Alternate Best Actor 1999: Bob Hoskins in Felicia's Journey

Bob Hoskins did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Joe Hilditch in Felicia's Journey. 

As with almost any of Atom Egoyan's films I'd categorize as good (though a bit drawn out and suffers from being a bit top heavy when it comes to interesting characters), Felicia's Journey is a strange, though intriguing, bird of film about a older man who tries to "help" a young desperate pregnant woman, Felicia. 

Always hate coming onto a performance late as I finalize a year, as I really should've just taken the time for Bob Hoskins here, as this performance is unlike anything else that I'd seen from Hoskins. Now I've always been a fan of Hoskins's as an actor, with his potent bottled up presence, that almost seemed to hide a great emotional range. This found in his great performances in Mona Lisa and The Long Good Friday, as different kinds of volatile men, and of course his low key hilarious yet still emotional work in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. This though is something quite different from Hoskins's as his very presence has no traits of a working class, or once working class, bruiser. This man is something else. This is found right off in Hoskins's instantly curious and fascinating work. This in his more affected accent. This with a sort of odd politeness innate within his voice. For a lack of a better shortcut, Hoskins kind of plays this part as though he was Ian Holm playing this part, and that is high praise. This as Hoskins erases your mind of those other turns, in his gentler voice he brings here, but also his manner that matches the same. We see him as this commercial chef and as so there is a fanciful manner to this man that Hoskins creates, that grants us some sense of who he is, and keeps us quite intrigued in what he might be. 

We follow many scenes of Joe just living through the day, and there is something even in this within Hoskins's performance. There is a levity to it, though not in the sort of comedic sense. Rather Hoskins is way of movement here is almost a way of floating through a given scene. He doesn't quite interact as is the normal way, marking Joe with this strange kind of very odd kind of grace. Hoskins is rather mesmerizing just to watch be here, as you can't instantly decipher the man, and part of the fascination is watching Hoskins give us hints. This as we see him preparing a meal, while watching a TV chef (who we will later learn is his long dead mother), Hoskins's performance has a kind of violence in the preparation. When eating the meal, and watching the woman still, Hoskins's performance is one of sheer brilliance. This sort of boyish curiosity he brings in examining the meal, and a comfort as he bites as though he is a baby being fed by his mother. There is something unquestionably off-putting about it, but what I love is how enigmatic it is just the same. Hoskins doesn't immediately tells us exactly who Joe is exactly. He creates a mystery about the man, and really is the facet of the film that reels you into it. This as there's just something about Hoskins's performance that makes you want to learn more about this man, even if you may be concerned with that might exactly go. 

Now we see Joe as he begins to offer some advice to Felicia, and there is just something about that accent that Hoskins uses here. It is a masterstroke, as it is this incredible combination of comfort and discomfort at the same time. This as he speaks so gently that at quick glance, particularly if someone was need of help of any kind, it is with that of just a good intention if off man, but spending more time with it, there's just something not quite right about it. Felicia eventually more directly takes Joe's help as he begins to give her rides. Hoskins's performance is everything as he asks her questions with that small voice of his, seemingly comforting. When she mentions she's pregnant though, there is a smile, and change of tone of his expression that is most unnerving. Hoskins portraying Joe's "charity" to perhaps not be some simple kindness of a lonely man. There is a strange game though we see when Felicia reveals any vulnerability as Joe puts forth the utmost empathy it would seem. Again it is with perhaps a quirk, or something worse, that he offers his words of wisdom, but Hoskins himself doesn't portray this as facade exactly even. There is something more demented going on than just that. This as see a progression of other young desperate women that Joe's "helped" in the past. 

Hoskins's work here is outstanding, and part of why he is so fascinating to watch, is he presents a man who is in a strange world of his own at all times. This developed from his equally strange relationship with mother we see in flashback. Hoskins even in a moment of Joe just watching a clip of Salome, there is a man starting on some alternate wavelength of experience. When we see him speak to Felicia of his fake wife, Hoskins speaks with overtures of the good nature of parenthood, but even in this, he's kind of outside of the conversation even as he's speaking directly to her. Hoskins portraying a man who is always thinking within some other realm even when within this process that one would assume would be more symbiotic. It is in this that Hoskins alludes to what Joe really is doing with all this. This as he develops the sense of the man's mind where his interaction is always with a strange kind of detachment and self-obsession. When speaking of his fake wife, even killing her technically by saying she has died in hospital, his words turned as though he is almost speaking to himself still. This as he tells himself this story just as he is telling her. This performance is quite terrifying as Hoskins reveals Joe's nature as more sinister in each successive scene. This as we slowly come to realize that Joe is in fact a serial killer of these young women, and Hoskins paints a most unnerving portrait of the way this man goes about his ways.

 

 This as he brings Felicia along, with a cherub's smile and a country priest's voice. This though in moments bringing forth the nature of the hate that is simmering within him, that Hoskins evokes in wholly chilling moments as Joe becomes more determined with his current "charity".  When Joe goes about finally planning to kill her, Hoskins is so matter of fact in the movements, which is particularly off-putting as we see a man who likely has gone through this kind murder again and again. When he describes putting the girls to "sleep" as he's in the process of killing Felicia, suddenly that gentle voice of becomes something truly disturbing. The only point in which the man's world seems to completely break, as he attempts to wrap up his crime, two Christian missionaries come calling. Hoskins's incredible as he shows the final break in the man as he watches their presentation to him. Hoskins's voice loses any of its grace, his manner is not longer lost in its state. There is desperation, a fear, a man suddenly blunted by a random reality that penetrates his typical deranged state. Hoskins brilliantly internalizing the breakdown within the man almost in sheer disbelief when confronted with something then than his own delusions. Hoskins's performance presenting the greater degradation of the man's mind as he seems tp hold less and less into the delusion and in turn his psychosis is shown more overtly in every respect. His eyes filled with tears, his body wavering, and his voice quacking as his crimes are discovered. A man with no delusions left to cling to, therefore also no life to cling to. This is a fantastic work by Bob Hoskins that shows an even greater range than I already knew he had. A daring, and dynamic portrait of a most unusual and unhinged man. 

Alternate Best Actor 1999: Results

5. Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut - Cruise fulfills the general needs of his performance however never seems ideal for the general needs of his character. 

Best Scene: His confession.

4. Nicolas Cage in Bringing Out the Dead - Cage delivers the more expected extremes of his insomniac paramedic, however it his more subdued moments that perhaps leave the strongest impression.

Best Scene: Saving the dealer.

3. Anthony Hopkins in Titus - Hopkins delivers both the needed gravity for any Shakespearean performance, but with a sense of fun needed for the work that is Titus Andronicus.

Best Scene: Some nice pies.

2. Heath Ledger in Two Hands - Ledger delivers a terrific early star turn that manages to effortlessly balance the romantic, dramatic and comedic elements of his film.

Best Scene: Confronting Pando.

1. Jim Broadbent in Topsy-Turvy - Broadbent gives an absolutely winning turn in his approach as a humorous man who takes himself very seriously.

Best Scene: His inspiration.

Updated Overall

Next Year: 1999 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 1999: Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut

Tom Cruise did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Dr. William "Bill" Harford in Eyes Wide Shut.

Eyes Wide Shut is Stanley Kubrick's final film around a man's odyssey after his wife confesses lecherous thoughts to him.  

The pairing of Stanley Kubrick and Tom Cruise from the outset doesn't sound like an ideal pairing. This is with Kubrick often being almost a "prop master" in his use of actors to serve an extremely specific purpose, against Tom Cruise who one can almost say is an auteur actor, in that a Tom Cruise vehicle usually means a specific thing and image. Now to be fair, until his most recent decade, Cruise seemed to attempt to pepper in non-commercial challenges within his overarching famed career of  being a matinee performer. The thing is though Cruise's forays into the non-commercial usually were driven by turns from him that are forceful Cruise turns, showing a different side of his ability, however typically using his known strengths in a way to further his range, like in the same year in Magnolia, later in Collateral, or even in Tropic Thunder. In this film though, Cruise plays our "average man", which one could almost say is a mistake in a sexually charged film that is this. In that Cruise is an actor who doesn't have an innate sexuality onscreen. This is not a commentary on any rumors or the like regarding Cruise,there are many actors without this quality, but in terms of his natural screen presence is that of asexuality. This as the love story rarely is the focal points of any successful Cruise film, not that it is an extreme void, but it isn't what defines Cruise as a performer.

This again all adds up to a strange combination in Tom Cruise in a Stanley Kubrick film, as Tom Cruise in incapable of simply being a man, his own screen presence is too strong for that, being far more ideal for early Kubrick, and for a film about sex, you have Cruise who is not say an early Brando in that regard. I mean then again, perhaps that was all in the grand scheme of Kubrick, who is an infallible genius...to some...who believe he made every decision with such meticulous purpose, even when it seemed like a bad decision. We have that possible here with Cruise who is not an expected choice to see wandering the streets of NY looking for sexual answers. Although then again it does offer that later day Kubrick clinical quality he seemed to love so much, as the film is not particularly raw for being about the base human need. It is instead particularly one can examine when you have Cruise seemingly more a curious observer himself than a man dealing with lusts of every kind. A curiosity then is what the film becomes, as does Bill's journey where he finds himself in strange situations, creepy costume owners, orgies, prostitutes, drug overdoses, sexual fantasies, however in each of these, well except maybe the drug overdose, Bill is but an observer. This in only further emphasized in Cruise's performance which keeps a distance from that material almost at all times. This maintaining that late Kubrickian detachment, intentional perhaps, but the right decision, well that's a different question.

The film itself was made in part as the starring pairing of the then married couple of Nicole Kidman and Cruise, which I would imagine didn't help matters there, but I won't speculate too much. Their interactions are limited however, with the fissure developing between the married couple in the film early on, that propels Bill on his strange journey. Kidman quite frankly is a performer who seems more ideal Kubrick, where Cruise would've perhaps been better served back in the mindset of Kubrick when he was working with Kirk Douglas. This as in their scenes together Kidman stands out more in working within the style of Kubrick, where Cruise does seem a bit lost, although that serves his very lost character. I will say the actual performance that there is beyond looking around looking confused, or looking slightly lustful, are not at all poorly performed by Cruise. The extent of this though is always curiously limited, as the man always keeps himself from going the next step, and in turn we keep Cruise at that distance. There are the two more major moments of interacting with Kidman, first in hearing her confession then making his own. In both Cruise does capture the emotional distress of the situation. The rest of the film Cruise is within that limitation, to the point that even when he is learning about strange things, and eventually finding possible answers, Bill still is the quiet observer. The quiet observer that Cruise doesn't portray poorly by any measure, in that he captures enough of a reality to the strange situations, and anxiety in each moment. It is not a bad performance, even if the character doesn't seem at all ideal for Cruise's strengths as a performer. This may have been intentional as those who view Kubrick as infallible would likely say. This as Cruise could be seen himself placed in situations alien to the performer, reacting with the same distance, as Bill as an alien to his life situations, keeping the same distance. This as neither man takes that next step, neither Cruise fully exiting his comfort zone by going that next step of raw sexuality on screen, nor Bill breaking out of his faithfulness towards his wife. I will however, always contest that casting the charisma absent Ryan O'Neal was a fundamental mistake of Barry Lyndon therefore will not accept the Kubrick as infallible view. This while I don't think Cruise's casting is as detrimental to the character, I too have a difficulty finding that I cannot see a better path with a performer more ideal for the material, the character and indeed the director.

Alternate Best Actor 1999: Jim Broadbent in Topsy-Turvy

Jim Broadbent did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a BAFTA, for portraying W.S. Gilbert in Topsy-Turvy.

I rather loved Topsy-Turvy, which tells the story of Gilbert and Sullivan attempting to stage a comeback of sorts through the Mikado.

The film borders on an ensemble piece as it does take time with just about every element of the eventual production, focusing on the various characters in and around the Savoy theatre. The man who gets the greatest focus fittingly is the man who without would've made the creation of the Mikado simply impossible, that being librettist W.S. Gilbert played by the always reliable Jim Broadbent. Broadbent having rather a challenge in the character of Gilbert, given that the man is essentially a living contradiction. A contradiction that serves Broadbent's approach to the part which is as a humorous man who takes himself very seriously. This as his most essential professional output involves being a mostly comic wordsmith, who is partial to, as his creative partner Sullivan says, Topsy-Turvy ridiculousness. Broadbent's performance then has two main objectives, one to make sense of this man, and the second to make this man work within the film which takes a lightly comic approach. The sense of the man is within his life that while he has a caring wife (Lesley Manville), he has a troublesome relationship with his father and distant, and all importantly humorless, mother. Broadbent's performance then creates this sense of logic within the character's repression as spurned by such a childhood.

This is as Broadbent presents very much one side a man you would expect from such a life on the surface, which is always interesting for Broadbent for a reason I'll get to on the second part of his challenge. Broadbent though delivers a hardness in manner within the man. This physically stature as a proper businessman despite being an artist first and foremost. When the man discusses his idea with his wife or Sullivan, Broadbent speaks in hard delivery of a man as though he was simply discussing any old financial plan or legal action. This seeming without an obvious passion on the immediate surface. Broadbent carefully though doesn't specifically make Gilbert seem bored however, but this is a hardness seemingly ill-fitting to what it is that he writes. Of course we are party to more than just Gilbert as others see him, as we are given the moments of inspiration that he finds through a Japanese exhibition in England. Although even as this Broadbent portrays only the most careful breaks in the moments of interacting with his wife, which is quite different from when we see him admiring a sword from the exhibition alone in his room. We see him first goofing off alone, where Broadbent suddenly reveals a cheerfulness befitting to a truly topsy turvy sort, as not of that stiffness is evident in the man. Broadbent in this moment is not breaking the character, but rather revealing the humorous man that is at Gilbert's heart that was mostly repressed thoroughly by his childhood. This is further reinforced where we see him admiring the sword and Broadbent has a beautiful moment where his face expresses the true creative spirit in the sincere emotional intensity in his eyes.

Well with that Broadbent brilliantly explains Gilbert, however that still leaves a potentially stiff character in this comedy who needs to exist beyond the emotional revelations of the man, as strikingly performed as those are. Well thankfully Broadbent is the perfect man to deliver this in a way, as he is particularly well attuned actor for both comedy and drama, particularly in his voice that is marvelous in how it manages to both have a comedic light pitch, while still having a dominating depth. Broadbent knows exactly how to use this as he manages to be quite impeccably hilarious as Gilbert. This as even in those scenes of describing his silly ideas, Broadbent is absolutely comic gold in just how directly dry he is about every word, with this underlying conviction of sorts, that is properly, though naturally, ridiculous as Gilbert describes a contrived idea about a transformative potion. Broadbent's delivery of Gilbert's ideas becomes a consistent point of hilarity as he brings such refinement with even the most absurd words in Gilbert's rhythmic expressions. Broadbent's approach is wonderfully entertaining in the earliest scenes of the film, but only broadens as we see the man in action in terms of attempting to realize his project to his vision. Broadbent is fantastic as the seemingly tyrannical man dictating such specific changes along with way with few willing to stand up to his whims. Broadbent carries is this and is incredible in every single scene, particularly an extended one of directing the actors through a scene. Broadbent commands magnificently, and still quite humorously, as he delivers this intensity, without ever raising his voice, in each comment that alludes to a tremendous will to see his achievement to come to life properly. Broadbent so effortlessly delivers the comedy in each scene, while still maintaining the needs of Gilbert as almost a man to be feared by those helping to create his vision. Broadbent makes us see each part of the creative process through his portrayal of Gilbert, whose all his actions are of that of one sort, yet within the frame of existence another This is as Broadbent makes it just a natural part of the contrasting whole of a man who internally is funny truly passionate man, encased within the body of a proper Victorian gentlemen in every respect. In very much the same way Broadbent himself delivers an honest and striking portrait of an artist, encased in a most hilarious nearly deadpan comic turn. I loved this performance.

Alternate Best Actor 1999: Heath Ledger in Two Hands

Heath Ledger did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jimmy in Two Hands.

Two Hands is an underrated off-beat crime film, following a young wannabe gangster, who immediately screws up a job for a local gangster.

Well as with any Australian actor who breaks out internationally, there are ought to be an "early" catalogue of their work on their home turf. Unsurprisingly Heath Ledger falls into this group, as the same year he started the beginnings of his international breakout in 10 Things I Hate About You, he appeared here in perhaps overall a more substantial role as Jimmy. The young man trying to make his name through crime is a good starter role for many an actor, however for Ledger this quite a bit different than one might expect. This in that Ledger's work has more in common with a romantic lead than say Ray Liotta in Goodfellas, which actually makes for a rather intriguing off-beat turn for this type of story. It also allows for Ledger to utilize his substantial charm. This is something I mentioned in A Knight's Tale, however where it was weaponized by him in a way there, here it is realized within a sort of haplessness of the youth of the character. Ledger is wholly winning in this regard bringing such an likable eagerness even in the earliest scenes as the man attempts to make an impression with the local crime boss Pando (Bryan Brown). Ledger speaks of this desire though with an innocence that crafts such a likability for Jimmy, as we can see only the sights for a successful life rather any notion of becoming a true violent criminal or anything of that ilk.

Ledger's terrific by showing just as much interest in Jimmy in meeting up with the hopeful photographer Alex (Rose Byrne). This in bringing though a similar enthusiasm that has that same naivety in a way that very much accentuates the hopeful youth of the young man. Ledger exudes that beautifully here in portraying very much Jimmy as a young man with so many chances for the future, though perhaps not exactly thinking of the best way to achieve that. This as fortunes almost instantly shift for Jimmy, as he bungles his first job for Pando by losing 10,000 dollars, due to leaving the cash when he thought he had a potential chance to meet up with Alex early. After the initial intensity of attempting to find the money, having screwed up royally which Ledger depicts quite naturally though there is initially a little shift. This shift as Jimmy ponders just telling Pando what happened thinking he'd understand. Ledger is downright hilarious in this moment by once again accentuating really just how good natured Jimmy is as a person, and that thinking through this logic makes absolute sense for the young man. The dog eat dog world of the gangster just doesn't make sense to him, and Ledger delivers this as the honest world view of the optimistic young man.

This is even as he is targeted for death for his bungling, he still goes about to still see Alex for a date. This leads to a rather wonderful, and low key scene between Jimmy and Alex where they haven't had a care in the world for the moment as they speak to one another. Their chemistry is absolutely lovely as Ledger again is so charming through portraying this certain shyness in Jimmy as he broaches every moment of the conversation still, and the sheer exuberance as the two seem to find something special in each other. They play off each other perfectly in creating the sense of the mutual attraction in the two, and the understand of the two between each other as they speak of their dreams. Of course such dreams are potentially quite short as the date leads Jimmy right into the hands of Pando and his crew, who plan to kill him, despite Jimmy's pleas of getting the money through running a job. This in which we get two scenes of them dragging into the forest, split through their placement in the film, both which are highlights for Ledger. The first being just a darkly comic bit of brilliance as Ledger delivers Jimmy's attempt at a save through a phone number he doesn't know, with the same sort of attitude of a man attempting to ensure the man at the box office that he does have tickets to the show. Ledger's great in showing that the situation still hasn't fully dawned on Jimmy. When we do see this though, Ledger is incredibly moving in portraying again the strict honesty of Jimmy's pleas befitting a young man who really shouldn't be in the gangster's life.

Jimmy manages to just barely escape that demise in order to hook up with a few other local hoods by robbing a bank in order to get Pando his 10 grand. This whole aspect of the film being pretty terrific as a crime comedy, though never so broad that it breaks the overall tone of the film. Ledger adds to this greatly in just his casual manner as he sits along with his fellow "toughs" as he explains the need and use of a shotgun for a bank robbery. This nothing compared to the robbery itself, which manages to be a downright hilarious, though still tense, sequence. Ledger is surprisingly essential in this through his largely silent, and entirely masked performance. Ledger's body language though throughout the scene is pitch perfect in accentuating Jimmy's inexperience but also the ridiculousness of the less than professional bank robbers. Ledger's pitch perfect in the haplessness both of the entry as even his "proper" use of the shotgun feels a bit artificial. It becomes far greater comedy when one of Jimmy's partner's knocks himself up, leaving Jimmy to juggle more than a few things to make a swift escape. Ledger's inability to hold the shotgun, the money, and drag the other man, is properly labored and wrings out every bit of humor he can from the scene. With that great bit of climactic comedy, we are also given a great bit of dramatic climax as Jimmy brings the money to Pando, while also closing their relationship by brandishing a gun before leaving. Ledger has again two fantastic nearly non-verbal moments, first his threat to Pando where his face just bears the distress of the betrayal of the whole life and the anguish now presented towards Pando as threat, rather than fear within Jimmy. Ledger only topping that though with his expression leaving the place with just this sincere sense of relief in his expression fitting a man whose lifted a great burden of both his debt, but also of a life he never belonged within. This is a terrific performance by Heath Ledger as he manages the film's tone effortlessly, creating just an immensely likable lead we want to see succeed within the story of this atypical film. It's a proper winning turn from Ledger in every sense, showing that while all definitely appreciated his talent at the end of his all too short career, it was evident right from the start.

Alternate Best Actor 1999: Ralph Fiennes in Sunshine

Ralph Fiennes did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Ignatz Sonnenschein, Adam Sors and Ivan Sors in Sunshine.

Sunshine is an effective enough film, though rather repetitive even if that is part of the film's intention, following three generations of a Hungarian Jewish family.

Ralph Fiennes is an actor I hold in a fairly high regard. He is though an actor who I feel is at his best when he is stretching himself in some way. Whether that is mining the depths of madness in Spider, bringing to life a disturbing real evil in Schindler's List, or his two brilliant largely comic turns of In Bruges and The Grand Budapest Hotel. In those performances Fiennes is more than sort of the generalized European leading man, which is not how he started, however it is how he gained some notoriety through his turn in The English Patient. Now, as the more expected role Fiennes is far from an underwhelming actor, he's good in "Patient", but it isn't the type of work that I consider to be Fiennes at his best. Of course, Sunshine does fall into the latter group, however the change here being he plays not one European romantic lead, but three. Here playing the three generations of men of a Jewish family that is slowly ingratiating itself into the Hungarian culture, potentially by losing their own heritage for the sake of upward mobility.

The first man Ignatz Sonnenschein is introduced to us initially as a humble romantic. Fiennes as to be expected does smoulder more than finely in his portrayal of the man wishing his romance with his cousin Valerie Sonnenschein (Jennifer Ehle). Fiennes portraying largely a modest charm of the man whose romance seems to be his greatest concern initially. There is a certain detachment through the film's approach within these scenes that are bridges through the narration of the grandson of Ignatz, also provided by Fiennes, that takes upon an observational tone that leaves the transitions of the man rather swift. This is as we witness quickly the man finding success within the Hungarian world by slowly giving up on his own family's life as a Jewish family. Fiennes portrays this initially with the earnestness of a need of a man just attempting to make headway in a world that he believes is impossible to overcome otherwise. This leaves the man first to change his last name, but this process continues as he begins to fully support the Hungarian political life despite its questionable morality.

We then witness the turn of the man as he becomes more intense and bitter, as his family questions his support for the emperor. Fiennes is effective in crafting that bitterness with that trademark intensity of his. The film's approach leaves him a limited range though as we see the parts of his transformation rather than the whole, until we are led with the ailing, angry man, we haven't really felt the changes just the end of it. It's fine work, but the limits are obvious. Well we then recent as we meet Ignatz's son we move to his son Adam, also played by Fiennes. Adam begins in a stronger position in the Hungarian society than Ignatz did, as a soon to be championship fencer. Again we see basically a reset with Fiennes as the humble, more charming man. Fiennes is indeed that once again however there isn't some great distance in character. He doesn't play it exactly the same, however the nature of the roles leaves Fiennes in a very similar part. This as we see the same trajectory as he becomes more confident through his successes, and in turn more intense in his moments of trepidation.

The major change is the man completely eliminates his history by converting to Catholicism, but this is done not as cold ambition, rather more as this lack of concern. Adam's story though faces a different tragedy as his intensity realizes itself as the fascist movement takes over and he, and his son, are sent to a concentration camp. It is here that Fiennes certainly does excel in the moment of portraying the adamant refusal to deny his stature, and that slowly crumbling physical will as the prison guards slowly torture him to death. This leaves his son Ivan, now played by Fiennes, to lead the film. This begins powerfully enough as we see a different gear in the grieving Ivan trying to explain the death of his father, where Fiennes effectively shows the anguish that penetrates his entire being, with a striking pain as he is unable to verbalize what happened. Again though the nature of the narrative switches from the humble broken man quickly to the revenge seeking policeman. Again Fiennes hits the gear as to be expected however it does feel very much the same. This final man being particularly limited as we see him just go from angry police man fighting against former killer of Jews, then against the Soviets who lashes against after he sees their oppressive ways. There is an intimacy lost here, and not on Fiennes but as the film examines it as this circular process. This circular process that is very much realized in Fiennes's work. This being we see the humble man, the confident man gaining status, the intense man fighting for or against some political upheaval, the lustful man in a forbidden romance, and then finally his end. Ivan having the least tragic end as he returns to his early humble ways attempting to once again regain his lost heritage. The sameness is not a criticism against Fiennes, as this is intended in the narrative and Fiennes does not portray man as exactly the same however every apple fittingly does not fall from the tree. This of course being already that romantic leading turn that I don't believe is Fiennes at his best, however here you have it three times over. Three good performances mind you, but only just that, which don't add up to some greater achievement in the end.

Alternate Best Actor 1999: Nicolas Cage in Bringing Out the Dead

Nicolas Cage did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Frank Pierce in Bringing Out the Dead.

Bringing Out The Dead is kind of the middle ground for Martin Scorsese's middle of the night in NY films, between the largely comic After Hours and the very dark Taxi Driver, here in a mix following a paramedic's long nights. I found it to be a largely effective film, if especially off-beat almost set to to be "lesser" Scorsese, however I'd probably say it's his 3rd best film from his 90's output.

As much as this may be the third part of a midnight trilogy for Scorsese, it is part of a far longer list of films from writer Paul Schrader who basically specializes in film's about men on a razor's edge. It is only natural then for Nicolas Cage to portray one of his written protagonists, specializing in men on an extreme himself, although this film and performance is perhaps bit different than one may expected from only hearing the general synopsis. This is particularly within the early scenes of the film where we come to know of his paramedic, Frank Pierce's experience within his strange world of very long nights. Cage's performance in about the first two thirds of the film is rather subdued, especially for Cage, though quite effective in establishing the state of his character. Now this is of course in a physical sense where one can become a bit fatigued themselves by just looking at Cage who is able to emphasize the insomniac state of the man. This with his worn eyes, his retiring physical presence, and his whole face just wearing too many nights within it. Frank is spent, and this is obvious from seeing Cage in the first frame of the film. Of course the nature of how he is in this state isn't just because he's tired, it is something deeper, something rather spiritual.

Cage for the first half of the film almost portrays the part as though Frank is a priest with some sort of faith self-examination. This is in his moments of staring into the eyes of the dead woman he failed to save, but also in his way of approaching the various people he helps. These people in a range of smelly drunks, self-mutilating crazies, drug addicts and just dying people. Frank speaks of seeing the spirits of the dying and Cage narrates with a contemplative calm. A man trying to decipher his existence while also being haunted by it all the same. In his moments of the man on the job Cage initially carefully administers a zen like conviction who is earnest in his attempts to help others even if exasperated by them. Cage balances well though within this approach the appropriate tone for the film. This as much as he creates that sense of exhaustion, and that haunted quality, there is also a sense of the every day nature of his job. This humor within his lighter calls of a man who has been doing it for a long time and has been able to have this casual demeanor in very strange, yet not particularly intense situations. In way this leads towards a detachment at times, befitting a man who when threatened to lose his job encourages his boss to fire him, as though it would be a sweet release.

Cage's performance exists well within playing off actually whoever it is that Frank is interacting against specifically. There are the more humorous beats that he emphasizes with that more casual almost sarcasm of sorts when interacting with his three "partners" of such extreme personalities themselves or the less dangerous calls he falls on. In these Cage plays well as strangely enough the straight man, despite Frank's peculiar state, though by showing this man on his wavelength that creates a certain comedy in his ease with such disparate personalities. I especially love his "are you serious" reactions to Tom Sizemore's especially tightly wound and violent paramedic. On the other side though is his relationship with the drug addict daughter of a man he "saved", really went into a vegetative state, Mary, (Patricia Arquette). Here Cage dials into these scenes particularly effective in trying to provide solace to the woman, while in his reactions conveying the way that Frank himself is finding solace within his interactions with her. These moments of calm within his otherwise haggard state. Of course this is a bit different though with his relationship with her father, who he envisions wants to die rather than stay in his state. This Cage garners a clever intensity though again of this sort of spiritual entrancement and guilt as he sees the dead man "speaking" to him. Cage largely, and effectively downplays this part into this subdued state of the troubled insomniac. The amount of sort of "Cage unleashed" that one expects from any given Cage turn, is limited to the scene of Frank on his deepest end, compelled by a bit of drug use and a bad trip of sorts. Cage thrives with this madness however he uses it selectively, however effectively though as these moments of release in Frank as side effects from specific extremes that push him that little more off the brink. This film doesn't have as concise of trajectory as many of these types of film, as his sort final act is something he's been toying with the whole time anyways, and is less of leap. His major change really otherwise is getting a decent night of sleep. Cage's performance works within the confines and within anchoring the film. It's a compelling turn within a more subdued approach to the man on an edge narrative.

Alternate Best Actor 1999: Anthony Hopkins in Titus

Anthony Hopkins did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Titus Andronicus in Titus.

Titus joins the ranks of other 90's Shakespeare adaptations in their attempts to "modernize" the bard through one method or another. Although most it doesn't tackle what is regarded as one of Shakespeare's great tragedies, but rather one of his more forgotten works about a violent roman general reaping that which he sows.

Although the film may not have what is considered one of the best Shakespearean texts, it does feature one of the great British actors, who always seem as though they best deliver at least one Shakespearean turn of note on film. Now the film itself is pretty messy in perhaps an admirable attempt to capture the camp insanity of the text that many have argued was Shakespeare writing a purposeful parody of violent tragedies. Director Julie Taymor seems to throw everything at the wall regarding the film's visual aesthetic which is quite frankly ridiculous. She's similarly less concise in the direction of the actors who are little inconsistent between the wrong and the right way of handling Shakespeare. The wrong way is trying to sound "hip"...I guess, by doing the Baz Lurhmann style of yelling every line or inflecting it with absolutely no emotion. I do say wrong way, because unless you grant meaning to the words you fail them, and really the best way to modernize them is to bring forth the emotion in a way that is universal, rather than treating it like a foreign language you failing to pantomime quite brutally. Thankfully the majority do take the later approach including, one actor with unquestionably the right approach is the seasoned Hopkins, who unsurprisingly has a great command of the bard's words.

Hopkins's work in a way is an interesting anchor within the madness of the film, in that he seems the most tangible, even as the rather unwieldy tragic "hero". This is as his initially appearance is befitting to the great actor's presence as he appears as the war hero, making a recent conquer while dispensing a bit of "justice" among those he has conquered. Hopkins wields his presence in his establishment of Titus surely as this force of not only war but of will. A man who commands more than respect in the way Hopkins brandishes himself. Hopkins in a way properly establishes himself as the poor Shakespearean hero to be destroyed as he presents this idea of power with ease and once again the grace of the general. This with that calm command that creates the force of will that is his Titus, even as the man defers any ambition to the chosen emperor of the foppish Saturninus (Alan Cumming). Hopkins, after this grand introduction, is fairly quiet initially as he initially attempts to fall in line as the new emperor requests his daughter be his bride. Hopkins only presenting a loyal man to a fault. This as Titus kills his own son after that son attempts to prevent this union favoring Bassianus's younger son.

Hopkins even in that act presents a man who distributes violence more of a form of what he perceives as a swift justice than an emotional act, even against his own kin. This as Hopkins effectively emphasizes the man living to his code as a servant of Rome, unfortunately this code favors Titus not, as Saturninus instead marries the vengeful Goth Tamora (Jessica Lange), who along with her lover and surviving son intend to reek havoc upon Titus who had defeated them all in war. This leading to a progression of transgressions upon Titus. First the rape and mutilation of his daughter, the framing and eventual death of two of his sons, and even the removal of one of Titus's hands in a faulty attempt by him to save those sons. These acts likely would destroy the mind of any man, and Hopkins delivers the sheer brunt of the emotion one would expect in a proper decay of the mind type of Shakespearean monologue. This in finally flowing the emotions of the man in a pit of despair at the news, and the sheer pain, both physical regarding the limb loss and mental, in the loss of his family members, as the man is worn down. Hopkins creating the most compelling imagery in the film is his the grief stricken face of a father and betrayed soldier.

Hopkins's work though still seems like we are waiting for something more, as it is up until this point certainly a striking turn, but we might expect more from Hopkins. Of course more we are indeed granted. and the last act is the highlight of Hopkins's work. This as he initially falls upon this daffy quality that Hopkins wonderfully plays as he seems to lose that power of presence, and becomes seemingly an assuming man gripped in madness. Hopkins presenting as a delicate insanity of a man just lost in his grief and lost in his thoughts as though he cannot face reality. Hopkins's right turn though is of course magnificent as once the sons of Tamora let's their guard down, Titus reveals himself as does Hopkins in just a moment of brilliant physical acting. This as when the seemingly harmless mad man Hopkins is a touched hunched over of a man too lost in himself to stand, then when he calls upon for the capture of the man he immediately straightens his posture to once again reveal the dynamic commander. This is taken further though as Titus sees fit to inflict his vengeance upon the two men. Hopkins wearing a striking and vicious intensity showing a man seething in disgust as he flawlessly delivers his Shakespearean monologue with great aplomb. A most worthy note is Hopkins's delivery of Titus's description of his plan to turn the men to "paste" with a calm, Hannibalesque, sophistication that slowly boils towards a quite literal animalistic hate as he makes his intentions well known.

Evidently Hopkins and Taymor disagreed on the exact interpretation of Titus, with both believing in the feigning of initial madness however with Hopkins believing him sane and Taymor still insane, though in different manner. Honestly either interpretation can be accepted as Titus's actions are quite reasoned in their intent, of a sane man, but also so extreme befitting an insane man. The important thing is Hopkins seems to know exactly what he's doing in the climatic feast scene that is easily the best scene of the film, where Titus plays chef serving a delicious meal of meat pies to the Emperor and Tamora. Hopkins is amazing in showing the affable defeated fool seemingly as he delivers the pies to his guests, however with this diabolical glee of a man whose plans are going exactly to plan. This as his meat pies filled with the meat of Tamora's sons. My single favorite moment perhaps being Hopkins's "yummy" reaction towards Tamora as she bites down, that is both hilarious and right in line with presentation of Titus admiring his craft. Obviously not the first time Hopkins has played a literal chef for men, and fittingly Hopkins is right at home in this sequence. The actual reveal of the trick though is a rather difficult scene to play, though exists as it does right in the original text, as we see Titus kill his daughter due to her condition, based on the "advice" of the emperor, before proceedings to reveal the sins of Tamora and dispatching her himself. Hopkins makes it work by certainly embracing the scene, but also in a way both being quite "reasonable" and completely mad. This as in the act of killing the daughter he plays the moment with the strictest gravitas as though it were a religious ceremony as a most carefully planned act by Titus. This is against his act of killing Tamora, where Hopkins portrays as a purely sweeping emotional gesture of someone truly caught up in the moment. This as a combination of abounding joy along with searing anger as delivers the coup d'grace as a man truly living this final act of his life to its fullest. Although I wouldn't call the film a mess, it is certainly messy, however Hopkins's performance manages maneuver itself through both the scattershot ideas of the direction and the madness of the source material itself, through his work that seems to understand both the substance and lunacy of it. His performance both furnishing the needed gravity for any Shakespearean performance, but with a sense of fun needed for the work that is Titus Andronicus.

Alternate Best Actor 1999

 And the Nominees Were Not:

Anthony Hopkins in Titus

Heath Ledger in Two Hands

Nicolas Cage in Bringing Out the Dead

Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut

Jim Broadbent in Topsy-Turvy

And a review Of:

Ralph Fiennes in Sunshine 

Alternate Best Actor 1999: Results

5. Brad Pitt in Fight Club-Brad Pitt gives a good enough performance that is charismatic enough although not to the level the film suggests his character should be.

Best Scene: "Hit me as hard as you can"

4. Edward Norton in Fight Club- Norton, in the less showy role of the two leads of the film, gives the more consistent performance effectively portraying his character's strange journey through the film.

Best Scene: The Narrator tries to go to the police.

3. Forest Whitaker in Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai- Whitaker performance is all about creating the style of the samurai which he handles wonderfully well. 

Best Scene: Ghost Dog takes down the gangsters.

2. Guy Pearce in Ravenous- Pearce is very effective by being the sane man among the insanity.

Best Scene: Captain Boyd sees his new commanding officer.

1. Jim Carrey in Man on the Moon- Jim Carrey proves himself a master mimic as he becomes Andy Kaufman and every character he played.

Best Scene: Andy's first time doing the foreigner. 

Overall Rank:

1. Richard Farnsworth in The Straight Story
2. Bob Hoskins in Felicia's Journey
   
3. Jim Carrey in Man on the Moon
4. Jim Broadbent in Topsy-Turvy
5. Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense
6. Russell Crowe in The Insider
7. Guy Pearce in Ravenous
8. Forest Whitaker in Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai
9. Heath Ledger in Two Hands
10. Anthony Hopkins in Titus
11. Nicolas Cage in Bringing Out the Dead 
12. Edward Norton in Fight Club
13. Tom Hanks in The Green Mile
14. Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense
15. Ron Livingston in Office Space
16. Al Pacino in The Insider
17. Mel Gibson in Payback
18. Terence Stamp in The Limey  
19. Om Puri in East is East 
20. Denzel Washington in The Hurricane
21. Ralph Fiennes in Sunshine 
22. Brad Pitt in Fight Club
23. Eddie Murphy Bowfinger
24. Jeremy Northam in The Winslow Boy
25. Kevin Spacey in America Beauty
26. Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut 
27. Allan Corduner in Topsy-Turvy
28. Brendan Fraser in The Mummy
29. Tim Allen in Galaxy Quest
30. Ralph Fiennes in The End of the Affair
31. Keanu Reeves in The Matrix
32. John Cusack in Being John Malkovich
33. Johnny Depp in Sleepy Hollow
34. Eddie Murphy in Life
35. George Clooney in Three Kings
36. Heath Ledger in 10 Things I Hate About You 
37. Matthew Broderick in Election 
38. Jake Gyllenhaal in October Sky 
39. William Eadie in Ratcatcher
40. Eli Marienthal in The Iron Giant
41. Rupert Everett in An Ideal Husband 
42. Nigel Hawthorne in The Winslow Boy 
43. Al Pacino in Any Given Sunday
44. Mark Wahlberg in Three Kings
45. John Leguizamo in Summer of Sam
46. Ben Foster in Liberty Heights
47. Joe Breen in Angela's Ashes
48. Ciaran Owens in Angela's Ashes
49. Michael Legge in Angela's Ashes
50. Adrien Brody in Summer of Sam
51. Ben Stiller in Mystery Men 
52. Clint Eastwood in True Crime
53. Adrien Brody in Liberty Heights
54. Steve Martin Bowfinger
55. Robin Williams in Jakob the Liar
56. Billy Crystal in Analyze This
57. Robert De Niro in Analyze This
58. Tom Hanks in Toy Story 2
59. Tim Allen in Toy Story 2
60. Sean Penn in Sweet and Lowdown
61. Hugh Grant in Notting Hill 
62. Ethan Hawke in Snow Falling on Cedars
63. Jeremy Theobald in Following
64. Philip Seymour Hoffman in Flawless
65. Pierce Brosnan in The World is Not Enough
66. Martin Lawrence in Life
67. Matt Damon in The Talented Mr. Ripley
68. Johnny Depp in The Ninth Gate
69. Willem Dafoe in The Boondock Saints 
70. Robert De Niro in Flawless 
71. Alex Haw in Following
72. Jude Law in eXistenZ
73. Arnold Schwarzenegger in End of Days
74. Joseph Gordon-Levitt 10 Things I Hate About You
75. Martin Lawrence in Blue Streak
76. Liam Neeson in The Phantom Menace
77. Devon Sawa in Idle Hands
78. Mike Myers in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me
79. Thomas Jane in Deep Blue Sea  
80. Freddie Cunliffe in The War Zone
81. Adam Sandler in Big Daddy
82. Steve Martin in The Out of Towners
83. Sean Patrick Flanery in Simply Irresistible
84. Tobey Maguire in The Cider House Rules 
85. James Van Der Beek in Varsity Blues
86. Norman Reedus in The Boondock Saints
87. Sean Patrick Flanery in The Boondock Saints
88. Jake Lloyd in The Phantom Menace

Next Year: 2000 lead

Alternate Best Actor 1999: Edward Norton and Brad Pitt in Fight Club

Edward Norton did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the narrator in Fight Club.

Fight Club is a film with an intense fan club to say the least, but not one that I subscribe to I'm afraid. I don't hate it, and I liked it well enough on my first viewing, but its style really wore thin on re-watch.

Edward Norton plays the unnamed protagonist of the film who starts out as that of the corporate drone who is a numb man going through his life just buying random things for himself. He only finds anything for himself by releasing himself emotionally at various support groups. Norton's performance is that of a very average sad sack suffering from insomnia and just a general detachment from all things. Norton's pretty good in just being a general downer of an individual showing us a man without a past and without much of a future other then faking some sort of ailment for the most basic expression of emotions possible, which really does not bring him to much of anywhere either, but Norton plants the motivation for the narrator's desire to change.

The narrator's life does not really start changing though until he meets Tyler Durden played by Brad Pitt who also did not receive an Oscar nomination for this film. Well here is the spoiler although I am sure you already know it as it is only kept a better secret than the twist ending to Planet of the Apes which is usually used as its poster these days. Anyway the twist is that Tyler Durden is in fact just a figment of the narrator's imagination who the narrator uses as the visualization for himself when he does everything he has dreamed of doing. This means that Brad Pitt does not play a real person rather just an idea of a man, and that idea is being as the ultimate ideal man who is a rebel who wants to make his own cause.

There is not a single scene with Pitt that does not feature Norton but it is Pitt's character that drives Norton's forward making them co-leads who are constantly intertwined in even more way then you think even when they meet near the beginning of the film. Once they meet the narrator always seems one step behind as Durden seems to be shaping him through his long line of tasks which all start with forcing him to get into a violent confrontation as a more volatile way of breaking the narrator's detachment. Norton's and Pitt's performances are on opposite ends. Where Pitt portrays Durden as a constant who always seems to know exactly what he is doing, Norton portrays the narrator as constantly a step behind who is changing due to each of Durden's actions in one way or another. 

Pitt's performance is all about his charisma, and although I will might be severely beaten for this I find that Pitt certainly has charisma here but not all time greatest macho man ever charisma. Pitt is an actor with that natural star magnetism at least in most of his roles and it is present here although I don't feel he goes the extra mile with this performance as Tyler Durden. Yes he is strong and assured in his performance but he never quite makes Durden the figure of almost godly power. I should note this is only criticism of the highest order in that I think the point of Durden is being perfection a point I don't feel Pitt reaches with this performance. Having said that though Pitt is good in the role well at least the first three fourths of the film.

Although I might be burned with acid for this, I'll say that I actually prefer Norton's performance as the narrator. Norton's performance, until the very end of the film, is a reactionary performance and he is rather effective in portraying the way the narrator changes through the story. Norton has the right sort of amazement as the narrator watches and joins Durden as he starts the titular Fight Club and goes on to commit all sorts of mayhem in his anti-establishment behavior. I like Norton's performance because unlike all the supporting players, who I feel terribly overact in this film, Norton conveys the life changing effects of Durden in a believable, far less bombastic fashion, through the way he brings a life to the narrator that was missing at the beginning of the film.

The end of the film changes things for the worse when it comes to Pitt and I suppose for the better when it comes to Norton. Once the twist is revealed Pitt decides to play Durden as a bit more of the villainous character than necessary. Frankly Pitt just needed to continue how he had gone from the start as Durden meets his end, but instead he ends up overplaying Durden in his concluding appearances. The idea that Durden is just a figment of the narrator's mind is taken too far with Pitt as he starts playing him, well as an imaginary character. I suppose that makes sense, but I think it would have made even more sense that Durden stay as he was before as since there is no reason Durden needed to go the way that Pitt takes him at the end of the film.

Norton on the other hand is very good as the narrator is completely taken aback by the revelation and tries very hard to set make some sort of sense of it all and stops Durden(his)'s plan. Norton sells the twist with his performance which excels in portraying the messed up mental state of the narrator as he has to deal with his own disbelief, and fear of what is going on. Most importantly though in these scenes Norton shows the narrator come into his own as a man. Norton loses that detachment from the beginning, but he as well loses that dreamy amazement in Tyler. Norton instead gives the narrator a will of his own and brings the most genuine emotions in the film as the narrator desperately tries to save his although sorta Tyler's lover Marla (Helena Bonham Carter).

Although Brad Pitt's performance is the much more talked about performance in this film, in achieving the purpose of the character Edward Norton's performance is the stronger work. Pitt is just fine in the film but otherworldly he is not, and he comes close to going off the deep end in a bad way in his final scenes which could have highlights of his performance. Edward Norton does not give an amazing performance either and technically, in terms of the heights he must reach, he has far less of challenge, but Norton does meet his lesser challenge much more thoroughly than Pitt does as Durden. Although his character is the one who changes, Norton gives the consistent performance of the two which shows each detail of the journey of the narrator in a convincing manner.

(For Pitt, let the fire rain down upon me)

(For Norton)

Alternate Best Actor 1999: Guy Pearce in Ravenous

Guy Pearce did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Captain John Boyd in Ravenous.

Ravenous, despite its poor critical reception, is a rather effective and most unusual thriller about cannibalism in a remote army base. I would say I can see how its style of a subtle absurdity, if that makes any sense, could turn some off it though.

Guy Pearce is an actor who recently has been cast in the wrong types of roles. For one thing Pearce should be a leading man, this is not to say he can't do well in a supporting part, but leading is where he excels best. I tend to always like Pearce except in the roles of one dimensional villains such as in The Count of Monte Cristo and in Iron Man 3. To be frank, he just seems out of place as villains as they are just not the parts for him and sincerely hope he and the casting directors stop placing him in such spots as he is a great actor when it comes to just about every other type of role but not a great actor when it comes to playing a villain. A weakness certainly but one that can easily be forgiven when he is so good in just about every other type of role.

Anyway with that rant of sorts over on to Ravenous which places Pearce where he should be in the role of Captain John Boyd who at the beginning of the film is a soldier who has recently been promoted during the Mexican American war although he only proved the hero by proving himself a coward who pretended to be dead which placed him under a sea of corpses. For several minutes in Pearce really does not say much of anything but, as he would show later in, The Proposition as well, he is amazing in portraying a powerful internal angst. The film really leaves it to him to show the guilt and shame in his character and Pearce handles his end flawlessly. Even without saying much of anything we see where Boyd is coming from even before he enters the secluded army base surrounded by the wilderness.

Boyd stays rather quiet and reserved until a strange man (Robert Carlyle) appears at the base, who claims to have survived a cannibalistic massacre although things quickly turn for the worse when it turns out that man was actually the cause of the massacre and wishes to make the men at the base his new meals. Guy Pearce is excellent here by just being a man who is way in over his head and correctly reflecting how someone would be in such a situation. While Carlyle, properly so, brings the absurdity of the situation alive through his insane performance Pearce off sets that very effectively by being the sane man in the situation who honestly shows exactly how most people would be through his performance that believably shows all the fear and disbelief that should be shown.

The cannibalism in this film is not shown to be just an extreme survival method but rather a powerful curse that makes you stronger and creates an irresistible urge for human blood once you've tasted a drop. Due to the Captain's time under his comrades' corpses suffers from the curse already. The curse might sound like a somewhat rather silly prospect, and really it is, but Pearce plays it so effectively actually bringing to life in a believable fashion. Robert Carlyle and Jeffrey Jones portray as both going way off the deep end, but Pearce keeps Boyd as the man who wants to retain his humanity and his performance stays far more reserved. Again though Pearce is a master of the silent internal conflict and portrays Boyd's struggle brilliantly.

Guy Pearce gives a pretty terrific performance here actually that does so much for the film. Captain Boyd is a man of few words and his whole point is not going crazy while others do so it would have been easy for him to have been overshadowed. Pearce though owns the film from beginging to end through his assured and thoughtful performance. He makes Boyd's struggle believable and as a guide for the absurd affair brings a surprising amount of realism with his performance. Due to his approach he really builds up the tension of the later scenes of the film because we do care about Boyd. His reactions to the insanity are always remarkable, a particularly love when Boyd sees his new commanding officer turns out to be the cannibal mystery man. This is a very solid turn by Guy Pearce and a good example of the strength as a leading man.

Alternate Best Actor 1999: Jim Carrey in Man on the Moon

Jim Carrey did not receive an Oscar nomination,despite winning a Golden Globe and being nominated for SAG, for portraying Andy Kaufman in Man on the Moon.

Man on the Moon is an interesting and enjoyable film about comedian Andy Kaufman even if you could assemble a great deal of the film with YouTube clips, and it is more of a film about observing Kaufman's antics rather than getting down to who he really was exactly.

Jim Carrey can't seem to catch a break when it comes to the Academy even though he has ventured out from his comfort zone. The reason perhaps though is his most notable films outside of this zone still tend to be funny in some way or another. They might not be broad comedies but perhaps they just are not serious enough for the liking of the Academy for them to be able to accept Jim Carrey as an actor. It seems a shame in that the academy's lineup of 1999 and his recognition in the precursors should have allowed for Carrey to be among the nominees. 99 though is tricky a year for lead actor with the vast differences in the leading lineups presented so it is hard to see if Carrey was knocked out by a Sean Penn which would have been a real shame, or if he was knocked out by Richard Farnsworth which is another story.

Jim Carrey in his standup comedian days was a noted mimic which certainly comes into play here as Andy Kaufman. He not only must imitate Kaufman but he must go to a whole other level by imitating people that Andy Kaufman imitated in the way Kaufman did it. Carrey is simply a master here and if it were not for Carrey very distinct face you would think Kaufman did fake his death just to come back for the film. The funny part is Carrey compensates even with his face though keeping that Andy Kaufman look throughout the entire film. Carrey's voice is as well spot, well not just Kaufman's voice but every voice that Kaufman does is a flawless triumph by Carrey. Carrey who is usually off the wall in his body languages brings it back to reflect that rigid stiff manner of Kaufman as well. Jim Carrey just is Andy Kaufman in this film.

Carrey's work is not a comedic imitation though and he is steadfast in not acting like Kaufman but being Andy Kaufman here right down the line. Milos Foreman's direction puts us not in the mind Kaufman nor as one of his unsuspecting audience members, but rather as a semi-informed party. Yes we know of the pranks and tricks but we don't always know their full extent always, or when something even is a trick. Due to this the film and Carrey make Kaufman a man who seems to always be performing to at least some degree. There are extremely brief moments where we seem to see the true Kaufman only for a moment. These are excellent very short moments in Carrey's performance, but pivotal in creating a fuller portrait of Andy Kaufman as a person.

One example of the real Kaufman is when he has just performed as the foreigner, and his future agent George Shapiro approaches him. Carrey keeps Kaufman performing as the role as the foreigner until Kaufman notices the card. In just a short little glimpse we see just a man who sees a big break. This is a purely honest Andy. Carrey only keeps him completely honest one only for a moment though as Kaufman seems to playing a game again the very next scene. There are few other times, mostly involving Kaufman's girlfriend, and they are all superbly handled by Carrey. The reason is Carrey does show that there is a man behind the endless act, a man with some very normal dreams actually, but a man who chooses to play his games.

For most of the film it is Kaufman do his various types of performances and Carrey excels in each by showing Kaufman excel in each style of humor. There is just the straight forward funny scenes which Carrey is quite at home with. His early act as the foreigner is a perfect bit in Carrey's hands as he goes through the whole awkward part of the foreigner's terrible imitations, to his terrific imitation of Elvis to the hilarious punchline of once again being foreigner. Carrey brings us all the comedic promise by being very entertaining and enjoyable always in Kaufman's style. He never loses the magic of the act of the original act by Kaufman breathing the life into which it deserves. Carrey though continues to be just as convincing though when Kaufman starts to go even further with his brand of humor.

Carrey, just as Kaufman did, let's us decide whether we want to find his antics as the boorish Tony Clifton, also brilliantly imitated by Carrey, or just the random awkward behavior Kaufman does purposefully just to drum up a reaction especially when he becomes a wrestling heel who fights women. Carrey does not apologize in these scenes but with a keen eye of a proper observer you can see the comedic performance. Carrey is the unrepentant jerk, but as well as the man who is winking to the audience in a most peculiar way. Whether it is truly funny comes down to frankly what particularly thing Kaufman is doing as some of his anti-humor worked and some of it I'm sure he found it personally quite side splitting. Carrey replicates the unforgiving nature of Kaufman's brand of humor beautifully even when it gets quite ugly technically speaking.

Even as his antics become less appealing there is a sweet side to Kaufman behind which are displayed at his funeral and at Kaufman's big show at Carnegie hall. These two scenes Carrey makes Kaufman the man he dreamed to be which is a "song and dance man". Carrey brings such a life to these scenes even if that is quite ironic considering one of these scenes is after Kaufman's death. Carrey suggests a happiness lacking in the darker stunts played by Kaufman and honestly portrays Kaufman as a man who wishes to make other smiles. Both scenes work wonderfully because of how Carrey is able to convey a warmth while being entertaining as Andy finally leaves out his dreams. This is a great performance by Jim Carrey as he so fully inhabits every aspect of Kaufman's very complex personality. I would remark though that this could have have ranked among the all time great performances if the film dared just a little more. This is not a slight against Carrey he goes as far with the role as he possibly could in this film, I would like to have seen Carrey tackle what exactly made Kaufman the way he was though. 

Alternate Best Actor 1999: Forest Whitaker in Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai

Forest Whitaker did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Ghost Dog in Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai is an interesting and enjoyable enough film about a mysterious hit man, who follows the code of the samurai, who finds himself the target of the mafia he works for.

Forest Whitaker certainly is not the first man you think of when you think of samurai or even a modern samurai, but Whitaker could not be more comfortable in the role of the stoic man who takes pride in the ideas found in a book that outlines the purpose of the samurai. Whitaker's performance is that of finding a consistent tone and sticking with it through the film. This is the nature of the character who is very firm in his belief of following the code of the Samurai to the letter, he is not one of those atypical ones played by Toshiro Mifune. Whitaker plays Ghost Dog who does not just talk about being a samurai he walks the walks right down to an undying loyalty to his retainer even if the retainer does not deserve it.

Whitaker gives a fully physical performance in his portrayal of Ghost Dog as there is a certain way he moves and walks that is very telling of his character. The samurai can be seen in his movements and Whitaker is quite effective in showing Ghost Dog as a man so utterly devoted to his ideals that he is one with them. There is such grace in his performance in every movement. There is not a wrong step he is always the samurai in every movement. Whitaker makes this an interesting performance just to watch, and he is especially good in the pivotal action scene late in the film. The way he uses his gun is not that of an action hero, or even gangster. Whitaker makes the movements that of artist at work much like a samurai with his sword. 

In his scenes of non-violence Whitaker gives a very unassuming performance that works well as he makes Ghost Dog just a man of quiet reflection. Whitaker has an innate likability as an actor to begin, but he is particularly splendid here in his portrayal of Ghost Dog who might have strange morals but morals that he does stick to. Whitaker stays with his character's nature the whole film through and this easily could have made him seem an uninteresting character but Whitaker makes it work. Whitaker brings to life the devotion of Ghost Dog to life in a gentle and even believable fashion. Whitaker makes it simple by being entirely genuine with the part. He makes the nature of Ghost Dog something very honest in the film.

Ghost Dog certainly is a most unusual film lead by a most unusual hero with a most unusual casting. Forest Whitaker does not seem strange in the part in the slightest though he makes it his own. This is a performance about the creation of the character and his creation of Ghost Dog is an endearing and strangely fascinating sort. Every action take by the Ghost Dog is realized by Whitaker's assured performance and even the final actions of Ghost Dog, which could have seemed completely absurd and frankly they are completely absurd, but Whitaker makes it work because he makes Ghost Dog a philosophy such a part of him. Whitaker makes him the samurai in every other way, from his manner in violence to his thoughts on every day things, therefore Ghost Dog would even have to stay with the fatal fault of the samurai code.