Best Actor 1971: Topol in Fiddler on the Roof

Topol received his only Oscar nomination to date for portraying Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof.

Fiddler on the Roof is a musical that tells the story of Tevye the poor Jewish milkman and the marriages of his daughters that go further and further away from Jewish tradition. Fiddler on the Roof has some good moments and songs, but it goes on for a little too long.

Fiddler on the Roof is a musical, and certianly old fashioned in many ways, one way being the very obvious acting that often goes with a musical. After all it is pretty hard to break into song in any subtle fashion. Throughout the film there are several overacted performances, or underacted performances. I must say the overacted performances tend to work better for the musical, rather than some of the dull underacted ones. Topol portrays the center of all of these performances.

Tevye is a character that is hard to not portray in at least partially flamboyant fashion. After all he is a character who directly talks to God (the camera) in many scenes. Topol actually handles these particularly well. He is quite convincing in his character's constant questioning, telling or asking God about what is happening to him currently. Topol does in fact make this aspect of the film and Tevye's character aspect pretty natural.

Topol actually handles all the more flamboyant parts of Tevye well. Topol conveys well just the distinct enjoyment, and his distinct jovial attitude Tevye takes toward life. He really throws the right energy into the role that is perfect for Tevye, and do to the fact that he instantly sets up this manner of the character he actually makes breaking out into song for the character pretty natural, well as natural as it can be anyways.

Topol of course sings the songs well enough, but that really does not matter precisely, what I care more about is indeed how they perform the song. He always throws either the right heart or energy into his performances of the songs. I think "If I were a rich man" shows this quality the best, he just completely throws himself into the performance, which is terrific.

I won't say there is a lot of subtle moments in his performance, but he does show more of Tevye than just external colorfulness of the character. He does develop a core of the character showing his character's honest love for his family, sadness for the way the world treats him, and his reluctance to lose the Jewish tradition. It is not a lot but Topol makes sure it is there, and does weave it along with the more flamboyancy of the character. Overall Topol gives the best performance in the film because it appropriately expresses the usual aspects of a musical performance well, without being an excessively over the top performance.

Best Actor 1971

And the Nominees Were:

Peter Finch in Sunday Bloody Sunday

Walter Matthau in Kotch

Gene Hackman in The French Connection

George C. Scott in The Hospital

Topol in Fiddler on the Roof

Best Actor 1980: Results

5. Jack Lemmon in Tribute- Lemmon's whole performance seems like Oscar baiting at its worst. It is hammy all the way, which might be okay if it worked, but it does not.

4. Robert Duvall in The Great Santini- I genuinely liked Duvall portrait of the abusive Bull Meechum. He created an interesting family dynamic through his performance, and never turned his character into a one dimensional figure which it easily could have been.

3. Peter O'Toole in The Stunt Man- I actually upped O'Toole rating because I thought about my main criticism, that I wanted more of him, which is hardly a criticism. His performance is pretty much a supporting one, and such is an extremely effective one. 

2. Robert De Niro in Raging Bull- De Niro performance is quite a remarkable achievement. He creates a fascinating complex portrait of a man who at heart is simple thug. He takes this thug though a realizes a complete human being, who is made by De Niro to be both frighteningly effective in his exterior anger and jealousy, and subtly honest in Lamotta's hidden sensitivity and vulnerability.

1. John Hurt in The Elephant Man- I can easily see the philosophy behind giving Hurt the win here. He is by far the most pleasant of the characters here, which is funny since it shows how low the other characters are since Merrick is such a nice man despite being given such a hindering deformity. Also Hurt's performance is brilliant in how much emotion he conveys through only his eyes and his voice, and also how honestly human he is as John Merrick.

Deserving Performances:
Donald Sutherland in Ordinary People

Best Actor 1980: Robert De Niro in Raging Bull

Robert De Niro won his second Oscar from his fourth nomination for portraying Jake Lamotta in Raging Bull.

Raging Bull tells the story of the degradation of professional boxer Jake Lamotta.

Here is a performance that I really do not need to say anything about that really has not already been said. It certainly a heavily praised performance. So perhaps I should examine this particular performance by how one could attempt to criticize the performance.

The main criticism of the performance, from the few instances I have seen of it criticize it generally state that it is a one note performance. Well this certainly could be misinterpreted as one note, but it is an incredibly complex performance. The other criticisms stem usually from the performance being not all sympathetic, this again is exactly as Lamotta should be portrayed. De Niro actually refuses to actually ever make him a charming guy, leaving him as the unintelligent, low life he should be portrayed as. I still though would not say he is entirely unsympathetic, but he only ever gains sympathy by being such a pathetic character.

So yes I disagree with the criticism, even though for awhile I never rated De Niro as one of my favorite winners. This time watching it though his performance really has grown on me, even more so, since I still believed it to be great. Watching this time around though I really began to notice the subtle, introverted aspects De Niro managed to weave with the exterior facade of Lamotta that he always presents often quite loudly.

Lamotta is presented as De Niro as certainly an angry man, constantly filled with jealousy. De Niro shows this as an anger that has developed with Lamotta his entire life, something that he really cannot lose. He presents it really as a defense mechanism for Lamotta to usually hide his own insecurities. The rapid fire, sometimes almost unexpected way he breaks out into his angry fits is especially well handled by De Niro, showing as almost an animalistic tendency.

De Niro really shows these tendencies well in the boxing scenes. Boxing scenes usually are not really moments to allow for great acting. One really generally will not notice if the person is believable as a boxer, it only really is noticeable if they are not believable. De Niro is not only overwhelming believable in the boxing scenes, but more importantly it shows the nature of Lamotta. De Niro's has the full force of an animal in his boxing scenes, and properly conveys both the pleasure and the power that he has inside of the ring. The one place where Lamotta really can be in full command, and unleash his full emotional force.

It is interesting to note that De Niro is a domineering presence throughout the film, despite not really being charming or charismatic. De Niro though has the right ability to be interesting, very interesting, despite portraying the uncharismatic Lamotta. I think De Niro is particularly strong in his moments with Lamotta wife Vicki. It is strong acting by De Niro, in that I did not doubt his ability to pick her up, because of his certian presence, despite lacking an innate charm. It is interesting relationship, but De Niro conveys his uncharismatic sway that he does have over her at times entirely convincing.

To me the best part of De Niro's performance is when he actually does show the sensitivity Lamotta has, which he does try to hide behind his rage. It is the combination he has between these aspects of Lamotta that is so fascinating which De Niro pulls off magnificently. De Niro always has the right undercurrent of the sensitivity and a certian nervousness of Lamotta underneath his angry exterior.

His jealous fits over his wife, are shown through De Niro his inability to ever really think she could really be completely devoted to him. Even more interesting though is his sensitivity over his boxing achievement and ability. De Niro earnestly shows Lamotta want to achieve greatness, and how he becomes truly disheartened from his set backs, such as when he cries like a baby after throwing the fight. That scene could have been easily all wrong, but De Niro really show the true nature of Lamotta in that scene.

De Niro exceeds well in every aspect of Lamotta, fully realizing the man, finding depth always even when it seems like there is very little of it in the man. De Niro does not make Lamotta's slow descent a physical one, but also a mental and psychological one. He shows that Lamotta slowly becomes less and less able in his abilities as a boxer, but also grows even more desperate, and even more sensitive creating eventually his biggest jealous rages, and his loss of his title.

It is incredible to see De Niro at the end of the film. He no longer is a champ, or at all a special man. He has lost any talent he once had, but still attempts to keep his time in the sun through his terrible comedy routines. This complete loss of everything he ever had, is striking because De Niro slowly brought Lamotta to his end. It interesting to see though that he does show that has Lamotta has learned a little, a very little do to his free fall from the top. Overall De Niro is an intense performance as well as subtle and complex performance that is completely deserving of its reputation it has received.

Best Actor 1980: John Hurt in The Elephant Man

John Hurt received his second Oscar nomination for portraying John Merrick the titular character of The Elephant Man.

The Elephant man is the surprisingly touching story of a deformed man's journey to find human dignity in the 19th century.

John Hurt's performance as John Merrick is just about the pinnacle of the minimalistic acting. Hurt technically has many hindrances to give an effective performance. For example he basically cannot use his face, since it is almost entirely covered up with make up. He also cannot use his body really to do anything more than suggest the movements of the Merrick's disability.

I will say that the make up, and Hurt's manner as  Merrick made me never ever think I was really seeing an actor, but rather just the man himself. The way he walks and moves as Merrick always seem entirely natural, he never seemed like an actor ever doing any of this but just the authentic man himself. He never once overacts with a single mannerism which he could have easily. Although it must be said as well, that make up is incredible, and should have won a special award. Hurt though wears the make up in the right way, and does not let it do the performance for him.

The only assets Hurt really has at completely at his disposal overall, is his eyes and his voice. Hurt's eyes really are quite special here, because they always show the human, and humane quality of Merrick, which works to great effect. He is always able to convey the sad state of Merrick, but never as an entirely sad man. He display with only his eyes his fear of others early on, but also later he expresses the character's honest love and humanity especially well.  I believe his moment near the end of the film where he looks around in the theater, we see only through Hurt's eyes Merrick's true wonderment and happiness in that scene.

Equally special is Hurt's voice as Merrick. He is hindered as well in this aspect due to an imperfect mouth, and bronchitis, but Hurt gives Merrick and tender quiet voice from which he speaks. It is incredibly well used in the film as at first he struggles to speak words that seem meaningless to him. As he grows more comfortable with his surroundings he finally lets his voice out in a clear and meaningful fashion as he quotes his favorite passage from the bible. A striking scene and I think most of the credit, should come to Hurt subtle and moving delivery.

Hurt uses his eyes and his voice well throughout the film, even though still he remains a very withdrawn character, barring two scenes. One where he screams in horror from seeing himself, and another where he lashes out telling everyone that he is a man not an animal. Both well handled by Hurt, but I do believe his best moments, are his quiet tender, and heartbreaking moments. One scene in particular I think is his best, and most moving scene. It is when a theater actress Madge Kendal (Anne Bancroft) comes to visit him. It is a small, but moving scene as Merrick recites Shakespeare to her, and she recites back to him. It is a wonderful moment, and Hurt is perfectly honest, and loving in this moment, showing the real man behind his disfigurement.

Best Actor 1980: Robert Duvall in The Great Santini

Robert Duvall received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Lieutenant Colonel Bull Meechum in The Great Santini.

The Great Santini is an interesting and effective portrait of a family with a domineering and abusive father, at least for awhile it peters out at the end, also it has a sub plot involving a black local being harassed by racist whites which seems like it came from another movie.

Duvall portrays the father of a family Bull Meechum a hot shot, gung-ho, marine fighter pilot, who treats his family just like he would treat soldiers under his command. It the early moments or any scenes where he is around other Marines, Duvall is quite hilarious with how over the top of a character Meechum is. The character is over the top, but Duvall is a good enough actor though to be able to portray the flamboyant Meechum without ever over acting. Quite a challenge but Duvall pulls it off with ease and humor.

Meechum is a character that could have been portrayed incredibly one dimensional, since the way the character acts is suppose to be sort of a one dimensional meat head, and he could have been easily played that one, or as a one dimensional villain due to his abusive nature toward his family. Duvall never portrays the character either way. I think in particular the abusive nature of the character is well portrayed by Duvall.

Duvall could have easily been just hammering in the abuse, or always showing Meechum as ready to do it constantly. It could have become a performance only on the surface, but Duvall carefully shows that there's much more to Bull Meechum's abuse, than only anger. Duvall carefully shows that this is just the only way Meechum has really learned how to deal with his family, and does not really have the ability to show them love. I think it is interesting because much of his cruelty comes from his belief that he is doing his family a service to make them better people. Duvall shows it as a systematic process, to make them a stronger group.

It would have been easy to show Meechum as having no love for his family, but Duvall subtly shows small instances of love Bull has for his family even when he is acting quite not so. Duvall shows that Meechum does have a limit for himself, and can sense when he has gone to far. Duvall shows this but never says this since Bull would never actually admit it. He does show also that he tries to give his children a good life, and can even be charming in some scenes such as when he first shows off the house to his children. These little charming moments, Duvall realistically mixes them in with the angry ones incredibly.

Duvall possibly shines best though in portraying Bull's specific relationship with his son Ben (Micheal O'Keefe). Bull pressures his son the most, and fights with him the most as well. It is sometimes an intense relationship, and Duvall is especially domineering, and forceful. Also in a moment where Ben finally beats him at basketball Bull is quite the sore loser and attempts to get an emotional reaction from his son anyway he can. A terrific scene of Duvall's, because he is just a completely real honest jerk, no movie acting about, making the scene a lot more effective than if he tried to make Bull some sort of villain rather than a cruel actual human being.

Even better moments are his quiet ones where he does show a restrained fatherly love for his son. Duvall never really indicates it directly but shows it there, and he naturally mixes in a warmness with a coldness that is incredible. His personal best moment though may certainly be a moment where he finds out he is wrong and his son is right. It is an outstanding scene for Duvall when Bull sees he is wrong, and his change and reaction is simply amazing. Overall Duvall has many incredible moments in this performance that easily could have been a one note character. Duvall creates a real portrait of a man, and somehow even creates sympathy for a man who is anything but sympathetic.

Best Actor 1980: Peter O'Toole in The Stunt Man

Peter O'Toole received his sixth Oscar nomination for portraying film director Eli Cross in The Stunt Man.

The Stunt Man is a story of a man who hides from the police acting as the stunt man to a manipulative domineering director. The film is certainly an interesting effort as well as entertaining at times, but it sort of loses its way in the second half. 

 

It is rather interesting that Timothy Hutton was nominated and won for his clearly leading role in the Supporting role for Ordinary People, yet Peter O'Toole here is really a supporting performance, although a domineering supporting performance. O'Toole's character knows the secret of the stunt man who is hiding from the police, and chooses to exploit him just as he exploits and manipulates the rest of his cast and crew. O'Toole dominates the film here from his first appearance as we only hear an audio comment on a random perspective. O'Toole's voice carries this certain kind of menace to it alone. There is a power to the man on that alone and from it you seem to sense the strength of the man's power and ambition. The ferocity within the man that is unlike anything you'd expect from a sensitive artist, rather he is perhaps some demonic overlord.

O'Toole performance is filled with charisma, honestly one of his most charismatic turns in his post-60's career, as we see the power of the man. O'Toole wields the personality beautifully and is extremely entertaining here. O'Toole has this infectious kind of mischief quality within his performance. He finds this fascinating kind of combination between a brutal darkness and a sense of fun with the material. O'Toole's eyes suggesting the coldest of killers while his delivering suggests something else. There is something within him as he directs his film. A kind of savoring quality in producing the manipulations. I particularly like one moment when his crew is talking about how the film will end up being cut in the end by the studio. Eli Cross though says he knows they will not cut his film, or else he will kill him. O'Toole delivers this line with such insane glee, that is both hilarious and brilliant in showing the intensity of the man's particular ego.

O'Toole said he based his performance on his Lawrence of Arabia director David Lean, and that is certainly interesting in terms of his perspective of the man who made him a star. O'Toole portrayal being that of an unrelenting egotistical dictator. There is though that sense of fun with it that might be in part of sending up his old collaborator. This as O'Toole plays the villain, but quite the entertaining villain in that sense. This as O'Toole performance doesn't quite simplify the director's nature. This as much as he is the terror, and quite the stunning terror in terms of how menacing he is in every word he speaks, even when speaking with just a rather unnerving calm. This as he O'Toole crafts a seeming contradiction in the devotion to his art while also seeming to essentially being a brute in his tactics in service towards his vision.

Eli Cross rules the film set within the film, while O'Toole rules the film itself. This as whenever he is onscreen it comes to life. This as O'Toole brings so much relish in showing the man getting so much out of crafting his vision. This as there is the genuine thrill of it all even beyond his moments of cruel dictatorship. O'Toole is fascinating in the way he really approaches any given scene as he actually treads around a singular note. This as he wields the darkness of the character. There are the moments where he speaks as though he's just having fun in messing with his actors, his crew and his stuntman. O'Toole creates a terrific enigma in this. This as he'll shade the moments of fun with a strict killer's intent suddenly within his face. O'Toole is wonderful by playing with every expectation. His delivery is particularly fascinating as his vocal adjustments is masterclass in how a slight change in emphasis makes a man seem a mad genius one moment and a hideous monster the next. O'Toole is utterly unpredictable here and it is beautiful. Although I wish this performance was in the film more, because whenever O'Toole is onscreen it works, that cannot be held against O'Toole who is great here and runs away with a truly great supporting turn. 

Best Actor 1980: Jack Lemmon in Tribute

Jack Lemmon received his seventh Oscar nomination for portraying Scottie Templeton in Tribute.

Tribute is an awful film about an estranged father and son finding each other again. It tries to be a character study, but it had nothing interesting to say. It tries to pull your heart strings, going at extreme manipulative lengths to do this, and fails. Also none of this is helped by a horrendous, and I mean horrendous performance by Robby Benson as Scottie's son Jud Templeton. The film was already hard to sit through, but Benson made it really unbearable.

Scottie Templeton is some character you know, oh he is one crazy character. He drinks, smokes, acts wacky, lusts after all sorts of women, constantly makes movie quotes, once was  a screen writer, now he is a Broadway press agent, has an estranged son with his divorced wife, oh and did I mention he is dying. Oh no, not Scottie. Now if you have not noticed I am being a little sarcastic, because I frankly could not stand this over written, obnoxious, Oscar baiting of the worst type, character.

Lemmon has played many times before and after this character these high energy, but on the edge characters.  He also has played these characters much much better before and after this performance. Apparently this is a reprise for Lemmon of his stage role as Scottie, and really he is overly theatrical in this performance. He does his full on Jack Lemmon routine this time around, with a lot of overacting really, although I will say he puts a lot of energy into his performance.

But energy used for what, for nothing in my book. He uses it for an overly obnoxious performance, that gets old after about the first scene. Lemmon goes throughout the performance to get either an emotion, or a laugh out of the audience which becomes very, very tiresome. I'll give him a little credit for trying, heck he even dons a chicken suit to get something out of the audience, but I will not give him credit for succeeding because he doesn't, it is obnoxious obvious ACTING acting of the worst type.

Lemmon's performance is just a comic routine that goes nowhere, and certainly does not create any laughs, but it becomes from time to time dramatic, usually in him showing his sudden burst of grief, which again feels like him saying look I laugh, I cry, give me an award. I'll grant that Lemmon does not get any help in creating any effective or emotional scene since Robby Benson is so bad, and their father son relationship is suppose to be key to the film. Lemmon though even if he had a better actor playing his son, it would not stop Lemmon's overly flamboyant performance from becoming tiresome. Overall this is one of Lemmon's weakest efforts, certainly his weakest Oscar nomination. Lemmon's unique mannerisms, and style can be effective, but not here, certainly not here.

Best Actor 1980

And the Nominees Were:

Peter O'Toole in The Stunt Man

Robert Duvall in The Great Santini

Robert De Niro in Raging Bull

John Hurt in The Elephant Man

Jack Lemmon in Tribute

Best Actor 1961: Results

5. Charles Boyer in Fanny- Boyer is fine enough but his role is too small and simple for him to accomplish all that much.

4. Spencer Tracy in Judgment At Nuremberg- Tracy gives a quietly affecting portrayal of a man quietly coming to grips with a terrible situation. 

3. Maximilian Schell in Judgment At Nuremberg- Schell's performance is a triumph of so powerfully presenting on the wrong side of an issue.

2. Paul Newman in The Hustler- An absolutely terrific performance, where Newman really creates a fascinating original character in Fast Eddie Felson. Newman never goes the easy way with his character, always going for instead a complex and creative character.

1. Stuart Whitman in The Mark- This one was extremely close for me, and much harder to choose than I expected it to be, before I watched the Mark. Whitman though completely threw me off with his extremely powerful complex performance of a deeply troubled man trying to change his life. I will say I do not think Whitman is better Newman, they are both equally great, but the nature of the award is choosing one, and for the moment I will choose Whitman. This is a year though where I am sure my choice could easily go back forth, because both create such memorable and powerful portraits of two incredibly unique characters.

Deserving Performances:
Open to Suggestions.

Best Actor 1961: Paul Newman in The Hustler

Paul Newman received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Fast Eddie Felson in The Hustler.

The Hustler is a very interesting film that shows the underworld of sorts that the pool hustler lives in.

Fast Eddie first begins in the film with his mentor Charlie (Myron McCormick) in a quick hustle at a small bar. In this short early scene, Newman is good at putting the act of the hustle, and shows instantly that Fast Eddie is a pretty slick costumer who knows his trade. I really like this early scene. I like how he at first shows Eddie as the over reactive kid as he creates the condition for the hustle, than leads up to just his smile before he pulls the trick is perfect. That smile shows Eddie knows exactly what he is doing and Newman uses his trademark charisma to amplify Eddie joy of the hustle to perfect effect.

Eddie though goes to play pool with the ultimate pool player Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason), for a prolonged night of gambling and playing. Newman's performance in this scene is excellent, because he starts out as the fully charismatic Newman who is eager to play against the great Fats. Newman perfectly displays his eagerness and passion he puts into this ultimate game and hustle. What is truly great about this scene though is his slow degradation over the night, and day of playing. Newman carefully drains himself of his charisma, and slowly loses his control over the game and himself into he basically becomes an emotional and physical mess until he loses the final game.

After he loses the hustle in the end Fast Eddie really falls flat, and Newman shows a loss in charisma which properly connects with Eddie's complete loss in confidence. Eddie down on his luck meets also a woman Sarah (Piper Laurie) who never has really had any luck. This relationship is pivotal to the film, and it is an interesting complex one. It is interesting because it is not a big lover affair, but rather a meeting of two troubled souls that is not actually always warm. Newman though and Laurie find the right charisma not of a loving relationship, but one that does have connection even if very cold at times.

Newman is strong in these scenes because he really shows that Eddie is not at all a perfect guy, in fact a very much troubled man. He is properly cold with Laurie, and his anger is well founded suggesting that Eddie really is not  a stable man, and that Hustling attempts to bring himself a respect of sorts. Now equally fantastic though is the love he does show to Laurie's Sarah. Newman projects this love, in the right the right almost cold and a somewhat resistant fashion that is always completely natural.

Eddie has a rough path to being himself up again, that is tortured. It is interesting because Newman shows Eddie's attempts than failures not as something that just happens but weaknesses in his personality. Eddie though learns from each of his failures, but Newman carefully displays that he does not learn everything or enough each time. For example his quiet talk with Laurie after being beaten for hustling, is a quiet poignant moment by Newman, but astutely portrayed because he still shows Eddie to not be entirely aware of himself.

Eddie's final tragic failure leads himself back to play Minnesota Fats once again. This is a spectacular scene. It is a quick change but an effective and believable one that Eddie has found his ground and confidence, not of true understanding himself, but brought about by passionate hatred and sadness. Now this is not really said, but I feel Newman does without fault show this change in Eddie. His final scene is outstanding as he finally does have control over himself, and over the pool table. This top he wins the hustle, and this was what the film was leading to, and Newman came to this conclusion brilliantly. Overall a very strong performance from Newman that creates a very interesting and incredibly memorable character.

Best Actor 1961: Charles Boyer in Fanny

Charles Boyer received his fourth and final Oscar nomination for portraying Cesar in Fanny.

Fanny is an odd one, because it seems like it should be a musical but it isn't. I mean colorful locale, a rather simple story with various colorful characters, and Maurice Chevalier, one would think that would equal to a musical, but it is not, even though apparently it was on stage.

I guess the Academy did not value many lead performances from this year since Maximilian Schell was really supporting, as is Charles Boyer in Fanny, especially in the first half of the film. Cesar is the father of the young man Marius (Horst Buchholz) who impregnates Fanny (Leslie Caron), but hops on a ship to get adventure in his life. Fanny to not be disgraced marries another older man Panisse (Maurice Chevalier).

Boyer's Cesar is one of the colorful characters, a nice bar owner, who loves his son, even though he does get very much disappointed by some of his decisions. Boyer is nice and colorful, enough, and is good at portraying an over the top character without being too over the top. Boyer early on is likable enough, but I really do not think he would stick out all that well, if not for the fact that I was always looking for him.

Boyer really does not do all that much, but show love for his son I guess, and and act happy or surprised I guess, and occasionally saddened as the situation involving his son changes. Cesar always wants to do the right thing, always even if that means stopping his son from breaking up the marriage between Panisse and Fanny. I suppose he is properly strict, and saddened by his son, but still it never is anything all that special, or anything that really needs to be noted.

Overall Boyer's performance really fulfills his role as well as it probably could be filled, but the role just demands far too little from him. He needs to be nice, somewhat charming, and also a good figure in the film, and he does all of these well enough, but the film gives him no time to do anything more than this. Boyer is perfectly fine throughout his performance I do believe that, but even for a supporting performance it is a very limited character.

Best Actor 1961: Spencer Tracy in Judgment At Nuremberg

Spencer Tracy received his eighth nomination for portraying Judge Dan Haywood in Judgment at Nuremberg.

Judge Judge Dan Haywood is an American Judge who is set as the chief justice of the tribunal who sits to judge the Judges of the Nazi regime. Tracy is the actual lead of the film, although he does not get to do all that pointing and yelling that co-nominee Schell gets to do (you can watch Inherit the Wind if you want to see Tracy do that) instead Tracy gives a quieter performance as the presiding Judge.

The film follows him through his time in the trial, and his path reaching basically to his verdict. It is rather interesting because most of the performances have the biggest moments inside the courtroom but Tracy is almost entirely reactive in the courtroom sequences. Tracy's performance is very minute in a lot of these moments though on subsequent rewatches it becomes all the more evident that what Tracy is doing in his performance is showing the way the judge is slowly coming to his final speech. And early on you see a man who is more so than an observer, sometimes frustrated by the hostility in the court, and at other moments the sense of the extreme nature of the horror he must preside over seems to weigh on him. 

Tracy's more active moments come outside of the courtroom. He is very reactive even then. His performance though I think is effective in terms of showing two sides of a man, one being a kind of tourist and the other being a man taking in the weight of the experience of Nazi Germany. His performance does balance this with slightly humorous moments, such as his quiet frustration when being called grandpa by a young German woman, with also the sense of understanding of it all that slowly seems to weigh more on him as the film proceeds. 

So what does his character come to, well he comes to that the men are guilty of their horrible crimes. He says it in a verdict strongly depicted by Tracy, and then reassured once again by Tracy directly to the repentant of Judge Ernest Janning (Burt Lancaster). Tracy does have the right forcefulness in showing the character's belief in justice, but this really just is what occurs at the end. On-rewatch these scenes have only become more powerful. The verdict scene is excellent work from Tracy where you do see the ideal Tracy where he says the words as fact, and in this case the facts have such tremendous power to them. The other being his moment of indignation is calm yet so piercing as he directly reprimands the judge for doing something he should've known was wrong. 

On-rewatch this is one of Tracy's better performances and one that works well within the expectations of the film. Tracy's performance is supposed to be this kind of bedrock foundational idea of someone who believes in the law and must try to comprehend this situation as best he can. He does so in a way that has a natural humanity in it, and for much of it is a man slightly lost in trying to find a way to figure out what all this madness contains. His realization is a calm one by Tracy, but in the end also a very potent and essential one for the film. 

Best Actor 1961: Maximilian Schell in Judgment At Nuremberg

Maximilian Schell won an Oscar from his first nomination for portraying defense lawyer Hans Rolfe in Judgment At Nuremberg.

This This may seem a bit of a strange win in that Schell was only in a few films before his win here and was hardly really a well-known actor at the time. It seems even odder that he defeated his veteran actor co-star Spencer Tracy. Additionally his role of Hans Rolfe is a firmly supporting one, and not the actual lead which is Spencer Tracy. Now perhaps his win is not that odd though just look at the acting winners, the academy that year had no interest in rewarding veterans even long overdue ones like Montgomery Clift for this film in the Supporting Actor category for this same film, and they really just wanted to award newcomers, since all winners were first time nominees.

Another reason that helped him win is although his role is supporting, it is a very juicy role with still a good amount of screen time even if really supporting. Hans Rolfe is a very passionate lawyer who fights to find the accused Judge Ernest Janning (Burt Lancaster) innocent on the charges of crimes committed against humanity due to his work for the Nazis. Rolfe bases his case that they were just acting within the law of their country, therefore did not do something technically wrong.

Rolfe to illustrate his points make many passionate speeches before the court. Schell excels in all these moments and does realize the want for German respect for Rolfe very well. His speeches are thrilling because Schell infuses them with great command and energy. Schell is very charismatic in his performance and does control the screen whenever he is speaking. It could be easy for the viewer to shrug off all of his points that make excuses for the horrendous crimes of the Nazis, but Schell avoids this because he just simply states Rolfe's views exceedingly well.

Now does that mean I was convinced by his points, no, but Schell's performance allows for a thoughtful discussion because of his earnest portrayal as Rolfe. Now Rolfe has many scenes where he must show how someone was "justly" convicted because they did fit into guilty of Nazi laws. If these scenes break apart the witnesses of the Nazis or victims of them. Schell is exceptional again, in his cold demeanor, and it is realistic in his calculative method of finding what he wants. Schell essentially plays the part of the old Nazi judge in using the laws in place to dismantle a witness and Schell is brutally effective in these moments and succeeds in showing how the man can achieve a guilty verdict, however, as it was in an unjust system. 

It is hard to say Schell is given a few scenes that show the true nature of his character. He is given a total of three scenes outside the courtroom. Two he speaks to Lancaster's character and shows his respect for him, and claims he did not like doing what he had to do in the courtroom. Schell is given little dialogue, and I really find he suggests this for the German respect side of this character's interpretation. I think one other scene actually in court further supports this side, and that is his face when he must react to the concentration camp footage. Schell does show quite well show that Rolfe really was very emotionally affected by the footage. We see then honesty in the earliest scenes of essentially apologizing for his actions in a more private moment, and the man's hope for any respect for Germany is sincere even if these methods are so extreme.

But really with all this, on reflection, this is a great performance, because it is honestly a performance I never forget after watching the film. And it is a performance, alongside Clift's heartbreaking performance, that brings me back to watching the film, or at least parts of the film. One being just that he is just so magnetic to watch, and if that isn't a great performance, what is? Schell makes every courtroom scene compelling with his presence as he is the powerful showman but also the passionate advocate. His final scene of condemning the whole world's actions in being complicit with the Nazis is an amazing bit of performance with how he accentuates every word in the speech in his indictment. Even if you don't agree with Rolfe, Schell forces you to see his points presented as cogently as possible and makes him an effortlessly captivating figure every moment he's onscreen. One should always admit when you're wrong, and I was, this isn't a good performance it is a great one. 

Best Actor 1961: Stuart Whitman in The Mark

Stuart Whitman received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Jim Fontaine/Fuller in The Mark.

The Mark is a rather difficult film to track down, so I was actually glad when I found out it is a fairly good film. It must not be well seen film since many quick mentions of the film I have found misidentify the main character as a pedophile. It is true he comes very close to being one, but he stops himself. The film is frank and effective discussion of this topic through a character study. Having watched this and A Patch of Blue I am starting see Guy Green as a talented and very sensitive filmmaker that is quite under appreciated.

The Mark is rather strange in that it is rather obscure despite taking on a very controversial and unusual subject matter for its time which usually gain films a notoriety of some sort. Perhaps it would have been with the original casting Richard Burton in the lead role, but I must say it is perhaps better for the quality of the film itself that Whitman was the one eventually cast. I say this is that Burton is perhaps to individualistic looking, whereas Stuart Whitman could be just about anyone which works very well for the role. He does not look like a sexual deviant, and it really works because of this.

Whitman is an actor I will admit, I have actually seen films with him in it, like the Longest Day, but I never noticed him in these films. I do not think this was really his fault he just really did not have any parts that would or could create any notoriety, well here he has a very complex and interesting role. Jim Fontaine at the beginning of the film has just been released from prison, with a new name of Jim Fuller and another chance at life. Whitman is really effective early on, as he is clearly off kilter, and very nervous to re-enter society. He shows that he is always trying to be calm, but is a little naturally awkward, as well as it hiding a secret about himself.

Whitman does what is perfect and needed is that he creates sympathy for Fuller here. He shows him to be basically a normal guy who has a sad past, which we don't know yet, but Whitman is able to really create the right sympathy for his character to stop the audience from outright rejecting him later on as more of who he is revealed. Whitman does not overplay his character at all to gain sympathy, and does have an outburst here and there, when people ask too much about his past. Whitman though shows these outbursts as a natural reaction that the character must hide his past, and is just as natural, in his apologies quickly afterward.

The truth of the character is slowly revealed in that he had a troubled sexual past triggered by his relationship with his parents. He is unable to connect with older women, and goes to exceedingly younger women, and eventually girls. These scenes  of his are revealed through sessions with his Psychiatrist effectively portrayed by Rod Steiger, in both in the present and flashbacks with the not all recovered Jim. Whitman effectively shows the differences between Fontaine and Fulller though as he is angry, very confused, overly frustrated in the past, but just as effective showing a very much changed Fuller, even if still strained he shows him to be a now quieter calmer man, with a greater understanding of himself.

Whitman has an incredible challenge to really show this as a serious problem that has developed in his character's psyche over his childhood, but he manages showing that it really was a complex problem for this man. A particular challenge for Whitman is the pivotal scene where his character does almost commit the horrendous act. A challenge for any actor, but Whitman is superb in presenting the sheer unsuitability of the character in this scene, as the thoughts of his character are rushing through his head. It is a scene that could have been completely unwatchable, if Jim was at all portrayed wrongly, but Whitman utterly delivers.

Whitman is just as effective as he works naturally with developing the character's actual growth in understanding other women, and properly develops Jim's romantic relationship with Maria Schell's character and the daughter of her character. The relationship with the daughter is key, because yes there is awkwardness, but Whitman has worked this out not to show Jim as a man who fully understands how to behave, but is doing with earnest his best to create a proper honest relationship with this little girl.

The whole concept of this film and this character really could have been just evil, just disgusting, or just bad, but thanks to Whitman and Guy Green's delicate direction it works. Whitman did make me care for this man throughout his journey, especially when everyone takes him for a complete pedophile at the end and his life falls apart. Whitman performance works because he never portrayed him as just a creep, but actually an honestly disturbed man, who has now changed after much needed help. Whitman's work his subtle, and very effective work that creates an effective honest, complex portrait of this man.

Best Actor 1961

And the Nominees Were:

Paul Newman in The Hustler

Stuart Whitman in The Mark

Maximilian Schell in Judgment At Nuremberg

Spencer Tracy in Judgment At Nuremberg

Charles Boyer in Fanny

 Well here it is the most requested year. I frankly do not know how almost everyone was so interested in this year exactly, but I guess I'll see how it is.

Best Supporting Actor 1952: Results

5. Richard Burton in My Cousin Rachel- Although I thought his performance was effective, but I think part of why this was because of a clear inexperience in his acting that happened to work well for his inexperienced character. That is the only real reason he is at the bottom of my list.

4. Arthur Hunnicutt in The Big Sky- Hunnicutt places fourth mostly because had had the least emotional reaction to his performance out of the nominees. He still was very good, and manged to turn a stock role into a warm and effective performance.

3. Jack Palance in Sudden Fear- An effective performance by Palance which requires him to be both charming, and deceitful. His performance is required for the believability of the film, and since he succeeds he enables the film to actually be realistic for a thriller of course.

2. Anthony Quinn in Viva Zapata!- Quinn brings much needed realism and authenticity to his role, and the film he is in. He gives an effective performance throughout, and although I did not think his conclusive was completely earned in terms of the film's structure I thought his performance in that scene was indeed terrific.

1. Victor McLaglen in The Quiet Man- Topping what is indeed a strong year of supporting actors is Victor McLaglen. I will say this was not easy at all to decide my choice unlike so many a supporting year. I really had a tough choice this year, Palance perhaps had the biggest challenge, Quinn the most realistic perhaps, but McLaglen for me was the most enjoyable. I think he gives an amusing performance. Yes it is over the top in ways, but in a manner completely fitting of his character. A close call, but I will just with the one I enjoy watching the most.

Deserving Performances:
Barry Fitzgerald in The Quiet Man
Stanley Holloway in The Lavender Hill Mob

Best Supporting Actor 1952: Jack Palance in Sudden Fear

Jack Palance received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Lester Blaine in Sudden Fear.

I should say this is a spoiler review since it is needed to really properly describe the performance of Palance. Sudden Fear is an effective thriller about a playwright Myra Hudson (Joan Crawford) who begins to suspect her new husband Lester might have some ill intents for her. It is a good thriller although there is a plot hole in that she never calls the police, but hey in a modern thriller she likely would and it would lead to either the scene with the cops are useless and believe she's just crazy, or the cop would walk in and quickly be killed, but this is a low body count thriller like all older thrillers, and much more effective because of that reason.

Lester Blaine first crosses paths with Myra when she refuses to cast him in her play because he lacks stage presence. Anyways he meets her later, and charms her off her feet basically. This is quite a challenge that Palance must fulfill to make this romance believable. Palance though is actually charming enough in these early scenes to make this aspect of the film believable. He is not charming in say a Clark Gable sense, or more appropriately a Robert Montgomery in Night Must Fall sense, but really an average Joe charm that works well.

Palance is also quite commanding in the beginning of the film. His control he takes over Crawford is made quite believable by both actors. This command is necessary to make the actions of Crawford's character believable suggesting as giving him a great place in her will. I will say Palance does make his control over her properly realistic. I almost felt he was the male lead because of the first half of the film. In the second half of the film though his role does become limiting quite considerably, when the film does almost completely focus on Joan Crawford's character.

Palance though suggests that underneath his charm there is a selfish motive underneath all what he is doing. It turns out that he actually only romanced and married Myra to get her fortune. He intends to, along with his ex-girlfriend Irene Neves. I think Palance did a fairly good job at the beginning of the film hiding Lester's true attentions, but nonetheless subtlety suggesting them at the same time. His revelation is well handled, his whole facade is very believable, and I think he did not make his evil intentions completely obvious at the beginning of the film making it more effective when he did.

Palance at the end of the film is properly chilling when he finally undergoes his plan of action. I liked it that he did not turn Lester into a complete psychopath precisely, but clearly a man who is a bit nervous himself. I liked at the end that he really goes over the edge, and becomes incredibly nervous and frantic at the end in his attempt to fulfill his plan and not get caught. Overall a strong effective performance from Jack Palance.

Best Supporting Actor 1952: Victor McLaglen in The Quiet Man

Victor McLaglen received his second and final Oscar nomination for portraying 'Red' Will Danaher in The Quiet Man.

Well this perfect timing to review this performance on St. Patrick's day, a film all about Ireland. Anyways this is one of my favorite films ever, about  an Irish born, but American ex-boxer Sean Thorton (John Wayne) who runs from his past in America to go back and settle in Ireland in the cottage he was born in.

Victor McLaglen portrays a character certianly in his type that have a large brutish fellow, unlike in his Oscar winning performance in the Informer, where he was a brutish fellow but a modest one as well, this one he is a very loud obnoxious man. Danaher is basically a friend of no one and particularly dislikes the Yank Sean Thorton from the first time he sees him. This comes to quite a problem when Thorton wants to marry his sister Mary Kate (Maureen O'hara), which he objects to quite quickly and quite stubbornly which due to tradition means they cannot even date.

McLaglen is loud most certianly in this role. He always is taking up the screen in more ways than one, which I must say is the perfect style for the role of Danaher. I really think Danaher could have been played all wrong, in that he could have seemed too threatening, and without a comedic edge to the performance, but McLaglen finds precisely the right tone for his performance I think. He certainly is loud, and obnoxious and is properly over asserting, but McLaglen makes his boorish behavior actually fairly effective, and at the same time entertaining. He manages to create a good amount of humor due to some his reactions when he loses about something, or gets insulted in some way.

An interesting part about Danaher is that usually palooka characters like these are generally written incredibly simply. Danaher is a little different in that they actually write in that he himself wishes for love with a local rich widow. Now he makes rather amusing indications of this when he attempts his non too subtle come ons to her. He is in fact tricked because of this desire by locals to allow Sean Thorton and his sister date and marry by making him think that if he does the widow will marry him. On the wedding night of Mary Kate and Sean Thorton though he realizes the trick when the widow rejects him. I think McLaglen was actually quite good because he managed to make me actually a little sorry for Danaher as he pleads, and questions the others what went wrong before he figures out the trick.

Well anyways he denies the married couple the dowry causing marriage trouble between the Thorton's which leads to him and Danaher duking it out in one of the best fights in film. It is not because it is a dramatic fight, but rather because it is a hilarious rousing fight. I think actually even here McLaglen actually does still excel, because he could just fight, but some of his reactions in the fight I find are just gold. The best part of the fight is the end where he and Sean share a cold drink become friends. This would seem like an utterly impossible notion, but McLaglen makes it utterly believable showing his boisterous nature was a bit of a facade all along. Overall a performance a like very much, that could very well have been nothing, and just adds to a film, I already adore.

Best Supporting Actor 1952: Richard Burton in My Cousin Rachel

Richard Burton received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Philip Ashley in My Cousin Rachel.

My Cousin Rachel is an effective film, although somewhat lacking about a young man who falls in love with Rachel the widow of his favorite cousin. He also though is unsure if she did or did not have something to do with his death.

Richard Burton is no question the lead in this film not supporting. He is in a greater percentage of the scenes in this film than he is in some of his lead nominations. He is also the focus of every scene, it is about his character and his perceptions of Rachel (Olivia de Havilland). This was either the first leading performance by Richard Burton or at least his first prominent one. It is quite interesting to see the young Richard Burton with the exuberance of youth, something quite absence from say his final Oscar nomination for Equus.

Philip Ashley is a rather interesting character actually because it is a character where the age of the character matters. The very key part of his character is his age, and his urgency as a youthful young man who really does not want to ever be considered unable to completely understand something or be able to take something because of his youth. Burton's youth and somewhat inexperienced performance actually works quite well for the character of Ashley. Burton does not have a fully comfort on screen yet quite clearly, he never commands as he was able to easily later on in his future performances.

Now this might sound strange praising something technically lacking from the actor, but it work well for Philip who is inexperienced in his understanding of life. Burton lack of command completely compliments the lack of Philip's command in the film. It is strange to say this but a more experienced Burton perhaps would have given a lesser performance. He really shows the mixed passion, and lack of complete understanding well in his performance. You never know what Philip is quite feeling except for brief moments, since Philip himself does not know, and Burton stays properly mixed up in his performance which works incredibly well.

I thought Burton fulfilled his role incredibly well, and made his love of Rachel, and his paranoia around her all work, because of the lack of precision of his performance. Now part of me wants to give a higher rating, but another part wants lower because technically what I like about the performance may be technically Burton's lack of inexperience as a film actor. Well I don't know maybe that is just Burton wanted me to believe. I must say I am not quite sure so I will have to settle for a good, but safe rating for Burton's performance.

Best Supporting Actor 1952: Arthur Hunnicutt in The Big Sky

Arthur Hunnicutt received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Zeb Calloway in The Big Sky. 

The Big Sky is an okay but very standard western about a group of men going a dangerous expedition to trade with Natives.

I must say I expected little of this nomination beforehand. I have watched many performances of character actors, who received an Oscar nomination seemingly for nothing more than their consistent career. I was very happily to see that Arthur Hunnicutt actually gives a pretty good performance. He portrays Zeb Calloway an old fashioned trapper sort of guy. Zeb is actually a pretty smart guy though, more than I expected him to be, who leads and sort of teaches two youthful men on the expedition.

Calloway acts as a guide for the two younger men, and the audience. Hunnicutt makes the knowledge of old Calloway a natural, old timer intelligence, rather effective in the film actually. I really enjoyed his performance, and the rather relaxed fashion he teaches these men the ropes, as well as help them grow as men as well. He really shows the history of the character's knowledge of his field, through just his natural performance. Hunnicutt never really pushes this aspect of the character but it really comes natural through his intelligent, but at the same time simple performance.

This sort of character is sort of common in westerns but really they tend to be dumber than Hunnicutt's character, or at least his portrayal of Calloway. They are usually used as comic relief, and can be rather hokey characters to say the least. I will say the film does use him in the comic respect, but Hunnicutt manages to avoid a lot of the hokiness that usually comes with a character. Yeah he has some comedic aspects but Hunnicutt manages them well enough to be an actual part of the character rather than an artificiality that can be involved with over acting of similar characters like say Chill Wills in the Alamo. Overall Hunnicutt gives a good honest, and warm performance, that I was, pleasantly and thoroughly surprised by.