December 26, 2016

Louis Calhern • The Magnificent Yankee

as Oliver Wendell Holmes

The Magnificent Yankee is our first toe-dip into 1950, and it's undoubtedly a residual remnant of the decade which preceded it - it is a prestige, feel-good, stage-rooted biopic that plays to nationalist tendencies. In this case, this is a biopic focused on Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a Justice whom I suspect few in 2016/2017 are familiar with. Yet more broadly, the concept of an entire film dedicated to the life of a Supreme Court Justice is baffling to me, and in this particular film's case, there's a heavy air of irrelevancy that looms over tale and performance.

The vast majority of Supreme Court Justices live what I would assume are noble and respectable lives. In the case of Oliver Wendell Holmes and The Magnificent Yankee, this assumption is confirmed. This is a vastly insignificant film about a significant yet very un-cinematic man, and the viewer is to endure a film without any sort of exciting or provocative drama. There are no in-depth dives into the landmark decisions Justice Holmes took part of (the film chooses to skip over these decisions with a naive aloofness), so you'll really just be witness to his normal domestic life across the span of 30 years.

Louis Calhern - whom I'd love to have admired more here for the sheer fact that this was to be his sole leading performance in a sound picture - turns in a good performance as Justice Holmes - one can sense the effort and the passion he instills into his acting, but one also can't help but feel aggressively underwhelmed by it all.

The Magnificent Yankee is a pretty stagey production, and Calhern spends much of the picture bellowing his lines with a firm familiarity as though he were still performing the role on Broadway, but there's just not enough juice in this creaky jalopy of a flick to find anything from Calhern that's worth being excited about. Still, he carries the film with a steadfast dedication and he has some very touching quiet moments that are performed rather nicely.

It's said that a number of actors were in the running for the role of Holmes, but MGM opted to give the part to Calhern as a thank you for his years of service as a supporting actor. That the Academy gave Calhern a nomination might also be a testament to his standing in the industry. But it unfortunately screens as what it has become - a really ordinary, boring, and forgettable footnote of an era that haphazardly produced bland biopics for people who probably didn't need one.


6 comments:

  1. Never seen him. Sounds like a pretty boring performance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is - a performance straight out of the forties for sure.

      Delete
  2. I saw this film a while ago for the sole reason that Calhern was Oscar-nominated. I didn't dislike him (his performances are often good) but I don't remember much about the film because I expected more and there is really nothing special about him or the role as written. Bland is a good description because this film does have the feel of any 'by-the-numbers' biopic produced in this era.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm always hopeful that an actor's sole lead nomination is worth the watch - I'm finding that that's not typically the case, at least in regards to these earlier nominations.

      Delete
  3. The title alone gives vibe of "boring biopic." Still I need to see it, so I will if it ever airs on TCM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely very much a boring biopic. Unless you're about viewing as many of these as possible like me, I'd say watch it at your discretion!

      Delete