Alternate Best Actor 1966: Uttam Kumar in Nayak

Uttam Kumar did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Arindam Mukherjee in Nayak. 

Nayak is a great film about a movie star reflecting upon his path to his success while on a long train ride. The film works both as a great character study of this man and also as an often biting commentary on Bollywood by Satyajit Ray. It frankly is one of the very best films where a filmmaker comments on the film. This as it manages to delve quite deeply into its central examination while also having the right levity that avoids the questionable navel-gazing of similar endeavors.  

Uttam Kumar in the central role must play many different shades of this character, though the one we meet most frequently is the man on the train. Where Arindam has become fully established as a star and now just has to deal with essentially being the most famous person wherever he may be. On the surface, the other passengers on the train see him as Kumar delivers the sort of star presence you'd want and expect from such a figure. There is the innate larger-than-life kind of shyness oddly enough within his performance that is fitting for someone who has a level of discomfort in his fame. Kumar's performance exudes the sort of needed tempered charisma in his performance in showing the man looking away often, or looking down within his sunglasses, to not be the center of attention even if his nature seems to force himself to be. Kumar is captivating in the right unassuming way. This with the sort of reluctance to be the star, yet the evidence of his stardom is there even as he tries to hide it in his own way. 

We see the sheer charisma in Kumar's portrayal of  Arindam on the train but so well wielded here. This as Kumar has this natural quality in every moment of interaction as everyone is impressed by him, while also having their own sort of perspective and means about it. Of course, when asked for an autograph or complicated, Kumar finds this effortless and really quite a perfect combination of the manner in reaction. There is that bit of shyness about it, but also the natural graciousness. He has that innate likability of a star that is easy to see his power in the public consciousness even if there is that degree of reluctance about him. One of the best moments of his performance though is the woman who approaches to get his autograph, Aditi Sengupta (Sharmila Tagore). The graciousness we see leave as she indicates that she is from a magazine, and Kumar's delivery of Arindam questioning if she is a reporter, is perfection. Kumar articulates this quiet frustration of a man whose words have likely been twisted in the past and almost sees press workers as hounds feeding off him. It is only after she reveals her magazine is not film-related that we see this manner ease back a little, though there is a guardedness that Kumar brings in his overly formal way at the beginning of her interview. 

Kumar is amazing though as he begins to articulate his life more so including his state as the "hero" to the public and how fickle his situation is. Kumar delights though in speaking his truth with an affable bluntness within the man willing to speak towards his difficult situation while seeming to shake off the deeper questioning at first. We see him as the man on the train and Kumar is wonderful. I think he makes the right choice in being so personable that is both who he is, yet also this fashioned facade necessary to be the star. He isn't false, yet he's also not wholly genuine. Kumar realizes this really just through his eyes in a way this as there is this knowing quality of the man, knowing his position, to the point he must examine his surroundings in a kind of peculiar way while trying to be genuine still as a man. Although this man is filled with anxieties. 

The anxieties are realized throughout though most obviously at first in a brilliant dream sequence where Arindam walks around in joys in the literal riches of the paper currency filling his mind before it begins to actually devour him. Kumar's performance so powerfully shows the superficial joy that quickly switches to existential horror as he is pulled down while an old friend of his looks on without lending any help. After this, and in his next conversation with Aditi, Kumar reveals a more honest man in so many ways. There isn't the obvious attempt at charm, rather the fixation upon his mind even if he tries to laugh it off. This begins his revelations of the past, as he reveals the point he took on his first role in a film as "the hero". Kumar is excellent in crafting such a younger man not in age, but in nature. There isn't the "weight" of success, but rather the weight of ambition that Kumar so embodies. The charisma is reduced and we just see the young man filled with conflict even in this decision though as he is advised against the career as merely a "film actor". 

The film recounts as he goes through his history as an actor and rises to prominence through a series of reflections. Including his early days as a supporting actor to the established star, a stodgy wooden actor with an ego. Kumar is great in this singular scene in doing a few things at once. What we see though is a definite sense of personal conviction as Arindam considers his lines and the actual purpose of his character. There is the concentration and ambition in his work, just as there isn't quite the achievement yet. He shows articulately though the young actor fashioning his technique and not really all that amused by the older actor flaunting his clumsy so-called talents in front of him, though Arindam is in the position that still requires him to defer to the man, at first. The conflict of his earlier times though subsides when on set with the needed confidence of an up and comer. Kumar portrays the confidence needed to become the star he desires to be, even if the sense of the inexperienced youth is still there. This as he responds to the old man with nervousness even as approaches his role with that conviction. 

Kumar is exceptional in the following chronological scene of Arindam pondering the situation of the older actor attempting to "sabotage" his performance while he begins to drink for the first time. Kumar brings this assurance of self in his delivery of the man's technique and understanding of film acting. It is with a sincere passion he speaks every word of his frustration with the old man, and confidence in his own belief in understanding film acting. This is against though still the whole display where Kumar's movements are filled with the unease of a man unsure of his success even as he is on the precipice of it. We return to this relationship as the older actor looks for help from the now successful Arindam, and again remarkable is the ease with which Kumar shows the star in this conversation. This is as he's fully in control listening to the old man's woes now. The ambition fulfilled, and now certain ease as he dismisses the old man entirely in front of his face. 

What we see then is in his journey a man in so many ways the man compromising for his ambition, this also in his days with his friend from the dream, an activist, he once supported however in favor of his career ignored. Kumar doesn't depict a bad man in Arindam's changes rather contrasts the passion of unsure youth against that compromise that creates an older man filled with anxiety, but success. Kumar is moving in crafting with such intimate detail, even in a couple of scenes the sense of personal defeat in a way, and that now different conflict that grows. That anxiety of the man perhaps sacrificing himself in a way. Kumar brilliantly internalizes the struggle, less as this active ignorance and more so the ease of bottling up it to maintain his image. Of course, a strange, and far more duplicitous mirror reveals itself when an actress comes seeking his help only to act her way in a rather maniacal ruse to manipulate him. Kumar's reaction embodying the strangeness of the situation, but also this painful infliction as he sees the hollowness of the act, an act he arguably has engaged with, though perhaps less purposefully. Now this journey though isn't about an easy solution to better himself, nor is it about a man accepting his downfall. It is rather a powerful idea of a man just honestly coming to terms with his decisions for both and better and worse. In turn this is why I love Kumar's performance of Arindam's reflections, which are not about big changes, but the subtle shifts within the conversation with Aditi. He eases his manner, becomes more open, but also more tender in a way. Kumar eases away any facade and just shows the man of it all. He speaks his reflections with understanding to his mistakes but also the ways in which he achieved success. Kumar finds such a nuanced grace in crafting this quiet yet potent arc, of not this major change, but rather a man coming to terms with himself both his anxieties and really his accomplishments. His final moment with Aditi is just one of a simple humanity, and warmth. Kumar expresses just earnestly a sense of connection and there is such genuine power in this against his other previous interactions with others that were all influenced by his stardom in some way. The greatness of this performance and film, is the elegance both Kumar and Ray bring in this careful examination that never is one note. Rather there is a true power in Kumar's portrayal of Ray's brilliantly written part, of every facet of this man. This both the big and the small moments. The quiet and the dramatic. Kumar simply embodies every moment of Arindam's journey. This is to the point we seem to understand him as a star, as an actor, and both as a sellout, and as an honest man. 

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Rock Hudson & John Randolph in Seconds

Rock Hudson nor did John Randolph receive Oscar nominations for portraying Arthur Hamilton, though later known as Antiochus "Tony" Wilson, in Seconds.

Seconds is an excellent film about a man getting offered a strange opportunity to be "reborn" and given a new chance at a life.

The film begins with a man receiving a random address by a stranger in public who quickly departs. The man being a middle-aged banker played by John Randolph. We follow this man from this initial interaction and already from that Randolph's performance suggests a man of near constant anxiety. This as his whole physical being is both tight and fidgeting. There is an lack of wellness that permeates from Randolph's performance so effectively creates the state of the man. His expression alone, even when nothing is going on yet, has this terrible baseless paranoia as he sits alone as man who is entirely discontent with his own being. An intelligent touch is when he arrives initially back home to his wife, he loses that anxiety, at least overtly, as he speaks to his wife. This with a smile towards her. There is a somewhat detached quality within it as he speaks every little interaction with a care, but not a passion within the discussion. This against as we see him thinking about at home for a phone call, that is from his old friend named Charlie with a strange offer. Randolph captures this powerful combination between a gripping fear and a fascination within the call. This suggesting the hook the offer Charlie is offering for him, is painfully within him. Again though there is a brief tender moment with his wife that really is essential I feel. This as there is the potential for more, but Randolph still grants this distance in Arthur as he refuses to directly connect. This again as though he is lost.

We then follow Randolph as Arthur decides to take up Charlie's offer by following a labyrinthine route to get to the organization that will provide him a service. Randolph's performance granting this sort of of journey an essential reality. This in portraying again both a sense of fear within the prospect but also being quietly intrigued. This until he arrive at the organization where the first thing that happens to him is he is drugged and placed in a purposeful scenario by the organization to blackmail him into proceeding forward with their procedure. After he's regained his composure Randolph is terrific in his attempt in portraying initially the man in any way acting as in control himself. This in speaking with just a minor front to control himself, while his eyes allude towards the still sense of confusion within the man's sudden predicament. His performance though is one that slowly wavers against the man's suggestion to a nearly petrified state, until they show him footage of their staged video to blackmail him with a proposed sexual assault. Randolph is incredible by showing the horror upon seeing his sudden state, until a final conversation from the head of the organization the old man (Will Geer), who tempts him with the prospect of "rebirthing" via changing himself physically while disposing of his old life with a crafted new one for him. As the old man prompts him about what it is that Arthur has, Randolph is heartbreaking as his expression is that hollowness sense of  man's life and that anxiety exuding from his every pore. His attempts at explanation to defend himself delivered with either a weak resolve or an entirely heartbreaking emotional exhaustion. Randolph essentially speaks every word of a man condemning his own state, without a single hint of love or tenderness in examining himself. Randolph showing someone who has given himself wholly to pessimism,in turn wholly giving himself to the treatment of being reborn. 

Of course then Arthur undergoes an operation where Randolph exists the film as the man becomes Rock Hudson through the changes done by the organization. Although seemingly ideal for the part of the idealized version of a man to become through an operation, this actually is a rather alien part for Hudson. Hudson who was far better known for his straight forward leading men turns, or his lightweight romcom turns. This is neither of those, and this is pretty evident from his very first scene where we see Arthur seeing his new face, while still being prepared. Hudson immediately shatters one's usual image of him from this scene alone as we see a man completely ill at ease with himself in this moment. This as Hudson's eyes suggest a deep fear upon looking at his new face, and his whole manner is as a man who is completely in discomfort with himself. Hudson though in this sense also continues where Randolph left off with his performance, but now also showing a man with that same anxiety within his own physicality. Hudson's performance showing a man who is unable essentially to be himself in the moment since he's not himself. Hudson in this moment grants a strict, and rather powerful reality to the technically sci-fi concept, by showing a very honest reflection of a man suddenly being placed within a new physical state. This as he is not simply this "new man" rather he shows the "old man" now sort of forced within this new body, and basically terrified by the image of this change directly before him.

Hudson excels in these early scenes by doing something that is entirely the opposite of what he became known for, which is instead of comfort and confidence with have discomfort and lack of confidence. This as he even goes about speaking to someone Hudson matches Randolph's manner initially as the man where he retiring and distant to the men he speaking to. His expression still baring the idea of a man really simply lost in his existence, which the re-birthing organization wishes to provide to him. Although it apparently might've not helped with the film's financial success, I will say it is a masterstroke of casting in bringing Rock Hudson. This in part in terms of being in part sort of the idealized "Reborn" version of the man, but it also makes it all the more striking to see this typically more Adonis like figure to seem so ill at ease within himself. Hudson portrays Arthur as a man still in that state of anxiety, and now perhaps even more unable to simply be comfortable in his own skin, given that skin barely resembles himself anymore. Even as he gets his life set up for him as a bohemian style artist, Hudson portrays the struggle in his manner which is just having a hard time being himself. Hudson though finds just the right degree of sort comfort in his new self and his new manner. He doesn't break from his shell until Arthur comes across a woman Nora (Salome Marcus). This as he finally sees a connection, however I love that Hudson doesn't fall upon his typical romantic comedy charm. He rather plays it in a sincere sense of discovery and seemingly a potential  connection finally as he seems to find it through their former mutual disconnection in their personal lives.

This relationship though burgeons quickly past that more intimate state as she basically brings him to a pagan styled orgy. Hudson's terrific though in portraying a natural elderly distaste for the even initial until he is literally thrown into it. In the moment though Hudson is fantastic in showing Arthur just giving into a jubilation purely based on the basic lust filled moment. This doesn't last long as we see Arthur in the throws based on that lust and his material possessions the company has provided to him. This coming to head at a party where Arthur has too much to drink and begins to think about his double life. Hudson, who apparently was actually drunk in the scene, is brilliant in wholly carrying it even within that drunkenness. This as he finds this state of sort of a perfect kind of mental breakdown in the moment. This in that jubilation is there but he offers it as this hyper intensity in his expressions as a man who cannot really accept it. This as he speaks with the sense of a mess of emotions of a man still attached to his past while also seemingly sensing the holes in the future that has been crafted for him. This of course is just it as after the night Arthur begins to see the nefarious nature of the company that is watching over him and the hollowness of it as even Nora was simply a paid employee there to provide for his needs. Hudson's reaction in learning this is heartbreaking in the simplicity of it. This in just finding the quiet anxiety once again in the man, though now a little bit different. This in that Hudson begins to play the part with not more confidence, but a better sense of  himself. This not in portraying Arthur becoming this new man, but rather finally a man who is able to reflect upon himself.

This we see as Arthur visits his "widowed" wife to essentially ask her about himself. Hudson is again exceptional by so quietly playing the scene of the man just listening to his wife. This in his eyes sensing both the real affection again that matches Randolph, though now more pointed even if purposefully muted. There is more though as she speaks Hudson finally creates a sense of connection in hearing the words with understanding rather than anxiety. Arthur is sent back to the organization, with the claimed proposition of getting another chance at rebirth. In this time Arthur finally finds his friend Charlie (Murray Hamilton), who too his waiting for "Seconds". Hudson is great though in this scene in the earnest wisdom he brings as he speaks Arthur's final truth of seeing his mistakes both of the past and the present. There's a real poignancy as Hudson delivery grants the sadness of the man seeing the failure but also in that some hope in a man finally seeing what caused his past failures. This earning the moments where Arthur refuses to sponsor more people to the organization as Charlie had done for him. This unfortunately though leading to all the swifter jump for Arthur being set for his chance at "seconds", sadly any personal gains are lost as that means he will be used as a corpse to orchestrate a future "rebirth". This does though lead to an outstanding scene for Hudson, that not only is incredible in terms of his own work, but quite daring for the time. This as Hudson portrays Arthur's realization that he's about to be killed from slow dread to manic intensity of a man writhing in pain and terror. Hudson brings such a visceral edge to the scene as you feel every moment of the man lashing out yet failing to escape his horrible fate. Hudson is wholly convincing in the scene making the ending of the film absolutely unforgettable. He doesn't make it pretty in the least, rather is wholly convincing in showing a man doing anything he can to stave off death in a futile effort. Now John Randolph gives a terrific performance that establishes this man's journey, and Hudson going against his expected type, doesn't waste it in giving an incredible show of range and ability, that frankly I didn't know he had in him. This in creating such a powerful and heartbreaking portrait of a man discovering how he lost purpose and discovery a way though tragically too late.

(For Randolph, also in a very strange grey area when it comes to category placement.)

(For Hudson)

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Results

5. Eddie Axberg in Here Is Your Life - Axberg gives a largely reactionary turn, however it works in creating the right naturalism within his character for his film.

Best Scene: Date.

4. Anatoly Solonitsyn in Andrei Rublev - Although very low key Solonitsyn's often observant turn effectively still realizes his character's quietly striking arc throughout his film.

Best Scene: After the bell rings. 

3. David Warner in Morgan - A Suitable Case for Treatment - Warner effectively gives a wild comic yet intense turn, even if his film doesn't use him all that well.

Best Scene: Trying to assassinate someone.

2. Donald Pleasence in Cul-De-Sac - Pleasence brilliantly captures the suffocating neurosis of his character and its degradation throughout the story.

Best Scene: Final breakdown.

1. Per Oscarsson in Hunger - Oscarsson performance naturally captures the tragic state of his character while doing so with a remarkable levity.

Best Scene: Hunger.

Updated Overall

Next: 1966 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 1966: David Warner in Morgan - A Suitable Case For Treatment

David Warner did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a BAFTA, for portraying the Morgan Delt in Morgan - A Suitable Case For Treatment.

Morgan - A Suitable Case for treatment fits within the English comedies of the time which typically were particularly chaotic, often to a fault, satires. Here we have a less than okay one about a failed artist dealing with his wife (Vanessa Redgrave)'s affair, sorta

David Warner takes on his first leading role here as the titular character. This being a different performance for him in many ways, as Warner is typically best known for his rather controlled individuals, even when playing evil men, they are more often of the calm and collected sort. David Warner though plays a man who is a suitable case for treatment after all, so it is fair to say that mentally he isn't all there. Warner's performance is pure madness here, that isn't helped by Morgan's situation where his wife is sleeping with his former best friend. What doesn't help matters though is she seems as bonkers as he is, just a little more low key about it, but in turn entirely encourages the madness of Morgan as he attempts to win her back. This is not some traditional endeavor though because Morgan isn't a normal man. Warner's performance is remarkable just in the overall setup of this as he has a ferocity in his energy, as he brings his typical intensity here but externalizes it more. This as he succeeds in creating a less controlled individual where there is a manic quality in his manner, particularly that of the physical. At the same time though he does have that Warner sort of power within his performance that does create the best moments in the film. This being in the manner in which he tries to kill his former best friend, and in these moments Warner is hilarious. This with what is best described as casual intensity Warner brings as he threatens the man while also maintaining a certain courtesy about it.

There are some enjoyable bits just through Warner's off-beat delivering that combines his typical presence though in a more unwieldy sense. Warner though also does offer a touch of depth within his moments with Redgrave. This as much as he still makes Morgan a raving lunatic who seems both pent up with lust and range, there is a minor sense within his expressions a more earnest need or concern for his wife.  This though is randomly interspersed with the eccentricities of the character, that frankly feels a bit over written and under written in the same measure. This as we get that he has some strange ideas of communism, not as a believer of the views but just that he holds himself attached to the figures therein. This really doesn't add up to much other than acting as a fodder for in which Morgan can rave about. Enjoyable ravings in Warner's performance, but not much more than that. We also have his animal obsession than naturally, or maybe not so naturally, eventually leads Morgan to wear a gorilla suit while trying to foil his wife's remarriage. Again Warner is more than up to the task in terms of granting the idea something in his own performance. His physical manner, which often takes upon a simian like  manner, is well drawn, and again creates the madness of Morgan in at least an entertaining way through his own work. Here is the problem with this film, which I guess I probably had a bit less patience for after watching a similarly styled Lord Love a Duck, as it like that film it introduces general ideas but really lets itself be just a chaotic mess with thinking that the mere introduction of an idea is enough. It isn't enough this as the film gets repetitive quickly because it doesn't grow or examine its ideas as bits, and the bits themselves end up losing their oomph after awhile because they don't change. We really don't get to explore Morgan beyond a comic idea, those eccentricities really don't have any real depth to them, and seem almost created as an illusion of depth. This as the film seems to suggest one can satirizes a communist radical by merely having the words, but it doesn't do anything with it of note. This leaves the talented David Warner to effectively create the setup for the character, and even thrive enough within the repetitious nature of the film. It sadly though loses its momentum by never reinventing itself and only getting more indulgent as the film proceeds. I wish the film really let Warner do anything with the part, but it is content in thinking a generalized off-beat weirdness will carry itself. This leaving a film that isn't funny enough to be so surface thin in its satire. Warner is good in showing a different side of his talent as a performer. Although even this is troubled as the film doesn't even filter his performance properly, as Redgrave is in a way underused, and the film fails to create a proper straight man dynamic against Warner. He's just kind of there to try to make scenes work, notable then that he doesn't entirely fail. I just wish the film had either given him better comic setups throughout or actually progressed its story in some insightful way.

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Per Oscarsson in Hunger

Per Oscarsson did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning Cannes and NSFC, for portraying Pontus in Hunger

Hunger depicts a penniless writer wandering the streets of a city.

The nature of the story from the cursory glance suggests that Per Oscarsson's work could be one of that of quiet soul bearing, of a poor man. Well that's not at all the case, in fact if there was a performance I'd compare this to most swiftly would be Charlie Chaplin as the tramp. This is not just as both characters often wander streets in their existence, but rather the entirety of Oscarsson's work carries with it a similar energy. Now this isn't a silent film, nor is this a comedy, Oscarsson's performance though is one where he carries himself in a unique manner that crafts that idea of his Pontus, more than the average homeless man. This is rather Oscarsson's work crafts him as an eccentric within this situation, and in doing so makes this likely a far more captivating experience. This is strongly within Oscarsson's physicality within the role, which is simply wonderful. The way he even walks is with this near directionless. This as though even when he's walking in a straight line, it isn't quite assured fitting for a man who in many ways is aimless, or at least looking for the right path. This is brilliantly built within though his overall demeanor that attempts this type of erudite, as though he is a philosopher within this situation of his. Oscarsson keeping this not quite proper, yet very specifically measured manner. This with his frequent courteous removal of his hat that he uses as essentially a running gag through the frequency, and often questionable use. Oscarsson though presenting within that, even as it is enjoyable, also shows Pontus as in a sort of, well note quite denial, though in part an avoidance of his situation.

Oscarsson's performance I think is essential within the success of the film as without it I think it would be inescapable dourness, however Oscarsson portraying Pontus's methods of trying to exist in the state, adds the right degree of levity, while also informing the audience of his character. This as Oscarsson more than anything, in that energy within his work, presents the fortitude or at the very least the persistence of the man. This as he saunters around the street Oscarsson grants technically the aimlessness of the man at times, but also his desire to try to work things out. This with frequent stops at a pawn shop to try to make a minor bit of money for survival while also attempting to make it as a writer, or perhaps anything else. Oscarsson's movement really does two things. One is he is engaging if not entirely entertaining to watch within these movements. He though does this in a way that succeeds in the second part, which is successfully portray the state of the man as seemingly a fruitless endeavor. Another aspect with this duality is within the way Oscarsson speaks within his performance. Oscarsson is again fantastic in the off-beat yet still genuine way in which he realizes his manner. We are granted the sense of a writer's eccentricity in his moments of pondering to himself, where again he is actively enjoyable in the way he speaks these rambling, while also in these ramblings shows a mind moving towards shambles. Oscarsson making Pontus someone who is enjoyable to be with, while also conveying with it the honest reality of his situation.

Oscarsson carefully plays the moments interacting with others though, again with a sort spry manner in portraying a man as though he is acting as though he is in an entirely fine within his situation. He brings though, even within the kindness, as the film goes on a more hurried delivering, even still with a sense of optimism that crafts the sort of decay of his state. We see this as well in, what again feels a bit Tramp like, is when Pontus romances a wealthier woman in the city, although not all may be as it seems in terms of reality. Oscarsson delivers a charm within his awkwardness. This being in his sly smile, and again a demeanor that is unorthodox in a most engaging way. Again though Oscarsson creates the sense of the presentation against also the struggle the man is going through. There are changes in his expression that alludes to other thoughts as related to his difficulty even as he he speaks the sweet nothings of a proper poet. He never loses the sense of his state, even when he is out of it seemingly within the relationship, even if for a moment. I love that Oscarsson doesn't show this to be a facade as much as coping mechanism. This in portraying that his eagerness isn't false even if technically not entirely true due to the man's struggle.

Even when that potential romantic affair loses itself, due to the limits of the mind, Oscarsson delivers in the moment of a certain rejection the man dealing with it in his particular way, though with a greater sense of his vulnerability. Oscarsson finds honesty within the eccentricity, and manages to grant that levity, while also wholly revealing the soul of the situation. I think what are essential moments within this though are in the titular word of the film. This in Hunger, hunger after all is not something one can really place over on a facade, it is a real, and painful experience. Oscarsson in the moments of his character's struggle, powerfully, and bluntly shows this an aspect in which he cannot talk himself out of the pain essentially. This in a moment where he throws up from eating bad meat, Oscarsson is heartbreaking the moment of just blunt desperation that he portrays in the moment of strict suffering. His words only painted by pain of dealing with yet another hardship. We see the same when he is enjoying a meal again, this in the rush to indulge in the food, we are granted an honesty of his situation. Oscarsson showing in the moments of hunger, that really there's nothing man can do other than accept his situation in the moment. His near final moment of raging at the world, albeit briefly, is so well performed as again the man losing himself into the desperation in this mania, however again Oscarsson presents within a man who is trying so hard to keep it together. This is a brilliant performance by Per Oscarsson. This is as he carries the film in terms of its momentum, but also in crafting such genuine portrait of the man's state. This state of existing both in the present, and while also being lost in his own mind.

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Donald Pleasence in Cul-de-Sac

Donald Pleasence did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying George in Cul-de-Sac.

Cul-de-sac is a somewhat intriguing riff on the somewhat tried plot of a criminal creating a hostage situation by seeking refuge with some normal people, the normal people here not being all that normal.

After all the man, whom criminal Dickey (Lionel Strander), chooses to hide out at is played by Donald Pleasence. That already suggests this isn't exactly going to be a Desperate Hours situation of an average family man dealing with a violent criminal. We instead have Pleasence, known for the more we'll say extreme individuals, who we first meet as he is frolicking in his bedroom with his young wife Teresa (Françoise Dorléac). Pleasence is brilliantly mad in this sequence as he gets dressed up as a woman with makeup as well as they interact. This as Pleasence captures a rather unique tone within the scene that is a combination of something that while being technically intense towards the idea the character's lust, yet also spells doubt within his sort state within this relationship. This as Pleasence plays both active and passive within the interactions. This as his eyes capture the mania of going along with the act, and at the same time that certain mania alludes to the way he also has a neurotic quality combined within that. Pleasence showing a man in a state of relationship that obviously has some sort of intimacy there, but it is also a detachment all the same within the near insanity of the interaction. This marital "bliss" is short lived within the film though as the two's dalliance is broken up by Strander's Dickey who demands to use their house to hideout with the two being held as basically assumed gun point.

Pleasence's performance then in many ways here is the factor within the film that differentiates itself from most stories of the ilk. This as there is nothing about George that is a man in this situation traditionally as the secret hero or event he obvious coward. Pleasence is terrific in portraying basically this nervous breakdown the man is having in presence over the criminal, although his breakdown isn't seemingly in wholly relation to the criminal. Donald Pleasence granting his performance this near constant unease in the physicality of his work. This as even just in the way Pleasence breaths has a hurried quality, his head constantly taut, and his movements with a messy quality within them. Pleasence granting the sense of George on the verge of this breakdown and his performance portraying a man seemingly filled with worry, far beyond dealing with a violent criminal. In his interactions with the violent criminal Pleasence's portrayal of the so called fear of it is with a broken intensity of a man tip toeing on the edge of some cliff. Pleasence speaking with this near mess of words together his his deliveries this particularly when speaking of his relationship with his wife.  Although he doesn't quite state it directly, Pleasence speaks each word regarding her with this straining anxiety. Pleasence's portrayal is that of a worn mind that seems unable to comprehend his current situation almost given how caught up he is within his own mind.

The only switch though is when guests briefly come over to the house, where they must act as though nothing is out of the ordinary. This though technically is where Pleasence heavily changes his performance towards creating the idea of likely how George usually presents himself to most people. Pleasence's changes though are in the presentation of this George. This as he changes his physical performance to careful movements that are so careful they're a touch stilted. He speaks in ways with a quieter quality, though incisive though as he grants even in this quiet delivery that intensity if more carefully wound. Pleasence showing a man who even here is just barely keeping together within the normal society.  After the guests leave it essentially only leave a final violent confrontation with George to take action against Dickey. It is a remarkable portrayal of a complete mental breakdown in Pleasence's performance. This in the very act of the killing by George is with a demented neurosis. This as he barely even looks upon his target and he presents this act as a moment of sheer insanity. This though is not the end of it as Pleasence's whole performance reveals the mess of George's mind that remains after it all. His work showing the way the neurosis that was ever present fully take over as his he speaks as a man with a most limited grasp on reality. His whole manner becoming detached from all things except the randomness of the ramblings that Pleasence grants the right sense to, the sense being that George has entirely lost his mind in the moment. Although in the end I wish overall the film had maybe a bit more complexity within the scenario itself, there is still much to be found within Pleasence's portrait of man on an edge being pushed off.

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Eddie Axberg in Here is Your Life

Eddie Axberg did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Olof Persson in Here is Your Life.

Here is Your Life follows the life of a young man coming of age. Although perhaps longer than it needs to be, it once again features Jan Troell's great skill at making the seemingly mundane captivating, and at the very least is an impressive theatrically released feature film debut.

Eddie Axberg, who eventually played one of Troell's emigrants, here plays the lead of this story of a young man in Sweden. This as a working class young man trying to make his way on his own after having left his home. Axberg's character of Olof isn't one of extreme complexity, in the sense that the emphasis is on Olof being in many ways this average surrogate. He's not some young man who has an exceptional purpose or intent, for much of the film he's just trying to make his one through one job, one boss and one different event after another. Axberg's performance is one that very much exists within a natural state, and such a thing while not showy by any means shouldn't be entirely overlooked either. What Axberg does though is find the purpose within being just a naturally unassuming young man. This as there is definitely a danger to be just a purely a blank slate, but Axberg is a talented enough performer to do a little more. This is as his state is one that is strictly convincing. He convinces you of the existence of the young man and finds the right degree of nuance, even while maintaining the general sense of simplicity within the character's life. This in finding the right moments to really reflect what is going on around him.

This can be relatively straight forward such as just acting in a brief rage when being harassed by some men, or something subtle such as the brightness of his expression when he's in a moment of, what he believes to be, romance. Axberg's work very much accentuates the situation effectively. This bringing the sense of frustration in a moment of hardship, a bit of charm in moment, or just sort of the sense of enjoyment of life when frolicking in the countryside. This is a minor aspect of potential revolutionary thoughts in Olof. This is more attuned to those around him than Olof himself. Axberg plays these moments well in portraying in his eyes the sense of interest in the words of revolutionary thought, however even in this he is the one who reacts more than acts or speaks these thoughts. This is all intended within the film that works in just basically showing this coming of age, in a seemingly simplistic, yet thanks to Troell's touches, effective portrayal of this young man's life. There isn't some great upheaval just life, and Axberg's performance is a reflection of this. His work isn't really able to go beyond a certain point, however within the limits of Olof as just a normal guy, living a mostly normal life, he's good. He brings life to Olof, and even as just a typical quiet person, he importantly still grants the right sense of individuality, and understanding of his experience.

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Paul Newman in Harper

Paul Newman did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Lew Harper in Harper.

Harper is a decent enough if largely forgettable detective mystery.

Paul Newman plays the role of the largely detached detective, honestly most detective stories are helped by a larger degree of personal connection. This is not that case as it is largely a procedural of uncovering one part of a conspiracy after another. Newman plays our hero of Lew Harper, who we see as a slightly hapless sort essentially from an opening scene where he reuses old coffee ground in his disheveled office. Newman really making the most out of that scene just in his less than enthused reaction to the coffee he's made somewhat questionably. After this point is essentially Newman doing his best approach to the detective, who is largely driven to solve the mystery though does do it in a fairly unique way. Newman brings of course a certain definite charm here as is usually the case for him, though he doesn't overly emphasize it here actually. He actually plays Harper with a generally sort of wry and often sardonic manner. This with certain shrugs at certain news and eye glances of disbelief when hearing about the various ins and outs of all those he encounters. Newman portraying all of these interactions as though he really doesn't take any of them that seriously in the sense that as the detective he must second guess every one. Newman creating sort of the false sense of incompetence as though Harper doesn't care at all, though in his eyes there he emphasizes the method within that he does make his moves. Newman playing well though into sort of the joking way that successfully suggests Harper's way of both disarming each person while also prying in his own way.

The procedure in this mystery doesn't have too much of real personal stakes, there is a slight friendship angle with one of the suspects but even that doesn't amount to much. Outside of the main story though we do get moments of Harper dealing with the fact that his wife (Janet Leigh) is divorcing him. These are small moments however effectively played as the bit of entirely earnest work in Newman's portrayal when other ask abut it. His quiet frustrations are well played as one thing Harper isn't going to joke about to others about. Although this is in contrast to his scene of trying to win his wife back by calling her with a obviously fake crank call. Newman's delightful in this scene in bringing the right flirtations playfulness in the moment and all the moments of speaking to Leigh. Newman shows in these moments both how he probably won her over but also how he lost her as he still doesn't quite take it seriously enough. These are good moments but only really brief moments outside of the main narrative. The main narrative that takes Newman through the various expected detective tropes, false leads, incompetent law enforcers, double crosses, and of course suspects denying their true motivations. Newman maneuvers these scenes effectively with the sardonic charm here. It doesn't add up to too much mainly as Harper has limited connection really to the case. Even in his one major personal moment at the end of the film, Newman's delivering still is a sardonic brush off, it works in his character, but just shows the limitation here. The case really though is simply never *that* compelling. Newman though makes it more compelling than it would be otherwise through his reliable performance. Newman though does best when he has more material to really sink his teeth in. When he's coasting he can be good, which he is here, but just good. This stands as a more than decent straight forward detective performance, and stands as a more than decent Newman turn, though it isn't too remarkable in either category.

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Anatoly Solonitsyn in Andrei Rublev

Anatoly Solonitsyn did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character in Andrei Rublev.

Andrei Rublev is a masterful film that follows the titular Russian iconographer during the 15th century.

The nature of a film by Andrei Tarkovsky is unique to the filmmaker, in that despite expansions in technology or what have you, his work crafts an experience of its own. This as I think one could just examine the way he films a stream that is unlike any other filmmaker. Often it is the great director that realizes the viewer as a voyeur within the characters they're watching, that isn't the case with Tarkovsky, or at least not to me. This as he doesn't make you one who views what's going but rather oddly grants an empathetic state within the experience that is almost otherworldly in this achievement. In this sense though Tarkovsky's protagonists are almost the viewer in certain sense, as his focus upon the technical protagonist is different than most. Although this film technically it is about the painter of religious imagery Andrei Rublev, played by Anatoly Solonitsyn, the film is more so about the time and place of Russia. Rublev is in a way the guide, though only in a way, but most often as an observer. Solonitsyn's performance is one befitting of a man who lives in a monastery. This with careful consideration and manner. There is an intensity within his work of a man who is burdened almost by his thoughts as he must think about his artistry, his faith and his existence. A careful performance that fits well within a man whose behavior is similar, this even when compared to his brethren artists and his mentor, who are more outward in their passion and philosophy. Solonitsyn depicts a man of thought, and does so effectively. He creates the right presence to this state of the man.

We witness Rublev through a series of technically vignettes that are in some way associated with his period. These moments though typically don't always personally connect to Rublev other than he is in proximity of them. Solonitsyn's approach shouldn't be hand waved this as he is never invisible in the role even though Rublev is often in a way just part of the crowd. This in so many of the moments we see him witness various acts of quite the extremes that reflect his times from the performance of a fool, to the cruelty of a prince, to a pagan ritual or even a massacre around him. Solonitsyn's performance is tempered much of the time as a man of an internalized manner and whose ambition is associated with artistry. His performance though does reflect the right glints of the truth on the surface of those internalized feelings. Whether this bit a slight sense of lust at the naked women of the pagan women, or similar sense of horror or shame within his eyes at the violent cruelty he bares witness to. Solonitsyn realizes the very honest emotion of the man however with the sense that he essentially must keep it largely within himself if he is to function within his time and place. The most open initially is in his conversations with his mentor Theopanes the Greek, who more openly speaks on matters of faith and art. In Rublev's few replies and moments of reflection upon the words of his mentor, Solonitsyn conveys the idea of a man in the constant state of flux towards attempting to uncover his own truth. He grants the sense of a man who isn't quite aware of it himself even as in the same way we see the man's diligence and conviction within his approach to his artistic endeavors. The greatest change comes within the turmoil when Rublev takes a life to save another, a moment of brief intensity, followed by quiet yet potent sorrow within Solonitsyn's performance.The rest of his performance then is a solitary one though powerful. This in his eyes become affixed with this sense of a need for penance. He creates the sense of this with silence, despite even the prodding of others to break it, particularly as Rublev refuses to continue his artistry in this time. Although aided by some remarkable makeup, Solonitsyn impressively portrays the wear of this act and time in his physical motion, which is always minimal yet becomes more labored and weak as an older man. This is the man's state until another extraordinary, if almost accidental, act inspires him again. It isn't a big moment in Solonitsyn's performance yet still potent in granting the sense of the man finding inspiration. This in just again a glint in Solonitsyn's performance, yet still notable. That is his work in microcosm though. This isn't what one likely takes from the film, yet still an essential part as being the observer of the period, apart from it in ways, yet changed fundamentally by it all the same.

Alternate Best Actor 1966

And the Nominees Were Not:

David Warner in Morgan - A Suitable Case For Treatment

Per Oscarsson in Hunger
 
Eddie Axberg in Here is your Life
 
Donald Pleasence in Cul-de-sac
 
Anatoly Solonitsyn in Andrei Rublev

And a review of:

Paul Newman in Harper

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Results

5. Oskar Werner in Fahrenheit 451- Werner gives a fairly effective performance as a man who goes to a cog in the machine to a free thinker but the power of his work is somewhat muted when the director basically takes over for him at the end of the film.

Best Scene: Montag confronts his wife and her friends.

4. David Hemmings in Blow-Up- Hemmings gives a good performance as a photographer in a haze who is forced to drift out of it when he discovers something unusual in a photograph.

Best Scene: Thomas tries to tell his agent about the murder. 

3. James Mason in The Deadly Affair- James Mason gives a great and surprisingly emotionally charged performance as a government agent who lives through too many double crosses in both his professional and private life.

Best Scene: Dobbs figures out who his wife's most current affair is with.

2. Tatsuya Nakadai in The Sword of Doom- See Wallach's summary.

Best Scene: Ryunosuke "confronts" his past.

1. Eli Wallach in The Good, The Bad and the Ugly- Good Prediction Psifonian. Well this was not an easy choice to make as this year came down to Eli Wallach's and Tatsuya Nakadai's performances for me. Both are brilliant very physical performances that both excel in leading films even though they technically play reprehensible characters, in Nakadai's case extremely reprehensible. They are both outstanding in very different ways with Wallach giving a hilarious and very entertaining performance, and Nakdai is absolutely magnetic while being uncompromising in his depiction of the evil nature of his character. To try to decide between the two I re-watched my favorite scenes of each of their performances well that did not help either only reassuring the fact that I love both of their performances. I have to choose one though therefore I choose Wallach... I guess for the moment right now at this second.

Best Scene: Tuco meets with his brother.

Overall Rank:

1. Eli Wallach in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
2. Tatsuya Nakadai in The Sword of Doom
3. Paul Scofield in A Man For All Seasons
4. Richard Burton in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf
5. Rock Hudson in Seconds
6. Uttam Kumar in Nayak
7. Michael Caine in Alfie
8. Per Oscarsson in Hunger
9. Donald Pleasence in Cul-de-Sac
10. Clint Eastwood in The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
11. Tatsuya Nakadai in The Face of Another 
12. Sergei Bondarchuk in War and Peace Part I
13. Peter O'Toole in How To Steal a Million
14. David Hemmings in Blow-Up 
15. Lee Marvin in The Professionals
16. Robert Mitchum in El Dorado 
17. Max von Sydow in Hawaii 
18. Lino Ventura in Le Deuxieme Souffle
19. David Warner - Morgan - A Suitable Case For Treatment 
20. Roddy McDowall in Lord Love a Duck
21. Burt Lancaster in The Professionals
22. Jean Martin in The Battle of Algiers
23. Paul Newman in Harper
24. Vyacheslav Tikhonov in War and Peace Part I
25. Anatoly Solonitsyn in Andrei Rublev
26. Eddie Axberg in Here is Your Life
27. Adam West in Batman
28. Jack Lemmon in The Fortune Cookie
29. Jean-Louis Trintignant in A Man and a Woman
30. Oskar Werner in Fahrenheit 451  
31. Steve McQueen in The Sand Pebbles
32. Michael Caine in Funeral in Berlin
33. Hywel Bennett in The Family Way
34. Václav Neckář in Closely Watched Trains
35. Lionel Strander in Cul-de-Sac 
36. Michael Caine in Gambit
37. Alan Arkin in The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming 
38. James Garner in Grand Prix
39. Yves Montand in Grand Prix
40. Brahim Hadjadj in The Battle of Algiers
41. Charlton Heston in Khartoum
42. John Wayne El Dorado
43. Zero Mostel in A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum
44. Robert Redford in The Chase
45. Peter Cook in The Wrong Box 
46. Marlon Brandon in The Appaloosa
47. Michael Caine in The Wrong Box 
48. Marlon Brando in The Chase
49. Franco Nero in Django
50. Carl Reiner in The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming 
51. Paul Newman in Torn Curtain
52. James Garner in A Man Could Get Killed
53. Peter Kastner in You're a Big Boy Now 
54. Stephen Boyd in Fantastic Voyage
55. Bill Travers in Born Free

Next Year: 1966 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 1966: David Hemmings in Blow-Up

David Hemmings did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Thomas in Blow-Up.

Blow-Up is an interesting time capsule of sorts about a photographer in London who finds something strange in a few random photographs he has taken in a secluded park.

The photographer Thomas as played by David Hemmings is a bit of a constant for about 2/3rds of the film. The constant that he is is vividly portrayed by Hemmings as a hot shot photographer. Thomas is an insufferable sort of person and Hemmings is very good at being the insufferable sort. Hemmings has the right assured quiet pompousness whenever Thomas does much of anything as he is a man who is a popular photographer who gets pretty much anything he wants and he knows it. Hemmings has the air of self entitlement down well in that Thomas's self indulgent behavior is just very much how he deals with things in a day to day life. Hemmings though thankfully doesn't overplay this in Thomas making him very believable character at all times.

Another factor is made a constant in Thomas other then his confidence though which is a certain dissatisfaction and aloofness he feels toward his life. Hemmings is very good in playing it as something that has just become part of Thomas and even though he seems to be on top of the world he doesn't really find all that much in it. Again Hemmings doesn't overplay this but makes it an intricate part of Thomas's personality. When there is something he does that he does take some joy in it Hemmings still portrays it with still just certain unpleasantness making even the pleasures he does have only fleeting ones which Thomas knows will be gone soon enough. Hemmings does well in keeping Thomas in this state as he goes through his life although something does change when he discovers an unusual photograph.

Thomas discovers he has taken a photograph of an apparent murder and Thomas is knocked out of his funk as he tries to figure out what exactly is going on. Hemmings is very good as loses that consistency and Thomas finally seems to care about something more than just what little pleasure he might be able to gain. The film doesn't really have a scene to let Thomas really release his feelings out about what he has found because we just stay with him as he goes forward in an attempted investigation. Within the investigation Hemmings is very good as he shows that Thomas finally seems to honestly feel something different something he becomes invested in. These scenes are very effective because Hemmings portrayal of the breaking of Thomas's haze is absolutely earned as Hemmings shows the murder isn't something that Thomas can't simply overlook.

The ending of this film does not end like a murder mystery therefore we really don't get Hemmings to have a final statement on Thomas's character instead he is merely left confused and almost just as he was before when it appears the murder has completely been covered up despite Thomas's best efforts to find something. Hemmings is good in his last scene as even though Thomas is back in a haze Hemmings carefully notes in his performance that Thomas is not exactly as he was before as in this new haze he has lost the confidence and self-assurance he had in the beginning of the film. This is a solid performance by David Hemmings although it doesn't quite stand out as a great performance in that Hemmings's work never breaks out standing entirely on its own. It is a performance that works within his film quite well acting as an unusual guide through a rather unusual life.

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Eli Wallach in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Eli Wallach did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Tuco Benedicto Pacífico Juan María Ramírez best known as just Tuco in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is a masterpiece about three men searching for hidden gold all while the American Civil War rages around them.

The title of the film refers to the three principal players of the film the good most often referred to as the man with no name although referred to Tuco as Blondie is played by Clint Eastwood. The good is hardly perfect but definitely has a sense of compassion.  There is also the bad named Angel Eyes played by Lee Van Cleef who is assassin who will commit any immoral act to get the gold, and then there is the Ugly played by Wallach. The ugly refers to more than just Wallach nontraditional leading man style of appearance, but also his stance in terms of morality which is definitely not good but he is not pure evil by any measure either. Tuco's personality and morality is best described as ugly.

Although I don't wish to disrespect those who feel that Eli Wallach's performance in this film is supporting but I can't see him in any way other than co-lead with Eastwood in fact if for some reason you had to put one in supporting I would put Eastwood there before Wallach, although I would never do that. Wallach has the most speaking lines in the film which I suppose is a bit of a given considering Clint Eastwood never plays that talkative of a character. He also has the most screen time and Tuco's story is always just as important as Blondie if not more important in that we find out more about Tuco's past and whenever we drift from the two together we tend to follow Tuco more often than Blondie.

Eli Wallach wanted to play the Toshiro Mifune equivalent in the Magnificent Seven before he was cast as the main villain Calvera. I bring this up again because Wallach's on screen style reminds me of Mifune in the best possible way. Wallach has a daring of performance like Mifune where every physical action even the most unimportant motion seems to have some some significance. Wallach uses this style to utter brilliance here as Tuco who is a bandit with a seemingly unending number of crimes on his name at least according to his would be executioners. Wallach early on make Tuco hard to peg exactly his nature as he doesn't seem to deny his crimes he definitely has a liveliness you will not find in the cold blooded Angel Eyes.

Tuco early on the film though actually is a bit of a villain himself as he tries to track down and kill Blondie after Blondie left in the desert after Tuco wanted too much money in their extortion scheme together. Wallach does something very special in that he makes Tuco extremely likable for some reason despite Tuco's actions being less than admirable particularly in the early stages of the film. How Wallach does this is perhaps through his humorous manner he brings to the part. Wallach gives Tuco just the right kind of flamboyance it never seems like too much, but instead just makes every scene he is in all the more entertaining because of his style. Wallach brings in just the right way though never becoming just a cartoon even though he is very funny here.

Wallach approach is a bit of a scatter shot in the way he switches around in scenes and the way he never seems to stop talking or moving in any scene. Wallach approach is no doubt risky as any part of Tuco's character could fall flat, seem like too much, or just have certain elements of his character seem out of place but Wallach brings it all together in a single brilliant character. In his early rival scenes with Blondie Wallach balancing act involves having the appropriate menace when he traps Blondie with the attempt to kill him yet still is completely enjoyable in his style. One of my favorite moments of Wallach's performance is when Tuco and a few men try to take get Blondie. When he corners Blondie Wallach makes the threat real in Tuco's grudge holding eyes, but still has a moment for comedy when he sorta mourns his men who Blondie has killed with his trademark serious yet false sign of the cross.

Wallach makes Tuco a most peculiar yet completely winning character to follow along through the film. What drives Tuco throughout the film is intense greed as all Tuco really does want is to find the man desperately. A man filled with greed yet just a purely endearing man filled with greed in that there in that Wallach never makes this greed explicitly devious even though it technically is. Wallach just wins you over even though through his portrayal of Tuco who is indeed the ugly one thing is his energy in the part which never seizes and never stops entertaining but there is something else that makes it so the audience can overlook Tuco's faults and there are a lot of faults to be looked over through the course of the film.

The something else I think comes in the more vulnerable scenes with Tuco. One of them being when we find out a little of the past of Tuco as he meets with his brother who is a priest. Wallach is absolutely perfect in this scene because he does not let up on Tuco's flamboyant behavior except for brief moments using just the right subtle indications that there is a softer side to the bandit. Wallach doesn't dwell on it though showing that Tuco's behavior to at least some degree is a defense mechanism of sorts to hide Tuco's very real pains in his past. Wallach expression when Tuco is told the death of his father is very moving because it is just a slight change in Tuco's face and we see that there is more to this man than just the list of crimes and a bounty to his name.

Another important thing about Tuco compared to the other men is the genuine character that Wallach gives Tuco that makes him infinitely more likable than the truly evil men around him. By giving this color to Tuco Wallach makes the right difference between Tuco and Angel Eyes and the men like him. One of the best scenes of the film is when Tuco is being tortured by Angel Eyes and a henchman. It might seem odd to make a scene in which we are to sympathize with a criminal bandit, but it is Wallach performance that doesn't make it seem odd at all. Firstly Wallach delivers in painful detail how they break Tuco, but as well Wallach in all the scenes before this point made the Tuco character so rich in life that it is hard to see him treated with such extreme brutality.

One of trademarks of Sergio Leone's direction is his attention to faces in his films. There are never just random nameless men he uses but there is something notable about just about everyone he sets in frame. Wallach's face is one of his most intriguing in this film. Wallach is the wild card of this film as Angel Eyes and Blondie are technically both mysterious men but mysterious men with a distinct nature. Tuco doesn't stand exactly any where exactly in fact in the way Wallach plays him he rarely ever just stands still. Wallach's performance is flamboyance at its very best. It is a wild performance filled with life and humor at all times yet with just the right barriers within this insanity to ground Tuco in just the right way allowing there to be a heartfelt interior within the exceedingly entertaining exterior of this incredible performance.

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Tatsuya Nakadai in The Sword of Doom

Tatsuya Nakadai did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Ryunosuke Tsukue in The Sword of Doom.

The Sword of Doom is close to being a masterpiece of a film about an amoral swordsman whose actions bring him down a path of darkness. The reason I say close to being a masterpiece is that there are many supporting characters given more time than necessary particularly because all the best scenes involve Nakadai and the subplots of the supporting characters are left unresolved by the end of the film. The scenes involving the supporting players are not bad by any measure though, but it is not surprising to learn that these scenes were made to establish a never made sequel. Really a superior cut of the film could very easily be made just be trimming those scenes that barely involve Nakadai's character.

The Sword of Doom opens in a seemingly peaceful setting as an old man and his granddaughter hike to the top of mountain. The granddaughter leaves for a moment and the old man prays to a statue of Buddha apparently for death. Behind the man appears the figure of Ryunosuke whose dark robe seems black even within the black and white imagery. Ryunosuke murders the man slashing his back without a single hesitation or regret leaving the corpse there to mourned. Despite being the man we will be following through the course of the film it is obvious from the first scene that this is an evil man whose evil actions are just a natural part of his existence. There is no turning back from this point as we only follow the man down his path of shadow. 

Tatsuya Nakadai's performance as Ryunosuke is a very physical performance. Nakadai makes Ryunosuke a very distinct and compelling creation in his manner that he gives the character. Nakadai always walks a firm step as Ryunosuke who almost seems to glide along at times exemplify the assured confidant nature of the man especially when it is required that he unsheathe his sword for any reason. Nakadai physical manner makes Rynosuke always stand out in a very peculiar and very effective fashion as he makes him almost a blot on the canvas of the world. Even in the moments of potential light Nakadai always acts as that underlying evil which is always present. Nakadai makes him a void of a darkness but such fascinating magnetic void that pulls your gaze to him at all times.

Nakadai's greatest asset in this performance though is found in his face. Nakadai's face is terrifying in this film as a glassy eyed indifference seems to be his perpetually expression found in him. A remarkable moment early on the film is when Ryunosuke faces off in a sparing match against a man whose wife was raped by Ryunosuke after she offered herself as an attempted bribe to make him lose the match. Just before the match commences we see the two men with murder on their mind. The husband face burning with a true passion based on at least his love he once had for his wife. Nakadai though is startling in his expression which is that of a hollow soul who will kill because he can rather than any true passion on his part.

Nakadai's performance almost makes this film become a horror film in these early scenes due to his merciless style he brings to the part. He is so chilling by not showing a man of vicious violence emotions but rather making Ryunosuke a man at home in being emotionless who kills because there is no reason in his mind not to kill. The miserable nature of the man is something that Nakadai ever acts even slightly shy about in his incredible performance. Even when Ryunosuke speaks to a woman he has a child with Nakadai is striking in the way that the keeps Ryunosuke's soullessness completely in tact in these scenes still showing almost not humanity except perhaps the slightest glimmer of pleasure, pleasure in making her life a horror to endure.

Throughout the film there are these momentary glimpses of pleasure in the man which Nakadai portrays in a small psychopathic smile. In these moments Nakadai shows the only time where Ryunosuke is at all happy yet they are some of the most disturbing moments due to that Nakadai only brings this smile out when Ryunosuke is thinking of something terrible in nature that only happens to be perhaps out of his normal ordinary method of evil. Nakadai makes Ryunosuke a man this void and he is amazing in how he never does compromise this fact for any reason during the course of the story. Nakadai doesn't even leave the chance for good by making even the most genuine human emotions in the man only those only of a sadistic psycopath.

The physical presence of Nakadai needs to be strongly noted as there is such power in his portrayal of everyone of the sword fights of the film. There is one particularly spellbinding one early in the film when a group of men attempt to get revenge for a man that Ryunosuke has killed. Nakadai's style in this scene is astonishing to watch through his precision as Ryunosuke kills one man after another without even seeming to blink and only taking each man at a time while still keeping his stride at a perfect pace. In this scene we see Ryunosuke at his very best in terms of being a swordsman a man no one can touch a man whose confidence is so great that only requires the slightest effort to kill every man who questions him.

Nakadai's performance keeps Ryunosuke as a consistent monster for a long time. He does not stay this way forever though and Nakadai uses these moments as pivotal into developing the fate of his character. One of the most important scenes is when Ryunosuke accompanies a group of assassins who attempt to kill a master swordsman Shimada Toranosuke played by Toshiro Mifune which obviously means the men don't have much of a chance. Ryunosuke stays back and witnesses the slaughter of men as they fail to touch Shimada once. Nakadai is absolutely brilliant as he shows Ryunosuke lose his uncompromising confidence finally as we see his glare lose its power, and for once a fear develops in the man as he looks upon a warrior greater than he.

Ryunosuke retains himself by going into hiding with a group of assassins to avoid a duel he could have possibly lost. This leads him into a room with a woman who turns out to be the granddaughter of the old man he had killed at the beginning of the film. With that all his past deeds begin to swirl around in his mind. This might seem the moment for regret and self reflection, but no Nakadai actually takes a more interesting approach and one truer to the nature of Ryunosuke. Nakadai instead portrays it as Runosuke finally giving in to his own insanity as he tries to violently slay every ghost that haunts him and leaves him as a man trying to violently silence voices that cannot be killed.

The final fight of the film comes as Ryunosuke's rampage brings him to living warriors who seem endless as each try to kill him and Ryunosuke continues to fight against the apparently infinite number of assassins. It is a spectacular scene and Nakadai's performance incomparable in his power as he now shows Ryunosuke fighting for his life still with the same skill but no longer with that confidence that his actions are meaningless. Every slash seems harder than the last and Ryunosuke is finally wounded but continues to fight for his endless void. In his face and in his attack Nakadai shows Ryunosuke as a man fighting to his final end not seeming for life, but rather the death that he brings to others is all the life the hollow man has ever had leaving him only trying with every last ounce of his will to at least bring one more death before his own comes.

Tatsuya Nakadai obviously does not play a likable character in even a villain you love to hate sense yet this is a mesmerizing performance that glued me to the screen and when he was not on screen I only wished for him to return. Playing an antagonist is a tricky role to begin with yet playing one who is bereft even the slightest sympathy is all the greater challenge as it would be so easy to repulse without the intrigue necessary to carry the film and create character piece worth examining. There seems to be no such struggle for Nakadai whose portrait is captivating as he controls the screen all the while never once striving from the innate brutality of this portrait. Tatsuya Nakadai's achievement here is an outstanding and powerful characterization of a violent man without humanity.