Deserving Performances:
Tim Robbins in The Shawshank Redemption
Showing posts with label 1994. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1994. Show all posts
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Best Actor 1994: Results
Deserving Performances:
Tim Robbins in The Shawshank Redemption
Best Actor 1994: Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump
Tom Hanks won his second Oscar from his third nomination for portraying the titular character of Forrest Gump.
Forrest Gump as I am sure you know follows a slow man as goes and sees and creates many important events throughout U.S.A History. Gump has an interesting reputation as some in fact many support its wins, and say it is a great film, but others just a many hate the film, and see it almost as a punchline.
I suppose some of what determines ones hate or love for Forrest Gump comes from how one view the main performance by Tom Hanks. Performances like these are bound to be exceedingly divisive no matter what, of the unknowing, naive character who has a sort of wonderful philosophy, or personality or something wonderful about them, there is an entire genre of films around a character like this, this film, Being There, Rain Man, I Am Sam. They are all driven in a way or completely by their lead performances. I am not opposed to performances like these because when they work well they can be effective like Peter Sellers in Being There, or they can be incredibly bad, and be far too obvious like Sean Penn in I am Sam.
Now how about Tom Hanks though the first requirement of a performance like this is there way or method of speaking. Well he talks slowly, and with a southern accents of sorts, along with a drawl. I really was especially annoyed by his voice the first time I watched the film. Now every time I watch it I get less annoyed by it, I suppose I got used to it. I will give credit to Hanks that he keeps his voice consistent and never breaks out of it. Next up is the characters mannerisms. Forrest is a tall standing, simple moving sort of fellow very structured in his manner. He shows his slowness here in his sometimes slow manner but always very proper in terms of his movements. Again I will give credit to Hanks he keeps them consistent and does not fail to keep his character consistent.
So he keeps his characterization consistent, and never breaks it during the film, which is good but is his character endearing or annoying? Well a Gump liker I would think would say he is endearing, a Gump hater would say he is annoying though. I am a little in the middle, although I really found him annoying in my initial viewings he has grown on me a little, not that I think him all that likable character now, but he has improved in that he seems less annoying now.
Hanks is allowed to show more emotions than some of these character depictions, since he is slow but not unemotional. He shows his feelings in a slow always naive, always rather abrupt fashion. When Forrest is sad he is sad, when he gets angry he is angry, in rather blunt fashion, which are as they should be played actually due to the blunt naive nature of Forrest, so Hanks again is fine, and consistent as Forrest once again. The overall performance is completely consistent as a character like this should be, but is it amazing acting ever, to me it never quite makes it for me. He creates his character who is fine, but I never found his creation to be amazing. He is sticks with his character the whole through though, and I can see how people liked this so much, even if I do not myself.
I suppose some of what determines ones hate or love for Forrest Gump comes from how one view the main performance by Tom Hanks. Performances like these are bound to be exceedingly divisive no matter what, of the unknowing, naive character who has a sort of wonderful philosophy, or personality or something wonderful about them, there is an entire genre of films around a character like this, this film, Being There, Rain Man, I Am Sam. They are all driven in a way or completely by their lead performances. I am not opposed to performances like these because when they work well they can be effective like Peter Sellers in Being There, or they can be incredibly bad, and be far too obvious like Sean Penn in I am Sam.
Now how about Tom Hanks though the first requirement of a performance like this is there way or method of speaking. Well he talks slowly, and with a southern accents of sorts, along with a drawl. I really was especially annoyed by his voice the first time I watched the film. Now every time I watch it I get less annoyed by it, I suppose I got used to it. I will give credit to Hanks that he keeps his voice consistent and never breaks out of it. Next up is the characters mannerisms. Forrest is a tall standing, simple moving sort of fellow very structured in his manner. He shows his slowness here in his sometimes slow manner but always very proper in terms of his movements. Again I will give credit to Hanks he keeps them consistent and does not fail to keep his character consistent.
So he keeps his characterization consistent, and never breaks it during the film, which is good but is his character endearing or annoying? Well a Gump liker I would think would say he is endearing, a Gump hater would say he is annoying though. I am a little in the middle, although I really found him annoying in my initial viewings he has grown on me a little, not that I think him all that likable character now, but he has improved in that he seems less annoying now.
Hanks is allowed to show more emotions than some of these character depictions, since he is slow but not unemotional. He shows his feelings in a slow always naive, always rather abrupt fashion. When Forrest is sad he is sad, when he gets angry he is angry, in rather blunt fashion, which are as they should be played actually due to the blunt naive nature of Forrest, so Hanks again is fine, and consistent as Forrest once again. The overall performance is completely consistent as a character like this should be, but is it amazing acting ever, to me it never quite makes it for me. He creates his character who is fine, but I never found his creation to be amazing. He is sticks with his character the whole through though, and I can see how people liked this so much, even if I do not myself.
Best Actor 1994: Nigel Hawthorne in The Madness of King George
Nigel Hawthorne received his only Oscar nomination for portraying King George III in The Madness of King George.
The Madness of King George is a somewhat interesting film that follows George through his later of his life as he deals with insanity.
King George III begins the film as a functioning Monarch but clearly one that is a little off. Hawthorne has the correct kingly demeanor for George. He commands a room therefore a scene well with a strong presence needed for the strong King George III. Hawthorne is good in that he quickly shows Hawthorne a likable, and interesting enough man to be able to wish to follow him through his life's journey.He shows George as a strong commanding who does not like disappointment, but is off. He does it early in smaller ways which could easily be seen as a Monarch eccentricity. It is not one and Hawthorne naturally portrays these small indications of his illness, such as saying what-what.
George's illness quickly grows leading to even more flamboyant action from the King, as he does go completely over board. Hawthorne deserves a whole lot of credit here for the insanity of the King could have been portrayed in an all wrong fashion. Hawthorne manages though firstly to make the insanity of the King actual insanity, that is more flamboyant than perhaps it would be in another person since George was already a flamboyant domineering personality to begin with. He manages to make all of the insane actions that George takes actually natural in an insane sort of way which is quite well done.
George to overcome his illness is treated to many very harsh treatments. Hawthorne has a difficult performance here as he must show his insanity, the pain he incurs from the treatment, and his struggle to attempt to maintains the dignity of the respect of a King. Hawthorne manages each, and presents his pain of the treatments especially well. His loss and struggle for his dignity, is made quite poignant by Hawthorne as he shows the sadness of this man as he is losing the command he has always had throughout the entirety of his life.
I think best part of his performance though is when he finally does recover mostly at the end of the film. His retaking of his life is an outstanding series of scenes on his part. His retaking of what was his as King. He is strong and completely commanding which is an interesting contrast to how vulnerable he was when he was completely insane. His seizure and control of everyone in the kingdom is brilliantly handled by Hawthorne through his renewed powerful presence. He keeps his hints of insanity though properly showing his lack of full recovery. Hawthorne gives a strong performance, and handles his challenging role with ease.
King George III begins the film as a functioning Monarch but clearly one that is a little off. Hawthorne has the correct kingly demeanor for George. He commands a room therefore a scene well with a strong presence needed for the strong King George III. Hawthorne is good in that he quickly shows Hawthorne a likable, and interesting enough man to be able to wish to follow him through his life's journey.He shows George as a strong commanding who does not like disappointment, but is off. He does it early in smaller ways which could easily be seen as a Monarch eccentricity. It is not one and Hawthorne naturally portrays these small indications of his illness, such as saying what-what.
George's illness quickly grows leading to even more flamboyant action from the King, as he does go completely over board. Hawthorne deserves a whole lot of credit here for the insanity of the King could have been portrayed in an all wrong fashion. Hawthorne manages though firstly to make the insanity of the King actual insanity, that is more flamboyant than perhaps it would be in another person since George was already a flamboyant domineering personality to begin with. He manages to make all of the insane actions that George takes actually natural in an insane sort of way which is quite well done.
George to overcome his illness is treated to many very harsh treatments. Hawthorne has a difficult performance here as he must show his insanity, the pain he incurs from the treatment, and his struggle to attempt to maintains the dignity of the respect of a King. Hawthorne manages each, and presents his pain of the treatments especially well. His loss and struggle for his dignity, is made quite poignant by Hawthorne as he shows the sadness of this man as he is losing the command he has always had throughout the entirety of his life.
I think best part of his performance though is when he finally does recover mostly at the end of the film. His retaking of his life is an outstanding series of scenes on his part. His retaking of what was his as King. He is strong and completely commanding which is an interesting contrast to how vulnerable he was when he was completely insane. His seizure and control of everyone in the kingdom is brilliantly handled by Hawthorne through his renewed powerful presence. He keeps his hints of insanity though properly showing his lack of full recovery. Hawthorne gives a strong performance, and handles his challenging role with ease.
Monday, 7 March 2011
Best Actor 1994: Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption
Morgan Freeman received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Ellis Boyd 'Red' Redding in The Shawshank Redemption.
The Shawshank Redemption is strange in how popular it is in terms of the fact that it tops so many internet list as the #1 film, especially since this all came far after its initial release. I can easily see why it so liked by so many people, it a very effective film, with its universally inspiring themes, beautiful score and cinematography.
This is a very interesting nomination that any common sense nomination would think the lead nomination for the film would have gone to Tim Robbins in his portrayal as the wrongly convicted Andy Dufresne who is the actual lead of the film. It is not uncommon for the less screen time secondary lead or possibly supporting to get a nomination though, and Freeman I would say boarders on between lead and supporting. Although he does have less screen time in the film he most likely has more lines since Red is the narrator.
Freeman's narration is something one can easily take for granted, but really who can do a narration as well as him. Few, if anyone. Freeman's voice is most certainly one of his greatest assets and he uses it especially well with his narration. Now I say this because Freeman actually I feel handles his narration better than merely reading a description. He really does utilize it to make his narration an emotional guide through this tale. I feel he also not turn it into simply an ambiguous narrator, but this is in fact Red as a person telling his story to the audience.
Freeman's performance for most of the film is indeed supporting as Red a long serving prisoner of Shawshank who knows how to procure contraband items. He is very much reactive to what Andy is doing in the prison. This makes sense for his character who is very much use to the regulated life of prison, he therefore becomes interested and surprised of what Andy does. Freeman despite being secondary in many ways manages not to really be forgotten, and not only because of his narration. Freeman has a strong presence in this film, and never is lost in the crowds, even when very much in the background. When he is given more focus though Freeman dominates the screen with his unique and powerful screen presence.
Freeman performance I almost am glad is not overwhelming, but properly minimalistic. Freeman creates Red into a likable sympathetic man. Freeman in his reactions to what he sees is completely realistic, and when ever he has the chance he is truly emotionally resonate. I think his strongest scenes in terms of his more supporting work are Red's conversations with Andy about life. These a striking very poignant scenes, and a lot of credit for this should go to Freeman. He is interesting in that Red is doubtful of some of what Andy says, but Freeman always suggests that Red always still sees truth in his words about freedom needed for a man for a man really to live. Both actors in these scenes create truly beautiful moments between these two men, and this is because both men underplay the conversations they never enforce the poignancy that comes it just becomes realized through the truthful authenticity of their performances.
Freeman is given moments of lead, particularly at the end of the film where he does indeed become the lead and the focus of the movie. Freeman is given a short odyssey with Red at the end of the film. A short one, but a very striking one. It begins with his last parole hearing, where Freeman has an outstanding scene where he honestly shows a man reflect on his past, and wrongs in a sad and complex manner. The film than follows his life outside of prison. When the film becomes about Red, Freeman makes the most of it. He final scenes as he struggles in fear on the outside, showing a lost man in a world he has lost his understanding of in a spectacular fashion. What is even greater is his final scenes as his enthusiasm grows to finding his friend and his want for life and freedom once more, completing his journey as a man. An incredibly strong performance that I must admit I grew myself liking more and more as I thought about it and I wrote this review.
This is a very interesting nomination that any common sense nomination would think the lead nomination for the film would have gone to Tim Robbins in his portrayal as the wrongly convicted Andy Dufresne who is the actual lead of the film. It is not uncommon for the less screen time secondary lead or possibly supporting to get a nomination though, and Freeman I would say boarders on between lead and supporting. Although he does have less screen time in the film he most likely has more lines since Red is the narrator.
Freeman's narration is something one can easily take for granted, but really who can do a narration as well as him. Few, if anyone. Freeman's voice is most certainly one of his greatest assets and he uses it especially well with his narration. Now I say this because Freeman actually I feel handles his narration better than merely reading a description. He really does utilize it to make his narration an emotional guide through this tale. I feel he also not turn it into simply an ambiguous narrator, but this is in fact Red as a person telling his story to the audience.
Freeman's performance for most of the film is indeed supporting as Red a long serving prisoner of Shawshank who knows how to procure contraband items. He is very much reactive to what Andy is doing in the prison. This makes sense for his character who is very much use to the regulated life of prison, he therefore becomes interested and surprised of what Andy does. Freeman despite being secondary in many ways manages not to really be forgotten, and not only because of his narration. Freeman has a strong presence in this film, and never is lost in the crowds, even when very much in the background. When he is given more focus though Freeman dominates the screen with his unique and powerful screen presence.
Freeman performance I almost am glad is not overwhelming, but properly minimalistic. Freeman creates Red into a likable sympathetic man. Freeman in his reactions to what he sees is completely realistic, and when ever he has the chance he is truly emotionally resonate. I think his strongest scenes in terms of his more supporting work are Red's conversations with Andy about life. These a striking very poignant scenes, and a lot of credit for this should go to Freeman. He is interesting in that Red is doubtful of some of what Andy says, but Freeman always suggests that Red always still sees truth in his words about freedom needed for a man for a man really to live. Both actors in these scenes create truly beautiful moments between these two men, and this is because both men underplay the conversations they never enforce the poignancy that comes it just becomes realized through the truthful authenticity of their performances.
Freeman is given moments of lead, particularly at the end of the film where he does indeed become the lead and the focus of the movie. Freeman is given a short odyssey with Red at the end of the film. A short one, but a very striking one. It begins with his last parole hearing, where Freeman has an outstanding scene where he honestly shows a man reflect on his past, and wrongs in a sad and complex manner. The film than follows his life outside of prison. When the film becomes about Red, Freeman makes the most of it. He final scenes as he struggles in fear on the outside, showing a lost man in a world he has lost his understanding of in a spectacular fashion. What is even greater is his final scenes as his enthusiasm grows to finding his friend and his want for life and freedom once more, completing his journey as a man. An incredibly strong performance that I must admit I grew myself liking more and more as I thought about it and I wrote this review.
Best Actor 1994: Paul Newman in Nobody's Fool
Paul Newman received his eighth acting Oscar nomination for portraying Donald "Sully" Sullivan in Nobody's Fool.
Nobody's Fool is not a particularly good film. A lot of the supporting acting is pretty bad, the direction seems off creating the wrong tone for the film, and the story is frankly not that good.
Newman portrays Sully who like his earlier performance in The Verdict is a man a downtrodden guy who has made a lot of mistakes in the past, but now has a chance to improve on his mistakes of old. The difference though is Nobody's Fool is a much lighter film, and his chance for redemption seems much less monumental. Sully is one of those lovable hard edged old guys who is a wise guy to everyone. His character frankly feels like a cliche to tell you the truth, although I do believe this does entirely come from the film and its predictable story and characters.
Newman although he really does manage to give a good performance despite the weakness of the film. He does give a very charismatic and likable performance. Although I do feel the whole character of Sully is quite forced in his colorful character fashion, but Newman does his best to make him a realistic character nonetheless. He never makes Sully entirely believable in every aspect of the film, buy he sure does try, and almost succeeds which is an achievement. I could see how almost everyone liked Sully because Newman is that incredibly likable with his performance here. I even sort of believed his romance with Melanie Griffith in the film. It was quite hard to believe in the way the film put the relationship together but Newman's charm does still sell it a bit.
The whole aspect of the past of the character as an irresponsible man who left his family, I did not actually entirely buy. Frankly because here Newman was actually too likable to really suggest this past. I will really blame the film that poorly positions this as part of his background, and frankly it never gives any current showing of this aspect of the character, nor does Newman suggest this in the past of Sully well enough either. I will admit Newman did excel in showing his attempt for redemption by trying to bond with his grandson and son once again. Newman actually makes Sully's attempt to reconcile rather nicely, sweetly even though the film and his poorly acted co-stars again leaves this mostly to Newman to make it at all poignant.
I did thoroughly enjoy Newman's entire performance in this film, it is lacking in a few aspects, which I do blame mostly because of the weakness of the film. Newman's performance though still is an interesting performance that is filled with honest feeling, as well as actual charisma. His performance is mostly just good though, and is helped back I feel by the film, which does not fully utilize his performance as well as it could have frankly. There are some incredible moments of great acting in his performance such as his slow honest emotional response to entering his childhood home, but overall it is a little bit of a missed opportunity that for me remains as just a good performance.
Newman portrays Sully who like his earlier performance in The Verdict is a man a downtrodden guy who has made a lot of mistakes in the past, but now has a chance to improve on his mistakes of old. The difference though is Nobody's Fool is a much lighter film, and his chance for redemption seems much less monumental. Sully is one of those lovable hard edged old guys who is a wise guy to everyone. His character frankly feels like a cliche to tell you the truth, although I do believe this does entirely come from the film and its predictable story and characters.
Newman although he really does manage to give a good performance despite the weakness of the film. He does give a very charismatic and likable performance. Although I do feel the whole character of Sully is quite forced in his colorful character fashion, but Newman does his best to make him a realistic character nonetheless. He never makes Sully entirely believable in every aspect of the film, buy he sure does try, and almost succeeds which is an achievement. I could see how almost everyone liked Sully because Newman is that incredibly likable with his performance here. I even sort of believed his romance with Melanie Griffith in the film. It was quite hard to believe in the way the film put the relationship together but Newman's charm does still sell it a bit.
The whole aspect of the past of the character as an irresponsible man who left his family, I did not actually entirely buy. Frankly because here Newman was actually too likable to really suggest this past. I will really blame the film that poorly positions this as part of his background, and frankly it never gives any current showing of this aspect of the character, nor does Newman suggest this in the past of Sully well enough either. I will admit Newman did excel in showing his attempt for redemption by trying to bond with his grandson and son once again. Newman actually makes Sully's attempt to reconcile rather nicely, sweetly even though the film and his poorly acted co-stars again leaves this mostly to Newman to make it at all poignant.
I did thoroughly enjoy Newman's entire performance in this film, it is lacking in a few aspects, which I do blame mostly because of the weakness of the film. Newman's performance though still is an interesting performance that is filled with honest feeling, as well as actual charisma. His performance is mostly just good though, and is helped back I feel by the film, which does not fully utilize his performance as well as it could have frankly. There are some incredible moments of great acting in his performance such as his slow honest emotional response to entering his childhood home, but overall it is a little bit of a missed opportunity that for me remains as just a good performance.
Sunday, 6 March 2011
Best Actor 1994: John Travolta in Pulp Fiction
John Travolta received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction.
Pulp Fiction interweaves several stories, with several character relating to crimes in Los Angeles.
John Travolta is a rather interesting actor, because personally he is not one of my favorites at all, and he can easily be an actor who overacts quite terribly. The interesting thing about Travolta as an actor is that he is one of the most perfectly Oscar nominated actors ever. For one he was nominated for his two most memorable and iconic roles of this and Saturday Night Fever, and he was also nominated for his two best performances. Some actors can be described as properly nominated but for the wrong role or roles, not Travolta both times Oscar got him completely right.
Travolta portrays Vincent Vega a hit man who since he is in a Quentin Tarantino film enjoys his share of long stylized dialogue (not realistic as critics of the time for some reason thought it was). The long stylized dialogue can work at times, but it can also fall flat at times. I think two aspects of the dialogue is yes how well written a particular portion of the dialogue is, but also how well the actors deliver it. Travolta is actually particularly good at this in the film, and knows how to make it sound natural and quite smoothly. Even in some of the most forced sounding dialogue Travolta handles carefully, and keeps it all pretty natural.
It is interesting to note that Travolta was very cast a bit against type. He certainly was not known as an actor who ever portrayed a tough character like Vincent Vega. Yet Travolta completely fulfills the role, and in fact it is hard to see anyone else in the role. He has the perfect smoothness and charisma in the role, of this rather smooth criminal. I never at all questioned Travolta in the role as Vega, he was just right in the role, and utterly natural. He made Vega a likable hit man well enough, and I did actually find I cared about what he was going through particularly the wrenching last moments of his performance.
Something particularly effective about Travolta's performance is his terrific chemistry with Uma Thurman as Mia the wife of his boss (Ving Rhames) and Samuel L. Jackson as his fellow hit man Jules. His scenes with Thurman are well handled because the two start at a distance with Travolta being properly avoiding, and awkward trying not to be too close to his bosses wife. Their relationship quickly grows and they both make this convincing because how nicely and naturally they talk and react with one another. I think they very effectively grow their relationship, but Travolta very carefully handles this because he shows Travolta grow a connection with Mia, but also always carefully showing his resistance to show anything more than just liking her as a friend.
I think his chemistry is just a strong with Samuel L. Jackson. They are excellent together as the two philosophizing hit man. Their conversations together are generally regarded as the best or at least the most memorable of the film and there is reason these two have a certain casual chemistry that just works wonders really. I find their interactions are made interesting and especially effective by these two actors with their pitch perfect tone with one another. I also found these two were able to be also properly humorous and worked well in that regard as well. Overall Travolta performance is a strong natural and effective performance, which is well helped by his ability to connect with his main co-stars.
John Travolta is a rather interesting actor, because personally he is not one of my favorites at all, and he can easily be an actor who overacts quite terribly. The interesting thing about Travolta as an actor is that he is one of the most perfectly Oscar nominated actors ever. For one he was nominated for his two most memorable and iconic roles of this and Saturday Night Fever, and he was also nominated for his two best performances. Some actors can be described as properly nominated but for the wrong role or roles, not Travolta both times Oscar got him completely right.
Travolta portrays Vincent Vega a hit man who since he is in a Quentin Tarantino film enjoys his share of long stylized dialogue (not realistic as critics of the time for some reason thought it was). The long stylized dialogue can work at times, but it can also fall flat at times. I think two aspects of the dialogue is yes how well written a particular portion of the dialogue is, but also how well the actors deliver it. Travolta is actually particularly good at this in the film, and knows how to make it sound natural and quite smoothly. Even in some of the most forced sounding dialogue Travolta handles carefully, and keeps it all pretty natural.
It is interesting to note that Travolta was very cast a bit against type. He certainly was not known as an actor who ever portrayed a tough character like Vincent Vega. Yet Travolta completely fulfills the role, and in fact it is hard to see anyone else in the role. He has the perfect smoothness and charisma in the role, of this rather smooth criminal. I never at all questioned Travolta in the role as Vega, he was just right in the role, and utterly natural. He made Vega a likable hit man well enough, and I did actually find I cared about what he was going through particularly the wrenching last moments of his performance.
Something particularly effective about Travolta's performance is his terrific chemistry with Uma Thurman as Mia the wife of his boss (Ving Rhames) and Samuel L. Jackson as his fellow hit man Jules. His scenes with Thurman are well handled because the two start at a distance with Travolta being properly avoiding, and awkward trying not to be too close to his bosses wife. Their relationship quickly grows and they both make this convincing because how nicely and naturally they talk and react with one another. I think they very effectively grow their relationship, but Travolta very carefully handles this because he shows Travolta grow a connection with Mia, but also always carefully showing his resistance to show anything more than just liking her as a friend.
I think his chemistry is just a strong with Samuel L. Jackson. They are excellent together as the two philosophizing hit man. Their conversations together are generally regarded as the best or at least the most memorable of the film and there is reason these two have a certain casual chemistry that just works wonders really. I find their interactions are made interesting and especially effective by these two actors with their pitch perfect tone with one another. I also found these two were able to be also properly humorous and worked well in that regard as well. Overall Travolta performance is a strong natural and effective performance, which is well helped by his ability to connect with his main co-stars.
Best Actor 1994
Paul Newman in Nobody's Fool
John Travolta in Pulp Fiction
Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump
Nigel Hawthorne in The Madness of King George
Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)