Alternate Best Actor 1964: Results

5. Vincent Price - The Masque of the Red Death - Although in the end the performance is largely just an entertaining diabolical turn from Price, what complexities inherent in the character he does exploit.

Best Scene: Describing his views.

4. Ivan Dixon in Nothing But a Man - Dixon gives a powerful low key depiction of a man just trying to get back and live his life.

Best Scene: Ending

3. Eiji Okada in Woman in the Dunes - Okada properly humanizes the allegorical scenario his character is in. A powerful portrayal of a man going down a strange but oddly tangible path. 

Best Scene: "performing" for the crowd.

2. Saro Urzì in Seduced and Abandoned - Urzì gives a hilarious and compelling portrayal of the intense pressure of a father trying to maintain his family's "dignity" at any cost.

Best Scene: Pregnancy test.

1. Innokenty Smoktunovsky in Hamlet - Good predictions Calvin, Tahmeed, Lucas Stephen, Matt, Glenn, Thomas, David, Omar, Matthew, and Luke  Smoktunovsky gives one of the greatest cinematic Hamlets, granting a compelling portrayal of a particularly cunning and internalized version of the vengeful prince.

Best Scene: The Ghost.

Updated Overall

Next: 1964 Supporting, though probably won't be a lineup.

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Vincent Price in The Masque of the Red Death

Vincent Price did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Prince Prospero in The Masque of the Red Death. 

The Masque of the Red Death follows a diabolical Prince as he holds a party in his castle while a plague ravages the countryside. 

Villain extraordinaire Vincent Price obviously plays the evil prince and fittingly you get Price playing the role with an expected great aplomb. From his first scene where his chariot seems to almost purposefully run over peasants, before sentencing a few men to immediate death, then taking a local peasant girl Francesca (Jane Asher), all in a few minutes, this guy is evil and that is what you really need to know about him. Price therefore then seems ideal as the glee of a Price performance is unique in that sense. There is the requisite phony regal manner but the real truth of the man is in Price's grin denoting the bliss in the man as he engages in his debauchery. There is indeed more than a certain entertainment value in just seeing Price be evil as Prince Prospero goes around his castle pushing those inside to entertain him as thrives within a world he wholly controls. However as much as that is expected, and delivered, this performance actually isn't just Price having a good time, though it is that as well, as early on it becomes clear that there is a bit more within Prospero's character than just evil...though once again he certainly is that as well. 

We granted an idea of this relatively early on where he speaks with Francesca of his views that are laden with a dark cynicism. Price's delivery though where Prospero speaks towards his lack of belief in God has this kind of pained hollowness about it. Price speaks as a man who shows a great deal of conviction within this belief, or lack thereof, but there is a certain sense of a internalized pain of it. It isn't an idea he actually enjoys and Price brings a greater depth within the dastardly fiend than you might initially expect. There is also something in his relationship with Francesca where Price brings a different approach in many of his interactions with her. This as Price brings this sort manner as though Prospero is educating her in his philosophy and particular kind of knowledge. This when speaking towards a wannabe guest with dismissive tone for a so called morality of any kind. Price emphasizes a certain sleaze and definite evil in the man still, but the tone he brings is as though Prospero is trying to convince Francesca of the truth in the way in which he perceives the world. 

Unfortunately this thought isn't entirely pursued. Although I liked the film, it drags a bit, particularly as it focuses on the more heroic characters and sadly at a certain point Prospero stops consistently appearing for a good chunk before the climax. Now to Price's credit when he does pop up we get some properly delicious delivery from him when conferring a twisted judgment on Francesca's rebellious friends or when he callously speaks horrible suggests to the remaining peasants seeking help. Sadly though the more complex ideas introduced early on are largely abandoned. Even with that the memorable climax of the film still grants us some equally memorable work from Price as he faces down the personified red death. This as Price's expression grants both a certain jubilation and an undercurrent of fear in his initial discovery. This seguing to a sinister joy as he thinks his Satan worship has worked out for him, before falling to a crippling fear when he discovers perhaps Satan worship isn't the best idea. It is most certainly an expectedly fun performance from Price though I do wish the writing had let him explore a bit more, as what complexity there is, Price finds it. Still a fun Price performance, is a fun Price performance.

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Innokenty Smoktunovsky & Christopher Plummer in Hamlet (at Elsinore)

Innokenty Smoktunovsky did not receive an Oscar nomination and Christopher Plummer received an Emmy nomination for portraying the titular prince of Denmark in Hamlet (at Elsinore). 

Hamlet is one of the all time coveted roles for an actor. Certainly for a Shakespearean actor, though Richard III contends, that King lets the actor let loose as a most dastardly sort, but usually within a general understanding of the role, though there are ambiguities. There are greater ambiguities though with Hamlet and perhaps why playing the role is always such a fascinating endeavor. This as in 1964 there were three different high profile portrayals of Hamlet that made it to film, or at least TV film. I actually considered keeping Richard Burton in this review as well, but I will agree with the man himself that the film itself is of poor quality. It is little more than a static shot on the Broadway production and makes other filmed stage productions (or filmed like stage productions) like Hamilton, Give Em Hell Harry and Othello starring Laurence Olivier as positively dynamic. This isn't to say I couldn't see some of what Richard Burton was doing, but any intimacy of his performance (where so much of what is essential to a Hamlet performance) is obscured by the clunky technique, or lack thereof. This leaving that filmed production as just a historical curiosity, well other than Hume Cronyn's Tony winning performance as Polonius where the brilliance of that performance still shines through. So instead I'll be looking at the Russian rendition starring Innokenty Smoktunovsky, in one of the most cinematic adaptations, and the version known as Hamlet At Elsinore, a straight forward though decently mounted version notably filmed in Elsinore itself. 

This in a way gives me the opportunity then to really examine what exactly is Hamlet's path, also will grant me the chance to look at one of the most renowned Shakespearean actors, who rarely got to perform Shakespeare in a true film. Speaking of let's get the obvious out of the way with Plummer, which was also true for Burton, their voices were made for Shakespeare it seems. The language sings from them essentially and never have their voices sounded better in a way. It is as glorious as to be expected, Plummer always had an amazing voice and in turn he shows an expected elegance with the Bard's words. Innokenty Smoktunovsky is dealing with something slightly different in that the words have been adapted to Russian though the intention is still to be Shakespearean just not technical the literal words. Although this isn't a criticism of any kind, rather just really a descriptor. Now the opening of the play is perhaps one of the great ambiguities with the character, as where is Hamlet exactly before learning about his father's true murderer? I think in a way this can specifically help to define how an actor will perform with the character, and how well they will grasp this tragic journey. Plummer speaking his opening monologue presents a man mourning in his state and in a way lost without purpose seemingly. A sadness within the man and striking sense of really lack of purpose. Smoktunovsky is quite a bit different more reserved, again befitting the superior approach overall of his film, which like Olivier literally internalizes the monologue into narration of thought. A great benefit though to Smoktunovsky's approach that in a way presents a man already with a suspicion. There is a coldness and cunning he emphasizes when speaking to his uncle and mo. there, of a man who already suspects something rotten. I love really both men's approach to Hamlet hearing news of the ghost and from his friend Horatio. With Plummer it is a fitting jubilation of a man who wishes to run from his melancholy. Smoktunovsky's reaction is more intimate yet as remarkable as someone who is perhaps already on a path following a hopeful lead.

The ghost sequence is as pivotal in conveying exactly how much Hamlet knows and what exactly he takes from the revelation that his father was murdered by his uncle. The ghost sequence in the Russian version is truly stunning to say the least and I love Smoktunovsky's performance in the scene. This as the horror of it is conveying but also the kind of fascination. This is truly a disturbing sight within Hamlet's eyes and  Smoktunovsky shows this as much as he pushes towards the truth his physical manner retires of a man in presence of something truly terrifying. Smoktunovsky's performance of the moment of hearing that it was his uncle is sheer brilliance this as this nearly maniacal laugh, of man almost in a kind of bliss at experiencing a truth he must've suspected for some time. Plummer's approach is a bit different and just a little bit goes into more than needed for the screen as opposed to the stage, something a slightly more deft director might've been able to purge out. That isn't to say that what Plummer is doing isn't still quite compelling, it certainly is. In fact the intensity of the fascination with the ghost he conveys alludes to a fascinating choice in his depiction. This as Plummer shows a man seeking purpose and the ghost basically being an avenue for it. This as he also shows a sort of cry for joy, but that of seemingly finding his purpose. A moment of jubilation as almost needing the murder plot as something to live for. This that he potently emphasizes all the more in the sudden sense of purpose and determination in his eyes as Hamlet listens to the ghost's instruction for the task of revenge.

 

As Hamlet goes about his task to avenge his father it is then where an even greater ambiguity comes, which is Hamlet pretending to be insane, insane, or a little bit both? This as no one in the court seems to know what to make of him, but what exactly that means is within the actor's purview. Here Smoktunovsky is quite amazing to be blunt. This as his performance just exudes charisma and is magnetic in presenting his Hamlet as a man carefully administering his conspiracy. When he speaks early on to Polonius and his old "friends" of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Smoktunovsky practically conducts them within the speech of nonsense to Polonius as he tries to see where his mind is. Smoktunovsky effectively showing a man purposefully lost and obscuring his purpose. The same with his "friends" who he speaks some more congenially yet in his eyes there is straight cunning where he both seems to decipher exactly what they are doing while also playing on the part as though his Hamlet is wholly unknowing in his beliefs. Plummer is quite a bit different though effective in his own right as playing the part continuing the man of purpose, though now showing the man as having the time of his life in his deception with Polonius. Artfully playing the fool while loving every minute of it. Seemingly equally affable with the doomed "friendly" pair, as again a man whose lost his mind, yet Plummer denotes it as trick, just as he shows Hamlet very much loving his own performance. 

Now perhaps one of the trickiest elements is how Hamlet's once intended Ophelia factors into his plot, as for out technical hero he treats her abysmally so essentially creating the intention within Hamlet's behavior is always a bit of task for the actor's interpretation. Both Smoktunovsky and Plummer excel in this particular regard where Hamlet still seems to prod her along in her interest while also telling her to go off to a nunnery. Plummer's performance is very interesting in the way he presents it as almost that Hamlet has moved on from her. There is a sense of affection in his interest but almost as though he cannot burden himself with the relationship at this time that his devotion towards his purpose being revenge is what compels his crueler behaviors. Smoktunovsky actually is perhaps far more sympathetic I would say in presenting these moments. This as his interactions with her there is a sense of genuine love in moments before he basically thinks upon the interactions. He though shows this palatable distress and struggle in Hamlet's eyes in his moments of rejection towards her. Smoktunovsky emphasizing a real love for her however that love being compromised by the situation. This is different though as Smoktunovsky presents a degree of distrust in the relationship of a man who is paranoid both in the conspiracy that killed his father and his own conspiracy to kill his Uncle. Plummer making Ophelia more so a casualty of a blindness in his quest, while Smoktunovsky makes it more so a casualty of the unfortunate paranoia related to it. 

Now when the play's the thing to capture the conscience of the king we get two very different interpretations of Hamlet's endeavor to trap his uncle. Plummer's performance is defined by excitement for the task at hand and very much presents the fanboy for the players. Plummer emphasizing the way Hamlet is kind of living out a fantasy in the method as much as he is intentionally taking upon this approach. Smoktunovsky's work again in a way brings us more into the man's state of genuinely trying to carefully manipulate the situation. Smoktunovsky projects a low key nervousness fitting someone who is making a big gamble that could either fail or simply reveal himself too quickly. Smoktunovsky conveys that anxiety before making the big ploy through the play. Smoktunovsky is brilliant in again the magnetism he brings within the sequence of the actual performance. This as Smoktunovsky is magnetic in presenting a man wholly within his power within the situation. He basically is conducting every moment of it and shows the man quite effectively executing his plan. Conversely Plummer plays it almost as a court jester both hiding the idea of his intentions while also showing the sheer joy Hamlet is getting from the plot. Both are very different interpretations of the sequence however both incredibly effective in their mutually different interpretations of who exactly Hamlet is in this moment. Smoktunovsky presenting a man with a set plan and executing, Plummer going with the flow of the fun of the whole affair. 

From the success of the plot we have two very different depictions of Hamlet's sort reaction that leads him to confront his mother in her culpability to her now husband's actions that leave a hiding Polonius stabbed to death. Plummer presents more matter of factually a madness wholly taking Hamlet in this moment. This sort of just rush of all his thoughts going in every way now that he has the truth and is almost frothing at the mouth in his vengeance. Smoktunovsky portrays a strict and striking intensity within Hamlet in this moment. Not exactly the same kind of madness, rather a temporary one noted but a kind of narrow minded thought that overtakes him in the moment. A man gripped with wholly his revenge now almost empowered by the thought as he goes about the accidental killing. In the moment Smoktunovsky presenting a man so driven in his task that nothing really phases him from it. Smoktunovsky's portrayal of his confrontation with his mother being the most notable version of the scene that I have perhaps seen. This because he doesn't conduct himself with it as the intensity we see in Plummer's portrayal, which while effective on its own right, there is something all the more compelling in showing Hamlet with his wits about him in this scene. There is almost an angel of death quality within Smoktunovsky moments of accusations, as a man reeking justice for more than just himself. 

The story naturally hits the reprieve where Hamlet goes off to England while Ophelia dies, leading her brother and Polonius's son Laertes rather rightfully seeking revenge, and finding it through Claudius plotting to kill Hamlet via a duel. We open this climax through the comic yet also poignant of Hamlet with the grave digger. Both Plummer and Smoktunovsky acquitting themselves within Hamlet's reflective speech. Smoktunovsky in particular suggesting a certain guidance from his travels, wearing in fact catholic monk robes. This idea forced with the sudden appearance of Laertes and the funeral procession for Ophelia. They're performances perhaps being the most similar here in being Hamlet at his quietest as he just recognizes his mistakes seeking to genuinely apologize for his faults to the man he truly did wrong in Laertes. This following as Hamlet gets his chance for revenge in a duel with Laertes, even though he stays apologetic to his actual opponent. In both we get the man very much being the most romantic type of hero seemingly and both actors get to show off their Shakespearean skill at being the most charismatic. Both thrive in this aspect and they are just wonderful to watch. This is particularly important for Smoktunovsky as oddly the duel is the least inspired scene in the whole film, especially when compared to Olivier and Branagh's cinematic renditions. Where as in Plummer's film it is consistent with the rest of it. Nonetheless each delivers the command of the man as he should. The scene obviously goes through a lot with the random poisoning, killings and dying. A given Hamlet must respond to each point and here again I think Plummer occasionally goes a little bigger than he needs to though not a major detriment, still noticeable particularly in his reaction to the king's treachery. Smoktunovsky is on point in every respect of portraying the joy of the duel, the sudden burst of anger towards Claudius's deception and grief towards the death of the mother and of course his acceptance of his own upcoming demise. Plummer equates himself particularly strongly with the duel just expressing so well Hamlet living out his fantasy fully, and his final moment of poignant reflection. Both of these performances are very different yet wholly successful depictions of the complicated character. With Plummer, while you can see he was getting used to film to a degree, it still is a remarkable Shakespearean performance. Innokenty Smoktunovsky's performance though deserves to put up with the very best of the cinematic Hamlets, Olivier and Branagh. Not only is his interpretation particularly dynamic, his work always breaths life into the words of the Bard with that uniquely cinematic flavor that achieves true greatness within the adaptation.

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Saro Urzì in Seduced and Abandoned

Saro Urzì did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning CANNES, for portraying Don Vincenzo Ascalone in Seduced and Abandoned. 

Seduced and Abandoned is Pietro Germi's followup to his most famous film Divorce, Italian Style, which is a similar dark satire of Italian social norms. 

Where in "Divorce" we followed the conspirator of the man who planned on having an affair through murdering his wife through an "honor" killing about an affair, this film follows instead the kind of damage control of such affairs by frequently being from the perspective of an father trying to deal with the fact that one of his daughters has become impregnated by another one of his daughter's suitor. Urzì's performance is quite a bit different from Marcello Mastroianni's mix of sad sack and suave turn, though he's grappling with a similar challenge with the film's unique, though I think successful tone. This as the film is funny, but it is also very dark in how biting it is over showing essentially the cruelties of the society in so many ways. Urzì first enters just as we see him as the patriarch of his pseudo well to do family. Urzì delivers what I think is best described as kind of a blend between comedic and naturalism. Really quite well balanced actually in portraying just the state of the father whose feathers seem always a little ruffled while also seemingly trying to self assure everyone at the same time. Urzì has a great ease in portraying the unease of his character. This just as his slightly overcooked state in his expression just shows a man who seemingly puts all the weights of his family, mostly defined by society's views of it, as wrapped into his very core. 

Urzì's performance is rather funny though very much in the specific situational way, and while maintaining the film's tricky tone to the whole thing. Urzì is wonderful in crafting this kind of specific manic energy befitting his older father that he is playing as hearing about the "seduction" he rushes off to try to make things right and check to see how things are. In one scene alone you get really the hilarity of his work as the Don takes his daughter's urine to get tested to see if she's pregnant while pretending it is for his wife. Urzì is great in showing the stress of the lies really as he's putting it forth with his eyes beating with this unsustainable pressure as clearly much is riding on this test. Urzì though is great in the moment of convincing the doctor to do things faster than is the official way by whispering his covert connections. Urzì's instant manner switch is comic gold as he does his name drop that has this great mix of being completely shameless while speaking with this false kind of discreet quality. Urzì's performance is one of this constant kind of flux that perfectly exemplifies the Don's manner of trying to contain the situation and doing everything in his power to do so. So much of the comedy really coming from Urzì's portrayal of a man who really wants to control everything in his situation, but requires him to essentially sweat bullets every step of the way. 

Urzì's performance then becomes this tapestry of distress and emotion, that often has certain comical qualities to it, as he tries to make everything right...at least in the Don's mind. Urzì is terrific in creating this specific kind of rush that he embodies as the man's body also seemingly slowly collapsing itself. This as even when the man is putting on a front of some charm or genial quality to people he needs something from, like local authorities or a new potential suitor, Urzì creates in his eyes still a withering stress in the Don even as he speaks with an eagerness and affability towards those he's trying to get something from. He's great at showing that he's always hiding something even when he's doing his best to be as convincing as possible in his intentions. When less secretive Urzì's terrific in showing that constant wave of emotion and contemplation the man has to go through in each new development or attempted plan. This as Urzì so effectively punctuates every moment in this, whether that be his annoyance at learning he won't be able to get away with killing the seducer legally or his sort of calculating reaction towards coming up with a different way to kill the man in order to preserve his family. Urzì creates this state so remarkably that carries us through so admirably the satirical but also more genuine emotional qualities that are in there. Again the tone is extremely specific yet Urzì's work balances it so well by so tangibly showing what the Don is going through at every point of the situation. This in creating this deterioration of the stress, but also punctuating moments with an even greater distress or moments of reaction that denote a temporary reprieve. Although his character ends up getting somewhat sidelined near the end of the film, as it segues to focusing more so on the two lovers by the end of the film, Urzì's work stands as a highlight of the film. This in creating a believable, yet also still funny in its own dark way, portrait of a man trying to maintain what he sees as the dignity of his family by any means necessary. 

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Eiji Okada in Woman in the Dunes

Eiji Okada did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Niki Junpei in Woman in the Dunes.

 

Woman in the Dunes is a masterful film about a school teacher becoming trapped in a dwelling at the bottom of a sand dune where a widow lives. 

I'll admit that brief description doesn't really do the film justice in terms of its overall achievement which is particularly mesmerizing in its idiosyncratic vision of director Hiroshi Teshigahara. A vision that was notably nominated for best director, which say what you want on the academy overall, they deserve some kudos for recognizing this achievement. Now is this a director's film, I would say so, it is hard not to, however the nature of the film I think in terms of what makes it truly great, rather than just great, is the human factor is ever prevalent. This is found within Eiji Okada's central performance as the school teacher Niki Junpei. This as we discover him participating in his hobby, alone, as he walks sand dunes in a secluded area looking for insects. Okada's performance here is one defined by a general affability and most of all curiosity in these moments. He evokes a man just enjoying his little hobby with an innate fascination for these creatures and his environment. There's a low key charm he brings to his performance befitting just a likable man. This effectively establishing then really are any man that his Junpei will be during the film as local villagers come upon him and advise he takes shelter at the bottom of a sand dune where a widow (Kyōko Kishida), who lost her family, lives. 

Okada's performance initially carries the same curiosity as he had before in this new situation. There is no alarm as he interacts with the woman rather Okada shows a genuine interest in this strange state of hers and just a general cordiality in his rather light delivery towards her. At this point Okada naturally creating what most viewers state would be in this situation and naturally crafts this surrogate within the experience. This being an essential element when Junpei discovers he cannot freely leave the dune on his own and discovers the widow, and now he, are essentially slaves to the local village who want sand harvesters. Okada's work then is terrific by the way that it completely allows us to be within this situation. A situation certainly symbolic in itself, however the film is great by working both in that sense while still being effectively literal as strange as the situation seems. Okada's work is fundamental in this as he always portrays a real person going through this struggle. Making initially for a kind of hero for us as we see in him the desperation in his attempts to escape and even the dogged sense of hope that sustains itself initially. He brings us so effectively into this mindset by so bluntly creating reality within the situation as the man tries to find a way out, but one way after another he finds himself back where he has started without gaining much of anything for it. 

His form of respite only coming in his interactions with the widow which is one of the most fascinating aspects of this film. This as Okada's and Kishida's chemistry really isn't anything normal as befitting of the situation. There is warmth certainly in there at times, but this is not a traditional romance, or even necessarily a romance at all. Their moments of intimacy, the most intimacy, have almost a functional even desperate quality about them. Their solace is together, but their solace isn't as two people in love, but rather two people finding comfort within a mutually dependent situation. Their interactions are with understanding but also that certain detachment. This as the woman is seemingly comfortable within the state, to the extent she can be, while Okada shows still that combination of overt frustration and a waning hope. This when he speaks towards surely people from his city will be looking for him, Okada's delivery is as a man who both believes it and doesn't believe at the same time. This as he hopes this will be the case but in his eyes there is the constant nagging sense that he is truly stuck within this situation despite his continued attempts. Eventually as more time goes by Okada's work naturally creates the sense of the frustrated resignation but also this strange calm. This as we have clashing moments. One of trying to appease his captors through some strange pornographic display, where he plays basically he male animal of a zoo. Okada successfully realizing this moment by playing it as base hunger as much as possible, not for the sex but rather the hope of getting to see the ocean again. This against as we see the man's attempt for escape by trapping a crow to use a messenger that essentially leads him to experiments and a hobby. Here that Okada portrays the most contentment of a man with a distraction in life that he is most comfortable with and in no way lacking with conflict. A man who has found his peace within the situation. In Okada's performance he so honestly portrays this as a state of life that it is actually rather disturbing because of how natural of a choice it seems. The strength of this work is that it keeps an essential anchor within the story. As much as the story means more than it appears, it also means what it shows, and the striking nature of that is found within Okada's performance. His performance that is a constant reality of a man in this seemingly unbelievable situation. The unbelievable situation becoming startlingly believable because Okada only presents us a real person going through all this, not just a symbol of one.   

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Ivan Dixon in Nothing But a Man

Ivan Dixon did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Duff Anderson in Nothing But a Man. 

Nothing But a Man is a remarkable film, particularly due to the era in which it was made, following an African American railroad workers romance with a school teacher. 

 

The film is notable as a dramatic film with a dominantly African American cast, but also as an American film at the time with a Neo-realist style film-making. The brief synopsis above might give the wrong idea that it is a traditional romance, which is not the case. It rather is interested very much life as is, and in this sense following two people coming together in a very vivid and realistic portrayal of a couple in the south. Ivan Dixon's performance is emblematic of the film's intention and approach. Ivan Dixon delivers a very naturalistic turn here really fittingly as nothing but a man I suppose. This as what we get in his performance in an authenticity in place. When we see him working the job of the day and hanging with his friends. It just feels like you too are hanging out with the men just by the natural way they interact and the sense of the day's work. Dixon's portrayal isn't to distinguish Duff from beyond himself, he's indeed just one of the guys and you get a sense of the man, his calm demeanor and really his effort in work as his effort in life. Dixon does make Duff innately likable, but not trying to throw an aggressive charm, just a low key earnest manner in the man. 

We see this further with his romance with a school teacher, and preacher's daughter, Josie Dawson (Abbey Lincoln). Dixon doesn't suddenly become Cary Grant, but he effectively distinguishes the man among his co-workers and the woman he is trying to romance. This though just as a man seemingly all the more earnest in his sentiment towards her. The two really have a low key but moving chemistry with one another. It isn't earth shattering but rather just works in the sense of authentic affection in their interactions with one another. This even within the moments of the relationship being challenged both actively by racist intruders and Josie's own daughter who questions Duff's nature. Dixon in the intruder scene is great by avoiding melodrama and instead just bluntly delivering the man's defense as he asks the men to leave. He doesn't posture rather showing a strict and quiet intensity in the moment. With her father the man illuminates his views, which don't involve a lot of religion, which again Dixon delivers so well by not putting too much on it. He rather suggests a man convinced in his belief not as a firebrand but rather as a man sure of himself. 

Dixon's performance works in a way through the consistency of the authenticity in his work. The consistency not being that he doesn't have changes, but rather whatever Duff is going through it feels honest to the moment. The scene of him going to see his son from another relationship, Dixon again limits how much he puts on it, however in his eyes there is the degree of exasperation of a failed relationship of the past. When speaks towards his fellow workers about sticking together, not really as union rep rather just a man hoping a best for all, Dixon's delivery keeps to that sincerity. There is a passion in his performance, but quiet and reserved fitting to the man Duff is. Dixon's work never feels too much or too little. In the latter half of the film as Duff falls into troubles due to his basically accidental union talk, he struggles to find a decent job afterwards. Dixon's work again conveys the state of the man taking the struggle just in the subtle wear within his expression. His moment of speaking against his father-in-law's words, Dixon again speaks straight and to the point. We see the same when he is facing a group of racists in his eventual job. Dixon naturally showing the greater frustrations of the man, however still keeping it pent within the man's state of trying to just live his life. This boiling over in moments of lashing out at Josie. Difficult scenes really however Dixon pulls them off well in making these rather brutal moments these terrible side effect of man attacking the thing he loves the most mainly because its the only thing he can lash against without consequences. Dixon finds the truth in that moment just as he does consistently through this film. His work existing again as a man going through a normal, though not easy, life, and punctuating each of these moments with the need authenticity. It's not showy work, but it's good work.

Alternate Best Actor 1964

And the Nominees Were Not:

Innokenty Smoktunovsky in Hamlet

 

Ivan Dixon in Nothing But a Man

 

Vincent Price in The Masque of the Red Death

Eiji Okada in Woman in the Dunes

 

Saro Urzì in Seduced and Abandoned

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Results

5. Michael Caine in Zulu- Caine makes a misstep with his characterization at the beginning of the film, but makes up for it through his more assured performance later in the film.

Best Scene: The volley.

4. Dirk Bogarde in King & Country- Bogarde gives a very solid and rather unique performance as a soldier who slowly grows more invested into his case even if that growing investment means a growing personal shame.

Best Scene: Captain Hargreaves questions his superior after the trial.

3. Clint Eastwood in A Fistful of Dollars- Eastwood is terrific in his creation of the Man with No Name who can be enjoyably deadpan but is as well can bring emotional poignancy when necessary.

Best Scene: The final duel.

2. Tom Courtenay in King & Country- Courtenay gives a heartbreaking portrait of the end result of an endless time in the trenches of World War I.

Best Scene: Private Hamp tells why he deserted.

1. Richard Attenborough in Guns at Batasi- Good Prediction RatedRStar. Attenborough gives two great performances this year with his moving portrayal of a weak man in Seance on a Wet Afternoon and his absurdly entertaining performance as Major Lauderdale a man with unshakable resolve.

Best Scene: The Major refuses to give up his arms.

Overall Rank:

1. Richard Attenborough in Guns at Batasi
2. Anthony Quinn in Zorba the Greek
3. Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove
4. Donald Pleasence in The Caretaker
5. Innokenty Smoktunovsky in Hamlet
6. Peter Ustinov in Topkapi 
7. Tom Courtenay in King & Country
8. Peter O'Toole in Becket
   
9. Richard Attenborough in Seance on a Wet Afternoon
10. Robert Shaw in The Caretaker
11. Saro Urzì in Seduced and Abandoned
12. Richard Burton in Becket
13. Eiji Okada in Woman in the Dunes
14. Clint Eastwood in A Fistful of Dollars
    
15. Dirk Bogarde in King & Country
16. Ivan Dixon in Nothing But a Man
17. Ryō Ikebe in Pale Flower
    
18. Burt Lancaster in The Train
19. Sean Connery in Goldfinger 
20. Peter Sellers in A Shot in the Dark
21. Stanley Baker in Zulu
22. Richard Burton in Night of the Iguana 
23. Vincent Price in The Masque of the Red Death
24. Yūzō Kayama in Yearning
25. Jean Desailly in The Soft Skin
    
26. Cary Grant in Father Goose
    
27. Henry Fonda in Fail-Safe
28. Alan Bates in Zorba the Greek 
29. Soumitra Chatterjee in Charulata
    
30. Cliff Robertson in The Best Man
31. Kirk Douglas in Seven Days in May
32. Sean Connery in Marnie
33. Marcello Mastroianni in Marriage, Italian Style
34. James Garner in The Americanization of Emily
35. Stephen Boyd in The Third Secret
    
36. Michael Caine in Zulu
37. Vincent Price in The Last Man on Earth
38. Maximilian Schell in Topkapi
39. Henry Fonda in The Best Man
40. Peter Finch in The Pumpkin Eater
41. Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady
    
42. Bernie Hamilton in One Potato, Two Potato
    
43. Jean-Paul Belmondo in That Man From Rio
44. Glenn Ford in Dear Heart 
45. Stephen Boyd in The Fall of the Roman Empire
    
46. Bendt Rothe in Gertrud
    
47. Richard Widmark in Cheyenne Autumn
48. Richard Boone in Rio Conchos
    
49. Nino Castelnuovo in The Umbrellas of Cherbourg
    
50. Richard Harris in Red Desert 
    
51. Harve Presnell in The Unsinkable Molly Brown
52. Tony Randall in 7 Faces of Dr. Lao
    
53. Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins
54. Fred MacMurray in Kisses for My President 
55. Cameron Mitchell in Blood and Black Lace
    
56. Don Knotts in The Incredible Mr. Limpet
57. Tommy Kirk in The Misadventures of Merlin Jones
58. Ringo Starr in A Hard Day's Night
59. Paul McCartney in A Hard Day's Night
60. John Lennon in A Hard Day's Night
61. George Harrison in A Hard Day's Night
62. John Call in Santa Clause Conquers the Martians
63. Victor Stiles in Santa Clause Conquers the Martians
64. Leonard Hicks in Santa Clause Conquers the Martians

Next Year: 1964 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Michael Caine in Zulu

Michael Caine did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Lt.Gonville Bromhead in Zulu.

Zulu is excellent film that depicts battle of Rourke's drift that involved less than 150 British soldiers against over three thousand Zulu warriors.

Michael Caine plays one of the two leaders of the British, the other being Lt. Chard played by Stanley Baker. Caine's role is the secondary lead though in that Bromhead ends up becoming the secondary commander to Chard who has the newer orders. I might as well start with the negative which is that this definitely is not Michael Caine's most assured performance to say the least. In the early scenes of the film Caine plays Bromhead as the overly British sort, but does not do this nearly as masterfully as Richard Attenborough did in Guns at Batasi. He's kind of enjoyable doing the stiff upper lip thing but he does over do it a tad bit especially because of the turn his performance takes later.

Eventually in the film, really once the action starts, Caine completely drops the stiff upper lip act quite quickly. There really is not too much of a transition rather he just kind of stops it immediately and begins to give a far more natural performance. This is of course poorly handled by Caine and it seems like he was not sure about exactly how to play Bromhead at first resulting in this somewhat odd change in character. I have to admit though since the film is as strong as it is I never really found Caine sudden drop of his early characterization all that distracting especially since how he portrays Bromhead for the rest of the film is a much more assured turn from Caine and suggests some of his best work as an actor.

Although I would say that Baker and Caine are the leads, this is a film that gives plenty of time to flesh out the supporting player, and the only thing that really makes Caine feel lead is that the film ends and begins with the discussions between Chard and Bromhead. Caine stands out well among the entire cast through his physical presence that properly alludes to why Caine became a star. Caine is very effective in the action scenes themselves adding a great deal of intensity to them through his performance throughout the course of the long battle. Caine basically makes up for his earlier awkward transition by being so good in his portrayal of the way Bromhead gets worn down by the battle.

Michael Caine's performance does suggest some inexperience on his part because of the mistaken approach he takes with the character at the beginning of the film, but to his credit I would still not describe him as bad in those scenes really. Caine importantly though does suggests his great talent as an actor though by doing his very best to overcome his missteps at the start with a tighter grasp on his character as the film progresses. This is a far from perfect performance by Michael Caine but in the end I would describe as a good one because once he does find the right place for Bromhead within the scope of the film he does bring the right sort of power to proceedings.

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Clint Eastwood in A Fistful of Dollars

Clint Eastwood did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying "Joe" in A Fistful of Dollars.

A Fistful of Dollars is a remake of Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo which is about a lone stranger who goes about playing two rival families against each other in a small town. Fistful is the best kind of remake by not just aping the original and succeeding in making the material seem fresh even though it is recycled.

Well I will just mention that Toshiro Mifune played the wanderer in Yojimbo, and that he gave the .....(that will have to wait for another time). Clint Eastwood made his debut as a leading man here in his most famous role as the man with no name. The man with no name is technically incorrect in that he is called a name in all three of the dollars films, but technically his name could be entirely made up by those who refer to him as such. Although all three films are the man with no name trilogy this is the only film where Eastwood has to carry the film alone. In For a Few Dollars More he had Lee Van Cleef as a vengeful bounty hunter with him and in The Good the Bad and the Ugly Eli Wallach's talkative Tuco was always there, but here he flies solo.

Eastwood because he is alone actually has a somewhat different role than the one he would eventually take in the later two films. In both of the sequels Eastwood is almost straight man in the role and is a great foil for both Van Cleef's and Wallach's performances in those films. Eastwood is by himself though and where the other two film the more emotional parts tended to go to Van Cleef and Wallach it is Eastwood who actually has bring the emotional weight in this film. This is not to say though that Bill is that different form Monco and Blondie in terms of conception, but there is a reason why Joe does not end up with any money in this film and left with fortunes in the later two films.

Most of the performance though is Eastwood doing the Man with no Name which is that of a cool calm killer who deals with his enemies with precision in both out smarting them and out shooting them. Eastwood is one of the very best at being the stern and quiet killer who never blinks, only squints when he kills several men in quick succession. Eastwood just is cool in the role and he absolutely makes it all work with his strong presence and very particular way of reacting. Every little look and twitch with his head are always great as in his silence Eastwood. Eastwood pulls an interesting trick in that he portrays the killings usually as run of the mill, but never does he make Joe seem cruel or psychopath in doing so.

Eastwood avoids making the Man with No Name seem a psychopath for two reasons mainly. One Eastwood is just about always charismatic in his Clint Eastwood way, but also importantly in the few line deliveries that Eastwood is allowed through the film. All of the lines are pretty to the point and Eastwood delivers them all with as much precision as Joe does when handling his gun. Eastwood brings the right sly attitude with Joe that brings a nice bit of humor to the film as pretty much every fight can end with at least a bit of chuckle because of either the deadpan way he delivers one of Joe's quips or simply because of the equally deadpan way that Eastwood makes Joe react to a situation.

There are a few serious moments though in the film where Eastwood actually must bring a greater emotional weight to the proceedings than what is standard for Clint Eastwood. These still rather brief moments involve either Joe's reaction to an unfortunate woman in the middle of the conflict, or just at the evilest actions committed by the main villain of the film Ramon (Gian Maria Volonte). These moments are to the point so Eastwood basically gets to the point shifting to a more reflective Joe quite effectively and it feels completely natural for Joe to have this more somber moment. Eastwood never overplays the lighter antics so he can go heavier with ease and really give the moment impact, just like he later in the bridge scenes of The Good the Bad and the Ugly.

This is of course a good performance by Clint Eastwood one that is a completely assured leading performance despite this being his first major film role, but it is obvious why this film propelled him to super stardom. Where Eastwood settled into a slightly more passive role of sorts in the two sequels that nicely amplified the power of Wallach's and Van Cleef's performances, but the first time he played the part he proved that he could go in alone as well. This is not Clint Eastwood's greatest performance but it is an excellent example of exactly what makes Eastwood such a strong actor since he can carry a picture so well and so smoothly in his trademark fashion which he established here.

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Richard Attenborough in Guns at Batasi and Seance on a Wet Afternoon

Richard Attenborough did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning a BAFTA, for portraying Regimental Sgt. Major Lauderdale in Guns at Batasi or for portraying Billy Bates in Seance on a Wet Afternoon.

Guns at Batasi is a surprisingly entertaining film about a small group of British soldiers in colonial Africa who find themselves in the middle of a coup d'etat. Seance on a Wet Afternoon is very effective psychological thriller about a kidnapping plot conceived by a psychic to allow her to achieve fame. 

Richard Attenborough won his BAFTA for both his performance in this film and Seance on a Wet Afternoon. Many times actors who are recognized for two or three performances they may only really be worthy for one of their performances, but that is not the case of Richard Attenborough in 1964. Attenborough plays basically polar opposite characters in his two films from the year, and both of the performances are testament to his tremendous talent as an actor. In Guns at Batasi he plays a strong willed soldier Major Lauderdale, who is not to be bossed around by anyone, but in Seance on a Wet Afternoon he plays the antithesis of Lauderdale as Billy Bates a meek man henpecked by his wife to commit a kidnapping.

I might as well talk about both performances since Attenborough is amazing in both roles despite the character being so very different. As Regimental Sgt. Major Lauderdale Attenborough is absurdly entertaining at the beginning of the film in playing up the extreme devotion of the Major to the military life. Attenborough goes out of his way to accentuate the military background to Lauderdale in his extremely stiff spine and firm meticulous step. His speaking voice is that of sharp spikes it seems as his accent well accentuates the forcefulness of his personality as well his proper style. Lauderdale is a man of the books and Attenborough has an absolute conviction in his portrayal of this.

Attenborough goes all out here, he even seems to adjust the way his mouth moves, and even the shape of his face to further make Lauderdale into a very distinct character. Attenborough pulls off his whole physical characterization of  Lauderdale. Attenborough proves himself as one of the best here because even though the performance technically speaking is very much a performance it never feels as such as he realizes Lauderdale as his own man rather than just a series of mannerisms he may have been in the hands of a lesser actor. The whole demeanor of Lauderdale is brilliantly brought to life by Attenborough which only ever succeeds in amplifying the impact of his character.

Attenborough seems almost another actor as he portrays Billy Bates in Seance on a Wet Afternoon.  Attenborough once again is careful in his physical creation of the character as he shows Billy to be a very reserved man who really does not look anyone in the eye when speaking and always seems to have a general nervousness about him. Attenborough face is a man always of some fear, a fear of his whole life with his domineering and mentally disturbed wife Myra (Kim Stanley). He walks with a weak step his posture always that of a man retiring from others Attenborough always keeps Billy as at least somewhat uncomfortable and clearly a man who is more of a prisoner than a husband.

Attenborough is excellent as Bates because he does not make him just a foolish pathetic man as Bates could easily be seen as since Bates does just follow what his wife says which includes kidnapping the daughter of rich parents for some absurd plot she has concocted. Attenborough does well to make Billy the sympathetic one of the two leads always pushing the idea that Billy is the one who is trapped. There is never any malice in Attenborough depiction of Billy even as he is launching the crime rather he just portrays him as a very sad man going along with his wife says because that is all he really can do. It is said that Billy failed to leave her in the film, and in Attenborough work we can see the way the man has resigned himself to this fate.

Well enough of that somber stuff let's go back to Attenborough as Lauderdale where he is absurdly entertaining in the role. Attenborough has so much fun bringing to life the type that is Lauderdale in both a believable and enjoyable way. He strikes just the right tone never over stepping his boundary. His very first scene is great where he stops a sulking soldier to make that soldier get his step right. Attenborough is hilarious showing just how ticked off and disgusted Lauderdale is by such a simple mistake, yet he makes it seem natural that Lauderdale would react such a way. Attenborough does this with every little detail of Lauderdale and it just terrific whether it be his telling of the same old stories, or his instant spotting of an important picture not being on the mess room wall.

Lauderdale eventually is called into an action of sorts involving a coup whose leader just wants the British to sit out on. Lauderdale refuses to accept such things and Attenborough is brilliant once again when it comes time for action for Lauderdale. Attenborough makes this something that Lauderdale is in utter command of without question. Where Bates only follows orders Lauderdale is a man knows how to give them, and Attenborough has such a forcefulness here. Lauderdale commands a battle wills between the few British and a large group of African soldiers that surround, and even though they are outnumber he puts up more than just a fight. Attenborough is a master of the confrontation scenes as he makes the power of Lauderdale's personality unquestionable making every one of his victories easy to believe.

Poor Billy Bates though does not have the power of personality though as he is forced to watch his wife's scheme come to fruition. Attenborough easily could have been forgotten in this film considering that Billy is the sane one and is the shy one throughout the film, but actually I think Attenborough steals the film from Stanley with his genuine portrayal of Billy's fears and reservations as the plan go through. Attenborough adds a real dramatic weight to the film that may have been absent otherwise in his his reactionary role as Billy. Attenborough is very moving through the film by being the reluctant accomplish, who unlike Stanley who shows Myra going more and more insane, begins to more filled with regret that slowly force Billy to actually attempt to confront his wife.

Lauderdale is a man who needs no such prodding and Guns at Batasi is such an entertaining film because Attenborough makes Lauderdale such an entertaining hero to watch wage his personal fight. Lauderdale is not even necessarily the real hero though but Attenborough is so great in the role that you get behind him. Attenborough makes Lauderdale one of the stuffiest shirts around but hey he makes him an endearing stuff shirt who gets results. Poor Billy gets some results to, but not in the same way. Where Attenborough turn as Lauderdale is that of steely conviction just about throughout the course of the story, with Bates Attenborough shows a long process of finally having any self determination, and even then Attenborough shows that even his final objections is truly a painful thing for Billy to do as he has been so weak for so long.

Well leave it to Richard Attenborough to give not just one but two of the best performances of 1964. That is clearly not enough for Attenborough as they also have to be characters who could not be more different. Attenborough proves himself a master of the humble character in his poignant turn as Billy Bates uncompromising in his depiction of a humble man unable to meet the demands of his insane wife. Attenborough also proves himself a master of the boisterous larger than life character with that of Major Lauderdale. I just loved every single second of his performance as Major Lauderdale. It is just a joy to watch him in the role, and by the end of the film I only wanted to see more of the man. Well there it is two characters that share nothing in common other than the fact that they are flawlessly played by one of the greatest actors of all time Richard Attenborough.

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Dirk Bogarde in King & Country

Dirk Bogarde did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Captain Hargreaves in King & Country.

Dirk Bogarde plays a very similar role to Kirk Douglas's character Colonel Dax in Paths of Glory. Bogarde plays Captain Hargreaves who has been appointed to defend the deserter Private Hamp (Tom Courtenay) in front of the court marshal. Like Douglas's character in the earlier film, Hargreaves is basically fighting an already lost cause as the military brass seems to have had their mind made up already. Although they are similar in job they are very different in that Douglas's character is a much more steadfast individual as well as is 100 percent behind his men completely from the beginning where the path of Hargreaves is a bit different particularly due to the way in which Bogarde portrays the character.

Technically speaking, for much of the film, Hargreaves is a character who is going through the proper motions of defending Hamp. He first finds exactly what Hamp did, and then tries to tell Hamp what the Private will have to do to be able to live. At first Bogarde portrays Hargreaves as very much a man going through the motions of his job, and even in that there is a slight derisiveness in his performance and suggests at the moment that Hargreaves really does not care about Hamp's all that much. This changes though as he learns the story of Hamp's desertion and Bogarde is very effective in showing the change in Hagreaves in a subtle and rather believable fashion. It is not a major change of nature for Hargreaves, but Bogarde rather portrays it as Hargreaves recognizing that Hamp speaks the truth.

Bogarde of course gets the courtroom scenes, although this courtroom is little more than a tent above their very muddy and dingy surroundings. Bogarde excels in these scenes as he shows Hargreaves doing his very best to try to save Hamp life by pressing the issue of Hamp's condition before the desertion as well as Hamp's years of service. Bogarde approach is a bit different than say Kirk Douglas's performance in Paths of Glory, or Jack Thompson's in Breaker Morant. There is a different in Bogarde as there is less of strong moral indignation in his portrayal of Hargreaves's defense. Bogarde instead suggests more of an internal shame in Hargreaves, in that even as he gives a strong passion to Hargreaves arguments there is always a suggestion of the own guilt Hargreaves feels in the situation.

Bogarde's portrayal of the court defense is essential to where his character foes for the end of the film after it seems that Hamp will be executed. Captain Hargreaves, rather then bitterly chewing out his superior did as Colonel Dax did in Paths of Glory, is far more somber in his reaction especially because of Bogarde's approach to the part. In his scene where he confronts his superior Bogarde stays very meek and rather than stressing any hatred for the decision shows rather a feeling of guilt toward his own complicity in the fate of the doomed Hamp. It is a different take that might not have the fierce power found in Douglas's work, but Bogarde is moving in his own right by making Hargreaves part of the process rather than a hero within the film.

In terms of the two lead performances of the film Tom Courtenay does leave the strongest impression among the two with his exceptional performance, but that is not really anything against Bogarde's work. Dirk Bogarde gives a strong performance on his own even if his presence is sometimes secondary to Courtenay, but Borgarde works very well with him and their scenes together are remarkable. Bogarde's might not even be the very best performance of this type but it is a unique example of it. This film is bleak, even bleaker than similar films like Breaker Morant or Paths of Glory which both have a little hope in them somewhere, and Bogarde's take with his character adds to this bleakness by not even allow hope to glimmer from the one source it would be possible from. Bogarde's approach does not make this film an easy one to sit through but his unorthodox method is certainly an interesting one.

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Tom Courtenay in King & Country

Tom Courtenay did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a BAFTA and winning the Volpi Cup, for portraying Pvt. Arthur Hamp in King & Country.

King & Country is effective although terribly bleak film, even for a film of its type, about court marshal of a man accused of desertion.

Tom Courtenay was quite the daring actor in his run in the 60's going from his great performance as a foolish immature aimless young man in Billy Liar to his performance here as World War I soldier whose life is on the line after he has been caught trying to escape the war. Unlike Dirk Bogarde who has a character arc, Courtenay's performance is technically all in his creation of the state of Private Hamp. Private Hamp is not a man who can go through any more changes at this point because he has already been through too many things during the war by this point in his life time. The lack of an arc does nothing to deter the power of Courtenay's performance.

Courtenay's performance is a rather difficult one to watch because of his uncompromising portrayal of Private Hamp's condition. Private Hamp is a very shell shocked and traumatized man who has not forgotten what he saw on the battlefield and what happened to him on there. Courtenay shows this experience as something right down into the depth of Hamp's bones, in a remarkably nontheatrical fashion. Courtenay's performance is that of a broken man in every sense of the word. Courtenay's physical portrayal is subtle and extremely effective. Courtenay plays Hamp's state as something he has lived with for quite some time, time that has nothing to cure of him this. He does not shake madly, but rather there is a constant discomfort of man who seems uncomfortable in his own skin.

Courtenay is astonishing in all of his scenes having a magnetic presence despite the meek nature of his role. Courtenay's voice is always weak and slight giving the sense that Hamp seems partially disconnected from everything around him. There is numbness that Courtenay conveys in his performance and we are able to see how Hamp is entirely telling the truth in his story of desertion. Courtenay is fascinating by having a great emotional intensity in his portrayal of Hamp while keeping the emotional detachment. This never is a contradiction because Courtenay makes it all a part of what Hamp has become through his service to King & Country. In his stare into the void of nothingness Courtenay, it is not simply nothing, but rather the nothing to contain his pain.

Along with the detachment there is another seemingly contradictory dynamic that Courtenay delivers flawlessly which is Hamp's personality. Courtenay makes Hamp a young man, and no not just because Courtenay is rather young here, in the nature he gives to Hamp. Hamp is not world weary in the way you'd expect a veteran to be, but this is instead a youthful experience which Courtenay portrays. There is a dulled enthusiasm in Courtenay rather than the exasperation one might expect. Courtenay shows that the war has not really sucked the life out of Hamp exactly, rather what has been sucked out is his soul. Courtenay gives us a man who once was young not long ago, but the nature of the war has made an unnatural man.

Hamp is interrogated about why he deserted and Courtenay is outstanding in his delivery of the scene. Courtenay makes the tale a painfully vivid one, as he explains basically what left Hamp the way he is. Courtenay is very haunting as he does not waver once as Hamp describes his time in the trenches and almost drowning in the mud. Courtenay never falters into theatrics, or even a slight hint of well acting in his depiction of what traumatized Hamp in this way. The audience is never shown of what Hamp speaks of, but the film does not have to because Courtenay allows us to see it through the horror that is behind his eyes as he explains his experience to the man who will defend him Captain Hargreaves (Bogarde).

Tom Courtenay gives a harrowing turn here and is convincing here as man who has faced too much in his life as he was as Billy Liar who was a man who faced far too little. Even though Hamp is technically a constant Courtenay is compelling every single moment that he is onscreen. This is an incredible example of an actor taking hold of his character, who must be a constant by nature, and overcoming even the slight risk of repetition bringing life to every detail of the man's current state. There is not a single moment where we do not feel the struggle of his character in Courtenay's truly heartbreaking portrait of a soldier who managed to survive his time on the battlefield in body but not in mind.

Alternate Best Actor 1964

And the Nominees Were Not:

Clint Eastwood in A Fistful of Dollars

Michael Caine in Zulu

Richard Attenborough in Guns At Batasi

Dirk Bogarde in King & Country

Tom Courtenay in King & Country