREE ORPHAN KITTENS wasn’t even the best Silly Symphony of 1935 (that would go to MUSIC LAND), but it is a great example of how proficient Disney was becoming at imparting deep personality into character animation and bringing even more depth to background work. WHO KILLED COCK ROBIN?, the other Silly Symphony in the mix, is an absolutely bizarre display of morbidity and even sexuality. Former Disney employees Hugh Harman and Rudolf Ising, now over at MGM with their Happy Harmonies series, even got into the competition with THE CALICO DRAGON. As with THREE ORPHAN KITTENS, this isn’t even the best that this series had to offer in the year, but it does showcase Harman and Ising’s ambition to tell more coherent adventure stories (and, unfortunately, to animate more “realistic” humans).

Best Music (Scoring)

• THE INFORMER*
• PETER IBBETSON
• CAPTAIN BLOOD
• MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY

I’ve come to realize that Max Steiner, RKO’s prolific composer and music director, has an array of haters in classic Hollywood circles. I am not one of those haters, as I find his work to have ushered in a new era of thematic scores that operate in ways with which we’re familiar today. So that being said, his work for THE INFORMER is a good complement to the tone of the visuals and performances. Ernest Toch’s treatment for PETER IBBETSON is at its best when its offering soaring sounds that match the most fantastical images of the fantasy-romance. CAPTAIN BLOOD, once again written in (man, someone must have really been championing this film, perhaps Warner Bros’ publicity department), has totally serviceable music to match its swashbuckling action, provided by Erich Wolfgang Korngold. But quite honestly, I can’t conjure much up about the music of MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY. With a bit of revisiting, that makes sense, as Herbert Stothart’s isn’t singularly engaging, although I could never go so far as to say it’s “bad.”

Best Music (Song)

• “Cheek to Cheek” — TOP HAT
• “Lullaby of Broadway” — GOLD DIGGERS OF 1935*
• “Lovely to Look At” — ROBERTA

“Cheek to Cheek” from TOP HAT became a standard for a reason. It’s absolutely and beautifully sentimental and catchy. It’s the only obvious earworm of the bunch, although I may be rating “Lullaby of Broadway” higher because of the great choreography and cinematography it’s paired with for the number in GOLD DIGGERS OF 1935. “Lovely to Look At” from ROBERTA, another yet minor Astaire-Rogers musical (the pair aren’t even the main characters), is also a rousing tune that allows for some toe-tapping, even if it’s not absolutely enthralling.

Best Sound Recording

• BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN
• THANKS A MILLION
• NAUGHTY MARIETTA*
• LOVE ME FOREVER
• $1,000 A MINUTE
• THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER
• CAPTAIN BLOOD
• I DREAM TOO MUCH
• THE DARK ANGEL

Why this category got so many nominees is not clear to me. But if it allowed for BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN officially becoming an Oscar-nominated film, I guess it’s for the best. I admit to some uncertainty in evaluating the merits of these films and how well their “sound was recorded.” But ultimately, the sound effects and overall ambience communicated aurally from BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is incredibly effective. It’s certainly the most unique soundscape of the bunch of nominees. THANKS A MILLION is a fine Dick Powell musical, crooning and backing vocals and all. NAUGHTY MARIETTA effectively captures the range of the operatic styles of MacDonald and Eddy, but as mentioned, that isn’t exactly my cup of tea. I have to acknowledge that proficiency, however, over the more shrill range of Grace Moore in LOVE ME FOREVER, itself a more notable demonstration of sound technology than the outdoor scenes of $1,000 A MINUTE. At least, those outdoor scenes are what I suspect the actually pretty funny comedy was nominated for. And indeed, its verisimilitude on the Los Angeles streets is more impressive than the general cacophony of crowds captured in THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER and CAPTAIN BLOOD. Perhaps it’s the quality of the print/upload I was able to view of I DREAM TOO MUCH, but Lily Pons’ voice (perhaps the subject of the nomination) doesn’t come across as exceptional. And while THE DARK ANGEL is a fine film in many ways, its particular approach to sound design isn’t really of note.

Best Art Direction

• TOP HAT
• THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER
• THE DARK ANGEL*

The immersive scale and depth of the art deco sets in TOP HAT account for at least a third of the film’s appeal. They’re just absolutely gorgeous and present a wonderful dreamscape for the Astaire-Rogers romance/dancing to take place. THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER has plenty of outdoor spaces, but as mentioned regarding its “shadowy halls,” the layouts and more Expressionist leanings of a few choice moments in the film’s headquarters are memorable. THE DARK ANGEL has some cozy and quaint cottage settings, but its art direction, as with its sound design, doesn’t really call attention to itself (a plus for some, I suppose).

Best Cinematography

• A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM*
• BARBARY COAST
• THE CRUSADES
• LES MISÉRABLES

Hal Mohr’s work for A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM made him and the film the only write-in winners in Oscar history (again, the practice would be abolished in just a couple years). If the case could ever be made for this practice returning, this win would be it. A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM has a few problems as outlined above, but its gorgeous images are not, collectively, one of them. The gauzy, diffused, and shining look of so many of the images are eye-popping and define even the most “mundane” moments set in the forest (and totally augment the special spectral effects of the most fantastical). Ray June’s work on BARBARY COAST is not to be discounted, however, as he and Howard Hawks give a foggy, darkened, almost proto-noir look for the Pacific Coast Western. THE CRUSADES, another Cecil B. DeMille picture shot by Victor Milner (he won an Oscar the previous year for CLEOPATRA), has sumptuous cinematography to match its maximalist action, violence, and set design. Gregg Toland would go on to shoot CITIZEN KANE (1941) and had already done plenty of great work by 1935 anyways, but for all of LES MISÉRABLES’ admirable visual qualities, its cinematography doesn’t quite strike a chord like the fellow nominees.

Best Film Editing

• A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM*
• THE INFORMER
• DAVID COPPERFIELD
• THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER
• LES MISÉRABLES
• MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY

I also always struggle with how to evaluate editing, as the films we view are so intrinsically defined by the edit that it’s hard to imagine them deconstructed into other forms. It’s especially challenging because I feel A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM could have been edited down in its final act. But that’s more of a writing/storytelling thing, and throughout the film, Ralph Dawson’s work rhythmically moves the film in and out of fantastical views. THE INFORMER, likewise, seems to tantalize with its lingering, or lack thereof, on key moments, and engages with its rapidity in the more chaotic moments of the movie, thanks to George Hively. DAVID COPPERFIELD is basically pulled together well by Robert J. Kern, but as mentioned, it’s hard to abbreviate such an epic text, whether in the storytelling or editing phase. THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER, edited by Ellsworth Hoagland, has a similar problem, and anyways its action sequences aren’t quite bridged together in a way that is incredibly satisfying for a (or at least this) modern viewer. LES MISÉRABLES, also whittled down from a large source and presumably large amount of footage by Barbara McLean, also suffers from just how elliptical certain jumps between scenes and even time periods of its characters lives are. Finally, as with other aspects of its craft (presumably why it didn’t win anything but Best Picture, but also, why it did?), MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY is a perfect representative for the invisible Hollywood mode that prioritizes “plot” and characters, even as Margaret Booth’s work (as with any editor) is the reason why any of the proceedings are compelling anyways.

Best Dance Direction

• TOP HAT — Hermes Pan
• GOLD DIGGERS OF 1935 — Busby Berkeley
• BROADWAY MELODY OF 1936 and FOLIES BERGÈRE DE PARIS — Dave Gould*
• SHE — Benjamin Zemach
• BROADWAY HOSTESS and GO INTO YOUR DANCE — Bobby Connolly
• KING OF BURLESQUE (1936) — Sammy Lee
• ALL THE KING’S HORSES and THE BIG BROADCAST OF 1936 — LeRoy Prinz

In the inaugural year of the Best Dance Direction category, the Academy tied the nominations to the choreographers themselves, thereby also seeming to allow their work on multiple films to be considered. It makes for a heady brew to evaluate and brought even more (mostly mediocre) films into the Oscar-nominated field. That Hermes Pan’s (and Astaire’s) work on TOP HAT wasn’t the winner is incredible to me. One dance in the film brought me to tears, to say nothing of the sheer joy of the other numbers. GOLD DIGGERS OF 1935, while featuring the by-then well-known style of Busby Berkeley imagery, still hits with its killer final numbers. And even though I was pretty dismissive of its frame, BROADWAY MELODY OF 1936 does have some great tap sequences (that are certainly augmented by the grandiose art deco set design). Dave Gould’s work on that film and FOLIES BERGÈRE DE PARIS demonstrates the category’s, and the musical genre’s, tendency to backload all the fantastic movement for the end, whether using the backstage setting or not. SHE kind of bucks that a bit, in that its ritualistic dance amid a fantasy adventure film does not conform to cascading legs moving in unison on a nightclub stage, making the one number by Benjamin Zemach certainly stand out. From there, things get markedly less distinct, with Bobby Connolly’s choreography for BROADWAY HOSTESS and GO INTO YOUR DANCE only marginally piquing interest amid, or after, the bland proceedings of comedy and drama. KING OF BURLESQUE (a 1936 release that must have been screened really late in ’35 or really early in the following year) has a better bit of character and funny business, but Sammy Lee’s renditions at the very end of the film (barring a couple glimpses of tremendous trapeze work) have to be acknowledged as slighter than almost all the other nominees. Save, of course, LeRoy Prinz’s dance direction for ALL THE KING’S HORSES and THE BIG BROADCAST OF 1936, forgettable films all around.

Best Assistant Director

• Sherry Shourds — A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM
• Clem Beauchamp and Paul Wing — THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER*
• Eric Stacey — LES MISÉRABLES
• Joseph M. Newman — DAVID COPPERFIELD

Even more so than Best Director, evaluating Best Assistant Director feels like an inside baseball job. Since assistant directors are typically characterized as bearing logistical loads for their more famous bosses, it’s perhaps fitting to assess this category by how the films handled scope and scale. With that in mind, Sherry Shourds’ (presumed) coordination of dancers, expansive sets, complex lighting arrangements, and more for A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM is appreciated. Likewise for Clem Beauchamp and Paul Wing’s wrangling of the chaos for THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER, although in that film’s case it comes across more for woolier scenes of action and violence than for artful resonance. The scale of LES MISÉRABLES is felt in both ways, thanks in part to Eric Stacey, but as with other aspects of its craft (as mentioned), it bleeds into the background. Even still, the orchestration of that adaptation’s elements make for a more cohesively moving picture, leading me to bring Joseph M. Newman’s role in the process of making DAVID COPPERFIELD to the bottom, more a reflection of the film’s ultimate quality than the individual’s work (as is the case with this admittedly ambiguous category).

Well, I in part agree with the Academy of 1936 that THE INFORMER should have been the winningest film of the that year’s Oscars with four awards…but in conjunction with TOP HAT, my favorite film of 1935 in general, winning four as well. Otherwise, I aligned with the body only eight times out of 17, although I think my esteem for the batch of nominees of the 8th Academy Awards is generally higher than in previous years. Reviewing my thoughts on the nominees and winners, I noticed how often I singled out elements of craft I could notice, an approach that seems somewhat counter to the presentation Hollywood films attempt to make. And yet, the industry awards ceremony was indeed meant to be an inside baseball, behind-the-curtain affair. It would be some time before the Oscars would become more than the relatively intimate affair it was in 1936.