William Holden in The Bridge on the River Kwai
Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory
Showing posts with label 1957. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1957. Show all posts
Sunday, 3 July 2011
Best Actor 1957: Results
William Holden in The Bridge on the River Kwai
Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory
Best Actor 1957: Anthony Quinn in Wild is the Wind
Anthony Quinn received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Gino in Wild is the Wind.
Wild in the Wind tells the story of a widower Gino who marries a woman he does not know his wife's sister Gioia (Anna Magnani), but their marriage is troubled and she begins a relationship with one of Gino's workers Bene played by the always unusual Anthony Franciosa.
Anthony Quinn performance starts out extremely well, as he opens visiting his wife's grave, and thinking about his marriage to his wife's sister whom he does not even know. Quinn is heartbreaking in this single scene because he portrays his grief and uncertainty that has been created over the death of his wife brilliantly in this short single scene.
Quinn is also quite good in his first scene where Gino meets Gioia. He mixes the right enthusiasm in trying to ease himself, and his new wife into their situation, as well as some hesitation that properly displays Gino's own uncertainty over whether their relationship will work or not.
Quinn certainly is believable in this role as a sheep rancher, who is rough in some ways, well being brutish just enough. My only problem is I frankly wish the film was slightly less cliched than it is, because it requires his character to be overly controlling of everyone making his free spirited new wife feel alienated and starts an affair with Bene.
Quinn I thought almost took a different approach than the character was written as, since Quinn does not really portray his character as an overly dominating figure, rather as what he does, he does simply because he just does not know any better. I like this approach actually more than I believe the one the film perhaps wanted.
Quinn though due to the main conflict of the film, and the fact that it mainly focuses on Gioia later, Quinn basically gets the short end of the stick in terms of what he is really allowed to do. I like whenever Quinn is onscreen in the film he is good and natural, but unfortuantely I always wanted even more from him than the film would allow for.
Quinn when given a scene for more, such as when he finally looks back at his own behavior near the end of the film is excellent. His final scene with Magnani is great showing how much Gino really wanted, and still wants their relationship to work, showing how he does love her even though he has not been able to always been able to convey it to her in the right way.
This is a performance, I wish had been given a little better of a film, or at least a little better treatment. If the film had not fallen for the rather old cliche of falling for the worker, it might have been more effective, if it always stayed focus on Gino and Gioia's relationship, it also would have been better for Quinn since I am sure he could have even more fully expanded Gino as a character.
As the film is Quinn does give a good performance. He is always realistic in his performance, and really does not have false note in his performance really. Quinn also when allowed more, he takes it, and every scene that requires more of him Quinn is more than up for it. A somewhat mixed character, but never because of Quinn's performance though.
Anthony Quinn performance starts out extremely well, as he opens visiting his wife's grave, and thinking about his marriage to his wife's sister whom he does not even know. Quinn is heartbreaking in this single scene because he portrays his grief and uncertainty that has been created over the death of his wife brilliantly in this short single scene.
Quinn is also quite good in his first scene where Gino meets Gioia. He mixes the right enthusiasm in trying to ease himself, and his new wife into their situation, as well as some hesitation that properly displays Gino's own uncertainty over whether their relationship will work or not.
Quinn certainly is believable in this role as a sheep rancher, who is rough in some ways, well being brutish just enough. My only problem is I frankly wish the film was slightly less cliched than it is, because it requires his character to be overly controlling of everyone making his free spirited new wife feel alienated and starts an affair with Bene.
Quinn I thought almost took a different approach than the character was written as, since Quinn does not really portray his character as an overly dominating figure, rather as what he does, he does simply because he just does not know any better. I like this approach actually more than I believe the one the film perhaps wanted.
Quinn though due to the main conflict of the film, and the fact that it mainly focuses on Gioia later, Quinn basically gets the short end of the stick in terms of what he is really allowed to do. I like whenever Quinn is onscreen in the film he is good and natural, but unfortuantely I always wanted even more from him than the film would allow for.
Quinn when given a scene for more, such as when he finally looks back at his own behavior near the end of the film is excellent. His final scene with Magnani is great showing how much Gino really wanted, and still wants their relationship to work, showing how he does love her even though he has not been able to always been able to convey it to her in the right way.
This is a performance, I wish had been given a little better of a film, or at least a little better treatment. If the film had not fallen for the rather old cliche of falling for the worker, it might have been more effective, if it always stayed focus on Gino and Gioia's relationship, it also would have been better for Quinn since I am sure he could have even more fully expanded Gino as a character.
As the film is Quinn does give a good performance. He is always realistic in his performance, and really does not have false note in his performance really. Quinn also when allowed more, he takes it, and every scene that requires more of him Quinn is more than up for it. A somewhat mixed character, but never because of Quinn's performance though.
Saturday, 2 July 2011
Best Actor 1957: Alec Guinness in The Bridge on the River Kwai
Alec Guinness won his only Oscar from his second Oscar nomination for portraying Lieutenant Colonel Nicholson in The Bridge on the River Kwai.
The Bridge on the River Kwai is brilliant film about the events that take place in Japanese camp for Allied Pows, and a bridge that the Pows are suppose to be building.
Alec Guinness is always actor I think, finds a new way to play every part he gets, to make himself hard to recognize from role to role. This is most certianly the case in this film, as Alec Guinness creates a unique characterization in the character of Col. Nicholson. Nicholson being an overly proper officer, who always believes in the letter of the law no matter what the circumstance he finds himself in.
One thing I love about this performance is how he makes a completely unique characterization out of what could have been a stock role in certian ways with stock mannerisms, and attitudes. Alec Guinness most certainly portrays Nicholson with a stiff spine, and a stiff upper lip. Alec Guinness somehow portrays these proper mannerisms, in his own unique way that perfectly fit and amplify the character, as well as not ever seem dull despite doing mannerisms that by nature are a bit dull.
Alec Guinness is brilliant in this part I think because he is always working on at least two levels in this performance. For example Col. Nicholson as a British officer is a no nonsense rather lacking in humor sort of man, yet Guinness knows how to through Nicholson's humorless attitude, to make his portrayal quite humor filled in fact. Guinness always portrays the ironic humor behind his character's properness, well still being the proper soldier he is, it is a difficult trick to pull off but Guinness does it masterfully.
The trickiest part of his character though is Nicholson's belief in proper military behavior. It would have been easy to portray the part as simply that is the character's code and that would be that. But that is not that, Guinness finds a deeper meaning inside of his inability to do anything not by the code, showing it as all that his entire life has been, and it would be against his very nature to go against what he has done for his whole entire life.
Guinness portrayal of his fight with Col. Saito over officers working is expertly handled by Guinness, and Guinness always gets the most out of the part. I love of Guinness portrays the way even when Nicholson is tortured, and basically powerless he refuses to stop fighting in his fully proper fashion. I think the very best moment is when he wins though, because Guinness' reaction is just pure gold in his facial response, and the way he straightens himself up, since he is finally in charge once more.
I really love how Nicholson playss ever single moment of his performance, and how astutely he always reinforces the nature of Nicholson in every scene. For example in the opening scene, how he no matter never loses his stature among his men no matter what even when hit by the camp commandant Col. Saito (Sessue Hayakawa). Guinness displays just the tremendous will of Nicholson without a single fault, making his iron resolve always entirely realistic, even though it could have completely failed to work if Guinness faltered for a moment, but Guinness never does.
I find Guinness is brilliant in the way he portrays Nicholson as genuinely insane, completely mad really in the way he refuses to ever lose his proper behavior, but yet he is able to completely realistically portray this totally insane, yet totally in possession of his faculties Colonel. This again is a rather difficult trick to pull off, since Nicholson could have been a hard to believe character, but Guinness' conviction and consistency never left a doubt in my mind about Nicholson.
Guinness is careful in his slow decent actually in greater madness of Nicholson that slowly arrives well building the bridge for the Japanese. It is a slow easy descent that Guinness does ever so slightly that it is really an amazing to watch. Guinness is excellent in his way that he shows tat his belief in the bridge is so great it even overrides his belief in all else, in tremendous flawless portrayal of madness like no other ever seen on film.
Guinness' greatest moment should be mentioned though as well, where his character finally has his moment of clarity not only about his present situation but his entire life, it is one of the greatest moments, and reactions I think in film, Guinness' is incredible and shows that although it took almost everything his madness could be broken. The scene would seem almost impossible to portray, since it technically breaks the character, but Guinness earns the break completely.
Guinness creates a fascinating portrayal of attuned madness, and I felt I rally met Nicholson, because Guinness brings him to life so fully. This is a performance I simply love to watch over and over again, and it fits so perfectly in line with the great film it is, Guinness is the perfect personification of the folly in the war in this film. This is an outstanding performance, in a challenging role, a role that could have been dull, or seem easily over or underacted, but Guinness never strikes a false note in this stunning portrayal.
Alec Guinness is always actor I think, finds a new way to play every part he gets, to make himself hard to recognize from role to role. This is most certianly the case in this film, as Alec Guinness creates a unique characterization in the character of Col. Nicholson. Nicholson being an overly proper officer, who always believes in the letter of the law no matter what the circumstance he finds himself in.
One thing I love about this performance is how he makes a completely unique characterization out of what could have been a stock role in certian ways with stock mannerisms, and attitudes. Alec Guinness most certainly portrays Nicholson with a stiff spine, and a stiff upper lip. Alec Guinness somehow portrays these proper mannerisms, in his own unique way that perfectly fit and amplify the character, as well as not ever seem dull despite doing mannerisms that by nature are a bit dull.
Alec Guinness is brilliant in this part I think because he is always working on at least two levels in this performance. For example Col. Nicholson as a British officer is a no nonsense rather lacking in humor sort of man, yet Guinness knows how to through Nicholson's humorless attitude, to make his portrayal quite humor filled in fact. Guinness always portrays the ironic humor behind his character's properness, well still being the proper soldier he is, it is a difficult trick to pull off but Guinness does it masterfully.
The trickiest part of his character though is Nicholson's belief in proper military behavior. It would have been easy to portray the part as simply that is the character's code and that would be that. But that is not that, Guinness finds a deeper meaning inside of his inability to do anything not by the code, showing it as all that his entire life has been, and it would be against his very nature to go against what he has done for his whole entire life.
Guinness portrayal of his fight with Col. Saito over officers working is expertly handled by Guinness, and Guinness always gets the most out of the part. I love of Guinness portrays the way even when Nicholson is tortured, and basically powerless he refuses to stop fighting in his fully proper fashion. I think the very best moment is when he wins though, because Guinness' reaction is just pure gold in his facial response, and the way he straightens himself up, since he is finally in charge once more.
I really love how Nicholson playss ever single moment of his performance, and how astutely he always reinforces the nature of Nicholson in every scene. For example in the opening scene, how he no matter never loses his stature among his men no matter what even when hit by the camp commandant Col. Saito (Sessue Hayakawa). Guinness displays just the tremendous will of Nicholson without a single fault, making his iron resolve always entirely realistic, even though it could have completely failed to work if Guinness faltered for a moment, but Guinness never does.
I find Guinness is brilliant in the way he portrays Nicholson as genuinely insane, completely mad really in the way he refuses to ever lose his proper behavior, but yet he is able to completely realistically portray this totally insane, yet totally in possession of his faculties Colonel. This again is a rather difficult trick to pull off, since Nicholson could have been a hard to believe character, but Guinness' conviction and consistency never left a doubt in my mind about Nicholson.
Guinness is careful in his slow decent actually in greater madness of Nicholson that slowly arrives well building the bridge for the Japanese. It is a slow easy descent that Guinness does ever so slightly that it is really an amazing to watch. Guinness is excellent in his way that he shows tat his belief in the bridge is so great it even overrides his belief in all else, in tremendous flawless portrayal of madness like no other ever seen on film.
Guinness' greatest moment should be mentioned though as well, where his character finally has his moment of clarity not only about his present situation but his entire life, it is one of the greatest moments, and reactions I think in film, Guinness' is incredible and shows that although it took almost everything his madness could be broken. The scene would seem almost impossible to portray, since it technically breaks the character, but Guinness earns the break completely.
Guinness creates a fascinating portrayal of attuned madness, and I felt I rally met Nicholson, because Guinness brings him to life so fully. This is a performance I simply love to watch over and over again, and it fits so perfectly in line with the great film it is, Guinness is the perfect personification of the folly in the war in this film. This is an outstanding performance, in a challenging role, a role that could have been dull, or seem easily over or underacted, but Guinness never strikes a false note in this stunning portrayal.
Best Actor 1957: Charles Laughton in Witness for the Prosecution
Charles Laughton received his third and final Oscar nomination for portraying Sir Wilfrid Robarts in Witness for the Prosecution.
Witness for the Prosecution tells of a trial about a man who is being prosecuted for a murder Leonard Vole (Tyrone Power), many twists and turns ensue.
Charles Laughton portrays the barrister for the charged man Leonard Vole. Sir Wilfirid is a witty barrister with a heart condition, leaving him with a nurse Miss Plimsoll (Elsa Lancaster) with whom he constantly bickers with over his health choices. This is an interesting role in the film, in that he most certianly is part of the story, but never becomes more involved with it than a defense attorney must do.
Laughton's performance is the type I really like to see , and commonly pop up with trial films, which are performances of character who are only by their job related to the overall dramatic story of the film, therefore it really is up the actor to make his character great well moving through the plot, Laughton like James Stewart in Anatomy of a Murder manages to do this with ease.
He portrays Sir Wilfrid in a delightfully entertaining way. As an incredibly intelligent and astute performance, that does not mind showing his distaste for someone or something in a rather witty fashion. Laughton has perfect timing in this film, with his witty remarks always putting the right sardonic amusement behind them to make his performance very enjoyable to watch.
Laughton is always believable in this part, and his almost always slightly at ease approach works marvelously for the film. He makes Sir Wilfrid simply a fun, and enjoyable character to follow through the film, and his whole character acts as a terrific foil to the more dramatic rest of the film.
His back and fourths with Lancaster are great as he gets annoyed by her, or by her demands for his health, as well as he tries to trick her in the way he still drinks and smoke. They simply work wonderfully together, and have the pitch perfect squabbles with one another, that are properly amusing, as well as not over doing it in order to keep it in line with the rest of the film.
Laughton as well excels in the court room scenes. He holds the right charisma, and undeniable presence in these moments. His cross examinations of witnesses, and his objections are always entertaining to watch, and very effective. He shows an exceptional sway, and certain way in these moments that shows the great abilities in the courtroom of Sir Wilfrid perfectly.
His last moments are utterly terrific as well, when Sir Wilfrid finally becomes a loss for words. He frustrations, and disbelief, are brilliantly played by Laughton, showing a different side of Wilfrid, one who does not have all of the answers for once. It just shows that if Wilfrid needed to do even more, Laughton would have been more than up for the job.
This is not an overly complex or complicated performance but it does not need to be, and Laughton knew exactly how to play a part like this. He makes his part entertaining throughout, and always brings out just about everything that could be brought out of the part. He brings every witty moment the character could have brilliantly. Laughton just gives a great example of what an old pro can do, even with a technically not all that complicated of a part.
Charles Laughton portrays the barrister for the charged man Leonard Vole. Sir Wilfirid is a witty barrister with a heart condition, leaving him with a nurse Miss Plimsoll (Elsa Lancaster) with whom he constantly bickers with over his health choices. This is an interesting role in the film, in that he most certianly is part of the story, but never becomes more involved with it than a defense attorney must do.
Laughton's performance is the type I really like to see , and commonly pop up with trial films, which are performances of character who are only by their job related to the overall dramatic story of the film, therefore it really is up the actor to make his character great well moving through the plot, Laughton like James Stewart in Anatomy of a Murder manages to do this with ease.
He portrays Sir Wilfrid in a delightfully entertaining way. As an incredibly intelligent and astute performance, that does not mind showing his distaste for someone or something in a rather witty fashion. Laughton has perfect timing in this film, with his witty remarks always putting the right sardonic amusement behind them to make his performance very enjoyable to watch.
Laughton is always believable in this part, and his almost always slightly at ease approach works marvelously for the film. He makes Sir Wilfrid simply a fun, and enjoyable character to follow through the film, and his whole character acts as a terrific foil to the more dramatic rest of the film.
His back and fourths with Lancaster are great as he gets annoyed by her, or by her demands for his health, as well as he tries to trick her in the way he still drinks and smoke. They simply work wonderfully together, and have the pitch perfect squabbles with one another, that are properly amusing, as well as not over doing it in order to keep it in line with the rest of the film.
Laughton as well excels in the court room scenes. He holds the right charisma, and undeniable presence in these moments. His cross examinations of witnesses, and his objections are always entertaining to watch, and very effective. He shows an exceptional sway, and certain way in these moments that shows the great abilities in the courtroom of Sir Wilfrid perfectly.
His last moments are utterly terrific as well, when Sir Wilfrid finally becomes a loss for words. He frustrations, and disbelief, are brilliantly played by Laughton, showing a different side of Wilfrid, one who does not have all of the answers for once. It just shows that if Wilfrid needed to do even more, Laughton would have been more than up for the job.
This is not an overly complex or complicated performance but it does not need to be, and Laughton knew exactly how to play a part like this. He makes his part entertaining throughout, and always brings out just about everything that could be brought out of the part. He brings every witty moment the character could have brilliantly. Laughton just gives a great example of what an old pro can do, even with a technically not all that complicated of a part.
Friday, 1 July 2011
Best Actor 1957: Marlon Brando in Sayonara
Marlon Brando received his fifth Oscar nomination for portraying Maj. Lloyd 'Ace' Gruver, USAF in Sayonara.
Sayonara is about servicemen who have relationship with Japanese women against the orders of the U.S. military.
Marlon Brando certainly had some unforgettable characters he originated on film in the 50's like Terry Malloy, and Stanley Kowalski unfortuantely Ace Gruver is not one of these character. Ace Gruver in fact is not much of a characters. A West Point graduate, a son of a General, the type of pilot his name suggests, as well as a rather simple southern boy apparently.
Marlon Brando takes a rather odd approach, for Brando anyways, in his portrayal of Ace. Although he usually portrays not the smartest men, such as Stanley Kowalski and Terry Malloy, he usually portrayed some type of intelligence in them. Ace though he honestly seems to portray as a bit of a dunderhead, and he certianly does not add to it with his rather odd southern accent he uses, which is a bit too laid back sounding.
I think what Brando was trying to do, was play the character as not a smart guy, but unfortuantely Brando undercuts his own portrayal. Most of the time he back a big dumb guy look, I really can't find a better way to describe it, but at times Brando shows frankly more intelligence than there should be in a few moments that honestly seem to contradict the rest of his performance.
Now Brando never keeps his performance consistent because of the reason i have said before, which really makes it so he cannot really create a convincing portrayal overall. I never knew what made Ace what he was, or who he was really, because Brando wants to portray him so simply most of the time, and when he tries to add complication it seems out of character, rather than a deeper side of the same character.
Brando really does not succeed in other facets of his performance either. He is not really believable in any of his relationships whether it is with his American girlfriend where it becomes hard to understand why they ever liked it each since they are so exceedingly unnatural together. Than his relationship with the Japanese dancer Hana-ogi (Miiko Taka) which needed to be really authentic since it is pivotal to the film, but it never is.
Brando fails to ever really convey honest emotion in these scenes, and the relationship never becomes believable or even really romantic. It does not even matter that Taka is not very special in her role, Brando usually can be fascinating on his own, but here he never is. He never has a single moment that really comes off the screen, or resembles his excellent performances in Streetcar, and On the Waterfront.
I will grant that Brando could have been worse. I cannot deny some some charm behind his expressions in this film. Unfortunately his performance though never becomes anything special. It remains an inconsistent effort, as well as a lacking effort. He never really makes Ace Gruver compelling character, and this remains one of if not the least impressive performance of the earlier career of Brando.
Marlon Brando certainly had some unforgettable characters he originated on film in the 50's like Terry Malloy, and Stanley Kowalski unfortuantely Ace Gruver is not one of these character. Ace Gruver in fact is not much of a characters. A West Point graduate, a son of a General, the type of pilot his name suggests, as well as a rather simple southern boy apparently.
Marlon Brando takes a rather odd approach, for Brando anyways, in his portrayal of Ace. Although he usually portrays not the smartest men, such as Stanley Kowalski and Terry Malloy, he usually portrayed some type of intelligence in them. Ace though he honestly seems to portray as a bit of a dunderhead, and he certianly does not add to it with his rather odd southern accent he uses, which is a bit too laid back sounding.
I think what Brando was trying to do, was play the character as not a smart guy, but unfortuantely Brando undercuts his own portrayal. Most of the time he back a big dumb guy look, I really can't find a better way to describe it, but at times Brando shows frankly more intelligence than there should be in a few moments that honestly seem to contradict the rest of his performance.
Now Brando never keeps his performance consistent because of the reason i have said before, which really makes it so he cannot really create a convincing portrayal overall. I never knew what made Ace what he was, or who he was really, because Brando wants to portray him so simply most of the time, and when he tries to add complication it seems out of character, rather than a deeper side of the same character.
Brando really does not succeed in other facets of his performance either. He is not really believable in any of his relationships whether it is with his American girlfriend where it becomes hard to understand why they ever liked it each since they are so exceedingly unnatural together. Than his relationship with the Japanese dancer Hana-ogi (Miiko Taka) which needed to be really authentic since it is pivotal to the film, but it never is.
Brando fails to ever really convey honest emotion in these scenes, and the relationship never becomes believable or even really romantic. It does not even matter that Taka is not very special in her role, Brando usually can be fascinating on his own, but here he never is. He never has a single moment that really comes off the screen, or resembles his excellent performances in Streetcar, and On the Waterfront.
I will grant that Brando could have been worse. I cannot deny some some charm behind his expressions in this film. Unfortunately his performance though never becomes anything special. It remains an inconsistent effort, as well as a lacking effort. He never really makes Ace Gruver compelling character, and this remains one of if not the least impressive performance of the earlier career of Brando.
Best Actor 1957: Anthony Franciosa in A Hatful of Rain
Anthony Franciosa received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Polo Pope in A Hatful of Rain.
A Hatful of Rain is about a Korean war veteran who is having troubles with his life, and his pregnant wife because he is secretly addicted to morphine.
Anthony Franciosa actually portrays the brother of the morphine addict, and is actually tries to help his brother deal with his addiction, as well he has to try to deal with his angry father who he promised money to, as well as his own attraction to his brother's wife. None of these aspects of the character really matter though because Franciosa is a terrible actor, that is all there is to it.
He fails to make anything that is at all an interesting or effective characterization because he is such a bad actor by nature. He fails to really have a believable moment in this film, he never has authentic moment, he just cannot get over his own obvious inability as an actor. This same inability can be found in other this films this year too such as in Wild is the Wind, and to a lesser extent A Face in the Crowd.
What makes him such a bad actor, well not just his failure to really connect to his character of Polo, and make any of the situations really resonate in any sort of way, but really becuase he constantly, and I mean constantly overacts. There is not a single moment of this performance where he does not overact, it just seems to be his nature as an actor to overact.
His overacting though is especially bad, so bad that he is really hard to watch at times. It is literally embarrassing to watch as he overemphasizes every single facial movement, physical movement, and line reading. He overdoes every single moment he has, and to make it all worse he has a drunk scene in this film, a drunk scene, which not a good thing for a chronic overactor like Franciosa.
His drunk scene actually made me squirm because he is so bad it is hard to believe. He never gets an emotion right, whenever he is suppose to show one he always goes for some odd over the top yell, than an actual emotion. He never brings out anything genuine, or interesting with what frankly could have been a good character in another, better actor's hands. I have no idea why this was nominated for an Oscar because this is one performance I can easily say is downright awful.
Anthony Franciosa actually portrays the brother of the morphine addict, and is actually tries to help his brother deal with his addiction, as well he has to try to deal with his angry father who he promised money to, as well as his own attraction to his brother's wife. None of these aspects of the character really matter though because Franciosa is a terrible actor, that is all there is to it.
He fails to make anything that is at all an interesting or effective characterization because he is such a bad actor by nature. He fails to really have a believable moment in this film, he never has authentic moment, he just cannot get over his own obvious inability as an actor. This same inability can be found in other this films this year too such as in Wild is the Wind, and to a lesser extent A Face in the Crowd.
What makes him such a bad actor, well not just his failure to really connect to his character of Polo, and make any of the situations really resonate in any sort of way, but really becuase he constantly, and I mean constantly overacts. There is not a single moment of this performance where he does not overact, it just seems to be his nature as an actor to overact.
His overacting though is especially bad, so bad that he is really hard to watch at times. It is literally embarrassing to watch as he overemphasizes every single facial movement, physical movement, and line reading. He overdoes every single moment he has, and to make it all worse he has a drunk scene in this film, a drunk scene, which not a good thing for a chronic overactor like Franciosa.
His drunk scene actually made me squirm because he is so bad it is hard to believe. He never gets an emotion right, whenever he is suppose to show one he always goes for some odd over the top yell, than an actual emotion. He never brings out anything genuine, or interesting with what frankly could have been a good character in another, better actor's hands. I have no idea why this was nominated for an Oscar because this is one performance I can easily say is downright awful.
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Best Actor 1957
Anthony Franciosa in A Hatful of Rain
Anthony Quinn in Wild is the Wind
Alec Guinness in The Bridge on the River Kwai
Marlon Brando in Sayonara
Charles Laughton in Witness for the Prosecution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)