Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers
Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Bill Murray in Scrooged
Showing posts with label 1988. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1988. Show all posts
Saturday, 9 July 2011
Best Actor 1988: Results
Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers
Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Bill Murray in Scrooged
Friday, 8 July 2011
Best Actor 1988: Gene Hackman in Mississippi Burning
Gene Hackman received his fourth Oscar nomination for portraying Agent Rupert Anderson in Mississippi Burning.
Mississippi Burning is a very fictionalized account of the FBI looking for three missing civil rights activists, and later try to bring those responsible for the disappearance of the activists to justice.
Gene Hackman strangely enough has only received two lead nominations, and both are for portraying hard boiled law officers, although this time it is a FBI agent rather than a police officer who hates FBI agents as he played in The French Connection. Hackman portrays Anderson who is one of two lead FBI agents on the case the other being Agent Ward (Willem Dafoe). Ward being the serious idealistic by the books agent, whereas Anderson is the sardonic, tougher, street smart former Mississippian sheriff.
Hackman most certainly has an incredible ease in the role that plays well off of Willem Dafoe's purposeful stiffness. Hackman makes Anderson's sardonic attitude is well attuned for the film story. Hackman has an interesting way about himself in that he generally acts rather jovial to everyone, with his unique smile, and simple charm, but than comes out with his anger and intensity when the situation calls for it.
Hackman has the perfect control in every situation where he confront the Ku Klux clan members. Hackman is great the way he comes in his rather simple fashion, smiling telling his stories of Mississippi well carefully mocking their racism at the same time, then Hackman's intensity is a incredible visceral effect that shows Anderson's complete control of various situations.
Anderson's whole past is interestingly developed as Hackman shows the long history of the character and his past in the south. Hackman's telling of Anderson's story of his father's racism, shows not only Anderson's past but as well Anderson's complete understanding of the situation, and how far he knows the Ku Klux clan will go.
I can't quite say the entire past of Anderson is perfectly told though. As why exactly did he become a FBI agent? This really is not answered by either Hackman, or the film. It really was not in the film though so I really can't blame Hackman for not establishing this. I do like Hackman whole treatment of the entire situation with a certian cynicism that does give a little indication of Anderson's entire thought on the whole situation in Mississippi.
A pivotal part of the film is Anderson's relationship with his potential key witness Mrs. Pell (Frances McDormand). Their relationship is carefully played by Hackman. Hackman underplays all of Anderson's emotions toward her that are past her being a witness. Hackman never makes Anderson's feelings too obvious but he rather carefully establishes it without overplaying, and manages to keep it fairly realistic despite the somewhat contrived nature of this plot point.
Hackman gives a good performance that moves along well with the film. He is natural realistic, as well as well as in some scenes entertaining and powerful in some of his beat up KKK members scenes. I particularly like his whole scene where he meets the members at the "gentleman's club". I can't quite say this is a completely amazing performance, but it is more certianly a good and effective performance from Gene Hackman.
Gene Hackman strangely enough has only received two lead nominations, and both are for portraying hard boiled law officers, although this time it is a FBI agent rather than a police officer who hates FBI agents as he played in The French Connection. Hackman portrays Anderson who is one of two lead FBI agents on the case the other being Agent Ward (Willem Dafoe). Ward being the serious idealistic by the books agent, whereas Anderson is the sardonic, tougher, street smart former Mississippian sheriff.
Hackman most certainly has an incredible ease in the role that plays well off of Willem Dafoe's purposeful stiffness. Hackman makes Anderson's sardonic attitude is well attuned for the film story. Hackman has an interesting way about himself in that he generally acts rather jovial to everyone, with his unique smile, and simple charm, but than comes out with his anger and intensity when the situation calls for it.
Hackman has the perfect control in every situation where he confront the Ku Klux clan members. Hackman is great the way he comes in his rather simple fashion, smiling telling his stories of Mississippi well carefully mocking their racism at the same time, then Hackman's intensity is a incredible visceral effect that shows Anderson's complete control of various situations.
Anderson's whole past is interestingly developed as Hackman shows the long history of the character and his past in the south. Hackman's telling of Anderson's story of his father's racism, shows not only Anderson's past but as well Anderson's complete understanding of the situation, and how far he knows the Ku Klux clan will go.
I can't quite say the entire past of Anderson is perfectly told though. As why exactly did he become a FBI agent? This really is not answered by either Hackman, or the film. It really was not in the film though so I really can't blame Hackman for not establishing this. I do like Hackman whole treatment of the entire situation with a certian cynicism that does give a little indication of Anderson's entire thought on the whole situation in Mississippi.
A pivotal part of the film is Anderson's relationship with his potential key witness Mrs. Pell (Frances McDormand). Their relationship is carefully played by Hackman. Hackman underplays all of Anderson's emotions toward her that are past her being a witness. Hackman never makes Anderson's feelings too obvious but he rather carefully establishes it without overplaying, and manages to keep it fairly realistic despite the somewhat contrived nature of this plot point.
Hackman gives a good performance that moves along well with the film. He is natural realistic, as well as well as in some scenes entertaining and powerful in some of his beat up KKK members scenes. I particularly like his whole scene where he meets the members at the "gentleman's club". I can't quite say this is a completely amazing performance, but it is more certianly a good and effective performance from Gene Hackman.
Best Actor 1988: Max von Sydow in Pelle the Conqueror
Max von Sydow received his first Oscar nomination so far for portraying Lasse in Pelle the Conqueror.
The film tells of a father and son who are Swedish immigrants who come to Denmark looking for a better future, but find themselves poorly treated by the local populace.
The film actually is most about how the son Pelle is treated and how interacts by and with the local populace, not about Lasse the father. This makes Sydow almost supporting in the film. von Sydow has almost a nonexistent role sometimes in the film, where it almost completely goes away from him. In fact almost every scene he is in is him reacting to something that has happened, or to something his son has done, his character is very reactive.
Sydow basically has to one thing a whole lot which is be a supportive loving father, but also one aware of the reality of their situation leaving a somewhat somber quality of his performance. Sydow has many scenes showing a concerned face, and talking warmly with his son. Sydow is fine, warm, caring without overdoing it, as well as he has the right weakness in his character, always expressed through a certain exhaustion always presented through his performance.
Sydow gives a realistic performance, I never did see any obvious acting. Sydow is good in the scenes where he is the weaker, and fights with Pelle a little bit, showing how it all comes from Lasse's desperation that has been onset for some time. It is a simple character in quite a few ways, and everything Sydow does do is well acted. At the same time though I was quite underwhelmed by the overall effect of his work.
I don't know his entire performance made me always feel that he was good enough. He is always natural in everyone of his moments with Pelle, but boy his entire performance remains fairly standard. The character never became amazing or anything more than just good enough. Only his final scene did I really feel that he did anything all that special with his performance, but even that was not incredible. Sydow is a great actor, but in the end this is one of those odd career nominations actors are thrown sometimes.
The film actually is most about how the son Pelle is treated and how interacts by and with the local populace, not about Lasse the father. This makes Sydow almost supporting in the film. von Sydow has almost a nonexistent role sometimes in the film, where it almost completely goes away from him. In fact almost every scene he is in is him reacting to something that has happened, or to something his son has done, his character is very reactive.
Sydow basically has to one thing a whole lot which is be a supportive loving father, but also one aware of the reality of their situation leaving a somewhat somber quality of his performance. Sydow has many scenes showing a concerned face, and talking warmly with his son. Sydow is fine, warm, caring without overdoing it, as well as he has the right weakness in his character, always expressed through a certain exhaustion always presented through his performance.
Sydow gives a realistic performance, I never did see any obvious acting. Sydow is good in the scenes where he is the weaker, and fights with Pelle a little bit, showing how it all comes from Lasse's desperation that has been onset for some time. It is a simple character in quite a few ways, and everything Sydow does do is well acted. At the same time though I was quite underwhelmed by the overall effect of his work.
I don't know his entire performance made me always feel that he was good enough. He is always natural in everyone of his moments with Pelle, but boy his entire performance remains fairly standard. The character never became amazing or anything more than just good enough. Only his final scene did I really feel that he did anything all that special with his performance, but even that was not incredible. Sydow is a great actor, but in the end this is one of those odd career nominations actors are thrown sometimes.
Best Actor 1988: Tom Hanks in Big
Tom Hanks received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Josh Baskin in Big.
Big tells the story of a thirteen year old boy who wishes to be big, and turns into Tom Hanks.
Tom Hanks portrays a boy in a man's body, which was a strangely popular subject at the time of the film's making although Tom Hanks is the only time a performance like this was nominated for Best Actor. Hanks has the challenge of being a believable man who really is a boy. Hanks actually might overdo the boy in the man's body just slightly in that his portrayal of the boy seemed more immature than when the actually boy was playing the boy. This although really has to do with the writing which seems slightly off in this respect.
Hanks though is believable enough as the boy in the man's body, particularly in some of his physical mannerisms that he exploits, which really do not feel forced, and do correspond well to the way an actual child would act in his situations. Hanks after doing this whole set up though is required to show a transition as well. His character actually grows more mature as the film goes on and begins not only being an adult but starts to act like an adult as well. When this does occur Hanks' performance goes a little more on autopilot.
Hanks' performance becomes more like a charming leading man performance by Hanks which is just fine. Hanks is a little inconsistent at the same time though, as sometimes he does small indications of the boy in the man problem, well other times, he acts just like an adult. What Hanks does do does work though as a romantic comedy lead performance. I will say because of that though many questions are unexplored, such as how deeply this change has really effected Josh.
His whole transition to acting like an adult is fairly fast, and slightly disconcerting because of how immature he acted in some ways during the beginning of his performance. The film never really gets into how this experience has effected him on a really deep level, it tries a little bit but it never is explored to any meaningful extent. Due to all of this Hanks does just need to the kid stuff, which he does pretty well in some circumstances, although not perfectly, and be charming which he is enough I suppose. This is not a great, or a perfect performance, but it is fine enough.
Big tells the story of a thirteen year old boy who wishes to be big, and turns into Tom Hanks.
Tom Hanks portrays a boy in a man's body, which was a strangely popular subject at the time of the film's making although Tom Hanks is the only time a performance like this was nominated for Best Actor. Hanks has the challenge of being a believable man who really is a boy. Hanks actually might overdo the boy in the man's body just slightly in that his portrayal of the boy seemed more immature than when the actually boy was playing the boy. This although really has to do with the writing which seems slightly off in this respect.
Hanks though is believable enough as the boy in the man's body, particularly in some of his physical mannerisms that he exploits, which really do not feel forced, and do correspond well to the way an actual child would act in his situations. Hanks after doing this whole set up though is required to show a transition as well. His character actually grows more mature as the film goes on and begins not only being an adult but starts to act like an adult as well. When this does occur Hanks' performance goes a little more on autopilot.
Hanks' performance becomes more like a charming leading man performance by Hanks which is just fine. Hanks is a little inconsistent at the same time though, as sometimes he does small indications of the boy in the man problem, well other times, he acts just like an adult. What Hanks does do does work though as a romantic comedy lead performance. I will say because of that though many questions are unexplored, such as how deeply this change has really effected Josh.
His whole transition to acting like an adult is fairly fast, and slightly disconcerting because of how immature he acted in some ways during the beginning of his performance. The film never really gets into how this experience has effected him on a really deep level, it tries a little bit but it never is explored to any meaningful extent. Due to all of this Hanks does just need to the kid stuff, which he does pretty well in some circumstances, although not perfectly, and be charming which he is enough I suppose. This is not a great, or a perfect performance, but it is fine enough.
Best Actor 1988: Edward James Olmos in Stand and Deliver
Edward James Olmos received his only Oscar nomination at the moment for portraying Jaime Escalante in Stand and Deliver.
Stand and Deliver tell of a math teacher who works hard to bring the best out of his students, who society has expected very little of.
Edward James Olmos portrays the inspirational math teacher. There really is a strangely lacking amount of background information on Escalante. There is some mention that he originally had a different job, but gave that job up to be a High School teacher. There really is not all that much information why he is so devoted, but it can easily be taken that he just is. His whole giving up his other job to be a teacher could have used more explanation though as to why he has such a drive to be specifically a teacher.
I say all of that because Olmos could have then given a little more to do in explaining who this character is and why he is so devoted as he is, there are not these scenes though. In fact Olmos only really has to do one thing which is to be an inspirational and devoted teacher. Olmos does most certainly do this well enough, and it is not a one note performance either. He may be inspirational but he is tough in handling the more troubled students, or when he is trying to convince them to stay the course.
Olmos is good in all of these aspects of the character. He is believable as a teacher, through his sometimes unorthodox methods of teaching the students. He shows and ease in his method, that is appropriately realistic in terms of his approach. Olmos also has the right passion when he is fighting for his students whether it is convincing one of them not to quit, or fighting against the prejudice of the school system.
Olmos' role is fairly simple but he does portray it as well as it should be portrayed. It never is quite amazing or anything. Escalante as a character is kept pretty simple in terms of his constant devotion and dedication. Olmos stays consistent with this portrayal of devotion and dedication. It is never really is all that incredible though, but it is an entirely fine effort.
Edward James Olmos portrays the inspirational math teacher. There really is a strangely lacking amount of background information on Escalante. There is some mention that he originally had a different job, but gave that job up to be a High School teacher. There really is not all that much information why he is so devoted, but it can easily be taken that he just is. His whole giving up his other job to be a teacher could have used more explanation though as to why he has such a drive to be specifically a teacher.
I say all of that because Olmos could have then given a little more to do in explaining who this character is and why he is so devoted as he is, there are not these scenes though. In fact Olmos only really has to do one thing which is to be an inspirational and devoted teacher. Olmos does most certainly do this well enough, and it is not a one note performance either. He may be inspirational but he is tough in handling the more troubled students, or when he is trying to convince them to stay the course.
Olmos is good in all of these aspects of the character. He is believable as a teacher, through his sometimes unorthodox methods of teaching the students. He shows and ease in his method, that is appropriately realistic in terms of his approach. Olmos also has the right passion when he is fighting for his students whether it is convincing one of them not to quit, or fighting against the prejudice of the school system.
Olmos' role is fairly simple but he does portray it as well as it should be portrayed. It never is quite amazing or anything. Escalante as a character is kept pretty simple in terms of his constant devotion and dedication. Olmos stays consistent with this portrayal of devotion and dedication. It is never really is all that incredible though, but it is an entirely fine effort.
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Best Actor 1988: Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man
Dustin Hoffman won his second Oscar from his sixth nomination for portraying Raymond Babbitt in Rain Man.
Rain Man tells the story of a young amoral foreign car salesman Charlie Babbitt (Tom Cruise) who reexamines his life after he goes on a road trip with his Autistic Savant brother Raymond who he never knew he had until after his father's death.
This film really is not about Dustin Hoffman's character, but about Tom Cruise's. It is Cruise's arc as a character that is the centerpiece of the film, whereas since Hoffman plays an autistic man he is not allowed any sort of change as a character. He starts as he ends, which the film makes abundantly clear by his interview scene near the end of the film. Hoffman's whole performance is his character creation, a character creation that he does indeed keep consistent, and persistent throughout the film. Whether or not he portrays autism accurately or not, or even portrays a savant accurately or not technically does not really matter all that much. What matters is does it seem like obvious acting, or does it seem natural enough to work for the film.
Hoffman's whole performance is filled with a lot of tics, and mannerisms throughout. Whether it is his various ahh, and ehhs, his gotta watch Wapner, or his freak out scenes. Hoffman does keep these all very consistent, and whenever they repeat they repeat exactly as they had been before, therefore keeping Raymond technically as he should be. Hoffman although I knew he was Dustin Hoffman most certainly throughout the viewing of the film, I must say I never really felt that it was completely obvious acting despite the fact that it really should feel like one. These types of performances if consistent really are up to each individual viewer's personal reaction to the performance.
I all I can say is that what Hoffman does technically does work well enough, and for some reason it never had that grating quality these performances can have like say Robert De Niro in his later scenes in Awakenings. It does actually work in context of the film, and in support of Tom Cruise's performance. Hoffman's performance does develop a bit of an endearing quality in all his various mannerisms, and I did grow to like the character as played by Hoffman. Hoffman is able to create a certain charming quality in Raymond without compromising the character. This is still not a great performance, but it is one that is good enough. I can't say it is ever amazing, but it is properly handled by Hoffman for the film.
This film really is not about Dustin Hoffman's character, but about Tom Cruise's. It is Cruise's arc as a character that is the centerpiece of the film, whereas since Hoffman plays an autistic man he is not allowed any sort of change as a character. He starts as he ends, which the film makes abundantly clear by his interview scene near the end of the film. Hoffman's whole performance is his character creation, a character creation that he does indeed keep consistent, and persistent throughout the film. Whether or not he portrays autism accurately or not, or even portrays a savant accurately or not technically does not really matter all that much. What matters is does it seem like obvious acting, or does it seem natural enough to work for the film.
Hoffman's whole performance is filled with a lot of tics, and mannerisms throughout. Whether it is his various ahh, and ehhs, his gotta watch Wapner, or his freak out scenes. Hoffman does keep these all very consistent, and whenever they repeat they repeat exactly as they had been before, therefore keeping Raymond technically as he should be. Hoffman although I knew he was Dustin Hoffman most certainly throughout the viewing of the film, I must say I never really felt that it was completely obvious acting despite the fact that it really should feel like one. These types of performances if consistent really are up to each individual viewer's personal reaction to the performance.
I all I can say is that what Hoffman does technically does work well enough, and for some reason it never had that grating quality these performances can have like say Robert De Niro in his later scenes in Awakenings. It does actually work in context of the film, and in support of Tom Cruise's performance. Hoffman's performance does develop a bit of an endearing quality in all his various mannerisms, and I did grow to like the character as played by Hoffman. Hoffman is able to create a certain charming quality in Raymond without compromising the character. This is still not a great performance, but it is one that is good enough. I can't say it is ever amazing, but it is properly handled by Hoffman for the film.
Best Actor 1988
Tom Hanks in Big
Max von Sydow in Pelle the Conqueror
Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man
Gene Hackman in Mississippi Burning
Edward James Olmos in Stand and Deliver
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)