William Holden in The Wild Bunch
Showing posts with label 1969. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1969. Show all posts
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Best Actor 1969: Results
William Holden in The Wild Bunch
Best Actor 1969: John Wayne in True Grit
John Wayne won his only Oscar from his second acting nomination for portraying Reuben J. "Rooster" Cogburn in True Grit.
True Grit tells of Mattie Ross (Kim Darby) who wants to avenge her murdered father and employs the help of a U.S. Marshall.
John Wayne portrays the Marshall who is a hard drinking law man. Here is a performance criticized in that it is usually described as a very standard western performance by John Wayne, therefore should not have been rewarded. I will disagree and say this is not a standard western performance by John Wayne at all, and in fact this is a strangely daring performance in some ways. The ways being that he does not do this as John Wayne the western hero at all, instead he plays it as Wallace Beery the western hero. In almost his entire performance he imitates Wallace Beery both physical in the way Beery protruded his mouth forward when he spoke, as well as the way he speaks like Wallace Beery in the way he begins sentences, with a lot of oh, and wells given extra emphasis.
This whole Wallace Beery facade is a strange move on Wayne's part, and I can't really say it is a good one. It is odd the way he just is Wallace Beery in the part, I really found no purpose or point to being Wallace Beery in the role of Rooster Cogburn. It never becomes effective and frankly makes his performance here seem far more dated than say his performance in any other western he was ever in. Wayne does not even keep his Beery impersonation throughout and in the scene where he talks to Mattie about his past he lets up on it, making that scene probably his best scene in the film. Every other scene seems over acted because he is acting in the style of an actor whose whole technique was over emphasis on everything he did.
Wayne I do not think is entirely terrible though. He does not stop the film still with his performance, even if it is overacted. Also he is not exactly dull either, which was something else Wallace Beery commonly was. It is not like every emotion he portrays is off or anything extremely bad, instead he just gives a thoroughly unimpressive performance throughout. John Wayne simply was given an award for this performance, because they wanted to give him one, not because this was his best performance, if they gave him an award in 1952 or 1956 I really doubt there would be that many complainers about John Wayne winning an Oscar. This performance though is just a mistaken approach, that sets it actually below a standard Wayne performance, making this actually one of his more lacking of efforts.
John Wayne portrays the Marshall who is a hard drinking law man. Here is a performance criticized in that it is usually described as a very standard western performance by John Wayne, therefore should not have been rewarded. I will disagree and say this is not a standard western performance by John Wayne at all, and in fact this is a strangely daring performance in some ways. The ways being that he does not do this as John Wayne the western hero at all, instead he plays it as Wallace Beery the western hero. In almost his entire performance he imitates Wallace Beery both physical in the way Beery protruded his mouth forward when he spoke, as well as the way he speaks like Wallace Beery in the way he begins sentences, with a lot of oh, and wells given extra emphasis.
This whole Wallace Beery facade is a strange move on Wayne's part, and I can't really say it is a good one. It is odd the way he just is Wallace Beery in the part, I really found no purpose or point to being Wallace Beery in the role of Rooster Cogburn. It never becomes effective and frankly makes his performance here seem far more dated than say his performance in any other western he was ever in. Wayne does not even keep his Beery impersonation throughout and in the scene where he talks to Mattie about his past he lets up on it, making that scene probably his best scene in the film. Every other scene seems over acted because he is acting in the style of an actor whose whole technique was over emphasis on everything he did.
Wayne I do not think is entirely terrible though. He does not stop the film still with his performance, even if it is overacted. Also he is not exactly dull either, which was something else Wallace Beery commonly was. It is not like every emotion he portrays is off or anything extremely bad, instead he just gives a thoroughly unimpressive performance throughout. John Wayne simply was given an award for this performance, because they wanted to give him one, not because this was his best performance, if they gave him an award in 1952 or 1956 I really doubt there would be that many complainers about John Wayne winning an Oscar. This performance though is just a mistaken approach, that sets it actually below a standard Wayne performance, making this actually one of his more lacking of efforts.
Best Actor 1969: Richard Burton in Anne of the Thousand Days
Richard Burton received his sixth Oscar nomination for portraying Henry VIII in Anne of the Thousand Days.
Anne of the Thousand Days tells of Henry VIII's divorce of his first wife than his time with his new Queen Anne Boleyn until her eventually downfall.
Richard Burton's performance of Henry VIII certainly cannot be described as a subtle screen performance. Instead it is an extremely hammy performance that can easily be described as a very over the top creation, and characterization of the King. Burton never suggests many hidden emotions of Henry very much instead he constantly puts the emotions of Henry out to the forefront.
Burton's performance is hammy, but this does not really mean that it is exactly bad at all. Bad and over the topness do not exactly go together it is if it compromises the idea of effective characterization when it does. Burton here does go hammy constantly but in the role of the boisterous larger than life King Henry VIII this is sort of the right approach for Henry. Burton certainly is capable of subtle performances, such as in the Spy Who Came Who Came in From the Cold, so I really think this was very much purposeful over acting, certainly not do to incompetence is what I am saying. As Henry he most certainly yells a lot gets red and viscous looking when angry, smiling devilishly when happy, everything is telegraphed most certainly, which does fit Henry actually since he was a King, or at least as portrayed here, who made it known what he wanted.
Also there are a few moments that are nicely handled when he attempts to be a little less obvious in his performance such as suggesting that he does love Anne for example. These are not exactly the reactions of say Robert Duvall in Tender Mercies, but he has a few good smaller reactions now and again. Does Burton overdo it from time to time, well most certainly, but I never think it becomes out of character obvious acting though. Even the most extreme obvious emotional scenes are of Henry's character. Henry is always pushing his emotions in everyone's faces as Burton portrays him, and by that he cannot be ignored as Henry really should be.
Now I think I praised this performance enough, because still on the whole it could have been better than it is. I think he could have reigned in his performance just a little when he did go over the top it could have been more effective. Also I think he frankly could have been a tad more charming as Henry as he is since his Henry is extremely unsympathetic more than he really needed to be. A much better example of a flamboyant performance can be found in Becket with Peter O'Toole's turn as Henry II, which is a perfect example of what this performance could have been. Burton really could have been far more entertaining, far more effective, and far more interesting than he is if he just played Henry with a little more ease, it still could have been hammy sure, but just a little less ham or at least some better used ham would have been a good idea.
Richard Burton's performance of Henry VIII certainly cannot be described as a subtle screen performance. Instead it is an extremely hammy performance that can easily be described as a very over the top creation, and characterization of the King. Burton never suggests many hidden emotions of Henry very much instead he constantly puts the emotions of Henry out to the forefront.
Burton's performance is hammy, but this does not really mean that it is exactly bad at all. Bad and over the topness do not exactly go together it is if it compromises the idea of effective characterization when it does. Burton here does go hammy constantly but in the role of the boisterous larger than life King Henry VIII this is sort of the right approach for Henry. Burton certainly is capable of subtle performances, such as in the Spy Who Came Who Came in From the Cold, so I really think this was very much purposeful over acting, certainly not do to incompetence is what I am saying. As Henry he most certainly yells a lot gets red and viscous looking when angry, smiling devilishly when happy, everything is telegraphed most certainly, which does fit Henry actually since he was a King, or at least as portrayed here, who made it known what he wanted.
Also there are a few moments that are nicely handled when he attempts to be a little less obvious in his performance such as suggesting that he does love Anne for example. These are not exactly the reactions of say Robert Duvall in Tender Mercies, but he has a few good smaller reactions now and again. Does Burton overdo it from time to time, well most certainly, but I never think it becomes out of character obvious acting though. Even the most extreme obvious emotional scenes are of Henry's character. Henry is always pushing his emotions in everyone's faces as Burton portrays him, and by that he cannot be ignored as Henry really should be.
Now I think I praised this performance enough, because still on the whole it could have been better than it is. I think he could have reigned in his performance just a little when he did go over the top it could have been more effective. Also I think he frankly could have been a tad more charming as Henry as he is since his Henry is extremely unsympathetic more than he really needed to be. A much better example of a flamboyant performance can be found in Becket with Peter O'Toole's turn as Henry II, which is a perfect example of what this performance could have been. Burton really could have been far more entertaining, far more effective, and far more interesting than he is if he just played Henry with a little more ease, it still could have been hammy sure, but just a little less ham or at least some better used ham would have been a good idea.
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Best Actor 1969: Peter O'Toole in Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Peter O'Toole received his fourth Oscar nomination for portraying Arthur Chipping in Goodbye, Mr. Chips
This version of Goodbye, Mr. Chips is a musical version of the inspirational school teacher. Although I must say I was surprised by many of the changes that went far beyond the simple adding of some terrible songs.
Peter O'Toole depiction of Mr. Chips is very different from the Oscar winning depiction of the character by Robert Donat in the 1939 original. O'Toole Chips is even far more prim and proper, and this seems to be caused by the fact that he really is a rather stiff fellow more than the original Chips who was more of that way do to his shyness. Another change in this version, that really surprised me, was the fact that Chips is genuinely disliked by many of students who find him too harsh of a teacher. I felt this was genuinely surprising, and again this is a very very different Chips than the one everyone seemed to love of the 1939 original.
O'Toole portrays Chips in a very no nonsense way for a great majority of the film. He is a man of his principals and his morals, and certainly will not change them for anyone no matter how rich an investor who does not like him may be. O'Toole how proper portrayal is well handled, with a little humor from just how proper he is which comes out from time to time, although not enough for me to really like this portrayal. Chips still marries a independent woman named Katherine, but this time she is a singer played by actual singer Petula Clark. Their relationship technically seems slightly more natural because they do not get married in 5 second like Chips and Katharine in the original, but at the same time the chemistry between the two actors is not nearly as charming.
O'Toole and Clark have some nice moment together that is true, particularly in his scene where he states his love for her in his very dignified way, but it never becomes all that special, which probably can at least partially given to the fact that Clark is not really all that much of an actress, and much of the relationship falls on O'Toole's shoulders. All Clark really has to do is sing a song for each part of the relationship. O'Toole never really does all that much in this part, nor is he required to do all that much. Chips in this version strangely stays about the same at the beginning as he is in the end. I suppose his relationship with his students is a little better, and he is a tad less proper but really there is not all the much of a change shown in O'Toole's performance.
This is a consistent performance by O'Toole that does have a certain charm to it, even if it is not that much of one. His performance though does shine quite well in his few moments that he is given to shine. One such example being his reaction to hearing some tragic news, his reaction of disbelief and sadness is well handled and moving enough. His best single moment though comes from his final long speech about his retirement. It has the right passion and ease in this speech to suggest Chips' long history with the students, as well as showing how much they all have meant to him. His speech is the best part of the film really since the film does a poor job of establishing Chips' relationship to his students, therefore leaving basically it all to O'Toole, which O'Toole is able to convey quite well.
This performance although having its moments of strength, and it is technically consistent, it never becomes anything that special in any aspect. He really does not age until the last scene of the film, Chip's whole purpose in life seems to mainly be his relationship with his wife in this version, and that relationship is only sort of charming at best. There just is nothing that stands out here, except I suppose you get to hear O'Toole singing, and I suppose his uninspired approach to each song fits the uninspired lyrics and music of each song. This is not a bad performance at all, it is always technically good, but just like the film it really left me wanting far more than it delivered.
Peter O'Toole depiction of Mr. Chips is very different from the Oscar winning depiction of the character by Robert Donat in the 1939 original. O'Toole Chips is even far more prim and proper, and this seems to be caused by the fact that he really is a rather stiff fellow more than the original Chips who was more of that way do to his shyness. Another change in this version, that really surprised me, was the fact that Chips is genuinely disliked by many of students who find him too harsh of a teacher. I felt this was genuinely surprising, and again this is a very very different Chips than the one everyone seemed to love of the 1939 original.
O'Toole portrays Chips in a very no nonsense way for a great majority of the film. He is a man of his principals and his morals, and certainly will not change them for anyone no matter how rich an investor who does not like him may be. O'Toole how proper portrayal is well handled, with a little humor from just how proper he is which comes out from time to time, although not enough for me to really like this portrayal. Chips still marries a independent woman named Katherine, but this time she is a singer played by actual singer Petula Clark. Their relationship technically seems slightly more natural because they do not get married in 5 second like Chips and Katharine in the original, but at the same time the chemistry between the two actors is not nearly as charming.
O'Toole and Clark have some nice moment together that is true, particularly in his scene where he states his love for her in his very dignified way, but it never becomes all that special, which probably can at least partially given to the fact that Clark is not really all that much of an actress, and much of the relationship falls on O'Toole's shoulders. All Clark really has to do is sing a song for each part of the relationship. O'Toole never really does all that much in this part, nor is he required to do all that much. Chips in this version strangely stays about the same at the beginning as he is in the end. I suppose his relationship with his students is a little better, and he is a tad less proper but really there is not all the much of a change shown in O'Toole's performance.
This is a consistent performance by O'Toole that does have a certain charm to it, even if it is not that much of one. His performance though does shine quite well in his few moments that he is given to shine. One such example being his reaction to hearing some tragic news, his reaction of disbelief and sadness is well handled and moving enough. His best single moment though comes from his final long speech about his retirement. It has the right passion and ease in this speech to suggest Chips' long history with the students, as well as showing how much they all have meant to him. His speech is the best part of the film really since the film does a poor job of establishing Chips' relationship to his students, therefore leaving basically it all to O'Toole, which O'Toole is able to convey quite well.
This performance although having its moments of strength, and it is technically consistent, it never becomes anything that special in any aspect. He really does not age until the last scene of the film, Chip's whole purpose in life seems to mainly be his relationship with his wife in this version, and that relationship is only sort of charming at best. There just is nothing that stands out here, except I suppose you get to hear O'Toole singing, and I suppose his uninspired approach to each song fits the uninspired lyrics and music of each song. This is not a bad performance at all, it is always technically good, but just like the film it really left me wanting far more than it delivered.
Monday, 11 July 2011
Best Actor 1969: Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy
Dustin Hoffman received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy.
Dustin Hoffman's Ratso is in many ways the opposite of Jon Voight's Joe Buck. Where Joe is naive to the city, Hoffman's Enrico has been there all his life. Hoffman makes this known showing that Enrico is a very experienced street dweller, it is not that he is some perfect swift street criminal, rather a very desperate individual who uses what he knows to survive. Hoffman's entire creation of Enrico is one of the amazing performances of this type. Although technically this is a very controlled performance that was made to be just a certain way, in never feels like that, instead his performance always seems utterly natural, and authentic. This is a performance where I really do not see the actor, I always saw Enrico, which is an incredible achievement with this type of performance.
Everything that Hoffman tries with this performance absolutely works which is astounding. His voice perfectly amplifies the character, well making him incredibly unique. The way he dresses, his hair, his constant sweating as well as his limp, are all brilliantly handled. They always seem completely Enrico, and every physical gesture, no matter how actory it could have been, it isn't because instead Hoffman makes it all feel completely authentic. Hoffman is able to do this because he is always one hundred percent invested with Enrico. He never for a moment lets on about anything else, he makes Enrico simply into a complex person you really feel like you could meet. It almost seems bizarre that this is possible from this risky of a performance, but every single little or big risk Hoffman takes with this performance works.
Ratso is an incredible achievement because of after all there is not too much really told about Ratso. The only thing exactly explained is that his father was a shoe shiner and died from his job. Most everything else is left to Hoffman to express which Hoffman most certainly succeeds with. His performance does a brilliant job of creating a complex layered person in Ratso. Enrico most certainly is street smart, acting with a certain hostility to some, well having a tiny bit of smoothness which he uses for his street cons such as when he cons Joe Buck out of some money. Ratso though at heart really is a very sad and lonely man. Hoffman never leaps out and states this but makes it clear in his desperate want of Joe to stay with him, Hoffman shows beneath Enrico's street persona that all he really is a man who wants some friendship.
Enrico really is not this tough man of the streets. Hoffman instead presents that deep inside Enrico is a very sensitive man. This is particularly shown in his reaction to being called Ratso which hurts him deeply inside. Hoffman makes this key I think because he does not show him as just being annoyed or angry over being called a name, but this rather deeply wounds him because it suggests that he is something below human. As I said in Voight's review this friendship is a brilliant achievement by both actors. There initial scene where Joe goes to Enrico's apartment. Joe first balks at the circumstances believing it to be some sort of con or trick that Enrico is playing on him. Hoffman final delivery of Enrico just telling Joe that he wants him to stay is brutally honest, because there is no trick or con on Enrico's mind, Hoffman instead shows that all Enrico was after was a basic human need.
As their friendship grows so does the power of Hoffman's portrayal. I said that they were almost the opposite but as many ways as they are opposite of one another they are also the same. Both have the same desperation and the same want for a better life. There is something very human of Enrico's dream of Florida, which is very moving because the whole time Hoffman portrays Enrico's thoughts of the dream as a honest simple hope of the pained man. Their friendship contains one powerful moment after another, because because how despite the harshness and the reality of their situation their is a simple beauty of their relationship. It is not always perfect one but because of that it seems more realistic and is even more effecting. Their relationship is simply unforgettable because of the simple truths about the mutual need of friendship between the two men.
Enrico's dream seems difficult and unlikely to occur because of slow physical disintegration which Hoffman handles as well as every other physical element of Enrico. His fears and pains around his illness, are downright heartbreaking due to Hoffman's portrayal. I creates a painfully realistic portrait of a man on his end, and it made as sad as it is because Hoffman shows that Enrico was really just a man who wanted a descent life. I really can't praise this performance enough. Hoffman never once seems like he is acting in the entire performance, and creates one memorable person in Enrico. It is an outstanding achievement where despite the dirty pained exterior of Enrico Hoffman still is able to show something of beauty within the man. Hoffman just creates an outstanding portrait of an unforgettable character.
Everything that Hoffman tries with this performance absolutely works which is astounding. His voice perfectly amplifies the character, well making him incredibly unique. The way he dresses, his hair, his constant sweating as well as his limp, are all brilliantly handled. They always seem completely Enrico, and every physical gesture, no matter how actory it could have been, it isn't because instead Hoffman makes it all feel completely authentic. Hoffman is able to do this because he is always one hundred percent invested with Enrico. He never for a moment lets on about anything else, he makes Enrico simply into a complex person you really feel like you could meet. It almost seems bizarre that this is possible from this risky of a performance, but every single little or big risk Hoffman takes with this performance works.
Ratso is an incredible achievement because of after all there is not too much really told about Ratso. The only thing exactly explained is that his father was a shoe shiner and died from his job. Most everything else is left to Hoffman to express which Hoffman most certainly succeeds with. His performance does a brilliant job of creating a complex layered person in Ratso. Enrico most certainly is street smart, acting with a certain hostility to some, well having a tiny bit of smoothness which he uses for his street cons such as when he cons Joe Buck out of some money. Ratso though at heart really is a very sad and lonely man. Hoffman never leaps out and states this but makes it clear in his desperate want of Joe to stay with him, Hoffman shows beneath Enrico's street persona that all he really is a man who wants some friendship.
Enrico really is not this tough man of the streets. Hoffman instead presents that deep inside Enrico is a very sensitive man. This is particularly shown in his reaction to being called Ratso which hurts him deeply inside. Hoffman makes this key I think because he does not show him as just being annoyed or angry over being called a name, but this rather deeply wounds him because it suggests that he is something below human. As I said in Voight's review this friendship is a brilliant achievement by both actors. There initial scene where Joe goes to Enrico's apartment. Joe first balks at the circumstances believing it to be some sort of con or trick that Enrico is playing on him. Hoffman final delivery of Enrico just telling Joe that he wants him to stay is brutally honest, because there is no trick or con on Enrico's mind, Hoffman instead shows that all Enrico was after was a basic human need.
As their friendship grows so does the power of Hoffman's portrayal. I said that they were almost the opposite but as many ways as they are opposite of one another they are also the same. Both have the same desperation and the same want for a better life. There is something very human of Enrico's dream of Florida, which is very moving because the whole time Hoffman portrays Enrico's thoughts of the dream as a honest simple hope of the pained man. Their friendship contains one powerful moment after another, because because how despite the harshness and the reality of their situation their is a simple beauty of their relationship. It is not always perfect one but because of that it seems more realistic and is even more effecting. Their relationship is simply unforgettable because of the simple truths about the mutual need of friendship between the two men.
Enrico's dream seems difficult and unlikely to occur because of slow physical disintegration which Hoffman handles as well as every other physical element of Enrico. His fears and pains around his illness, are downright heartbreaking due to Hoffman's portrayal. I creates a painfully realistic portrait of a man on his end, and it made as sad as it is because Hoffman shows that Enrico was really just a man who wanted a descent life. I really can't praise this performance enough. Hoffman never once seems like he is acting in the entire performance, and creates one memorable person in Enrico. It is an outstanding achievement where despite the dirty pained exterior of Enrico Hoffman still is able to show something of beauty within the man. Hoffman just creates an outstanding portrait of an unforgettable character.
Best Actor 1969: Jon Voight in Midnight Cowboy
Jon Voight received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Joe Buck in Midnight Cowboy.
Midnight Cowboy tells of the story of naive Texan who dreams of being a hustler in New York City and fins it far harder than he expected, and befriends a street dweller in the city.
Jon Voight plays the hustler Joe Buck who wants to make it big in New York. Voight whole creation of Joe is absolutely brilliant. His accent, and his whole native way about himself just fits the part perfectly. New York really is way over his head, and Voight portrays this perfectly through a realistic naivety and a little pompousness that sets up Joe's fall in New York without fault. Joe is a fish out of water in New York and Voight is again excellent because he shows this incredible boyish earnestness that prevails through Joe as he goes around the city thinking women will just jump to the chance to use his services. Voight is great because he is not afraid to show that Joe has no idea what he is doing whatsoever, there is not a hidden intelligence about Joe, rather Voight correctly portrays all of these ideas coming from his very skewed sense of masculinity.
Throughout the film there are many instances of flashbacks that show Joe's life in Texas, and Voight basically without words indicates how the events in his life, as well as the way he was raised created Joe into the way he was. In both his naivety, and optimism of sorts that Voight suggests in a subtle fashion that does mask the pain of his life that came before he came to New York. Voight also as well carefully establishes how Joe developed his particular masculine beliefs, being in basically being an old western cowboy like basically John Wayne in True Grit really. Voight and the film portrays these concepts as a folly of sort on Joe's part, and that also it is not who Joe is completely. It is not a facade that Voight portrays but rather just that became embedded into him due to his long time in Texas.
Joe's handling of his who transition of his beliefs is carefully, and expertly handled by Voight. It is interesting because Voight really just does not show that he simply lose his ideas, no instead Voight shows how he adjusts his ideas and finds he really cannot use them with women, but interestingly near the end of the film, he almost is the cowboy he wants to be in the scene with the elderly businessman. That entire scene is a masterful moment for Voight, because the hero of his cowboy ideal comes out in the scene, still hardly the real deal considering the twisted nature of the scene as well as the fact that he practices being the hero in the mirror before he confronts the man. It is a fascinating performance by Voight as he portrays Joe finally attempting to act the way he thinks he can and he must to save his friend, even it leads to a dark place and a dark end.
Voight is amazing because after that scene he does eventually lose the cowboy act, but it does not come from the realization of just that it does not really work with the women. It is better handled by Voight as he portrays these ideas deeper than that to Joe, and it takes the disturbing scene with the old man to finally cause him to shed his view of masculinity. Voight properly shows that this ideal which Joe has gained throughout his life did not take one denial of it for him to be able to shed it but rather something far dramatic was required. Voight individual performance as Joe is amazing, but the best moments of the film and his performance do come from his interactions with Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo. It incredible how heartfelt of a friendship that the two actors develop together, despite it most certainly being a harsh one, after all it starts out with Ratso conning Joe out of money.
Their scenes together are outstanding because of they together create a real authentic friendship between two very lonely men. Their friendship is not repeatedly stated by the film, and it frankly seems harsh at time, but because of the understated way both actors portray the friendship it is one of the most deeply moving friendships ever in all of cinema. Jon Voight's performance is a tremendous piece of acting. He never overdoes a single aspect of his performance, and Joe could have been easily played all wrong. Jon Voight though instead gets ever aspect of the performance completely on the mark. Everything works about the performance, not a single scene or moment is off. His entire performance is an incredible portrayal of an unforgettable character.
Jon Voight plays the hustler Joe Buck who wants to make it big in New York. Voight whole creation of Joe is absolutely brilliant. His accent, and his whole native way about himself just fits the part perfectly. New York really is way over his head, and Voight portrays this perfectly through a realistic naivety and a little pompousness that sets up Joe's fall in New York without fault. Joe is a fish out of water in New York and Voight is again excellent because he shows this incredible boyish earnestness that prevails through Joe as he goes around the city thinking women will just jump to the chance to use his services. Voight is great because he is not afraid to show that Joe has no idea what he is doing whatsoever, there is not a hidden intelligence about Joe, rather Voight correctly portrays all of these ideas coming from his very skewed sense of masculinity.
Throughout the film there are many instances of flashbacks that show Joe's life in Texas, and Voight basically without words indicates how the events in his life, as well as the way he was raised created Joe into the way he was. In both his naivety, and optimism of sorts that Voight suggests in a subtle fashion that does mask the pain of his life that came before he came to New York. Voight also as well carefully establishes how Joe developed his particular masculine beliefs, being in basically being an old western cowboy like basically John Wayne in True Grit really. Voight and the film portrays these concepts as a folly of sort on Joe's part, and that also it is not who Joe is completely. It is not a facade that Voight portrays but rather just that became embedded into him due to his long time in Texas.
Joe's handling of his who transition of his beliefs is carefully, and expertly handled by Voight. It is interesting because Voight really just does not show that he simply lose his ideas, no instead Voight shows how he adjusts his ideas and finds he really cannot use them with women, but interestingly near the end of the film, he almost is the cowboy he wants to be in the scene with the elderly businessman. That entire scene is a masterful moment for Voight, because the hero of his cowboy ideal comes out in the scene, still hardly the real deal considering the twisted nature of the scene as well as the fact that he practices being the hero in the mirror before he confronts the man. It is a fascinating performance by Voight as he portrays Joe finally attempting to act the way he thinks he can and he must to save his friend, even it leads to a dark place and a dark end.
Voight is amazing because after that scene he does eventually lose the cowboy act, but it does not come from the realization of just that it does not really work with the women. It is better handled by Voight as he portrays these ideas deeper than that to Joe, and it takes the disturbing scene with the old man to finally cause him to shed his view of masculinity. Voight properly shows that this ideal which Joe has gained throughout his life did not take one denial of it for him to be able to shed it but rather something far dramatic was required. Voight individual performance as Joe is amazing, but the best moments of the film and his performance do come from his interactions with Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo. It incredible how heartfelt of a friendship that the two actors develop together, despite it most certainly being a harsh one, after all it starts out with Ratso conning Joe out of money.
Their scenes together are outstanding because of they together create a real authentic friendship between two very lonely men. Their friendship is not repeatedly stated by the film, and it frankly seems harsh at time, but because of the understated way both actors portray the friendship it is one of the most deeply moving friendships ever in all of cinema. Jon Voight's performance is a tremendous piece of acting. He never overdoes a single aspect of his performance, and Joe could have been easily played all wrong. Jon Voight though instead gets ever aspect of the performance completely on the mark. Everything works about the performance, not a single scene or moment is off. His entire performance is an incredible portrayal of an unforgettable character.
Saturday, 9 July 2011
Best Actor 1969
Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy
Jon Voight in Midnight Cowboy
John Wayne in True Grit
Richard Burton in Anne of the Thousand Days
Peter O'Toole in Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)