August 22, 2016

Loretta Young, Come to the Stable

as SISTER MARGARET
Two nuns hope to build a children's hospital. That is the concept of Come to the Stable, and that is basically everything I don't want to see when I'm watching a film. But I figured I'd put aside my stubborn prejudices, give this one a chance, and come into the film with an open mind. So I watched, and watched a little more, and as was the case with My Foolish Heart, I found myself growing aggressively disinterested by both film and its lead actress.
...because really now, just what does Loretta Young do in Come to the Stable that's nomination worthy? There comes a point where there has to be something more to offer than just a kind-hearted disposition, a warm smile, and a soft-spoken voice. I'm no actor myself, but I've seen enough actresses tackle those three attributes at this point that I cannot imagine it's much a challenge. Sure, Young has God's warmth seeping out from her pores, but what else? What Ingrid Bergman had in her arsenal was her powerful talent of tackling raw emotion and using that in such a way that it hits you in your heart. There's no doubt that Deborah Kerr fared well because of the complexity of the story. But in the case of Young, all she ever really brings to the table are the three aforementioned qualities in varying degrees and in interchangeable order.

The film doesn't really require much else from her, and I'm not sure that she could have done anymore than what she actually does. So, as with My Foolish Heart, it's an hour and a half of Young trekking through a variety of situations on puritanical autopilot, occasionally playing naive here and there with broadened eyes as necessary. I'm not frustrated about the film's subject matter - I understand that it appeals to a certain audience (and back then, that audience was a broad audience as it would seem), and I'm not that frustrated that I had to watch it. Rather, I'm more frustrated that a large enough contingent of the Academy thought to nominate this performance (and two more performances from the film, for that matter!), as if they literally could not identify another actress that was up-to-snuff. Because this was seriously one of the most lackluster nominated turns I've watched in this decade. A filler nomination if there ever was one.


6 comments:

  1. I had a feeling you weren't going to like this performance, Allen, and for all the reasons I, too, found it subpar. Her prior left-field win in 1947 shocked many in Hollywood so maybe this second nod was a way to justify that first mistake. In any case, Young was a pleasant if bland presence and as an actress was not capable of complex (or even interesting} characterizations. Sweet smiles, genial personality, soft-spoken warm-heartedness ... CALLING OSCAR!!!....not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad I'm not that only one who feels that way! It's strange because I feel like I'm being harsh by giving it a one, because she's not exactly godawful a la Ruth Chatterton or Mary Pickford, but at the same time she does absolutely nothing to incite excitement or engagement - just very, very bland, the type of film that if unnominated I'd think nothing of it, but it was, so...

      Delete
    2. You're not being harsh ... Young's performance is pedestrian and deserved no accolades ... Chatterton and Pickford were of the early sound films and still trying (unsuccessfully) to moderate their stage and silent film training. Young has no such excuse. She's there and she stays there: the same from start to finish. A totally insignificant performance.

      Delete
  2. How are the two supporting ladies? I've heard that while neither is worthy of a nom Lanchester was particularly terrible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Honestly - Holm is whimsical and cute and French and all, but doesn't fare any much better than Young for me. I can see how Lanchester might be viewed as awful, she's a little shrill and very much a "character actress here" but again, nothing nomination worthy for me. The film's nomination load is beyond me.

      Delete
    2. Holm's had a much better role in 1950's "All About Eve". Her sublime performance is the best in that film (sorry Bette; sorry Anne). Here, the film is sentimental hogwash and she has little to work with. Again, her win in '47 (same year as Young) probably greased the wheels for this one.

      Lanchester played this type of role before, and would again, so it seems like she went along for the ride when the Academy decided to show some love for CTTS.

      Delete