Thursday, 16 July 2020

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Per Oscarsson in Hunger

Per Oscarsson did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning Cannes and NSFC, for portraying Pontus in Hunger

Hunger depicts a penniless writer wandering the streets of a city.

The nature of the story from the cursory glance suggests that Per Oscarsson's work could be one of that of quiet soul bearing, of a poor man. Well that's not at all the case, in fact if there was a performance I'd compare this to most swiftly would be Charlie Chaplin as the tramp. This is not just as both characters often wander streets in their existence, but rather the entirety of Oscarsson's work carries with it a similar energy. Now this isn't a silent film, nor is this a comedy, Oscarsson's performance though is one where he carries himself in a unique manner that crafts that idea of his Pontus, more than the average homeless man. This is rather Oscarsson's work crafts him as an eccentric within this situation, and in doing so makes this likely a far more captivating experience. This is strongly within Oscarsson's physicality within the role, which is simply wonderful. The way he even walks is with this near directionless. This as though even when he's walking in a straight line, it isn't quite assured fitting for a man who in many ways is aimless, or at least looking for the right path. This is brilliantly built within though his overall demeanor that attempts this type of erudite, as though he is a philosopher within this situation of his. Oscarsson keeping this not quite proper, yet very specifically measured manner. This with his frequent courteous removal of his hat that he uses as essentially a running gag through the frequency, and often questionable use. Oscarsson though presenting within that, even as it is enjoyable, also shows Pontus as in a sort of, well note quite denial, though in part an avoidance of his situation.

Oscarsson's performance I think is essential within the success of the film as without it I think it would be inescapable dourness, however Oscarsson portraying Pontus's methods of trying to exist in the state, adds the right degree of levity, while also informing the audience of his character. This as Oscarsson more than anything, in that energy within his work, presents the fortitude or at the very least the persistence of the man. This as he saunters around the street Oscarsson grants technically the aimlessness of the man at times, but also his desire to try to work things out. This with frequent stops at a pawn shop to try to make a minor bit of money for survival while also attempting to make it as a writer, or perhaps anything else. Oscarsson's movement really does two things. One is he is engaging if not entirely entertaining to watch within these movements. He though does this in a way that succeeds in the second part, which is successfully portray the state of the man as seemingly a fruitless endeavor. Another aspect with this duality is within the way Oscarsson speaks within his performance. Oscarsson is again fantastic in the off-beat yet still genuine way in which he realizes his manner. We are granted the sense of a writer's eccentricity in his moments of pondering to himself, where again he is actively enjoyable in the way he speaks these rambling, while also in these ramblings shows a mind moving towards shambles. Oscarsson making Pontus someone who is enjoyable to be with, while also conveying with it the honest reality of his situation.

Oscarsson carefully plays the moments interacting with others though, again with a sort spry manner in portraying a man as though he is acting as though he is in an entirely fine within his situation. He brings though, even within the kindness, as the film goes on a more hurried delivering, even still with a sense of optimism that crafts the sort of decay of his state. We see this as well in, what again feels a bit Tramp like, is when Pontus romances a wealthier woman in the city, although not all may be as it seems in terms of reality. Oscarsson delivers a charm within his awkwardness. This being in his sly smile, and again a demeanor that is unorthodox in a most engaging way. Again though Oscarsson creates the sense of the presentation against also the struggle the man is going through. There are changes in his expression that alludes to other thoughts as related to his difficulty even as he he speaks the sweet nothings of a proper poet. He never loses the sense of his state, even when he is out of it seemingly within the relationship, even if for a moment. I love that Oscarsson doesn't show this to be a facade as much as coping mechanism. This in portraying that his eagerness isn't false even if technically not entirely true due to the man's struggle.

Even when that potential romantic affair loses itself, due to the limits of the mind, Oscarsson delivers in the moment of a certain rejection the man dealing with it in his particular way, though with a greater sense of his vulnerability. Oscarsson finds honesty within the eccentricity, and manages to grant that levity, while also wholly revealing the soul of the situation. I think what are essential moments within this though are in the titular word of the film. This in Hunger, hunger after all is not something one can really place over on a facade, it is a real, and painful experience. Oscarsson in the moments of his character's struggle, powerfully, and bluntly shows this an aspect in which he cannot talk himself out of the pain essentially. This in a moment where he throws up from eating bad meat, Oscarsson is heartbreaking the moment of just blunt desperation that he portrays in the moment of strict suffering. His words only painted by pain of dealing with yet another hardship. We see the same when he is enjoying a meal again, this in the rush to indulge in the food, we are granted an honesty of his situation. Oscarsson showing in the moments of hunger, that really there's nothing man can do other than accept his situation in the moment. His near final moment of raging at the world, albeit briefly, is so well performed as again the man losing himself into the desperation in this mania, however again Oscarsson presents within a man who is trying so hard to keep it together. This is a brilliant performance by Per Oscarsson. This is as he carries the film in terms of its momentum, but also in crafting such genuine portrait of the man's state. This state of existing both in the present, and while also being lost in his own mind.

71 comments:

Calvin Law said...

He's 100% winning this lineup. Loved this performance and this review made me think about it and have even more admiration for it. Also is it just me or did anyone think he was kind of a cross between 90s Johnny Depp and John Lone in The Last Emperor in this, appearance wise?

Mitchell Murray said...

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is yet another lauded performance I should really check out some time.

Also, there are two things I wanted to ask/bring up; The first is that I went back and looked at the 2016 best actor field - both with your thoughts, Louis, and the reviews I wrote for my own blog. And even after a couple years, my love for that line up is no less ecstatic. This is mainly because we see such an eclectic group of performances that bring out the very best in their films, whether it be the somber drama, the stirring biopic, the old fashioned musical, the off kilter indie or the stage show adaptation. They represent some of the best work from all five actors, each of them more than fulfilling the needs of their roles, and playing to their individual strengths in one way or another. Simply put, the academy really did their job with that field in 2016, and it's a shame they haven't quite matched that feat since.

Secondly, Louis, what would be your thoughts on the voices of Florence Pugh, Sigourney Weaver and Marion Cotillard?

Anonymous said...

Louis: your director and cast for a 90’s version of the Lord of the Rings trilogy?

Bryan L. said...

Mitchell:

He covered Cotillards’ voice in Daniel Craig’s review for Logan Lucky and Weavers in Song Kang-Hos’ for A Taxi Driver.

Michael McCarthy said...

Calvin: I think he bears more resemblance to Jim Caviezel than any other actor I could think of.

Calvin Law said...

Michael: that’s spot on, actually.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Could you possibly add 'despite winning Cannes and NSFC'.

Calvin Law said...

Louis: could Judd Hirsch go up a bit for Ordinary People?

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: Are Collette and Griffiths 5s for you. I'm pleased you enjoyed Muriel's Wedding.

Calvin Law said...

Luke: Yep and they’re my respective wins for 1994 as well for now.

BRAZINTERMA said...

Hey guys (except Louis)! Tell me your Top 10 best supporting actress and lead actress from 1966 ...

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
10º Lila Kendrova - Torn Curtain
9º Vanessa Redgrave - Blow Up
8º Charlotte Rampling - Georgy Girl
7º Claudia Cardinale - The Professionals
6º Susannah York - A Man for All Seasons
5º Wendy Hiller - A Man for All Seasons
4º Michiyo Aratama - The Sword of Doom
3º Machiko Kyô - The Face of Another
2º Sandy Dennis - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
1º Gunnel Lindblom - Hunger

LEAD ACTRESS
10º Millie Perkins - The Shooting
9º Anouk Aimée - A Man and a Woman
8º Joanne Woodward - A Big Hand for the Little Lady
7º Helena Ignez - The Priest and the Girl
6º Anne Wiazemsky - Au Hasard Balthazar
5º Lynn Redgrave - Georgy Girl
4º Jeanne Moreau - Mademoiselle
3º Elizabeth Taylor - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
2º Liv Ullmann - Persona
1º Bibi Andersson - Persona

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Rating and thoughts on Lindblom.

Omar Franini said...

Louis i just finished watching Gett, and i was wandering if you had seen the two previous features from Ronit and Shlomi Elkabetz (To Take a Wife and The Seven Days) who complete the trilogy.

Lucas Saavedra said...

Louis: ratings and thoughts on the rest of the cast, if anyone's worth mentioning?

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Could you check out Mademoiselle with Jeanne Moreau.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: How would you improve Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Also, are you planning on doing a rewatch (possible upgrade for Taylor, and to decide Burton's ranking)?

Mitchell Murray said...

Bryan: Thanks. I'm not sure if I totally agree with Louis about Weaver's voice (If anything, I find her rhythm and way of pronouncing some vowels rather distinct), but to each their own.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Apparently, Screentime Central managed to time one of the nominees for 1929 Best Actor that was believed to be lost (Richard Barthelmess for The Patent Leather Kid). If you happen to find a copy of the film (probably while doing the bonus round for 1929), would you be willing to review his performance?

Anonymous said...

Louis: My mistake, I meant 1928 Best Actor.

Louis Morgan said...

Mitchell:

Pugh - (Powerful with just that perfect balance between overtly feminine and husky.)

Anonymous:

LOTR directed by Ridley Scott (Based on the technical merits of Legend, though a great screenwriting team would be essential):

Frodo: Ewan McGregor
Sam: Philip Seymour Hoffman
Pippin: Tim Roth
Merry: Jared Harris
Aragorn: Sam Neill
Boromir: Timothy Dalton
Gandalf: Max von Sydow
Gimli: Brian Blessed
Legolas: Guy Pearce
Bilbo: Richard Attenborough
Arwen: Connie Nielsen
Elrond: David Bowie
Galadriel: Kristin Scott Thomas
Gollum: Willem Dafoe
Saruman: John Gielgud
Faramir: Stephen Dillane
Denethor: John Hurt
Eowyn: Joanne Whalley
Theoden: Oliver Reed

Calvin:

Slightly.

Luke:

Lindblom - 4(Her performance is essentially one of a vision. This is in we have her work which is that of flirtatious glances, mixed with might just be a generally kindly demeanor. This against the "tryst" scene where she is very effective in assuming both a fantasy and a sort of nightmare of sorts, in as she manages to be both alluring while also attacking at the same time.)

Lucas:

Everyone else is more than fine but don't have much to do.

Anonymous:

I actually say it awhile ago, several years at this point, I just never got around to the review for whatever reason.

Omar:

I have not, and full disclosure I was not aware, it was part of a trilogy.

Tahmeed:

Virginia Woolf for me is a film where now I can randomly discuss objective against subjective film criticism. A term I think is one that can thrown around too quickly, usually by "fanboy" mentality where one will decry "bias" of a review when they are instead stating their legitimate criticisms founded in logic. I bring this up as I think there is a difference between criticizing elements of a film that you don't think work within its attempted narrative against those where you just personally object to in a truly subjective view. For example saying, well "I don't like action movies" in a review of say "Dredd" yet treating it as a objective criticism of the film is dishonest.

I say all that as this is a film in which my dislike is subjective and I have to admit that. Not all of it mind you, as I do think Dennis's performance falls into histrionics in my view, which has nothing to do with direct intent. The direct intent is to make this film of intellectuals who are despicable sparring with one another. I don't care, or enjoy my time with them. Now, again it isn't meant to be "enjoyable" however I dislike them to the extent that I don't find it captivating, or engaging in the sense in which I can like a film even if it is about horrible people. I don't think this is about a failure in Nichols's or particularly Albee's intention, it is rather my particularly subjective reaction to the intention.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: I can totally understand where you're coming from. In spite of my love for Burton, Taylor and Segal (and I still think that what Dennis does works for her part), I've only been able to sit through the entire film twice. However, I still found it to be quite the haunting and compelling experience both times I've watched it, and Burton definitely has a place in my all-time top 20 leading performances.

Matt Mustin said...

Tahmeed: What Dennis does doesn't work for the part actually, and this was proven to me when I saw a production on stage and saw how that character is supposed to be played.

Robert MacFarlane said...

WAOVW is kind of my brand of mean-spirited black comedy. I love it *because* it's viscous and cruel.

Matt Mustin said...

Robert: I agree, I think it's brilliant

Tim said...

who would you cast as John Rambo in a modern First Blood? (with the original ending, so no sequels)
I'd say Jeremy Renner

Calvin Law said...

Louis: thoughts on this scene from Spaceballs? It’s one of my favourites from it https://youtu.be/B9K4N328OI8

Mitchell Murray said...

So on another random note, I re-watched "Lady Bird" on TV recently, and it might've become my favourite of the 2017 best picture crop (Minus "Dunkirk" which I still haven't been able to sit down a watch - Sorry Luke and/or Calvin).

What I really responded to this time around was just how well paced the film is, and how every scene seems to build from the one before. It honestly struck me how much Gerwig and the cast were able to convey, even within the briefest of scenes. Beyond that, I also felt Gerwig showed such conciseness in terms of the stories era/location, and that she balanced both the jubilant and bittersweet aspects of adolescence so adeptly.

Man....it can be a really good feeling when you revisit a film you already loved, and come out of it with even more fondness.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Mitchell: That's something I loved about it! One thing Gerwig knows how to do better than 90% of modern comedy directors is know when exactly to cut from a joke to keep the other elements moving. If Apatow or Feig took notes, their movies would at least stop feeling glacial. (Granted Lady Bird is just as much a drama, but still)

Mitchell Murray said...

Robert: That's another thing about the film I keep forgetting - how much the humour pays off, especially the "Two bad decisions" and "On top" lines.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Mitchell: Chalamet casually talking on his cellphone when picking her up for the prom nearly made me spit out my straw in the theater. Like, she doesn't underline it or bring attention to it, it's just there.

Robert MacFarlane said...

RIP John Lewis. I know we usually only do this sort of thing for entertainment figures, but this one hurts too much not to mention.

Mitchell Murray said...

Rest in peace, John Lewis.

Aidan Pittman said...

R.I.P. John Lewis

Calvin Law said...

RIP John Lewis

RatedRStar said...

RIP John Lewis

Omar Franini said...

Louis: Gett actually works perfectly fine without any knowledge of its predecessors but it’s even more powerful if you’ve seen To Take a Wife (2004), as you can see the emotional cruelty and this passive abuse Elisha has inflicted to Viviane without doing anything “wrong” according to the rabbinical court.
Ronit Elkabetz gives another impressive performance there and is quite different from her more subdued work in Gett.

Louis Morgan said...

Tim:

Renner would be ideal for it.

Calvin:

One of the most hilarious scenes in every single bit, from the obvious, but great, gag of the Jam, and Michael Winslow's "tour de force" of silliness in each sound noise, although his "having trouble with the radar sir" might be my favorite bit of his. The dramatic "Lonestar" from Helmet followed by the camera hit, is just icing on the already delicious cake of the scene.

Omar:

I'll make sure to check it out, though its a testament to the writing then of Gett that I didn't know it was a sequel when watching it.

Matt Mustin said...

I don't like to promote myself in any way here, but I got nominated for an award for a play I was in and I'm only mentioning that because I'm so proud of it.

Louis Morgan said...

Matt:

Congratulations.

Emi Grant said...

Matt: That's actually amazing. Congrats on that, man.

Calvin Law said...

Congrats Matt, that’s dope. What category is the award in, if you don’t mind me inquiring?

Matt Mustin said...

Calvin: Performance in a Supporting Role.

Mitchell Murray said...

Matt: Congrats on that, dude! I hope this will lead to bigger and brighter things for your stage career. And if you don't mind me asking further, what was the play and character?

Matt Mustin said...

It was a character called Hermann in an amazing Canadian play called East of Berlin. But I really didn't want to make this about me, I just wanted to mention it.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Matt: That's incredible, congratulations!

Mitchell Murray said...

Be that as it may, I can speak for everyone here when I say it's great news. Obviously we are all on this blog because we are passionate for film/cinema; I imagine only a few of us, though, are actually involved in the industry itself, be it theatre, screenwriting, what have you...

And a cursory look at the play and it's topic does strike my interest right off the bat. So again, congratulations on the nomination, and good luck in your future pursuits. :)

Aidan Pittman said...

Matt: Congratulations!

Tim said...

Congrats Matt!

Luke Higham said...

Well Done Matt. :)

moviefilm said...

Matt: Congratulations on that.

On the Virginia Wolf issue. What would be the biggest difference between Dennis' portrayal and the one you saw on stage?

Matt Mustin said...

moviefilm: Well, nuance, mostly.

RatedRStar said...

Matt Mustin did not receive an Oscar nomination despite being nominated for an other award for portraying Hermann in East of Berlin.

Congrats!! lol, I remember once having a weird dream that someone on this blog would be reviewed for a performance lol.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: If the Academy had the expanded Best Picture system before 2009, which films from the following years do you reckon could’ve/would’ve made it in?

1999
2001
2007
2008

Louis Morgan said...

Bryan:

As full tens?

1999:

The End of the Affair
Being John Malkovich
The Talented Mr. Ripley
Boys Don't Cry
Magnolia (Passion votes)

2001:

Training Day
Black Hawk Down
Iris
Monster's Ball
Mulholland Drive

2007:

Into the Wild
3:10 Yuma
Eastern Promises
Ratatouille
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

2008:

Doubt
Wall-E
In Bruges
Vicky Christina Barcelona
The Dark Knight

Luke Higham said...

Louis: I'm a little surprised about Topsy-Turvy's omission.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Oh...uh...yeah, sure why not.

I thought you were going to include Topsy-Turvy as well, since it did land some tech nods, and Mike Leigh was riding high off Secrets & Lies at the time. Plus, the films’ about showbiz, which never hurts, though I’d like to hear your reasons.

Bryan L. said...

Then again, with all that said, it should’ve gotten a Best Picture nom in the first place...

Louis Morgan said...

Luke & Bryan:

The reason for the exclusion was that it did not get in at Bafta for best film (Where End of the Affair and Talented Mr. Ripley Did), which would've also seemed a no-brainier, so oddly enough, despite its tech wins, it wasn't *as* supported by the British bloc as one imagine it should've been. Nor did it have SAG ensemble, which also would seem like a *get* for the film, like Being John Malkovich and Magnolia got, which also performed more "above the line" than Topsy Turvy ended up dong. I guess it could've had more votes than Boys Don't Cry, however using modern logic, lead winners tend to get their films into best picture as long as the film has acclaim which that film did.

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: After seeing Oasis, are you even more excited for 2002 Lead.

Calvin Law said...

Luke: most certainly. I have about 8 5’s in my lead lineup right now.

Anonymous said...

Louis, any possibility of Bette Davis going up for What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

GM said...

Calvin: glad you loved the leads in Oasis, both are my wins.

BRAZINTERMA said...

My final bets:
5º Warner
4º Solonitsyn
3º Axberg
2º Pleasence
1º Oscarsson

PS: I hope that in the overall ranking there will be the new winner, if it were Richard Burton I would be very happy.

Luke Higham said...

Brazinterma: Considering the wait between Oscarsson and Warner, I think the latter will be 3rd.

Unless the longer wait is due to a surprise review.

Luke Higham said...

And there's no chance Wallach will lose.

Anonymous said...

Luke, I agree. Also, I don't get this obsession by some readers to want a new winner for every single overall ranking, can't we all just be content with Louis giving our favourite performances the 5 rating and if they happen to get the win, consider it a bonus.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Could you possibly do a re-write of De Niro's review in Taxi Driver.

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: My thoughts exactly.

BRAZINTERMA said...

Luke: Also not that Wallach will lose, but never say "never".

Anonymous: It is not an obsession that I want a new winner, just a desire for a surprise and that's it.

Anonymous said...

Brazinterma, fair enough.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

If anyone could take down Wallach, it would be Nakadai. I seem to recall that they're neck and neck for Louis, and it's his best performance too. Even with that said, I think Wallach will keep his win.