Alternate Best Actor 1980: Results

5. Al Pacino in Cruising - Pacino does what he can with a razor thin role.

 

Best Scene: Rejecting his girlfriend.

4. Richard Dreyfuss in the Competition - Dreyfuss gives a fine portrayal of a character that asks very much for a typical Dreyfuss turn.

 

Best Scene: Conducting. 

3. Naseeruddin Shah in Sparsh - Shah gives a compelling portrayal of a man struggling for normalcy as he deals with his disability with others.

Best Scene: Dinner breakdown

2. Anthony Quinn in Lion of the Desert - Quinn gives a powerful portrayal of a quiet dignity and determination. 

Best Scene: Negotiations.

1. John Savage in Inside Moves - Savage gives a moving portrayal of a man moving from a hollow depression to a quiet understanding of life. 

Best Scene: Why he attempted suicide.

Updated Overall

 

Next: 1980 Supporting (though I might just do a couple reviews on a single post). 

Alternate Best Actor 1980: Al Pacino in Cruising

Al Pacino did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Steve Burns in Cruising.

Cruising, that follow a cop going undercover to find a serial killer of gay men who frequent leather bars, isn't much of a film beyond its controversy from the time. It largely repetitive scenes of slasher film style murder scenes, followed by very routine investigation scenes, interspersed with scenes of our underdeveloped protagonist getting more entrenched into the "life". 

Al Pacino plays the part of the cop, and to be blunt, it isn't much of a part. The role of Steve Burns is a generalized description of this straight man cop, this as we find in his extremely simple relationship with his even more poorly defined girlfriend. These scenes are the most generalized possible in terms of a police officer's romantic life. Pacino is fine in them, in terms of creating the general sense of the weight on his mind within his expression as he speaks about his new secret assignment, but it is not much more than that. The successive scenes are as simple as we see just that weight get stronger, and nothing interesting comes of this even remotely. In the actual investigation scenes Pacino is again fine in creating this generalized dogged determination quality he's always good at conveying. Pacino knows how to deliver on that reserved intensity and it serves the general of this part well. The horrible poorly conceived center of this film is the character's Steve's second life at pretending to be a gay man looking for the serial killer. These scenes aren't particularly interesting, despite being so obviously exploitative in approach, particularly not for Pacino. Basically Pacino needs to play these two shades, one of the eyes still looking for clues and the killer, the other this very vague idea that Steve might be genuinely interested in what is going on around him. The latter element isn't at all developed, and feels awfully too much like Shock Corridor, where the man pretending to be insane went insane. This as both present the idea without actually effectively working towards it through the development within the scenario. With it all said and done, Pacino is absolutely fine in what it is that he is given. He does everything that is asked of him, maybe a little more, but sadly this is such an underwritten part that even someone of Pacino's talent can't make Steve a truly compelling character. Pacino is good, but there just really isn't anything there. 

Alternate Best Actor 1980: John Savage in Inside Moves

John Savage did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Roary in Inside Moves. 

Inside Moves is a fine, though not substantial, off-beat drama about a man finding an unlikely new lease on life.

John Savage is probably best known as one of the group of friends forever changed by the Vietnam war in The Deer Hunter. Here we follow once again as a man permanently physically injured, though under very different circumstances. We open this film on his Roary going up a building only to jump off in a suicide attempt that leaves him with a limp but he survives. Like his work in his most famous role, Savage from the opening scene excels in internalizing trauma. The opening scene though just wearing the quiet desperation of a man. This is carefully though as he seems focused upon his intention rather than attempting any kind of cry for help. We then follow past the film's introduction to see a "recovered" Roary. Savage's performance in these two scenes alone is terrific work in terms of crafting the sense of time between the two phases of Roary. This as the second man is hardly in a good state, as now instead of that intention Savage embodies an anxiety within him and naturally also depicts his physical ailment that follows him wherever he goes. Savage doesn't depict it as a state of constant despair now, but there is still an unmistakable sadness within his work. It is more muted and in a way seemingly separated as the man is trying in some way to continue to exist, if little more than that. 

Roary's new path we find as he finds solace in a bar frequented by other seemingly broken people including a group of elderly men, including Harold Russell in his sophomore effort as an actor over 30 years after his first, a strung out prostitute, and the friendly, though also injured, bartender with former hopes as a basketball player Jerry (David Morse). Savage's performance is interesting as the lead as it is often this kind of reactionary one. His performance conveys that quiet sense of a kind of distress that defines the man though muted. He's broken in that certain sense yet there's also something very open within his performance all the same. In his interactions with the others Savage's work has this kind of balance to it. This as his eyes are often both expressive in terms of reaction while also shy. He shows a man finding himself in a way and finding himself through listening to others. He's still profoundly changed by what he did, but also in that we see a man in a  way almost on a different wavelength at times that provides a certain empathy in moments. This as we see him becomes friends with the people in the bar, particularly Jerry, and in that Savage presents a man capable of this most curious kind of encouragement. This is something that Savage realizes in a quietly moving fashion, almost his own emotional scars allowing him to express support without any kind of hesitation. 

Savage's performance realizes this peculiar state effectively. This as he begins to become this comfort and better man, while there is this shading in Savage's work that still expresses the greater state of distress that brought him to this new life in a way. Savage though manages to make the "feel good" for the lack of a better description work within his performance. This is because he never skips the step of Roary's own problems as he also shows this kind of interesting perspective the character seems to have because of his past rather than in spite of it. Savage earns this gradual kind of joys we see expressed in his work that he depicts always with the nuanced understanding from where it was that Roary came from to get here. Savage's performance never cheats the narrative or the idea behind the character, which I think actually as written it could've been very easy to bungle the character into someone cloying or unbelievable. Savage though effectively finds the effort within the man's arc. This making so many moments really work through his performance. This particularly in Roary romance with one of the bartenders Louise (Diana Scarwid). It's straight forward in execution, but the key moments of this Savage finds the right poignancy just through his expression of it. This particularly his scene of first kissing her as Savage's eyes convey the crippling shyness of the man's manner, before finally breaking through to the man embracing the woman and really life itself in the moment. The film, somewhat unfortunately, snags into more familiar territory, in overly familiar ways, as both Jerry and Louise seem to move on from Roary. Savage to his credit though never really falls into the lesser material himself. He amplifies it still with that off-beat energy of his that always feels true to the part. This as his confrontation moment even with Jerry later on, who has forgotten his friends despite their help, as Savage manages to deliver the scene with a fascinating combination of anger and sadness, but funneled through a kind of manner of curiosity as though Roary is trying to figure out the moment as he's going through it. This in showing the man finding his footing as he's speaking and finds the confidence with the character in the moment in a rather endearing and remarkable way. That is emblematic of Savage's whole performance that avoids the potential contrivances of the script to give a quietly moving and impactful portrayal of a man finding a new path in his life.

Alternate Best Actor 1980: Anthony Quinn in Lion of the Desert

Anthony Quinn did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Omar al-Mukhtar in Lion of the Desert. 

Lion of the Desert is one of only twoish (ish because he really made three films, but two were the same film in a different language with different actors) films by Moustapha Akkad, a man otherwise known only really for being an executive producer of the Halloween franchise. So a classic "huh?" Hollywood story to be sure. Made all the more confusing given this film is a  good, though not great (needed more detail to the supporting characters like a greater Arab war film), epic about Libyan struggle against fascist Italy.

Anthony Quinn stars here in a role that is actually familiar, in some ways, to another turn by Quinn in that other epic, the greater, Lawrence of Arabia. Although both films have Quinn playing Arab leaders attempting to take care of his people. The comparisons stop there though as in "Arabia" he played a loud boisterous and vibrant man, here he plays a quiet dignified one. This as we see him his first scene attending to the people listening to a religious sermon. Quinn speaks in the moment of the man's own views with a quiet grace and care for each word. There is a gentleness within Quinn's delivery and he immediately grants you a sense of his al-Mukhtar as a caring and generous leader. Quinn always has a powerful presence as an actor, and dominating one to be sure, however here he uses that initially more passively. This creating just a sense of the presence of the man but defined by an ease among his people. He is not trying to dominant them he is trying to be with them. This is our starting point as the Italian fascists, with the campaign lead by General Rodolfo Graziani (Oliver Reed), attempt to take over Libya with al-Mukhtaras the man seeming to stand in his way. 

 

Quinn has a great scene once the campaign starts where he uncovers the massacre of his people. Quinn's reaction is deeply affecting here as there is so much empathy within his expression. It is a beautifully tender work in the moment as you feel the weight of the deaths upon his brow and you see that there is nothing more personal than the loss of his people. As he expresses the nature of such brutality, Quinn creates the sense of such a powerful humanity that defines the man. In battle Quinn is interesting in that he doesn't portray some sort of ferocity. There is instead a certain sense of weight within the battle on the man, and a care even then. This in showing the man very much caring more of the meaning of the fight, then at all caring about any glory within the fight. Quinn suggesting a man whose leadership in battle is due to a sense of duty than anything at all personal. This is emphasized so well by an early scene where he attends a failed negotiation with the Italians. Quinn speaking with quiet strength in setting his stakes within the moment. His raising of his vice something so naturally earned as attached to the passion for the rights of his people. 

The negotiation scene is wholly wonderful for Quinn, as he uses every reaction so well. This as there is hearing every word with a careful consideration, and always that sense of a moral sense of what every suggestion is attached to. When he speaks of Graziani, figuring out the Italians plot to delay him, Quinn's delivery is great because he approaches it with a quiet certainty and dismissiveness towards the questionable men he was speaking to. Quinn's screentime is relatively limited, for a leading performance, because the film gives keen focus to the battle scenes, but everyone of his scenes punctuates the film with a necessary power. A later moment is another terrific one where al-Mukhtar explains his position to his fellow Arabs who have surrendered. Quinn's resolute passion is remarkable by how low key yet potent it is. This in his explanation of the betrayal of the surrender given the force they are facing. Quinn once again finding the power in the certainty of the man's words and in his delivery finding a man who earnestly knows the righteousness of his fight therefore cannot be easily deterred even by the true hardships that result from his resolution. 

I think the key to Quinn's performance here actually is how he doesn't try to make al-Mukhtar any sort of supreme leader or some truly extraordinary man in this war. He rather expresses him as a man caring for his people and always burdened by the war he is taking on. In the later war scenes, as the situation gets more dire, he doesn't depict it with a calm resolve. There is the sense in Quinn's eyes of every loss, and the real anxiety of the situation. He doesn't show the man weakening truly, but still shows the effort al-Mukhtar needs to make to continue his fight at every point. Just the brief moments of a real sadness at seeing the death of his men are truly moving as again Quinn presents the innate decency of the cause in such an honest approach. Quinn's performance accentuates a kind of directness that works particularly well for the role given we don't dive too deeply beyond a certain point here. We get more so the generalizations than some of the more detailed specifics within the characters, something that again made Lawrence a great film. Quinn's work though does make up for this limitation to a degree by creating the right nuance within the depiction of a man standing up for what he believes to the very end. This as even with his final confrontation with Graziani, Quinn, who certainly never hesitates to go big when he sees fit, takes a simple yet effective approach. This in creating a dignified portrait of al-Mukhtar as a leader who states his position, and lives with it. His ease with it, being an expression of  the man wholly seeing his stance as an absolute truth.

Alternate Best Actor 1980: Naseeruddin Shah in Sparsh

Naseeruddin Shah did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Aniruhd Parmar in Sparsh.  

Sparsh is a moving understated film about the troubled romance between a blind principal and a social worker...except *insert standard Louis Bollywood musical number statement*.  

Naseeruddin Shah takes on the role of a blind principal for a school for children who are also blind. We discover Shah’s initial performance that is defined initially by a quiet kind of grace. Shah’s work has a kind of ease and understated warmth about the man. This as we initially meet him essentially trying to recruit a social worker Kavita (Shabana Azmi) to his school. Shah’s delivery of his kind of “pitch” for his work and his school, is a potent combination of a kind of ease within the sentiment, but also a distinct passion for his work. There’s a type of richness in his expression of a man with this sincere appreciation for his career and his method of helping others with his own condition. What Shah’s performance does so well in these early scenes, other than establishing a likable protagonist, is also the experience of the man in this position and as a blind man. There is a comfort in his manner just in this speaking towards his profession and his thoughts. There is no unnatural emphasis, just a sincere delivery of a man speaking from an honest truth that defines the man’s personal passion. 

We see the operations of the school, where Shah expresses the comfort of self in these interactions and experience. We see a man whose blindness does not define him, or at least it appears to not, even as he works specifically within the world of the blind. A crack within this, which I wouldn’t say as a facade more of a specific parameter of comfort, though is found in a moment where Kavita attempts to help Parmar pour his tea. Shah’s delivery of the quick snap at her sharply saying he can do the task himself before returning back to his more affable smile. Shah’s delivery of these moments is essential in revealing the character and crafting depth to the role. Shah’s portrayal of the moment is rather instinctual. It is quick and without hesitation. This isn't really out of character with the affable man we see otherwise. That affable man though has that comfort where Kavita treating him as a blind man changes that dynamic. Shah’s reactions suggest the years of wishing to be treated as any person and not specifically as a blind man in need of help. As harsh as the moment appears he shows a man who has strives for a kind of normalcy, and whenever that is questioned, it is returned to the man on an earlier path in that journey.

This rough patch though seems to be partially satiated as he and Kavita grow closer. Shah and Azmi have a wonderful rather unfussy kind of chemistry. This as there is just a sort of ease in their connection in these moments. There is a sense of care and just really love in these moments of speaking to one another. What strikes through these moments like a sharp whip though is whenever Parmar's abilities as a man are questioned, not by Kavita but anyone around them. These are again portrayed as severe snaps by Shah's delivery that slowly allude to a real desperation created from the man's main vulnerability that leaves him without the innate confidence and comfort he so seeks. This slowly becoming a kind of festering element within the relationship. Shah emphasizes effectively the sense of it as a kind of hanging cloud over the relationship. This as Shah naturally shows the real flaw within the man as he's not completely comfortable within himself, even as he presents so honestly the better qualities of the man when he does have that comfort. What we see though is a natural exploration of the way this relationship, where his blindness frequently comes up, sort of forces this vulnerability out of him that would likely have been more easily hidden under different circumstances. 

There is some comfort just by the mere interactions which both actors realize with a natural grace.  This as it is just a given of the feelings between the two even as the circumstances keep them away from it. This even though cannot last Parmar is constantly reminded of basically that vulnerability through every moment of their close relationship. Shah's portrayal than though is a man sort of balancing his priorities in a way in which the man is able to live with in order to be as his best self. This as even as he essentially forces himself away from Kavita romantically, we see this all the greater passion towards his task to teach the blind like himself. This passion that Shah expresses so beautifully with a clam yet precise manner. There is really an unexpected result in all of this, and so much in this is Shah's careful portrayal of this. This in presenting the man's festering vulnerability that is eased while also in a certain easing away from what it is that drew out that vulnerability. Shah's work creates the right sense of the conflicting emotions that suggest both growth and compromise in Parmar. It is a moving performance by Naseeruddin Shah as he never cheats his character's struggle. He rather potently shows it both in terms of the man at his most inspirational and in his greatest difficulties.

Alternate Best Actor 1980: Richard Dreyfuss in The Competition...A Best Actor Mystery

It's a cold, dark night. I bite down on my last candy cigarette knowing there won't be another for some time. I look through my draw, only gummy cigars, I leave them for the psychopaths and murderers. Next to them is the case file that's been the source of a persistent migraine for the last few years. Passed along to be by one Daniel Thornton, a mystery solve I was told. I peel over its dust covered pages. Find a familiar face staring back at me. Richard Dreyfuss...I should've known, especially since it the title of this deposition, but I've seen this man for some time. That high pitched voice, the short stature, and curly hair. I know this man, so what about him this time. I had to dive deeper, even as this nagging pinch on the back of my skull told me there would be no good to come of it, but I had to, I couldn't leave it be. 

First stop was Dirty's John's bar, the floor filthy, the patrons filthier, John himself remarkably well dressed and aromatic. Now most people without a head injury call this place Wikipedia, but I know better. Either way, the only source I got. Billy Q, the oldest of all the patrons and the strangest of names informs me of the strangest thing about this mystery, the plaudits and the condemnation. What was this film, Q told me, nominated for best editing and best song, but Dreyfuss himself nominated for Razzie for worst actor. The best song I could understand, you can depend the quality of a film being nominated for best song about as much as you can leaving Armie Hammer with a pint of human blood. The editing though is usually reserved for films of some note, some kind of note, this film's got a lot of notes I'm told though. The Competition I learned, it's about a piano competition, the plot thickens, almost as much as the drink I ordered.

I try to pass on the drink, and take my exit, but a pair fellows push me in the back alley. One a dead ringer for Mike Mazurki, the other for Jack O'Halloran, I let them know the similarities, they don't seem to get the reference, or perhaps they do. The two tell me to keep out of it, and throw me in a garbage can, jokes on them, if they had read my review of Tommy Wiseau in the Room, they'd know I love garbage. When I get threatened about a review it means one of two things, a fan boy, or I'm onto a dark secret. Those guys didn't look like Zach Snyder fans so it must be latter. I decide to screw the middle man and go right to the source...my local library. They must have the Competition I thought, but no, all the windows were dark. Not a single source of light...strange it was only 2 am. I go undeterred, find the back door logged open with a copy of Confessions of an Actor by Laurence Olivier, I knew someone was messing with me. 

Inside I find the box for The Competition, but no VHS, just a slip of paper that says "better luck next time ha ha ha". Luckily I think looked up on justwatch.com and found it streaming on Amazon, whoever was keeping me from the film obviously hadn't entered into the 21st century. I couldn't think about that though, I had a bigger fish to fry, well actually some tacos to make, as I prep my viewing of the Competition. As soon as the film started I could see why someone wanted to keep from the horrible truth of the film it's it's...kind of middling I guess, not bad, not particularly good. Anyway I think the editing nod must have come from the film's different little vignettes about the different players prepping for a piano competition, Richard Dreyfuss as former wunderkind Paul Dietrich is merely one of them. He is the lead guy, but the film spends a little time with every one of his rivals for his piano playing crown. Not that there is anything inspired in the montages or the sequencing to indicate the need for a best editing nomination. How it was nominated over something like The Empire Strikes Back, is a bit of a head-scratcher. 

 

So what makes Dreyfuss Razzie worthy though...nothing, it's no greater mystery than Stanley Kubrick being nominated for The Shining or Ennio Morricone being nominated for The Thing, the Razzies are dumb. Then who were those men trying to stop me...probably just figments of my imagination in some attempt to stretch out this review for a performance I don't have much to say about. You might think this is a cop out, but sometimes some mysterious are better unanswered, at least that's what I'm told by every bad ambiguous ending ever made. Okay, the guys were from Razzies...sure why not. They wanted to cover up their terrible choices, I had a spectacular gun battle with them, and there was a giant explosion.Whatever, anyway this as this is a pretty typical neurotic Dreyfuss turn. The worst part about it being his chemistry with Amy Irving as a fellow pianist, this is far more so on Irving, who ever the bland actress, makes it difficult for Dreyfuss to find any real spark with her. Dreyfuss is a bit lower key than usual for this period, brings a slight somberness appropriate to a guy who even at a young age is unfulfilled potential. He's entirely more than fine though in portraying the sort of shaken determination of this guy just trying to be a musical genius and failing to be in some ways. His actual musical portrayals are well handled in presenting that kind of reserved intensity for a concert pianist. This while having that romance that amounts to little, but Dreyfuss does his best to make something out of it. Irving is just far too stilted, making their scenes much the same. Really that is the main weakness of this work, which is kind of a less neurotic version of his performance in The Goodbye Girl (A performance I like more and more as time goes by). Dreyfuss though certainly tries and his off-beat energy is somewhat appreciated in the proceedings of this film. He can be earnest and again the spark just isn't with Irving, but you can feel Dreyfuss trying to make it happen. That is really what holds this performance back from a certain point, though far from being deserving of any "worst of" list. Overall you get a little Dreyfuss charm, a little neurosis, a combination here that isn't one of his notable performances, nor one of his bad performances, it's one of his performances no more, no less. 

Alternate Best Actor 1980

And the Nominees Were Not:

Richard Dreyfuss in The Competition

 

Naseeruddin Shah in Sparsh

 

Al Pacino in Cruising

 

John Savage in Inside Moves

 

Anthony Quinn in Lion of the Desert

Alternate Best Actor 1980: Results

5. Anthony Hopkins in The Elephant Man- Hopkins gives a good performance making the most out of his relatively simple character and bringing to life the complexities of the character where they exist.

Best Scene: Treves first sees the Elephant Man.

4. Jack Thompson in Breaker Morant- Thompson has a simple but showy role bringing the emotional punch to his courtroom scenes.

Best Scene:  Major J.F. Thomas's summation.

3. Donald Sutherland in Ordinary People- Sutherland gives an understated and moving turn showing the attempt of a man to hold his life as well as his family together after a terrible tragedy.

Best Scene: Calvin confronts Beth.

2. Edward Woodward in Breaker Morant- Woodward gives an excellent performance showing a courageous gentlemanly soldier, whose capable of horrible deeds.

Best Scene: Morant tells the court of rule 303.

1.Tatsuya Nakadai in Kagemusha- Nakadai gives an amazing performance playing two characters brilliantly one a cunning war lord, and the other an impersonator who has a difficult journey of pretending to be the other man. I am going to face all the wraith of meddling with the grand scheme of things and go my own way this year altogether. I have a confession to make which is watching Ordinary People again really made me lose a lot of my enthusiasm for Timothy Hutton's performance. I still think he is great, but actually watching it this time Donald Sutherland left the bigger impression on me. As for Robert De Niro I do believe his performance is tremendous but its never been a performance that I love. Therefore my very personal win goes to Tatsuya Nakadai.

Best Scene: The Lord and Kagemusha meet for the first time. 

Overall Rank:

1. John Hurt in The Elephant Man
2. Tatsuya Nakadai in Kagemusha
3. Robert De Niro in Raging Bull
4. Edward Woodward in Breaker Morant
5. Donald Sutherland in Ordinary People
6. Timothy Hutton in Ordinary People
7. Jack Thompson in Breaker Morant
8. Lee Marvin in The Big Red One 
   
9. Anthony Hopkins in The Elephant Man
10. Burt Lancaster in Atlantic City
11. John Savage in Inside Moves
12. Ken Takakura in A Distant Cry of Spring
    
13. Anthony Quinn in Lion in the Desert
14. Naseeruddin Shah in Sparsh
15. George C. Scott in Changeling
16. Kurt Russell in Used Cars
    
17. Art Garfunkel in Bad Timing
18. Tommy Lee Jones in Coal Miner's Daughter 
19. Kris Kristofferson in Heaven's Gate
    
20. William Hurt in Altered States 
21. Hector Alterio in El Nido 
22. Peter Andorai in Confidence
23. Hidetaka Yoshioka in A Distant Cry of Spring
24. Gerard Depardieu in The Last Metro
    
25. Paul Le Mat in Melvin and Howard  
    
26. Gerard Depardieu in Mon Oncle d'Amerique
    
27. Mark Hamill in The Empire Strikes Back 
28. Brinsley Forde in Babylon
    
29. John Travolta in Urban Cowboy 
30. Walter Matthau in Hopscotch
    
31. Ray Sharkey in The Idolmaker 
32. Marcello Mastroianni in City of Women
33. Robert Redford in Brubaker
34. Stacy Keach in The Ninth Configuration
    
35. Christopher Reeve in Superman II   
36. Gerard Depardieu in Loulou
    
37. Nicola Zarbo in Palermo or Wolfsburg
    
38. Andrzej Seweryn in The Orchestra Conductor
39. Richard Gere in American Gigolo
40. Richard Dreyfuss in The Competition
    
41. John Belushi in The Blues Brothers
42. Al Pacino in Cruising
43. Christopher Reeve in Somewhere in Time
    
44. Jack Nicholson in The Shining    
45. Woody Allen in Stardust Memories
    
46. George C. Scott in The Formula 
47. Hans van Tongeren in Spetters
48. Maarten Spanjer in Spetters
49. Toon Agterberg in Spetters
    
50. Dan Aykroyd in The Blues Brothers
51. Steve Railsback in The Stunt Man
52. Robert Hays in Airplane
53. Omero Antonutti in Alexander the Great
    
54. Robin Williams in Popeye
55. Sam J. Jones in Flash Gordon
56. Burt Reynolds in Smokey and the Bandit II
57. Jack Lemmon in Tribute 
58. Michael O'Keefe in Caddyshack 
59. Tom Atkins in The Fog
    
60. Leigh McCloskey in Inferno 
61. Neil Diamond in The Jazz Singer
    
62. Christopher Atkins in The Blue Lagoon
    

Next Year: 1980 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 1980: Anthony Hopkins in The Elephant Man

Anthony Hopkins did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Frederick Treves in The Elephant Man.

Anthony Hopkins plays a relatively simple role here as Frederick Treves the good doctor who tries to help "The Elephant Man" John Merrick (John Hurt) by giving him a play to stay where he will not be abused. Hopkins who is best known for the very much evil doctor in The Silence of the Lambs in this film though plays a doctor whose intentions are only that of a good man. The role of the good man trying to be good should not be something scoffed off as it can be a challenge to not let the character be dull in just being good as well as finding the complexity in a man whose morality is not filled with compromises.

Treves technically speaking does have to become the purely good doctor which is his arc in the film. It is not there is anything wrong with him, but rather he has a fairly fast realization that Merrick should be treated just like any other man without exception. Hopkins though is very good though in this rather short journey that starts out as Treves first happens upon Merrick who he technically uses for his own purposes as an academic. Hopkins is good though by positing how the sympathy works in Treves. Hopkins very much sells the emotional power of seeing a man like Merrick and how it affects Treves.

Hopkins early on though portrays the sympathy that Treves has as very much real but perhaps not fully thought out in terms of what sort of sympathy he has. It is not the sympathy of one many plight but almost for the plight of an animal instead. Hopkins importantly does not make this as something Treves is doing for any malice, but simply he portrays it as having not had the point of realization that Merrick is a man and should be treated as such. Treves quickly finds that Merrick should not be treated in such a way and Hopkins's performance does very much show a truly good man in Treves.

Hopkins is excellent in being a truly good man in Treves and there is a great deal of power in his reactions to Merrick throughout the film. When Merrick finally speaks John Hurt is very emotional as Merrick even in a modest fashion, Hopkins is left to react to what Merrick is experiencing as well as find how Treves feels about his whole relationship with Merrick. Hopkins is very good though in being the face of a man who genuinely cares about Merrick. It is a powerful empathy that Hopkins conveys and he only succeeds in adding emotional weight to the scenes as well as helps amplifies the power of Hurt's performance.

Hopkins does not just support Hurt though as he is lead as as well because the full extent of his Merrick on his life is reflected in his own personal scenes. Treves expresses sorrow for having used Merrick himself in his own way comparing himself to the freak show host. The idea that the already good Treves would accuse himself as being a terrible man himself is made entirely believable and more important understandable through Hopkins's performance. He shows the shame Treves feels in honest fashion and shows his personal struggle to deal with Merrick the right way in an unassuming yet poignant fashion.

Anthony Hopkins performance as doctor Treves is an excellent example of an actor making the most of what could easily be a fairly simplistic character. Hopkins does this by firstly finding what is great in the simplicity and always showing the goodness of his character in an earnest way that succeeds in bringing a warmth and tenderness to the film. He as well though takes the complexities that are in the role uses them to make an in depth view of this man. Treves could have easily been a completely bland or forgettable character but Hopkins makes him an essential facet to this film.

Alternate Best Actor 1980: Tatsuya Nakadai in Kagemusha

Tatsuya Nakadai did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Takeda Shingen as well as the titular character in Kagemusha.

Kagemusha is an excellent film about a time in Japan in which various clans lead by war lords try to gain power.

This is the first Akira Kurosawa film that I am reviewing a performance from that does not feature Toshiro Mifune. Toshiro Mifune and Kurosawa unfortunately had a falling out in 1965 and their last collaboration was Red Beard. Although one does have to look at the later Kurosawa filmography and can see that not too many of the films would have really been a fit for Mifune except his two films in the 80's Kagemusha and Ran, although then again maybe Kurosawa would have made films with Mifune in mind if he was still with Mifune but that's another discussion I suppose. Ran and Kagemusha though definitely did have a lead part there ripe for Mifune that was instead taken by Tatsuya Nakadai who could have been seen a successor of sorts for Mifune as he the sorta secondary leading role in High and Low when Mifune had the primary lead.

I guess the first thing that needs to be said is that Nakadai is not Toshiro Mifune. He doesn't have that same type of overwhelming presence that Mifune had. That is not a problem when it comes to this role and Nakadai does still have a strong although not quite as individualistic screen presence. Nakadai is suppose to be both Shingen and his double and look rather very closely to his brother Nobukado (Tsutomu Yamazaki). Both Nakadai and Yamazaki look almost nothing like the way they looked in High and Low. This can of course can be attributed to makeup, the 16th century costumes, and that this film was made seventeen years later, but as well because they don't quite have that distinction Mifune had in his face. You can always see Mifune no matter the costume, the facial hair, or even his age as his piercing eyes alone are a dead give away. Nakadai was probably actually the better choice simply because it is easier to believe there could be more than one Nakadai where two Mifunes might have been a bit of a stretch.

Anyway I ought to forget Mifune as he was never going to play the part when he and Kurosawa would not even speak to each other at the time as well as because Nikadai handles the part his own way. This is a dual role of course and the film opens with a very eerie looking shot of three men who look almost identical one being Yamazaki as the Lord's brother, and the other two being Nakadai as the war Lord and the thief Kagemusha who was spared so he could act as the Lord's double. Nakadai is actually quite brilliant right from the start as he plays the two characters compeltely differently even though they look exactly the same. As Shingen Nakadai has a pronounced confidence in his performance. There is a slyness in him and simply through his manner and self satisfied grin gives us a war lord whose cunning is pronounced.

Nikadai in a few scenes gives us a glimpse of the war lord Shingen and suggests so much more to him in so little time. He has that certain power of personality in his portrayal that shows exactly why the men would follow him as they do. Nikadai is very low key in his portrayal of this yet he establishes very effectively through a certain underlying wisdom in the man along with the blindness of a ruler. Nikadai shows what makes a man of power because he has what is there that allows him to gain and keep that power which is an intelligence and a conviction, but as well what the power will do to any man as there always is an indulgent pompousness that Nakadai brings in Shingen's healthy scenes suggesting that Shingen very much believes he is smarter than everyone around him.

What is outstanding about this performance is the way Nikadai can seem like a completely different man in the same scene despite looking exactly the same. In the first scene we also see Kagemusha who Nikadai is very different because he does not have any of the oppressive qualities that are in the other man, and is a far more despondent and emotional sort. His body language is different as Nikadai plays him as a far less controlled man who is more open in his fears as well as his emotions, and even is clearly less intelligent than Shingen as well. Nakadai also has a certain openness in Kagemusha that cannot be found in Shingen. Nikadai makes Kagemusha a very average man who finds himself struggling in a strange situation, but as Shingen he controls the situation. 

His role as Shingen and rather quickly but not without a send off scene for the lord which is very important. In his last scene he is gravely injured and soon will die but does not wish the cause of his clan to die along with him. The presumptive quality is gone and we see just what was always behind him which was a true passion for his cause. It is a very well handled scene because he does show there is something that was worthwhile in the man which is extremely important later on in the film in terms of Kagemusha's actions late in the film. Nakadai lets us see why the men would follow the man's wish through this passion as well as that same underlying power of personality that Nakadai gives to Shingen. After this point Nakadai exclusively plays Kagemusha and we get a very different performance from him.

Nakadai does not just change as the character he plays but even the type of performance he is going for as he is rather comic for quite awhile as Kagemusha first takes over for Shingen. The early scenes as he tries to grow accustom involve some brilliant comedic timing from Nakadai. This works particularly well because he has Kagemusha trying to be the big powerful commander even though he is not and there is a certain falseness to it all that works beautifully. He shows the effort that Kagemusha puts on to be Shingen as he always seems to be trying to be bigger than he is but never being completely believable as the man. There is one great moment in particular when the war lords grandson's questions Kagemusha's validity and Nakadai look of unease and worry is absolutely perfect.

Kagemusha though slowly starts to get the hang of the job and Nakadai has a great deal of fun showing the way Kagemusha starts to have a little bit of fun with the job as well. His portrayal of the ups and downs of the life as the performer are very well done by Nakadai. He always makes the impersonation something very complex though showing that this whole job affects Kagemusha in more than one fashion. There is the act of performance always there with the performance and he strikes the right chord of the man trying to do a good job of being another man who he looks just like without never quite being that man. It is a strange dynamic but one that Nakadai succeeds with incredibly well making Kagemusha's impersonation believable but never just repeating what he did earlier with Shingen.

There are changes in Kagemusha and Nakadai handles these each carefully and never rushes them in any respect. He shows the early mishaps with a great deal of humor but as well brings a very real fear of the whole idea of filling the shoes of the man. The fears is the only time I do have to quickly mention Mifune as these scenes almost seem like they were made for a classic Mifune freak out, as I said Nakadai is not Mifune but he commits himself admirably and still handles this his own way. He has that emotional intensity needed, it is not the same as it would have been from Mifune, but it does not have to be as part of what he does is that Kagemusha is almost petrified by the act of filling in for the dead man so Nakadai more downplayed approach works well in portraying the mental state of Kagemusha. 

Kagemusha though due to being in battle is forced to almost become Shingen suddenly. It is a difficult scene but one that Nakadai nails in treading the two characters. He does not become Shingen fully still. An inner power come out of Kagemusha and true passion for what the clan is doing but it is different from that shown by Shingen. Nakadai has this one from that of the passion of a normal man not a master of man, and there is something truly special about the moment because Nakadai brings out of Kagemusha's own soul that is entirely different from Shingen's. This event is short lived as the false Shingen is found out and Kagemusha is sent away.

The last scenes of the film are very impressive for Nakadai as he leaves Kagemusha as nothing left anymore and can only attempt to believe in Shingen's values. Nakadai despondent portrayal is quite moving as Kagemusha has become so invested in the cause he was technically only ever used by, but now has become such an integral part of. Losing his place so suddenly Nakadai shows Kagemusha to be shattered by the event leaving him as an emotional husk. It is handled perfectly by Nakadai because he absolutely has earned through his transformation that showed the investment of Kagemusha that made him the man, and this result could have only come from being instantly thrown out of even the slightest connection with the man. The very sad moment at the end of the film where Kagemusha last desperate attempt to do something for "his" clan is heartbreaking because Nakadai shows it as not the most sensible thing he could have done but the only thing Kagemusha had left to do. I have to admit that I love this performance by Tatsuya Nakadai and it even made me not mind at all that Toshiro Mifune did not lead this Kurosawa film. Nakadai never feels like a replacement here which is very important and he succeeds with this part in an incredible fashion. Technically speaking the Kagemusha could have been very simply just been very simple. Nakadai creates a complex portrait of both a charismatic warlord showing what makes a man of power, and of the impersonators journey which is one of humor, passion, and tragedy.

Alternate Best Actor 1980: Donald Sutherland in Ordinary People

Donald Sutherland did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a Golden Globe, for portraying Calvin Jarrett in Ordinary People.

Ordinary People won best picture as well as Best Supporting Actor for the clearly leading Timothy Hutton, and was also nominated for Best Actress for Mary Tyler Moore and it got yet another supporting actor nomination for Judd Hirsch as well. The only main player in the film unrecognized was the never nominated Donald Sutherland who was probably either knocked out by Robert Duvall's fine work in the Great Santini or Jack Lemmon's terribly overblown performance in Tribute. Sutherland though also may have missed because in terms of the type of acting noticed by the academy he gets the short end. Timothy Hutton gets the big emotional outbursts, Mary Tyler Moore gets to be the almost flamboyantly cold character, even Hirsch gets some fairly juicy lines in his scenes, but what does that leave poor Sutherland.

Well it actually leaves Sutherland as the heart of the film. After the death of one of the sons of the family it leaves the younger son Conrad (Hutton) suicidal and very much troubled, the mother Beth (Moore) who has only become colder and more distant to her son who was never her favorite as well tries to keep her social life just the same, Calvin the father though tries his best to deal with and keep his family together. Sutherland due to this has the most subtle work here in that much of his portrayal of Calvin's feelings are silent especially early on. Sutherland portrays Calvin as just trying to get on his life while still being clearly changed by the tragic event. We see him with his wife at various social events, and Sutherland shows him as man attempting to be there for his wife but his mind is always elsewhere.

Sutherland does two things really well here in that he shows that on one hand Calvin really just does not care much for the things they use to do, although that is all that his wife after seems to care about both through the boredom of his expression as well as his almost boyish enthusiasm when he suggest to his wife that they just defy expectations and do something else for a change. Sutherland is really good because it is not that Calvin is putting on any sort of facade, but rather he is trying but just can't feign enthusiasm for things that just are not on his mind. He as well does allow us to see what is on his mind which is not only the tragedy of the death of his son but the mental health of his living son. Whenever it comes to Conrad Sutherland only ever portrays such a genuine earnestness that establishes properly that Calvin desperately wants his son to get better.

Sutherland has Calvin put on a happy face again not as a facade even though it is not entirely true, but rather Sutherland presents it as Calvin trying to make things work. Sutherland has the right visible effort that he puts into Calvin as he tries to bring the three of them together as a happy family and his cheer is not false but Sutherland suggests is perhaps that Calvin is pushing it a little because he really wants to make the family come together after this awful experience. Of course Calvin himself is not over it, but he does indeed stay quiet about it at least for most of the film. The grief that Sutherland shows comes in a subtle but powerful fashion. It is not the overwhelming grief that Timothy Hutton portrays instead it is a withdrawn yet still palpable. A scene that always stays in my mind is a moment where Calvin thinks back when he stopped a fight between the boys and we see him thinking about it. Sutherland has such a simple expression yet one of man truly haunted by this tragedy.

Through most of the film Sutherland makes Calvin always the one just trying to make it work, and he is terrific in the way he portrays Calvin's methods of working with everyone. With his wife there is a distance but at times a really energy that Sutherland brings to the scenes like Calvin is trying just to get her warm up any way he can. With Conrad he is different but Sutherland once again shows Calvin trying to make it work as he portrays a genuine warmth with him. Sutherland always makes it clear that Calvin absolutely loves his son without exception and only wants the best. Sutherland even shares one scene with Judd Hirsch's psychiatrist Dr. Berger. It is a great scene as Sutherland brings that negotiator quality out of Calvin again as he tries his best to defend his wife's coldness as well as support his son as well. He also very effective allows an underlying uncertainty in this scene suggesting what becomes his path for the rest of his film which is questioning his wife's behavior. 

The late scenes of Sutherland's performance is finally when he breaks the mold of Calvin just trying to make it work and starts to confront his wife. Sutherland plays these scenes out brilliantly starting so modestly just asking her in a somber tone why even at her sons funerals she was concerned with unimportant things. This escalates to a much more open fight and again Sutherland is excellent because he absolutely earns the frustrations in the scene because it is something he has been building to quietly from the beginning of the film. Their fight ends though as Calvin once again confronts her although not about Conrad so much and rather their own relationship. Sutherland is outstanding because how he forcefully presses her about her refusal to deal with the family's emotions, but as well beautifully shows how dealing with this conversation which is ending his relationship with the woman he has been with for year is tearing him apart inside.

Sutherland's work here may not have been the chosen Oscar nominated work from this film but he should have been especially over Lemmon. Sutherland gives such a low key yet so very heartbreaking in his underplaying by just getting down to the barest of emotions in a man who is only trying his best to try to get over them and later face them. Calvin attempts to be the glue of the family and Sutherland is the glue that holds the film together acting as a balancing act between the emotional extremes found in Timothy Hutton's and Mary Tyler Moore's performances. He finds that middle ground without ever being forgotten among the fire and the ice that surrounds him. He creates a complex portrait of Calvin Jarrett and fills every scene he is in with an earnest devotion and a true poignancy.

Alternate Best Actor 1980: Edward Woodward and Jack Thompson in Breaker Morant

Edward Woodward did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the titular Lt. Harry "Breaker" Morant.

Breaker Morant is an excellent film about three lieutenants court martialed for executing prisoners during the Boer war. 

Now I did put Jack Thompson as the only nominee but after the film I feel it is best to review both leads of the film as Woodward's performance should not be forgotten. Woodward as Morant gives often a withdrawn but interesting enough a very emotional performance. The reason for this is that he plays a soldier in the British army. Although he is a special unit mostly composed of Australians to deal with the Boer guerilla fighters he still is a British soldier and still therefore has the manner of a British soldier. it is always something to watch an actor give a powerful performance while still being in the restrictions of their character.

Woodward is terrific in creating Breaker Morant as a character and the history of the man even though that is something we only ever receive glimpses of it. Woodward throughout the film keeps Morant as the perfect soldier in his posture and overall manner. There are breaches of this at times but he is always very firm in being the soldier he would have to be to be the career soldier he is. Woodward is uncompromising in this depiction is something quite special because in his portrayal he shows an emotionally volatile nature in Morant even while he stays in structures of being the ideal British soldier.

We see the killing of the men that Morant ordered to killed in flash back. Woodward is outstanding in these scenes as we see the workings of this man and the way that he came to kill the men. What really drives Morant more than anything was that his friend was killed by the Boer in a brutal fashion and what he is doing is taking revenge out on them any way he could. Woodward is especially chilling because he conveys this violent intensity in these scenes well staying well put together for the most part. When he orders someone to do die he does not yell it, rather Woodward delivers it in a very simple yet harsh fashion as he stays cold on the surface even as he burns inside.

Woodward is brilliant in the way that he makes Morant still such a refined fellow who you would not think would be capable of such horrible actions. Woodward does have a certain charm, and more than that there is always an underlying humanity in his performance. Although he does act professional it is never that of a heartless professional in anyway. When he orders the killings it is not of a passionless man but instead a man whose passions in fact overwhelm him to do such things. Woodward mostly does this through his eyes which are so piercing in the way they portray the emotions in this man so fervently while the rest of his body tries hard to suppress them.

Woodward does not necessarily make you sympathize with the man, but he importantly does make you understand the man. Whenever he explains why he has done such things in the court or in a more private moment with one of the men we can see that where the atrocities came from are quite clear. On one hand there is that sense of duty which Woodward is masterful in depicting. That pride in being a soldier is always something that he brings to Morant with such tremendous affirmation, he shows the soldier who would follow such orders as well as even how the man could keep stay so calm, cool and even witty during his own execution.

In the same man though he does bring out the very human qualities. Whenever he speaking of the killing it is clear that the pain of his friends death is never something he can forget, Woodward makes it something he cannot even ignore. It is something on him at all times. That is not all though and Woodward never leaves him as just a man with a vendetta either. His pain is past that as in the court room scenes there is also a bitterness in him over the refusal of his higher ups to recognize the fact that what he did was part of the duty a duty that he served proudly. Woodward makes the betrayal known in a powerful way in which he both underplays but forcefully establishes these feelings when he admonishes the court.

There is a little more than just the soldier though in the briefest of moments when it is mentioned he was engaged to the sister of his friend who was killed. These are done with the utmost subtly but Woodward makes this moment quite beautiful in his subtle facial reactions. There is an incredible poignancy that Woodward brings to his performance in these moments suggesting there could have been so much more for Woodward if he had not been part of this war. One particularly great moment is when a sympathetic soldier suggests escape to him but he refuses saying "He has been everywhere". It is heartbreaking because Woodward suggests that really what Morant means is he has in actually no where to go as he has no purpose outside the army, and nothing left to go to.

This is a great performance by Edward Woodward due to the complexities that he brings to the part. There is never moment where he just makes Breaker Morant a typical man in any way. He makes him a charming poet with qualities like loyalty and bravery in him, but in the same man there lies hatred and the ability to do some very terrible things. There is never a disconnection and credit must be given to Woodward is that he never demands empathy or sympathy with his performance he lets Morant be Morant. Woodward puts him as a man and lets you judge him any way you wish. Woodward gives a fully realizes portrayal of Morant as  human being witt many good qualities but as well many flaws.

Jack Thompson did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning Cannes and an AFI award, for portraying Major J.F. Thomas in Breaker Morant.

Apparently the often repeated fact that Samuel L. Jackson won the only award ever for Best Supporting Actor in Cannes is no truer than that Columbus was trying to prove the world was round. Jack Thompson also won the limited Best Supporting Actor award at Cannes for his performance here although I would not put him in the supporting category. His role is technically much more limited and less complex than Edward Woodward's performance but he has the showiest role in the film receiving the most focus in the courtroom scenes as well has several scenes outside of the courtroom from his perspective.

The courtroom, as shown by films like Judgment at Nuremberg, The Verdict and Anatomy of a Murder, can often be a great showcase for acting. This is most certainly true in this film and most of this is brought by Thompson as the Australian Major who defends the three men and tries his best to help them even though the court very much wants to bring their conviction quickly to use them as scapegoats for all the atrocities committed during the war. Thomas though although is the man that the men choose he is not experienced in the military trial as well as not even as this sort of defense.

In the early trial scenes Thompson is rather good in showing Thomas work up to be able to defend them properly which Thompson does very well with his  hesitations and nervousness expressed along with an attempt at being properly in charge of the situation. Once Thomas feels confidant though he comes out as the sense of righteous indignation of the film. Thompson has the right style of cross examination showing exactly how Thomas will try to get to his point during the trial which is that the men were following the orders that brought the atrocities rather than the men just going off on their own.

Thompson brings out the point that Thomas is trying to make marvelously through his performance because there actually is not the type of sympathy one might expect from the good defense attorney. Thompson creates a unique balance in that he portrays a certain understanding for the man, but as well a frustration that is very much away from the men and rather a frustration with the authority above them. This distaste in Thompson is effectively portrayed by by Thompson because he really brings it with a force but never making it seem heavy handed either.

The indignation is present throughout but Thompson smartly keeps it underneath his words building to the point in which he comes out with it fully in his dramatic summation speech that tears into the established military for not viewing the atrocities as their own. The speech is a classic courtroom speech and Thompson delivers it with all of the conviction and passion that it deserves. He is unyielding in his resolve and Thompson brings the message that Thomas has been trying to get across the whole trail in remarkable fashion which is one of the best moments in this great film.

We don't learn a lot about Thomas in the film other than he is willing to fight for the men, and hates what is going on around him. Thompson even with his more limited role makes the most out of it through every one of scenes especially in the courtroom. He has that punch that all great performances of this kind due and he really tears into every scene leaving an impression. He is not only great in the courtroom but as well still creates complexities in his character particularly in the moral view held by Thomas as well as his interactions with the men. Thompson never leaves anything just black white in his performance, while still creating the moral high ground within the film.

Alternate Best Actor 1980

And the Nominees Were Not:

Anthony Hopkins in The Elephant Man

Edward Woodward in Breaker Morant

Donald Sutherland in Ordinary People

Tatsuya Nakadai in Kagemusha

Jack Thompson in Breaker Morant