Another Year And Another Official Lineup

Once again my annual predictions for Lead and Supporting Actor at the Oscars.

With lead, as with last year, I'm going with the SAG line up. Which gave me 4 out of the five correctly. This could be a year where they line up perfectly since there is no reason not to believe it, since all of their films have been performing well essentially to back them up. The two obvious alternatives of Tom Hanks, and Joel Edgerton came from films which already had their moment. In both cases it seemed like SAG should have been their boost to keep their momentum going, and it was not. BAFTA should be kept in mind but no one seems like an obvious alternative for the Brits. It is notable that Denzel Washington has never received a BAFTA nomination so him missing out technically should not be a surprise if it happens again. The man I predict will take that spot then would be Andrew Garfield for his other film Silence since you can be double nominated at BAFTA, and Garfield is the only Englishman in contention. Of course barring some random contender like when Andy Serkis got nominated for a film that got released the following year, or they might move Hugh Grant to lead or even Dev Patel. Even in those cases I highly doubt any of those scenarios will transfer to the Oscars, in Garfield's case it is literally impossible. That leaves only one late hitter hanging around, old Michael Keaton for the Founder. I don't see it happening but it could. Everything seems to be right for the main five though, even Mortensen with his film also over performing.

For supporting I cannot choose the SAG five, it just doesn't work that way. This is not 2014 in terms of the amount of supporting contenders, where everything seemed settled with a set five. I actually think this could get shaken up more than even my predictions given that last year seven of the SAG nominees did not carry over, though 2014 there were only three that did not carry over, but still there is likely to be some wiggle room. One of those misses can already be found in Best Actress, but how about the rest? There is no reason to doubt Bridges or Ali, so that leaves the rest. I talked myself into dropping Dev Patel, since I thought at first "hey if they love Lion they ought to include Patel", but there is no reason to assume that. The reason being Patel missed out for Slumdog Millionaire, the clear number one contender that year which Lion is not this year, despite the fact he received both a SAG and a BAFTA nomination. My replacement is early front runner Liam Neeson despite the odd anti-nomination propaganda which is strangely worded around his screentime, which he has more than enough as supporting actor nominees go, rather than the actual quality of his performance. As long as Silence makes its impact with the Academy, as Wolf of Wall Street did so late, I think Neeson could get in. After all Lucas Hedges isn't safe either though, since SAG will embrace younger actors often more frequently than Oscars. Grant also could fall to his film losing steam, but doesn't seem like it will be the case. There are problems though with the other actors hovering around the five. The Nocturnal Animals boys not only are fighting among themselves but their film isn't exactly Academy catnip. Issey Ogata and Ben Foster both have internal competition, though the lack of double nominees could be broken this year, it just is very hard to bet on.

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1993: Daniel Day-Lewis in The Age of Innocence

Daniel Day-Lewis did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Newland Archer in The Age of Innocence.

Age of Innocence is a fairly remarkable film about the very proper romantic entanglements in upper class 18th century New York.

1993 offered yet another banner year for Day-Lewis, much like in his breakout year in 1985, through his vastly different characters he portrayed. His Oscar nominated turn as a seemingly aimless Irish youth wrongly accused of a bombing in In the Name of the Father, a performance I feel I underrated in my initial assessment, and as Newland Archer in this film a repressed American in the late 1800's. The characters could not be more different in not only the backgrounds of the characters, their stature in society in their stories, but especially in their emotional nature. It is interesting in that Newland Archer's story is not one of hardship or tragedy in the more straight forward way. He's a consistently well off individual financially yet this is an interesting story of a man being held prisoner by society in a most particular sort of fashion.  It is essential then that he must be a man of the society and it must be said that if all of humanity depended on one man being sent back in time in order to complete some mission that requires integrating into the peoples of the past, the only man for the mission would be Daniel Day-Lewis.

Daniel Day-Lewis seems to walk right into any time period he wishes to inhabit. There is something so eloquent about this incredible ability in Day-Lewis. As, despite the evidence otherwise, it feels so effortless within his performance. Day-Lewis here seems like a man you'd see within a picture from the period. In that no facet of his very presence that feels in authentic to his setting. This of course begins with Day-Lewis's refined American accent that is stilted though in a way that alludes to a man who always seeks to conduct himself properly in society and in business. The accent though is so nicely gentle about it realizing a man of Newland's life and background with such ease. His physical manner is all part of this as again there is something in a man who is very much set within his place in society. He's strict in his manner so to speak yet there is not an inherent discomfort that Day-Lewis portrays in this either. He instead shows a man very much right where he should be merely in terms of being a man in his place in New York at this time. As usual, which what makes Day-Lewis synonymous with great acting, he makes it all so natural as it only ever serves his character.

The film itself is such an interesting period piece in the way it differs from the usual period piece given that it is directed by Martin Scorsese, a director known for his stories with more naturally volatile characters. I have to say I love Scorsese's direction here actually in that it acts as a brilliant companion to Day-Lewis's performance. The two's collaboration here is something to behold as they both in tandem realize a very particular state of being. In that both are constricted seemingly by the laws of the society of the story, yet I don't mean this is a negative sense in any way. In fact quite contrary. I love the way Scorsese's usual vibrancy is apparent yet it springs in bursts in moments where it pierces through the fabric of the tightly wound society. Day-Lewis's performance follows the same idea. Now Day-Lewis previously played what could seem like a similair character in A Room With A View. In that film he played a repressed Edwardian man. The thing is there, which was a supporting part, Day-Lewis cleverly gave a comedic performance by so effectively illustrating such intense repression. Day-Lewis's intentions here are quite different in that Newland is suppose to be the figure with empathize within the film, which could be challenge given the state of the character.

This is Day-Lewis of course that I am writing about and his greatness as an actor, is something I cannot dispute further proven by his performance here. This turn is so beautifully rendered that it is rather astonishing at times. There is never a breakdown moment in the entirety of this performance, not once. Day-Lewis stays true to the man whose greatest failing comes from the fact that he can only speak from the heart at the wrong times, and even then perhaps not with enough passion for it to matter. Day-Lewis work here is yet deeply emotional in the end. This is an intensely subtle performance as he always works within the proper confines of Newland Archer, a distant man in ways to those around him, yet he is never quite distance to us who can  see his deepest thoughts through Day-Lewis's performance and some brilliant touches on Scorsese's part. Newland Archer's problems stem from his relationship with a married woman Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer) and later the woman cousin May Welland (Winona Ryder). The problem being that Newland truly loves Ellen, with just a hope granted through her troubled marriage, while society expects him to marry and stay with May despite a lack of genuine affection.

I have to admit I found Day-Lewis's performance often painful watch do to so how effectively he realizes the tension of this conflict within Newland throughout the film. He makes it such a sympathetic plight through the honesty in which he presents his scenes with Pfeiffer. Day-Lewis does not present lust, rather a true longing for who seems to be his intended soul mate. One moment in particular I find especially heartbreaking is a brief fantasy of Ellen coming to embrace him, one of those small bursts of emotion given in both Scorsese's and Day-Lewis work. There is a purity that Day-Lewis brings to the moment, that is defined by love in the moment, of a few seconds. Throughout his performance Day-Lewis always maintains that truth in Newland, which is unfortunately contained by the demands of society. Day-Lewis is incredibly moving as he realizing the difficulty of essentially the act of Newland's life as he is forced to refrain his true hearts desire in order to basically please others. Day-Lewis's work is fascinating as he expresses the real emotion of the man at the end of sentences in these lapses of his refinement. The lapses being unnoticeable by others, yet we can see them through the screen. There is such a poignancy as he makes the emotions so palatable within the edges of his performance. Day-Lewis technically maintains the man of a proper stature, yet we are allowed to see the real devastation in the man as happiness is denied for one reason or another, again and again. Day-Lewis never breaks once again, yet the torture of this life is understood through those margins, of a man crying out with a stern face and sometimes even a smile. Day-Lewis so cleverly infuses these scenes with the truth, even as Newland "lies". There is a scene late where Newland is attempting to work something out to be with Ellen, yet his now wife May gives him news that forces him to abandon his dream forever. Day-Lewis never yells out, yet the loss is all in his eyes, the anguish lies within him, yet never fully breaks outwardly. The most poignant moment in the film though comes for me in the last act, that takes place many years later where Newland is technically free to see Ellen, prodded to do so by his own son yet decides not to. This is said in but a few unimportant words. All that it means to Newland is made readily apparent in Day-Lewis's work. The sadness is persuasive in his gentle looks to Ellen's balcony, suggesting the years wasted and the despair of man recognizing that his dream was just that, only a dream. I found this to be such a powerful piece of work by Daniel Day-Lewis that proves not only his ability to craft this representation of a person from any period, to also more importantly give them real a humanity and life.

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1993: Anthony Wong in The Untold Story

Anthony Wong did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Wong Chi-hang in The Untold Story.

The Untold story tells the true story of a serial killer cook, although this version of the story is the type you might find within a dirty copy of a sleazy gossip rag in the trash of a smelly bus station bathroom.

The film though is acutely aware of this as it goes for pure exploitation here. The film would be like if in Zodiac you spent half the film watching Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards ogle their boss’s girlfriend and mock their female coworker for her lack of ample breasts. That's half the film as the investigators are portrayed to be utter buffoons in sequences of rather broad comedy. In rest of the time, we are with Anthony Wong, which are even more ridiculous if you can believe it, despite winning the Hong Kong Film Award for Best Actor that would be like if Terry O'Quinn won the Academy Award for The Stepfather. Here's the thing though as proven by his work in Hardboiled, Infernal Affairs, and especially Beast Cops Anthony Wong is a higher caliber of actor. He's not a simple exploitation actor in terms of talent, which means he offers a little more than you might expect. That's not to say Wong gives this serious performance, quite the contrary, Wong knows the type of film he's in and he embraces it to its fullest.

It needs to be said that this performance is technically just as insane as the rest of the film, yet Wong's approach elevates it beyond through his understanding of the material. Unlike the majority of the rest of the cast, who are pretty bad in their goofy performances, Wong knows how to play into his material while not being wholly consumed by it. Wong knows the intentions of the part and decides to be as entertaining as he can be with that in mind. After all, past his prologue, Wong's first appearance is as he is chopping meat at his restaurant while watching his waitress. Wong's does not hold back in the sweaty sleaze he brings to his manner. He blares his eyes wide open watching her, and makes his mouth tight as he really emphasizes just how disgusting his character is. Wong though is careful in his performance to just chomp around on the scenery in the right ways. It's a curiously mesmerizing performance to watch at times, as Wong brings certain unpredictability to the madness he inflicts not only the character but his whole performance with. 

Wong is at times downright hilarious as he goes about amplifying the film any way in which he can through his unrepentant depiction of the killer. Whether this is the murder scene which Wong relishes in as his namesake goes about killing people in a variety of ways, which Wong depicts with the utmost glee. Whether this is setting fire to a man or beating a man to death with a ladle. Or his portrayal of the other side of Wong as he brings such haphazard awkwardness to the man as he sloppily attempts to cover  his tracks. Wong's delivery is so enjoyably inept, intentionally inept that is, of a man whose arrest is simply an inevitable. I have to admit I have an especial affection for Wong's dramatic turn he employs after the waitress begins to tell the cops about how suspicious her employer is. Now technically speaking nothing within these scenes stops being exploitative, in fact I am going to say most would find these scenes are downright distasteful especially given that they are based on real events. However Wong does his best to alleviate this best he can by playing up this silliness in an effective fashion. 

Now again much of this is dependent on Wong's talent, which actually does suggest that he could have played a more realistic depiction of the character. Technically in the murder scenes, which get pretty brutal, Wong has the needed intensity for such scenes though apparently knowing the film's direction he takes this up just another notch to derive some actual levity among the grotesque. Again Wong shows the potential for something else, if the film had required it, particularly in the scenes where Wong attempts to commit suicide. Wong does bring the gravity of the situation within his eyes as he begins the act, but again playing into the film's tone he just takes a step further. Making the distress seems less that of a lost soul on the last lengths but rather a pathetic act of a vicious monster. Now because of that Wong's best scene is probably his confession where he gets the unabashedly embrace the character’s wretchedness.  Wong brings such psychotic joy into his devious smile as he boasts about his accomplishments, spending an extra bit of time to note that he made his victims into food which he then fed to the very cops investigating him. This is not a great performance by any means.  It is a lot of dark fun from a good actor really slumming it though. 

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1993

And the Nominees Were Not:

Daniel Day-Lewis in The Age of Innocence

Anthony Wong in The Untold Story

Anthony Hopkins in Shadowlands

Jesse Bradford in King of the Hill

Leslie Cheung in Farewell My Concubine

And finally a review of:

Jeff Daniels in Gettysburg

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1951: Results

5. Raj Kapoor in Awaara - Despite the somewhat disjointed nature of what is required of him, Kapoor actually matches well any tone or style is requested of him by himself as director.
  
Best Scene: Raj catches the "thief".

4. Richard Basehart in Fourteen Hours - Basehart keeps most of his more theatrical tendencies under control to an effective portrayal of the intense state of mind on the edge both literally and metaphorically.

Best Scene: Robert speaks with Dunnigan about the good things in life.

3. Oskar Werner in Decision Before Dawn - Werner effectively elevates his film through his moving and nuanced portrayal of a righteous traitor.

Best Scene: Happy argues for the deserter.

2. Trevor Howard in Outcast of the Islands - Howard gives a downright brilliant portrayal of man who only becomes worse after being given a chance for redemption.

Best Scene: Madness in the rain.  

1. Michael Redgrave in The Browning Version - Good prediction Tahmeed. I have to admit the choice for the final overall was relatively easy despite my love for the performances of Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift, Alec Guinness, Robert Walker, Trevor Howard and Alistair Sim from 1951. I thought Redgrave was a good actor before watching this film, but his extraordinary work here put him in even greater light for me. It is such precise yet naturalistic, uncompromising yet heartfelt, complex and poignant depiction of a man who has slowly given up on life.

Best Scene: The speech.

Updated Overall Lead
Updated Overall Supporting

Next Year: 1993 Lead

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1951: Raj Kapoor in Awaara

Raj Kapoor did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Raj Raghunath in Awaara.

Awaara has a potentially interesting story through the trials of a young thief who is the disowned son of a wealthy judge. I'm here to give my opinion though so I have to admit the Bollywood musical scenes completely weighed the film down for me. It makes the pacing somewhat intolerable and every time they came in they completely broke the flow of the story.

Raj Kapoor, who also directed the film, plays our lead character, aptly named Raj as well, who we see through the phases of his life beginning in poverty. In order to support himself he turns to thievery. The film goes in phases essentially as Kapoor almost breaks down his performance into different acts of the film. The first phase being an almost comedic performance as he depicts Raj's attempts at thievery basically as a bit of buffoonery as he keeps get into unlikely situations because of it. As Raj runs into his old childhood friend Rita, who he keeps running into because he attempts to steal from her, accidentally. Again this is handled with more of a comedic effect than might be expected, but in a good way. Kapoor brings a real exuberance to his performance in these scenes in essentially crafting the likable thief who gets into more of hijinks than criminal activity. This includes Raj's efforts to cover his initially thievery of Rita's purse by pretending to have a fight with the "real" thief while out of sight. Kapoor is certainly entertaining as he throws himself into the scene quite literally at times, and manages to be rather charming in portraying this rather strange act.

Again his performance goes through phases, usually broken by one of the musical sequences to be honest, as it shifts to a more directly romantic turn with Nargis as Rita. Though perhaps the transition is a bit hidden by the songs, Kapoor nevertheless effectively becomes the next part of his performance as Raj. Kapoor changes to a more low key charm of sorts, something less active, in portraying a bit more of a humble quality within his interactions with Nargis. They certainly have the requisite chemistry between the two as the two convey well the underlying connection and warmth between the two. Unfortunately for old Raj and Rita this period of the film is short lived, although the underlying chemistry between the two is something that stays within Raj's changes. The next phase though comes as the film becomes a bit more serious minded in its portrayal of Raj's poverty, and that his past as a thief keeps from rising beyond his upbringing. Raj's mental state in this regard isn't exactly helped as he begins to discover the truth about his father, who happens to also be the benefactor of Rita.

This transitions to Kapoor's performance to more of his angry young man performance where he lashes out against society, which leads Raj eventually into criminal charges, and a trial which acts as a framing device for the story. Again Kapoor's performance actually works for what is required for him in this regard. It does not feel as jarring as it seem as it should, even though he loses the charm in favor of portraying the intense discontent in Raj that defines him. The switch is sudden yet given the story around him it manages to match it, and further Kapoor fulfills the need of the part. He is particularly good in this aspect as he portrays well the growing hatred in Raj, as his outrage continues to get the best of him. Within this portion of the film Kapoor makes the transition to an even more violent man natural. One more shift is left, which is the Raj we meet at the beginning of the film, which is more of a man who has given up on life ready to meet his apparently bleak fate despite the continued optimism of Rita who intends to save him. This is technically probably given the most neat of switches though as it feels like a believable enough end result of the angry young man. Kapoor though once again is good in portraying the simple depressed state of the man choking on his own misery, until his big dramatic speech at the end of the film. Kapoor delivers this with the right passion and he also carefully does not drop the state of Raj showing him still to be burdened by sadness. This whole performance is a rather interesting example of a director directing himself. The reason being Kapoor's performance certainly matches every tone the film happens to be going for at any given moment properly, though it is questionable whether all these varied tones are right for a naturally flowing film. I would say no, in that the film doesn't quite pull it off, despite Kapoor's best efforts as an actor. Now I also don't think in these various phases Kapoor is great in any of them, but he's good in all of them, which is worth something. 

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1951: Michael Redgrave in The Browning Version

Michael Redgrave did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning Cannes, for portraying Andrew Crocker-Harris in The Browning Version.

The Browning Version is a rather excellent film about the last days of a public school professor.

Michael Redgrave is an actor who I have appreciated his past work to be sure, though those were often in smaller roles, or as co-leads. Redgrave is the central figure to this film, and I won't attempt to obscure my feelings this is work is rather extraordinary. The film opens with his character, Crocker-Harris being introduced by the school headmaster as well as through the interactions of a few school students. It is far more common for films with a teacher at the focal point to be more broadly inspirational, not unlike Goodbye Mr. Chips which is referenced in this film. This film seems to purposefully subvert that trope. Both the head master and the students paint Crocker-Harris as an unlikable professor and almost view him as a dictatorial figure, with his first appearance sitting silently seemingly being the figure he is described as. This is a rather interesting character study from the outset as this sort of character is more often found as a side character, just a one note antagonist setup to be flustered when our free spirit protagonist wins the day. This film offers a fascinating alternative perspective to such a character, even though we are technically introduced to him a way in which we observe him through the limited lens that everyone else seems to.

Michael Redgrave's first speaking scene is found when we watch Crocker-Harris's replacement come to observe the man's methods in action. Although we are shown a loud uproarious classroom next door we are told such things do not occur in Crocker-Harris's classroom. Redgrave is downright brilliant as he reveals his crafting of this particular professor. It would not be good enough to simply be the posh stuck up gentleman, that wouldn't be correct, Redgrave instead creates something quite unique in his realization of the man. The vocal choice that Redgrave takes is a stroke of genius. He inflicts himself with a higher pitched voice. It is of course very proper yet dull, perfect for long recitations of foreign languages, also perfect for an imitation, as Crocker-Harris's students so often indulge. There is something particularly intelligent Redgrave does with this voice, which I will get to a bit more down below. Redgrave furthers his creation of Crocker-Harris as the perfect dusty old professor with his physical presence. There is an utter rigidity he brings to his performance as he takes his seat at the head of classroom, keeping this very particular gaze, and very specific tightness in place almost as a statue representing a teacher.

We are then allowed to see Crocker-Harris in action, and Redgrave is wholly convincing in being the master of his classroom. He does not do this by raising his voice, yet there is this cold incisiveness that has a strange power to it. There is an intensity within it which is absolutely believable in the way it controls the classroom. As he distributes his punishment in addition to stating the class's failures on their work it absolutely pierces through in the way Redgrave in such a matter of fact fashion carries the old crock. Redgrave shows us a man who does rule, not with an iron fist, rather an iron tongue and resolve of sorts which is unflinching. In this view you'd never second guess this man in his space of command, even if it appears to make the majority of his students so miserable. The whole idea of the image of the man, as stated by the students, is there in Redgrave's work. He is indeed a character though a character in terms of how the student's view of him. There is something even slightly comical about this, not that Crocker-Harris is being funny exactly, rather he's humorous in the way the student's see him. That is not all there is to Crocker-Harris as the film continues.

We are still given technically the limited view of him as one of the students, Taplow, comes for an additional lesson, much to his dismay, as does Crocker-Harris's fellow professor Frank Hunter under the pretense of a friendly visit, though in fact there to continue on his affair with Crocker-Harris's wife Millie. Redgrave shows Crocker-Harris ease up a bit, though not entirely, as he shows up for the additional lesson at first, suggesting just a hint of less prickly figure, though still rather prickly. Redgrave goes on as the tired old teacher until Taplow mentions translating "Agamemnon" from Greek properly, suggesting a real enthusiasm for the material. Redgrave is fantastic in this moment as he still portrays such reservation in the conversation, as though Crocker-Harris is carefully trying to understand whether or not Taplow is being genuine. Redgrave eventually reveals just a dim bit of passion that reveal itself from beneath his skin, quietly explaining his own interest in the work by mentioning his own attempt at translating it. After the lesson Taplow leaves though and we are left with Crocker-Harris and his personal life.

Now in terms of Redgrave's performance we also see a bit of loss in his vocal work in that his high pitched voice though retained, is now entirely natural sounding where in class it seemed just ever so slightly put on. Redgrave is also terrific in creating such anti-chemistry with Jean Kent as Millie, as they eat together in such complete detachment from one another. If there ever was love between them, it is absolutely gone. Redgrave's interactions though aren't those with a stranger though, but rather an enemy who has done him so much wrong he can barely spare her a look in the eye. They later on go to walk about the academy as a cricket game is going along, and we soon learn why this is the case. Crocker-Harris first goes to speak with the head master who informs Crocker-Harris that he not only will not receive his pension, but he is also asked that at his retirement ceremony that he speak before a younger teacher despite it being entirely against protocol. Redgrave's work is so remarkable in the way he internalizes Crocker-Harris is discontent so effectively in the moment, while just barely whispering out his protests that the head master easily waves away. Redgrave gives us a man so defeated by life, and makes the humanity within it so honest, that it is actually a bit painful to witness.

Of course his treatment by the head master is nothing compared to the way his wife brow beats him incessantly for his failures. Redgrave again makes you feel the pain, while maintaining the man's posture and stature as to what suits his position. The measure of suffering is deeply felt in Redgrave's performance, but it goes further in that you see the years of it in the man. He does not even speak against his wife treatment, though in his eyes he shows it hurts him no less, as he presents Crocker-Harris's terrible existence in such vivid detail. The idea of this is only grown as he explains his history as a professor to his successor, which is a tale defeat. In the scene though Crocker-Harris describes his intentional playing up of certain mannerisms to try to entertain the boys originally, which completely matches that somewhat heightened voice and physical performance we saw in his early scenes. The tale is more than just a revelation, and Redgrave instead expresses a confession. A striking confession of the anguish in a man who is admitting to his own loss of will to do what he believed to have been a noble cause.

There is just a bit of hope given to Crocker-Harris, to give his years some meaning when Taplow later returns to give him the titular Browning version of "Agamemnon". Redgrave give such poignancy to the moment as he allows a bit more of that old passion to reveal itself in the way he so beautifully breaks down in just a moment of joy from the gift. Unfortunately his wife refuses to grant any such happiness to Crocker-Harris as she proclaims that Taplow as merely mocking him with the gift, which is so hurtful that even the Hunter, the man having an affair with his wife, is horrified by it. Redgrave though is heart wrenching as he brings Crocker-Harris to almost the end, as you can feel the emotion all pent up and on the edge of the man with every tense word and irritated movement. Redgrave depicts the tremendous effort in Crocker-Harris as he's trying to keep himself proper, even while so clearly falling apart inside. He is especially heartbreaking when he reveals to Hunter that he's always known about the affair, since his wife told him. Redgrave makes the moment almost unbearable because he shows the man who has essentially accepted his pain as he reveals to Hunter, his wife's inability to love him. Redgrave is devastating since there is this sense of warmth he brings to the words, but a warmth lost long ago to the past. It isn't the end of Crocker-Harris though as Hunter tirelessly attempts to get him to stand up for himself, basically insisting he is not as useful as the way his wife treats him. Redgrave renders his understanding of this so eloquently and believable in his quiet reactions. Redgrave calls upon something within his work in the discontent to carefully and convincingly to create a change in Crocker-Harris. Redgrave does not compromise the character though, as when he dismisses his wife Redgrave's whole performance earns this suggesting it has been a long thing coming to begin with. Crocker-Harris's turn around does not end there though as in the farewell ceremony he insists on speaking second, as is his right to do so. Redgrave is downright amazing in the scene as he begins in Crocker-Harris's stilted professor manner at first, before breaking out to essentially giving an anti-inspirational speech. In that he admits his failures to all his students, and Redgrave finally wholly reveals the old passions of the man in this speech. It is a truly cathartic moment, and Redgrave manages to make inspiring in its own way. As now Redgrave, even when admitting defeat, he shows that Croker-Harris is no longer defeated as a man. I honestly could go on and on in discussing the greatness of this performance. I absolutely loved this performance not a second is wasted in Redgrave's outstanding work. He so effortlessly crafts this portrait of this distinct figure in such humanizing and powerful detail.

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1951: Trevor Howard in Outcast of the Islands

Trevor Howard did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Peter Willems in Outcast of the Islands.

Outcast of the Islands is a very intriguing character study about a rogue who is given a second chance on trading post/island.

Trevor Howard is an actor I've liked in the past in his roles as either the suave gentlemen, or the fierce gruff type, this is perhaps the most challenging role I've seen him undertake. It is also the first of his leading turns where he's actually the sole and central lead. The film opens with his character Peter Willems acting as a manger for a merchant at a trading post near Singapore. Howard is pretty marvelous to begin with in portraying a man about town. He brings such confidence in Willems as he goes about his life of luxury. Howard gives us a man without really a care in the world as he about his day of smoking, drinking and playing games while casually ignoring his wife and most things around him. Howard is quite a lout though in that he does manage to bring a genuine charm within this behavior and is rather suave. It suggests how Willems earned his position to begin with, as he really is rather smooth to be sure. There seems to be more to this though when an old mentor of sorts arrives, a trading ship Captain, Tom Lingard (Ralph Richardson) who took a liking to Willems when he was younger.

During the arrival of Lingard, Willems announces himself and Howard brings such a genuine pride in Willems as he shows off his finery and states his rather cushy position. Unfortunately this is a short lived joy when Willems is instantly fired when he is accused of having stolen from the very merchant he had been working for. Howard technically seems to pull off the impossible  of sorts as he somehow prevents you from instantly condemning Willems, even though he really should be. Howard to be sure does not hold back in showing the immediate reaction in Willems that reveals the man's petty nature.  Howard brims with this intense bitterness of the man, as for a moment any sense of that charm is lost as he closes down into seemingly a hatred for everyone. Howard is particularly despicable when Willems essentially dismisses his wife as only a burden to him, the venom in Howard is oh so pure, hinting early on the real nature of the man. Something funny happens though after this point, and as everyone seems to ignore his requests for help, Howard kind of wins you over once again.

It is not for becoming a better man truly, as Howard makes Willems a real sad sack, though earnestly so that you do feel sorry for him, even though you shouldn't. For some reason it helps that Howard carefully brings back that glint of a roguish charm that is hard to ignore. Howard is remarkable because as he for some reason gains sympathy from the audience once again, he makes it wholly believable that he'd convince Richardson's Lingard to give him a second chance, because hey why not. There is something truly special in this in that Howard's charisma makes it seem like he has the potential for change, even though Howard has not shown a single sign of real repentance in his performance. It's pretty great as Willems gains Lingard's sympathy by faking a suicide, because after all look at that sorrowful face it looks like he's learned his lesson. Of course though it might seem like sorrow on the outer surface, Howard is honest to his character as if you look any deeper you can see the man is only sorry that he got caught. Nevertheless he is given his chance as Lingard brings him to the more remote trading post, filled with local natives, in order to reform himself by working with Lingard's son-in-law Elmer Almeyer (Robert Morley).

Howard is clever as he does show a change in Willems in this new situation, but hardly for the better. Howard more than anything expresses a general discontent in the man, a tension in his physical manner of a man who simply is somewhere he does not want to be. Howard is careful though in that he still somehow hides just how despicable he truly is, and he tricks you into thinking this might be a story about a man's redemption, it isn't. Willems begins to interact with the natives and Elmer along with his wife (Wendy Hiller), and Howard portrays all of this in a very casual way. That is he never suggests much growth in Willems, finding instead that the man treats the island as an inconvenience most of the time, and essentially interacts mostly to remove his boredom. Willems eventually finds something he believes is worth his interest in the local chief's daughter Aissa (Kerima). A romance does develop though Howard again doesn't give it much depth, and no that's not a criticism. Howard instead stays true to the man Willems is instead by conveying such a distinct lust in Willems throughout the affair, which luckily for Willems Aissa shares the same lust for him.

Howard is fascinating to watch as he conveys  a most unusual reaction once he become more acquainted with the island, which does not lead to good things. Above all Howard conveys a lack of understanding of it, rather always maintaining the sense that Willem's life is more defined with pleasure than anything else. Willems runs into trouble when the chief does not condone his relationship with his daughter, yet Howard shows it never phases Willems. He reunites with her again and again, and Howard still only shows the most surface of interaction even when he ends up critically injuring the chief after the chief attacks him with a knife. There is a frustration that Howard brings, but still never a true revelation. Howard is terrific in portraying the confusion that arrives from a man who never bothers to care to know what his actions truly amount to. After the attack Willems learns nothing, and even decides to stab Lingard in the back by joining up with a rival merchant after Almeyer refuses to give Willems any further help.

Willems though decides to misuse the new found position to get back at Almeyer. Howard is pretty amazing in the sequence where he essentially leads a native attack against Almeyer and his storehouse. Howard brings this pettiness about the whole affair, with a hint of madness, all just to get back at the man who had every right to ignore him. Howard shows a sloppiness as well though as he throws himself into the intensity of emotion as Willems once again goes about stealing what he wants without for a moment thinking of the ramifications. Afterwards we see Willems in a luxury of sorts and Howard brings that sense of a certain contentment as he reaps the awards of his misdeeds, yet he keeps that underlying lack of insight as he still interacts with the natives with almost a bizarre hesitation, the hesitation of a man who is unaware of his surroundings. This even includes the chief's daughter, and I love the awkwardness Howard brings whenever Willems is not lusting after her.

The death of the chief though leads Willems to be exiled to a remote location as well, though still with the chief's daughter, but Lingard returns to essentially name Willems his sins before leaving him to rot for his actions. Howard is outstanding in this final sequence as he portrays the madness of Willems broken by his actions, revealing the despicable lout he always had been. Howard not only earned that through the way he established the man but as well his curious descent while being adrift in this land.  Howard gives us a man with nothing left but his pathetic self, and it is extremely visceral depiction of madness. Howard releases all the fear and paranoia of the man who fears his only companion, the chief's daughter, believing she'll seek revenge for his father as he still fails to understand her. Then he's so perfectly raw as he first begs then threatens Lingard for help. Howard is incredible depicting the rogue's end as just a mess. This is a downright brilliant performance by Howard. He makes this unlikable character absolutely captivating even while never compromising his arc that is of a man revealing himself to only be worse given the chance. 

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1951: Oskar Werner in Decision Before Dawn

Oskar Werner did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Corporal Karl Maurer aka Happy in Decision Before Dawn.

Decision Before Dawn about a German being made a spy for the allies takes a little too long on its setup but is a decent thriller once it focuses on that character.

Oskar Werner plays the eventual lead of the film as Happy, who we first see as a German medic and POW but later becomes a spy for the Allies. The film takes a bit of time as it illustrates the plot by spending time with the Americans, planning the mission and setting up another German spy, who has the most predictable character arc one could imagine. The film eventually finds its way to focusing on Happy, who happens to also be played by the best actor in the film. Werner even kind of steals the film before he even gains the stronger focus as he proves his ability onscreen, just through his eyes as he is able to express the quiet outrage in Happy as he decides to work against his home country, in part due to seeing his fellow soldiers despicable behavior even while detained. Thankfully the film restricts its focus upon Happy sooner than later, and we are given one of Werner's first English language performances. Now he might not be as assured as his work in The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, but that's a tall order to fulfill.

Werner once again has this real low key charm about him, and he immediately endearing in his portrayal of Happy. He importantly doesn't even need to try, there is just an innate honesty Werner brings to his performance, which is interesting given that he technically playing a traitor. Werner though brings basically home the message of the good traitor in his performance by bringing this effortless goodness that he exudes as Happy. This is also essential in that it makes it particularly easy to invest in Werner as Happy is sent back into his home country in order to discover an important bit of information. Werner actually has a particularly difficult challenge in that he really doesn't have anyone to work against in terms of portraying the man's on the mission, since Happy does not meet up with his liasons until near the film's ending. The rest of the time it is solely upon Werner to realize the struggle in Happy as he goes about his mission. Werner succeeds in this as he creates the sense of the underlying fear in Happy throughout the scenes, but does even more than that.

Werner gives further understanding of Happy through very nuanced indirect reactions within other interactions. For example there is great moment where Happy learns that his father is nearby, and Werner is able to express the concern in Happy for him while still keeping the shell of a soldier just going about his duty. There is so much dependent on Werner to capture so much of the emotional weight of the story. Werner never is lacking in this though and adds so much substance to the side relationships Happy strikes up while on his mission. This includes two "lowly" sorts one a woman few others care about and an affable fellow soldier. In both Werner presents such a palatable empathy in Happy and in turn makes those character more meaningful than they would have been otherwise. Werner is especially moving in a scene where he tries to passionate save someone from death. This all while Werner never loses the struggle of the mission in his very being. He keeps that pivotal central tension but finds the right amount of substance that benefits the film greatly. Eventually the film ends on a straight escape scene where technically some of that substance found earlier seems lost. Werner though proves his worth one last time though in the escape when Happy sacrifices himself for the sake of the mission. Werner has made Happy such a likable character that when this happens it is rather heartbreaking, even if the film itself still doesn't seem like it quite is appreciating what Werner is doing for it. It's performance which elevates the film, and though it might not be as assured as his later work, it is a strong early indication of Werner's talent.

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1951: Richard Basehart in Fourteen Hours

Richard Basehart did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning NBR, for portraying Robert Cosick in Fourteen Hours.

Fourteen Hours is rather compelling hidden gem, despite a few lets slowly explain the psychology of the situation it to the audience moments, about a man standing on a ledge of a tall building threatening to commit suicide.

Richard Basehart plays the man who we first meet as he's already on the ledge apparently waiting to jump off. The film's star I suppose is Henry Hathaway's direction which presents the sort of communal experience in related to the event with almost as much importance as the even itself. The film often wavers from the men though it always come back to him, and the one person he agrees to negotiate with. The man being a random beat cop Charlie Dunnigan (Paul Douglas), who just happens to be one of the first ones to speak to the man. Might as well get the negative out of the way first. Basehart is an actor I've found okay at best in the other films I've seen him in, as the fact that he got his start on stage is immediately apparent. He does have a tendency, in this film as well, to oversell even the most basic lines with the expression of someone making sure those seated in the back rows will hear. It is not that all his line deliveries are bad, but they tend to feel off because of this broad approach which is not necessary on film.

There is much dependent on Basehart's performance, even with the film's wavering focus, particularly in terms of keeping the central tension alive. It must be believed that the man on the ledge, Robert, could jump at any time. Basehart is convincing in this regard as he makes the man's distress absolutely palatable. Basehart importantly never lets up in this, as even in his calmer moments, he still keeps the tense manner in his physical manner, showing the way Robert is almost seized in the anguish that has brought him to this point. Basehart effectively utilizes this throughout the film to maintain the question of whether or not Robert will jump. Basehart, despite this underlying quality always, manages to find nuance with this, and it easy to see how the role could easily been overplayed the whole time. Basehart carefully defines Robert when he can through the moments we are given throughout the story depending on whoever Robert might be interacting with at any given point.

Basehart works very well with Paul Douglas, as the two gradually strike up the right sort of chemistry. There is always a certain gap between them, yet the slow warmth that is created, in moments where Basehart relaxes just over so much are rather affecting. In order to try to get Robert off though they allow others to see him including his parents. Basehart is excellent when his overbearing mother appears as he shows Robert only become even more constrictive and emotional, suggesting he is even more likely to jump than before. When he meets his father, who attempts to reconcile with his son, Basehart conveys the way the initial fierce reaction of fear slowly assuages to a certain understanding. Through these interactions though Basehart is able to allude to the confused state of the man, who is mentally unstable from his upbringing, and is creates the sense of his past that has lead him to this point. It is unfortunate that film decides to have a doctor explain this all this to us, a la Psycho, since Basehart's performance fulfills that need to begin with. Obviously the part is limited in a certain regard, Basehart only moves a few feet throughout the film, yet he makes use of this. I find again his physical performance to be the most remarkable aspect in not only revealing the man's anguish, but as well creating the pressure of certain sequences. Basehart keeps essentially this suspicion in his body language, making that even passing a glass of water a tense moment. Again the center of it are his scenes with Douglas, and through them Basehart believably shows the gradual shift in Robert as he slowly comes back from literally the edge. It's a strong performance by Basehart, even with his overly enthusiastic of line deliveries, that might not carry the film but instead offers its honest emotional center.

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1951

And the Nominees Were Not:

Raj Kapoor in Awaara

Oskar Werner in Decision Before Dawn

Trevor Howard in Outcast of the Islands

Michael Redgrave in The Browning Version

Richard Basehart in Fourteen Hours

Read More

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2005: Results

5. Jeffrey Wright in Broken Flowers - Wright gives a relatively brief yet enjoyable turn bringing such endearing enthusiasm to his role as a kooky wannabe detective.

Best Scene:Winston lays out the case. 

4. Min-sik Choi in Sympathy for Lady Vengeance - Choi has a limited role yet still gives a captivating portrayal of diabolical sleaze.

Best Scene: "Nobody's perfect"

3. Cillian Murphy in Red Eye - Murphy gives first a charming than rather chilling villainous turn that creates the needed sense of tension in the thriller, even if the third act of the film lets him down a bit.

Best Scene: Rippner reveals his true intentions. 

2. Ghassan Massoud in Kingdom of Heaven - Massoud gives a striking depiction of Saladin capturing the needed low key charisma and power of the wisdom of the man.

Best Scene: The parlay. 

1. Keanu Reeves in Thumbsucker - Reeves gives a hilarious performance in his portrayal of the destruction of a man's personal philosophy.

Best Scene: The final appointment. 

Updated Overall

Next Year: 1951 Lead (make any supporting suggestions as well)

Read More