Best Actor 1986: Results

5. Dexter Gordon in 'Round Midnight- Dexter Gordon most likely was only nominated for being Dexter Gordon, as he gives a entirely uncharismatic performance, that has not a single powerful or poignant moment.

4. Paul Newman in The Color of Money- Newman is actually good enough, and has one pretty great scene that almost seems to hearken back to his amazing performance in The Hustle.

3. William Hurt in Children of a Lesser God- Hurt does not have the most complex of characters, but still manages to give a very good performance. This is because of his outstanding charisma here, as well as his terrific chemistry with his leading lady Marlee Matlin.

2. Bob James Woods in Salvador- giving a very memorable as well a manic performance that works surprisingly well considering the type of film that he is in. Woods manages to both be a real man in a horrible situation, but also manages to give a fascinating portrait of a very original character as well.

1. Hoskins in Mona Lisa- Hoskins gives a very powerful performance that certainly overcomes some of the weaker material in the film. Hoskins turns his character into an interesting man, that slowly delves deeper into the truth of the man, well falling deeper into a situation. It is a complex portrait that Hoskins pulls off very well.

Deserving Performances:
(I have seen the Mosquito Coast, Sid and Nancy, as well as the Fly, more than ten years ago each so I really need to rewatch each before I can put them here.)

Best Actor 1986: Bob Hoskins in Mona Lisa

Bob Hoskins received his only Oscar nomination at the moment for portraying George in Mona Lisa.

Mona Lisa depicts the story of a recently released from prison small time criminal who takes a job as a driver for a higher class prostitute.

Bob Hoskins portrays the criminal, and he is possibly even more than small time. He frankly seems to be barely be a criminal. The film really does not tell what George was exactly before he got of prison other than he went to prison for a crime, and apparently it was covering in some way for his crime boss Mortwell (Michael Caine). Hoskins is terrific in the setup which really is not explained by the film, because just from his performance I felt that George was never entirely cut out to be a criminal really lacking the hard edge, which is an important note for the rest of his performance.

Hoskins suggests as George that he has more of an interest in crime, than he really is a true criminal. I think this is shown well by his attempt to get back in the business of crime, which Hoskins plays in a rather rushed manner, showing quite well that George really does not put all that much thought into his entire idea of being criminal, and he suggests perfectly that George is more of a criminal because of circumstance, than at heart being a man who wishes to do bad.

George gets back into the criminal job with a small job he barely understands, which is being a drive for a prostitute Simone (Cathy Tyson). Their relationship makes up much of his performance. Hoskins rightfully portrays George as rather naive about the whole process of being a driver, acting completely unaware of what to do, as well as asking far to many questions to Simone, that clearly seem to be not the way a driver really should act.

There relationship though although continually strained because well she's a prostitute actually does grow, becuase George shows himself to be a descent man actually. I find their relationship has a rather natural progression actually which is important, because in the hands of the wrong actor it could have seemed quite contrived, but Hoskins always alludes well that George genuinely at heart just wants to do the right thing, despite his attempts at a more rough outward exterior, Hoskins always subtly suggests that George really is a bit of a softie after all.

George though becomes even deeper into the relationship when she asks him to attempt to find an old prostitute friend of hers in the lowest of places. Hoskins is interesting here, as this goes against George's job, and his life up until now to really break the whole criminal underground to find her. Hoskins though manages to do it because honestly shows that George does slowly fall in love in Simone, certainly misguided, and Hoskins never overtly says it, but it clearly develops in just the right fashion.

Hoskins gives realistic depiction of George's attempts to find the prostitute, because he always conveys the genuine disbelief, and disgust as he sees the treatment of the women, and girls, and Hoskins shows quite well that George really hates this reality, which basically does add to his drive to do what is descent. Hoskins frankly could made these scenes are bore, if he just went through them, but instead Hoskins always adds to them honest human reaction to the horrible sights he sees.

Well all hell basically breaks loose for George, and Hoskins is downright brilliant in the entire climax of the film. George is finally pressed to deal with it all, both face his not too happy boss, as well as finally face about his relationship with Simone. Hoskins is incredibly powerful every moment as George goes through an abundance of emotions, from hatred to heartbreak Hoskins spot on. Hoskins is particular is amazing in his small heartbreaking reaction to finally seeing the full extent of Simone's relationship with the other prostitute, as well as his devastating walk down the beach.

Hoskins' performance certainly peaks at the end of the film, but Hoskins is great throughout leading to this end wonderfully well. Hoskins makes what could have been a very standard performance in what sort of is a standard thriller, a strong effective performance, with scenes of true power. He manages to make George a likable, as well as memorable character.

Best Actor 1986: James Woods in Salvador

James Woods received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Richard Boyle in Salvador.

Salvador depicts the civil war in El Salvador.

James Woods portrays Richard Boyle who is a photo journalist of sorts. He goes for the most dangerous of places to cover, and gets rather far too involved. Boyle though is not particularly successful as a journalist, but seems to get on by taking drugs, drinking a lot, as well as being a womanizer, well he attempts to find something in the rather unstable areas that he inhabits.

James Woods was probably the perfect choice for the almost out of control Richard Boyle, since Woods is an actor who by nature as an incredibly high energy level in almost all of his performances. Woods' kinetic style works extremely well for Boyle right from the start of his performance. Woods does not stop for a moment perfectly amplifying the never stopping nature of Richard in this film, which Woods sets up instantly which really is needed for the film.

The setup of the film has Boyle rush basically down to Salvador to cover the civil war that almost seems like a whim on his part considering he drives right down there right into it. Woods whole creation of Boyle is perfect for this because he constantly shows Boyle as a guy with excess energy who never stops, never stops to even think for a second what he is that he is about to get himself into.

Woods is quite effective in Salvador as he readily tries to deal with the various troubles he faces well there, Woods basically never stops being at least to some degree hectic in his performance.This works perfectly with Boyle who is constantly trying to cover the story in Salvador, fight with various officials about the horrors there, deal with seeing the horrors, as well attempting to save a few people who are threatened because they are there.

Woods' reactions to the various horrors as Boyle sees them in Salvador is interestingly handled by Woods, because Woods rarely freaks out despite what he sees. It is not that Boyle is unaffected by what he sees, but rather Woods shows more restrained reactions that properly Boyle simply throughout his life has seen horrors, although Woods still certainly shows that Boyle is effected but less because of his history as a photojournalist.

Boyle becomes slowly even more ingrained in the situation, and stops seeing it as just an opportunity to drink, get high, and get a story, and instead starts to see it as somewhere where he can finally possibly do a little good.  Boyle attempts to try to persuade the U.S. not to be involved anymore with current government in Salvador due to its use of death squads.

Throughout the second half of the film Boyle has several speeches in which he espouses what he believes about the rights of humanity, and his belief in justice. Although these probably could be written a tad better by Oliver Stone who never is afraid to be heavy handed or extremely obvious, they still are effective because Woods always puts an earnest truth in his performance as Boyle. Woods here shows a more caring side of Boyle that comes out extremely well, and it seems this side was always there, he just happens to not always shows.

Interestingly Woods actually has another transformation in this film as Boyle, as Boyle actually morally changes a bit, and actually feels he must change his behavior in his attempt to save a local woman whom he loves. Woods is excellent in this aspect because Woods lets on that early he more of does see her as one of his women, but slowly as the truth of the situation dwells on his Woods carefully shows that this particularly woman maybe does mean more to Boyle after all.

Boyle's moral transition is powerfully played by Woods, and he surprisingly is able to make it seem rather natural despite how deeply into his amoral lifestyle he was at the beginning. His whole change is best summed by his confession to the priest where he tells the priest his honest desire to change. Woods plays this authentically as he does not show Boyle is a completely different man, but a man who has actually learned more about himself, and finally feels responsibility weigh on him.

This is a surprisingly in depth performance, since many times film's like this do not bother to give that much attention to the reporter in the center of it, usually using them as a reactionary individual. Woods though succeeds at both being someone you can follow through the entire painful affair he goes through, as well as gives an interesting portrait of a man who finds more about himself in the strangest of times.

Best Actor 1986: Dexter Gordon in 'Round Midnight

Dexter Gordon received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Dale Turner in 'Round Midnight.

'Round Midnight depicts an American Tenor Sax player in the Paris Jazz scene who befriends a local Frenchman who tries to help the Jazz musician with his alcohol problem.

Dexter Gordon was not really an actor when he was cast in this film, and is best remembered for being a Jazz Tenor Saxophonist. Now one could think that this is perfect casting, a talented saxophonist as a talented saxophonist. Well this is unfortunately not entirely true. There are many instances of non actors being cast in the right role and they succeed magnificently, or people who are primarily musicians that do the same. Dexter Gordon unfortuantely is not one of these people.

Dexter Gordon almost does not seem to act in this performance, and no I do not mean the does not seem to act in the Robert Duvall in Tender Mercies, or Richard Farnsworth in The Straight Story sense. I mean he does not seem to act in that he does not seem to be playing a character half the time rather just reading lines. He is so understated in the role, and in the fashion in what he says some of his lines that frankly he seems bored by his lines sometimes. 

Another problem of Gordon's is that he has basically no screen presence. I really mean that. If it were not for his screen-time you could easily think the film was about someone else. Gordon holds so little attention with his completely lacking in charisma performance. Everything he does just is there sitting on screen, never coming off it for a moment, and the problem is Gordon seems far too content with it to be this way as well.

It would not be as bad if Gordon was required to do very little but he is required to espouse about his love of jazz or talk about his struggles with his alcoholism. Gordon though seems so uninterested in basically everything anything he does holds no power whatsoever. I imagine his scenes really wanted deep meaning, or poignancy but Gordon never invests enough in any scene to really create anything out of his lines.

Due to his performance, I wonder why he was really cast, well by the structure of the film it does become very obvious. The film spends a great deal of time, a very great deal of time just having Jazz be played, therefore the filmmakers probably wanted someone who could deliver since he obviously could really deliver Gordon does make sense in that regard.

Gordon certianly can indeed play the saxophone but what he does in these scenes might be something in terms of Jazz, but in terms of acting they are nothing. There really is never an emphasis to show an extra drive in his playing, to further develop the character. Gordon instead plays the sax as you would expect him to do it no more, no less.

I find it really hard to believe after watching this performance that Gordon was nominated, or even stayed in the part due to how lacking he is in the role. I really do believe that had he not already been a famous jazz musician he would not have been given the part first of all, and I also believe that a professional actor would not have been likely to be allowed to get away with giving this performance, let alone be given an Oscar nomination for it.

Best Actor 1986: William Hurt in Children of a Lesser God

William Hurt received his second consecutive Oscar nomination for portraying James Leeds in Children of a Lesser God.

Children of the Lesser God depicts the relationship between a teacher for the deaf, and a troubled deaf woman.

William Hurt portrays the teacher for blind students. Hurt has exceedingly large amount of energy in the role that works perfectly for the earnest character of James Leeds.William Hurt is just great in his early moments and his first time in class with the deaf students. It is actually quite enjoyable to see William Hurt teach in these scenes because of all the energy he throws into them.

Hurt really shows that Leeds loves to teach the students, as well as desperately wants to help them get along in life the best that he can. It could have been easy to either have been underwhelming or overwhelming in theses scenes and seemed disingenuous but Hurt never seems that way for a moment. Hurt shows that everything does come from an honest want to help the kids nothing else. 

James Leeds finds more to do than just teach the kids when he comes across the school cleaner Sarah Norman (Marlee Matlin) who was former student of the school. Their relationship together pretty much makes up for most of the film, as well as most of the film. It is a good thing than that Hurt and Matlin have terrific chemistry together.

Both actors form a fascinating dynamic with one another with Hurt being enthusiastically hopeful most of the time as James, where Matlin holds it back and is very defensive. Hurt though shows that Leeds honestly does care about her, and slowly shows that she means even more to James than just being a case of a troubled deaf woman, but perhaps he loves her as well. Hurt is excellent in portraying this transition and does not make it seem at all forced.

The eventual eagerness on Sarah's side though actually is made understandable, and natural by Hurt as well. The reason for this is Hurt is incredibly charming as James. Hurt here always conveys a  great deal of likability throughout his performance. Hurt is charismatic throughout his performance, and he convincingly portrays James' absolute conviction to the relationship through some rather simple honesty. 

There relationship as it grows is rather troubled because of her troubled past, and her belief that James wants deaf people to be more like hearing people. Hurt shines in there more troubled moments as well becuase he does show that James is not a perfect man, a good one sure, but not a perfect one. His scenes of anger, and argument with Sarah are again realistically portrayed by Hurt because he shows them as part of James' character.

Hurt shows James is not quite perfect through these scenes, but not bad. He rather just shows that James does not know everything, and the troubles slowly exasperate him as they would any man. these scenes work extraordinarily well because Hurt is able to bring out these these natural reactions, and natural transitions out of his characterization without fault. 

This really is not the most complex of characters, certainly not as complex as say Luis Molina, but  that does not deter at all the power of Hurt's work. Hurt gives an effective, charismatic performance. He is the perfect romantic lead in this film, because he acts appropriately appealing throughout as well as stays natural throughout. Most of all he succeeds in having terrific chemistry with his leading lady making their relationship one that is moving and memorable.

Best Actor 1986: Paul Newman in The Color of Money

Paul Newman won his Oscar from his seventh acting nomination for once again portraying Fast Eddie Felson this time in The Color of Money.

The Color of Money is the  sequel to the excellent film The Hustler. It once again depicts Fast Eddie Felson, now as a older man, now trying to use others to perform hustles rather than himself.

This is the type of win that is quite obnoxious because Newman would have been deserving winner for any of his acting previous acting nominations besides Absence of Malice. Newman instead won for this film which is unfortunate, since so many of his other nominations were superior to this one. Does this make this a bad performance though, well no.

I would say I feel sorry though for Paul Newman and Fast Eddie throughout this whole film. The first being for Fast Eddie for having to deal with Tom Cruise's character. I frankly wanted Fast Eddie to sock Vincent in the nose almost every time he opened his mouth, Cruise is simply that grating in his performance. Also really this is missed opportunity since Newman could possibly have had an interesting dynamic with Cruise, but anything they could have had is ruined by Cruise, and the character of Vincent.

The biggest grievous makes me feel sorry for both Newman and Fast Eddie together. Fast Eddie is simply mistreated as a character. He was an amazing character as played and as written in the Hustler, but this time the writing falls very short of the writing of the Hustler. The script never really is find out all to well who Felson really is now. There are many indications that he is now like Burt Gordon who was played by George C. Scott in the first film.

Burt Gordon was a player, who manipulated Eddie through Hustles, as well as attempted to manipulate Eddie through life as well. Fast Eddie attempts this a little in the film against Cruise's character, but than he basically stops doing it rather randomly stops, without it only being briefly mentioned later in a non negative fashion.

It would have been fascinating to see maybe Eddie see himself as Gordon, and fight against that, or something like that but it does not even recognize it which is a real problem. There also is no explanation or struggle involving this at all, which is a real problem, since I find it very hard to believe that Fast Eddie would be so casual when replicating Burt Gordon, in fact I highly doubt after the events of the first film he would ever, and I mean ever quote him.

This is just a completely missed opportunity to further explore the great character of Fast Eddie. The amazing character of Fast Eddie is basically wasted in this trivial mess of a film. Barring all that I still don't think Newman is bad as Fast Eddie this time. He still has some charisma most certainly much less than in Hustler, but that does make sense since Eddie has been out of the game for some time. Also Newman does his best to make Eddie suave, and clearly commanding in the right way over manners of the Hustle.

Eddie is inconsistent as a character in this film, but that is not Newman's fault it is the script's fault. Newman at first is effective enough as the extremely manipulative Eddie at the beginning of the film, there is no transition to him stopping his heavy manipulations in Newman's performance but there is not one in the script of the film either, he just basically stops doing it so severely.

After the instant transition Newman's performance is better when Fast Eddie's story suddenly becomes about him trying to get back into being the number one hustler, and pool player again. Newman is effective enough in showing the restrained desire behind Fast Eddie's attempts. Newman also has one great scene where he lets himself be hustled. It is a strong scene for Newman, and actually the only one in the film really since Cruise, and Mastrantonio are basically silent. Newman in this one history really suggests the history of loss in Felson, and a little bit of that old Felson despair that was so well portrayed in the original film.

That single scene though is the only great scene for Newman. The rest of the film Newman though is always natural enough, even when his co-stars are not. He has an ease in the role, and he certainly knows how to play the various aspects of Felson, even though the script doesn't give him enough opportunities. This is a good performance, it does its best with what it has, its just a shame because I think from that single scene of Newman's after Felson is hustled suggest that with a script with at least half of the brilliance of the Hustler, Newman could have given a truly great reprise as Fast Eddie rather than just a good one. 

Best Actor 1986

And the Nominees Were:

William Hurt in Children of A Lesser God

Bob Hoskins in Mona Lisa

Paul Newman in The Color of Money

Dexter Gordon in Round Midnight

James Woods in Salvador