Ray Liotta in Goodfellas
Showing posts with label 1990. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1990. Show all posts
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Best Actor 1990: Results
Ray Liotta in Goodfellas
Best Actor 1990: Gerard Depardieu in Cyrano De Bergerac
Gerard Depardieu received his only Oscar nomination so far for portraying the titular character of Cyrano De Bergerac.
This is another adaptation of the play Cyrano de Bergerac about the long nosed poet, romantic, and swordsman. This time it is in its original french language.
Cyrano is one of the handful of characters to have more than one actor nominated for playing them. Cyrano was first played in a nominated and winning role by Jose Ferrer, who after seeing Depardieu's performance, I am starting to admire even more, and perhaps I am even thinking of changing by 1950 Actor vote to him. Comparing the two performances from Ferrer and Depardieu, shows some obvious problems with Depardieu's performance. In my review of Ferrer's performance I stated that being very theatrical was probably the best way to portray Cyrano, now I feel that I really did not need to write probably, since Jose's theatricality works far better than what Depardieu does with Cyrano.
Depardieu underplays the part which is all wrong for Cyrano. In his opening scene where he attacks the performer on the stage, Depardieu seems frankly far too quiet when he announces himself. He does not seem like the domineering person, that you can't help but pay attention to instead it is quite easy to ignore him if it were not for the fact that he was screaming. Depardieu's opening monologue and heroics pales in comparison to Ferrer's. Ferrer held the screen without question in that scene in the 1950 version, Depardieu on the other hand does not seem like a large than life romantic hero, but rather some jerk throwing a temper tantrum for some reason, which does not work at all.
I really felt Depardieu's whole performance had this problem. He just does not seem Cyrano material, he is not romantic enough, poetic enough, or heroic enough. In his romantic scenes with Roxanne he actually seems to suggest his love for her too much, but then in his scenes where he helps her suitor secretly woo her he does not seem nearly romantic enough. Cyrano needs to be larger than life with his dueling, poetry, and heroics. Depardieu never gets larger than life though, and his method of underplaying Cyrano just doesn't work well for the character. I appreciate that he tried a different approach than Ferrer, but unfortuantely his approach just doesn't work for the character. Depardieu's performance is not bad really, he technically is fine enough I suppose, just not impressive enough for Cyrano.
Cyrano is one of the handful of characters to have more than one actor nominated for playing them. Cyrano was first played in a nominated and winning role by Jose Ferrer, who after seeing Depardieu's performance, I am starting to admire even more, and perhaps I am even thinking of changing by 1950 Actor vote to him. Comparing the two performances from Ferrer and Depardieu, shows some obvious problems with Depardieu's performance. In my review of Ferrer's performance I stated that being very theatrical was probably the best way to portray Cyrano, now I feel that I really did not need to write probably, since Jose's theatricality works far better than what Depardieu does with Cyrano.
Depardieu underplays the part which is all wrong for Cyrano. In his opening scene where he attacks the performer on the stage, Depardieu seems frankly far too quiet when he announces himself. He does not seem like the domineering person, that you can't help but pay attention to instead it is quite easy to ignore him if it were not for the fact that he was screaming. Depardieu's opening monologue and heroics pales in comparison to Ferrer's. Ferrer held the screen without question in that scene in the 1950 version, Depardieu on the other hand does not seem like a large than life romantic hero, but rather some jerk throwing a temper tantrum for some reason, which does not work at all.
I really felt Depardieu's whole performance had this problem. He just does not seem Cyrano material, he is not romantic enough, poetic enough, or heroic enough. In his romantic scenes with Roxanne he actually seems to suggest his love for her too much, but then in his scenes where he helps her suitor secretly woo her he does not seem nearly romantic enough. Cyrano needs to be larger than life with his dueling, poetry, and heroics. Depardieu never gets larger than life though, and his method of underplaying Cyrano just doesn't work well for the character. I appreciate that he tried a different approach than Ferrer, but unfortuantely his approach just doesn't work for the character. Depardieu's performance is not bad really, he technically is fine enough I suppose, just not impressive enough for Cyrano.
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Best Actor 1990: Jeremy Irons in Reversal of Fortune
Jeremy Irons won his Oscar from his only nomination at the moment for portraying Claus Von Bulow in Reversal of Fortune.
Reversal of Fortune details the case of Claus Von Bulow supposed attempted murder of his wife Sunny (Glenn Close), and his attempt to reverse his conviction through the use of lawyer Alan Dershowitz (Ron Silver).
Jeremy Irons has quite the challenge in the role of Claus Von Bulow, because the film refuses to say whether he does it or not, therefore Irons must somehow neither convince us of his guilt nor his innocence. Irons never indicates completely either way, but he does seem to suggest both. It is a difficult thing to do, to not let the cat out of the bag, but Irons is able to do it flawlessly. Irons has a really difficult role because he is never focused on in any way that really shows the soul of his character. The development of the character is up to Jeremy Irons, and Irons does it through careful subtly. Irons allows us I think to find out something of his character, yet still he remains a mystery, a mystery that remains a satisfying mystery, again like his guilt or innocence this is something very difficult to do yet Irons does it with ease.
Irons though he does use a great deal of subtly in his performance he is also an extremely entertaining performance just to watch. He creates a fascinating portrait of this well to do society man, in the way he walks, talks, the way he sits and smokes his cigarette. Everything that he does always has this extraordinary manner about himself, that makes Claus a fascinating enigma, from a very particular and peculiar place. This is a performance that I love though because of all the humor he is able to infuse into his performance without ever seeming like he is trying to be funny, or even giving a comedic performance. Irons though is able to bring a great deal of dark humor through his manner, as well especially in his portrayal of Bulow way of playing with the public perception of him.
It is fascinating to watch his way of mixing this entertaining performance, well still giving a subtle performance in his portrait of this possible murderer. Irons excels in every fashion whether he is conveying an undeniable coldness, and something darker just through one of his icy stares he gives to Sunny even when Claus is saying something else, or more broadly enjoying his own infamy in his final scene where he asks for some insulin, before saying just kidding. Irons is simply just a joy to watch throughout this performance, it is a great achievement of his that all he had to do was be Claus to make a scene entertaining. Irons though as I said is not only entertaining but does always suggest more of who Claus is but appropriately leaves Claus to a bit interpretation.
Claus can be either innocent, somewhat Innocent, somewhat guilty, or completely guilty. His whole rather very darkly humorous and charismatic manner could be a facade for either evil, or possibly a fear of his own situation or even a guilt. Irons can allow all such interpretations without seeming for a moment that this is not a fully realized person, Irons is simply that good in this great performance.
Jeremy Irons has quite the challenge in the role of Claus Von Bulow, because the film refuses to say whether he does it or not, therefore Irons must somehow neither convince us of his guilt nor his innocence. Irons never indicates completely either way, but he does seem to suggest both. It is a difficult thing to do, to not let the cat out of the bag, but Irons is able to do it flawlessly. Irons has a really difficult role because he is never focused on in any way that really shows the soul of his character. The development of the character is up to Jeremy Irons, and Irons does it through careful subtly. Irons allows us I think to find out something of his character, yet still he remains a mystery, a mystery that remains a satisfying mystery, again like his guilt or innocence this is something very difficult to do yet Irons does it with ease.
Irons though he does use a great deal of subtly in his performance he is also an extremely entertaining performance just to watch. He creates a fascinating portrait of this well to do society man, in the way he walks, talks, the way he sits and smokes his cigarette. Everything that he does always has this extraordinary manner about himself, that makes Claus a fascinating enigma, from a very particular and peculiar place. This is a performance that I love though because of all the humor he is able to infuse into his performance without ever seeming like he is trying to be funny, or even giving a comedic performance. Irons though is able to bring a great deal of dark humor through his manner, as well especially in his portrayal of Bulow way of playing with the public perception of him.
It is fascinating to watch his way of mixing this entertaining performance, well still giving a subtle performance in his portrait of this possible murderer. Irons excels in every fashion whether he is conveying an undeniable coldness, and something darker just through one of his icy stares he gives to Sunny even when Claus is saying something else, or more broadly enjoying his own infamy in his final scene where he asks for some insulin, before saying just kidding. Irons is simply just a joy to watch throughout this performance, it is a great achievement of his that all he had to do was be Claus to make a scene entertaining. Irons though as I said is not only entertaining but does always suggest more of who Claus is but appropriately leaves Claus to a bit interpretation.
Claus can be either innocent, somewhat Innocent, somewhat guilty, or completely guilty. His whole rather very darkly humorous and charismatic manner could be a facade for either evil, or possibly a fear of his own situation or even a guilt. Irons can allow all such interpretations without seeming for a moment that this is not a fully realized person, Irons is simply that good in this great performance.
Best Actor 1990: Richard Harris in The Field
Richard Harris received his second and final Oscar nomination for portraying 'Bull' McCabe in The Field.
The Field although has an interesting main character, and premise about about a small field in Ireland being fought over by the Irishmen who tended it and rented it, and an American developer (Tom Berenger), but the film fails because every character besides the main character are extremely underdeveloped.
Richard Harris's performance is indeed the film, and the film really shines when there are scenes that basically focus on him and his acting. Harris portrays Bull who wants to keep his land he has worked on, just as his father, and his father's father had. Harris does indeed excel in simply the creation of Bull. Harris is completely as this hard working farmer, and the way he presents himself physically it amplifies the history of Bull quite well. Harris' portrays Bull's domineering personality incredibly well. His whole control over much of the town people and of his son, is entirely believable because of Richard Harris' powerful presence in the film. He controls the screen as Bull. Every scene Harris always makes his presence constantly known with a true realistic sway in these scenes.
There is a softer side of Bull shown though as well in an important moment where he states how much the land really means to him. It is perhaps a bit contrived in terms of the set up but Harris makes it very powerful showing a sensitive side of Bull, that does not contradict the rest of the character. Harris honestly portrays how deeply the land means to him in this scene, and does achieve the proper poignancy in this moment.The film begins to undermine his performance though almost becomes the film fails to give Harris any actually characters to interact with as Bull. Do to the extremely lacking writing there is a certain disjointedness to all of these scenes, and even to Harris' performance because he interacts with an actual character to all these paper thin something or others.
Due to this reason his best scenes are his solo moments, and in these scenes Harris most certainly does shine. Whether it is espousing his discouraging view of how no one appreciates the land anymore, or when he announces his intentions to do basically whatever it takes to keep the land. In each of these scene Harris is tremendously powerful. This is a bit of a mixed performance for me all around, there are his individual moments of greatness, but when he has to interact more fully, the lacking of the film unfortunately also harms his performance some what. It is not really Harris's fault, but it does stop him from giving a completely satisfying performance.
Richard Harris's performance is indeed the film, and the film really shines when there are scenes that basically focus on him and his acting. Harris portrays Bull who wants to keep his land he has worked on, just as his father, and his father's father had. Harris does indeed excel in simply the creation of Bull. Harris is completely as this hard working farmer, and the way he presents himself physically it amplifies the history of Bull quite well. Harris' portrays Bull's domineering personality incredibly well. His whole control over much of the town people and of his son, is entirely believable because of Richard Harris' powerful presence in the film. He controls the screen as Bull. Every scene Harris always makes his presence constantly known with a true realistic sway in these scenes.
There is a softer side of Bull shown though as well in an important moment where he states how much the land really means to him. It is perhaps a bit contrived in terms of the set up but Harris makes it very powerful showing a sensitive side of Bull, that does not contradict the rest of the character. Harris honestly portrays how deeply the land means to him in this scene, and does achieve the proper poignancy in this moment.The film begins to undermine his performance though almost becomes the film fails to give Harris any actually characters to interact with as Bull. Do to the extremely lacking writing there is a certain disjointedness to all of these scenes, and even to Harris' performance because he interacts with an actual character to all these paper thin something or others.
Due to this reason his best scenes are his solo moments, and in these scenes Harris most certainly does shine. Whether it is espousing his discouraging view of how no one appreciates the land anymore, or when he announces his intentions to do basically whatever it takes to keep the land. In each of these scene Harris is tremendously powerful. This is a bit of a mixed performance for me all around, there are his individual moments of greatness, but when he has to interact more fully, the lacking of the film unfortunately also harms his performance some what. It is not really Harris's fault, but it does stop him from giving a completely satisfying performance.
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
Best Actor 1990: Kevin Costner in Dances With Wolves
Kevin Costner received his only acting nomination so far for portraying Lieutenant John J. Dunbar in Dances with Wolves.
Dances with Wolves tells the story of a civil war veteran who takes a post far in the west, and becomes part of the Native tribe he meets there.
It must have really ensured Dances with Wolves victory when Kevin Costner was nominated for both best director, as well actor over Goodfellas' lead Ray Liotta. Actor directing themselves can turn out quite well when said actor is both a strong actor, and a strong director, such as my winners Robert Duvall in the Apostle, or Laurence Olivier and his Shakespeare trilogy, because they can create brilliantly attuned performances to themselves.
It sometimes doesn't work though when the actor has problems handling themselves whether it is preventing their own over the topness, Robert Benigni in Life is Beautiful, or failing to bring out life in their own performance like Ed Harris in Pollock, Kevin Costner falls into the latter category of not working and the latter category how one can fail to work.
I think the first thing that should be noted is his narration, I suppose his narration shows you why good narration actually should not be taken for granted. Costner narrates from time to time in the film with the dullest possible. It is really is terrible how dull he narrates the film, he could put a little life into it but he doesn't rather speaking like how a person reads a book when he really doesn't care.
Costner unfortuantely is not much better in his rest of his performance either. Costner really tries to direct himself with absolutely no shame whether it is showing his bare buttocks or more egregiously doing his Christ like pose when he does a suicide charge during the opening of the film. He really does indulge much too much in himself, and the problem is he is not really up to his own focus.
Costner as Dunbar likes to give many reaction shots at the beginning of the film, which tend to amount to him making a face of "Yeah that's right I'm acting thinking sort of" all of his reactions leave a whole lot to be desired, and he never really suggests more than that Dunbar is a rather dull man who reacts dully to everything which occurs on in life.
I held no empathy with his character because of his extremely dull and tiresome portrayal of Dunbar. Dunbar just always seems uninteresting because Costner never conveys anything of interest in this performance. It is just one dull lacking moment after another with Dunbar, I felt no sense that I was having a journey with Costner rather I was just watching Kevin Costner act dully, and give into indulgences whenever he had a change.
A performance in a long epic like this needs to hold the screen with a charisma, or strong presence, Costner has neither despite the fact he shoves himself in the middle of the screen whenever he has a good chance to. Costner as an actor leaves far too much to be desired but as a leading man he leaves even more, with this almost lifeless performance, that fails to carry his film.
It must have really ensured Dances with Wolves victory when Kevin Costner was nominated for both best director, as well actor over Goodfellas' lead Ray Liotta. Actor directing themselves can turn out quite well when said actor is both a strong actor, and a strong director, such as my winners Robert Duvall in the Apostle, or Laurence Olivier and his Shakespeare trilogy, because they can create brilliantly attuned performances to themselves.
It sometimes doesn't work though when the actor has problems handling themselves whether it is preventing their own over the topness, Robert Benigni in Life is Beautiful, or failing to bring out life in their own performance like Ed Harris in Pollock, Kevin Costner falls into the latter category of not working and the latter category how one can fail to work.
I think the first thing that should be noted is his narration, I suppose his narration shows you why good narration actually should not be taken for granted. Costner narrates from time to time in the film with the dullest possible. It is really is terrible how dull he narrates the film, he could put a little life into it but he doesn't rather speaking like how a person reads a book when he really doesn't care.
Costner unfortuantely is not much better in his rest of his performance either. Costner really tries to direct himself with absolutely no shame whether it is showing his bare buttocks or more egregiously doing his Christ like pose when he does a suicide charge during the opening of the film. He really does indulge much too much in himself, and the problem is he is not really up to his own focus.
Costner as Dunbar likes to give many reaction shots at the beginning of the film, which tend to amount to him making a face of "Yeah that's right I'm acting thinking sort of" all of his reactions leave a whole lot to be desired, and he never really suggests more than that Dunbar is a rather dull man who reacts dully to everything which occurs on in life.
I held no empathy with his character because of his extremely dull and tiresome portrayal of Dunbar. Dunbar just always seems uninteresting because Costner never conveys anything of interest in this performance. It is just one dull lacking moment after another with Dunbar, I felt no sense that I was having a journey with Costner rather I was just watching Kevin Costner act dully, and give into indulgences whenever he had a change.
A performance in a long epic like this needs to hold the screen with a charisma, or strong presence, Costner has neither despite the fact he shoves himself in the middle of the screen whenever he has a good chance to. Costner as an actor leaves far too much to be desired but as a leading man he leaves even more, with this almost lifeless performance, that fails to carry his film.
Best Actor 1990: Robert De Niro in Awakenings
Robert De Niro received his fifth Oscar nomination for portraying Leonard Lowe in Awakenings.
Awakenings tells the story of a Dr. Sayer (Robin Williams) who uses an experimental drug on catatonic patients who all suffered from encephalitis, which awakens them from there catatonic state.
Robert De Niro portrays one the catatonic patients. Roles like these are commonly the type that are made fun of and mocked as being overly awards baiting when an actor must portray a physical and mentally effecting disease, and there certainly is reason for that. When a big time actor or star like De Niro it is rather difficult to take them seriously as an actual person suffering from such aliments unless they actually are extremely good. In these sort of roles it always seems that it works better if you do not know the actors as well, and that way it seems less actory, since frankly the other actor portraying the part seem just a little less obviously acting.
This also might come from the fact that De Niro does not always seem convincing enough for some reason, perhaps it is his earlier roles, or even his role from the same year in Goodfellas, but when De Niro is sitting in the wheel chair in his catatonic state he looks frankly like he has this evil stare going and that he planning on murdering Robin Williams. I guess there are too many ways too look catatonic but there just seems to be something off about the way De Niro does it.
Robert De Niro is allowed to do more when Leonard is the first patient awakened by the experimental drug. De Niro attempts his best I suppose in first showing how his body is adjusting to the drug, but still I never really believed that he was really a patient, I did see always an actor attempting to look like a patient rather than the real deal. I'm not sure if any actor could have been completely believable, but De Niro most certainly is not anyways.
De Niro does improve for the short period where Leonard finally seems to exhibit no symptoms. De Niro portrays him as a quiet man, who is much younger mentally than he is physically. He actually does this fairly well, as well as his slightly withdrawn in enthusiasm in enjoying life, which Leonard has not been able to do for a long time. He is good in these small amount of scenes, although I can't say amazing because of what comes later basically takes always what good he does here.
Leonard soon becomes angry over not being able to leave the hospital without supervision, and becomes paranoid over it. De Niro over does it here especially since he sort of forgets that he was originally trying to portray the difference in mental and physical age, and here he basically stops doing that. Also he stops doing a lot of mannerisms that become more and more severe as time goes on.
These mannerisms really make his mannerisms earlier in the film seem brilliant. Every time he does them it just looks a little too much like "I'm Acting!!!". I couldn't believe his early mannerisms, and I really could not believe these for a second. They all just seem a bit calculated for me, and they certainly do not amount to an interesting type of performance, even though it is the type the academy seems to like.
I was never able to believe in his character, because it always seemed like De Niro acting exercise than a real person having these problems. I will admit though these types of performances rarely impress me to begin with, but they really do not impress me when they seem off, and De Niro does seem off especially near the end. De Niro is not entirely terrible though because of his scenes in the middle of his performance, it definitely could have been worse, but he really always underwhelmed me with his performance in this film.
Monday, 4 July 2011
Best Actor 1990
Robert De Niro in Awakenings
Gerard Depardieu in Cyrano De Bergerac
Jeremy Irons in Reversal of Fortune
Kevin Costner in Dances with Wolves
Richard Harris in The Field
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)