Alternate Best Actor 1950: Alec Guinness in Last Holiday

Alec Guinness did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying George Bird in Last Holiday.

Last Holiday ill follows a man who suddenly discovers he's terminally ill, with only a few weeks left he takes up residence in an expensive hotel.

Alec Guinness is probably one of the actors with the greatest range, in terms of the characters and genres he could successfully perform. This as ability with humor and drama is notable in the ease he has in either material. This perhaps made him then ideal for the role here. This as its description makes one think this is going to be something more akin to Ikiru, however it has a lighter approach than that film, though not without dramatic intention. This as the film opens we meet Guinness's George Bird which Guinness portrays well with that sort of modesty he can as an middle class English any man. This with just a minor affability if a purposeful evasion of an overt charm that would not be befitting of his character. When we meet the character who learns of his diagnosis Guinness's reaction is remarkable in portraying both the sense of disbelief wrapped within a despair in his eyes. Guinness crafting a man really faltering in his existence. This though as Guinness does something essential here in portraying the man who really didn't pay anything of mind has this slight alteration as he speaks to a single task. This to enjoy his final days, however even this Guinness speaks with a hectic lack of certainty. This presenting the man state of modest despair and the whole idea of his holiday being some attempt to stave off his fate in a way. Nonetheless George goes about his path of living it up at a expensive hotel far beyond his means and by chance finds a wardrobe that makes him seemingly appropriate to the expensive lodgings.

The story then teeters on ensemble however Guinness is always the focal point of the man George, whom the other hotel guests become fascinated with through his quiet reserve initially. Again Guinness portraying the man just trying to experience what he can, and initially keeps that modesty of man not quite within his element. Quickly though everyone comes to take to George, or be suspicious of him in some way. In this though George's luck seems to turn around to his needs and George becomes the man of town mainly by existing. Guinness is terrific though in then showing through this sort of reaction that empowers George as people speak to him with a random respect, Guinness presents a man realizing his strength of personality. Guinness has these wonderful little moments where he provides a bit of nuance in these moments. This where Guinness portrays almost a fascination in the moments where things finally seem to be going well for him. This creating a slight detachment of a man who has nothing to lose and in turn acts in a way he never would've before. Guinness provides this specific type of confidence initially. This in the man observes for a moment before reaction and crafts a slight sense of bemusement within it. This in finding a man almost laughing at his changing fortunes just as his fortunes seem to be at their lowest point.

Guinness realizes with such ease this arc of George though as his next phase really is as he goes from confidence through detachment through a true confidence as the man doesn't only become the talk of the hotel, he really becomes the man of the hotel. Guinness is wonderful in presenting then the more overt confidence, this without that moment of bemusement or wonderment. This rather the instant reaction on his part or even the insistence of it. Guinness shows a man taking charge of both himself and his situation. This as George not only seems to help himself but randomly provides guidance to others as well. Guinness portraying with such the natural grace needed to honestly depict this arc in finding this sort of man about town from the meek man we initially met within the film. Although the film then proceeds to end on a darkly ironic note, perhaps too dark as I don't think the film quite has the depth to know what to do with what transpires in the final minutes of the film. Still though it does grant one final scene with Guinness, and it is a moving one. This in simply portraying the sense of appreciation of life in the man as he speaks his last words, just as his the weakness in his voice and haunted eyes also convey the state of the man being at his end. Now part of me I'll admit almost takes this performance for granted as of course Guinness pulls it off, but that is more than anything is a testament to his talent. This in realizing a potentially tricky arc here with just that typical Guinness ease within his performance, and creating another memorable turn from the great actor.

Alternate Best Actor 1950: John Garfield in The Breaking Point

John Garfield did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Harry Morgan in The Breaking Point.

The Breaking Point is another effective adaptation of To Have and Have Not, which follows a charter boat captain being forced into the black market after becoming financially strapped.

This adaptation being closer to the original novel as the nature of the man's situation is not during wartime changing the dynamics a bit of our lead character. John Garfield is an actor I'll admit to having struggled with a bit. Someone who I can sense the talent of more than I often see it, someone I've been waiting for his great performance. Well...this may be what I was waiting for. Garfield's style perhaps came too early, as he was a predecessor of the method actors that became the rage of the 50's. This style though perhaps less fitting to some of the parts found in the studio system. Here though we get a role that is ideal for that approach, and we also seem to have Garfield most within his element. This as we get a sense of the guy's financial difficulties just from the outset in Garfield's performance. This as he speaks with exasperation towards his wife about his woes as a fisherman and his inability seemingly to do anything else. Garfield's work has a quiet quality within the intensity here that is remarkable. This as he grants a sense of the man's years of a failure at this point as he speaks about it. Garfield granting it as much with a feeling of an acceptance of defeat in life more than anything. Although he carefully does create the stakes of likability just in the earnest warmth he brings in his interactions with his wife (Phyllis Thaxter), emphasizing just an honest love essential to where his character goes from this point.

We see though as Harry plies his trade and Garfield here is terrific in creating the sense of desperation in the immediacy of his action and suspicion. This with a sardonic quality he brings towards every word and a bit of suspicion towards his clients. Garfield finding a man whose suffered one defeat after another and is almost expecting just another one around the corner. This to the point of even interacting with the sultry costumer Leona (Patricia Neal), the idea of flirtation Garfield initially puts forth is almost an aggressive dismissive quality. This though is quite articulately performed though in the way Garfield so bluntly speaks Harry's words about how much he likes his wife, the intensity of that suggests so well the undercurrent of interest he does have in the woman. Another misfortune, by the way of a trip to Mexico where a costumer runs from the bill, leads Harry to take a job with a black market dealer, in order to just get out of Mexico. The job though, initially seeming an easy job of transporting illegal immigrants, quickly results in self-defense killing when the lead man tries to kill Harry. Garfield is great in these silent moments here as his eyes instantly capture this killer instinct of a man who formerly had combat experience. It with desperation though still in the moment of the fight, bringing a real visceral quality to the moment, something that typically rare in films from the time. Garfield though here finds the real darkness of the story by presenting within the struggle a real fight for one's life, and not just a typical hero stopping a bad guy.

When coming back from that job though Harry begins to be pulled between multiple forces in life. This including the two women in his life and again Garfield is excellent here in striking up two unique chemistries with Thaxter and Neal separately. This with Thaxter there is just a straight forward sense of affection and even vulnerability in Garfield's performance. This as he speaks of killing the man there's no sardonic edge, just a man revealing his personal sensitivity with an intimate poignancy. This against the moments with Neal where he carries that blunt shield of casual dismay though again within that, particularly in the way he looks at her, a palatable lust even if he barely falls upon it. Garfield's work though excels here leaning on that edge of the work and creates the sense of the way the two worlds seem to be pulling on him. This more overtly found though as his wife, and his partner (Juano Hernandez) pulling him away from more black market jobs, while his desperation and something else pulling him towards it. I think the later is important, and perhaps codes didn't allow the film to completely get it into it, however it is alluded to effectively within Garfield's performance. This being that same lust towards Neal, Garfield portrays a glint of thrill when negotiating and preparing for a job of taking some bank robbers after a robbery. Garfield's performance suggesting the lure of the darkness without being overt about it, yet creating a palatable sense of the urge towards the criminal world. This falling apart within the climax where the robbers truly hijack his boat and murder his partner in the process. Garfield is outstanding in this largely silent work from him, this in being absolutely captivating in building the tension of each moment of the sequence. This in building the man's discontent internally while bringing this incisiveness within his eyes of the man waiting to make his move against the men. This is the best work I've seen from Garfield. This as the role not only seems cued within his presence, but Garfield's work brings to life the distinct darkness within his portrait of a man more willing to commit to the criminal world than he admits. It is the sort of performance of an actor truly coming into his own, even if sadly it was one of his last.

Alternate Best Actor 1950: Vincent Price in The Baron of Arizona

Vincent Price did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying James Reavis in The Baron of Arizona.

The Baron of Arizona follows a con man, attempting through forgery, to own Arizona.

This film comes from Samuel Fuller, who I wouldn't call one of the greatest filmmakers of the period, but was one of the most interesting. This as Fuller tended to tackle characters and subjects outside of the mainstream. This often covering them in a detail or style that too was rarely the approach. Although this doesn't always mean his films were great, they are intriguing to revisit at least on that basis. One of the common features of Fuller's work was he typically didn't cast stars in his leading roles, this leading to leading turns by relative unknowns or by character actors. That is the case here in Vincent Price, who has a bit of a fascinating career where he traded in prestige and through exploitation during his career. While the latter is where he more commonly found leading roles in general, this could be argued as a matching of the pair. This being a prestigious leading role for Price, though fittingly as a less than prestigious character. This as the conman James Reavis who is given an usually close perspective by Fuller, though reduced a bit slightly by a lame framing device with a boring narrator discussing the strange case. What we do get though is Vincent Price in a role that is both in his most famous types, but also not quite that type. This as he plays a dastardly sort, but a different sort in that regard. This as he's not a randomly evil man, but rather a man with a very specific plant to try to swindle a whole nation really. This as we open upon his Reavis fashioning a family lineage, including a girl he intends to marry, who he is creating a false baroness out of for his scheme. Price in a way reducing his typical cinematic deviousness, as just a more cautioned operator, portraying a man who is almost tactically implementing his plan one step at a time.

We see him as he goes about him even sneaking into a monastery in order to try to adjust age old records. Price portraying the good servant as he carefully manipulates an old tomb, though honestly I'm waiting far more for when Price gets founded out and must make an initial mistake. This as we get then what is far more within Price's more delicious style of acting. This when he comes across some random villagers and Price is in his game, showing Reavis in him. This in initially a nice early moment where his expression marks an exasperation in Reavis's unusual way of livelihood. This until he switches towards the overt conman, and we get some nice Price wryness. This in portraying the sort of manipulation in the man as he gets the group of people what he needs to do through just what he says. Price saying it so well with his right sort of mix of temptation with charisma. Honestly I wish the film was more willing to allow his character to be overtly evil as that is when Price is at his best. This as we are mixed in with scenes of him finally marrying the younger woman he setup as the baroness to take over Arizona to con so many people. Although Price isn't bad in these scenes, these oddly have little purpose, even as the film wants some romantic notion of the relationship. A romantic notion we are sadly not granted really within the writing of the film. Price is fine in being more sincere in these moments, but honestly that's not what I'm here for with Price. Thankfully we do get more dastardly Price as the film goes on and eventually leads to a personal trial for Reavis. This is easily Price's best scene, and he's terrific in bringing such a palatable ego in his smug manner as Reavis attempts to boast about the invisible nature of forgery. Price bringing the right lack of shame to every word of a man who loves to state his fraud as a sign of pride. Sadly still the film sticks to humanizing Reavis which I don't actually think serves the story, even if still atypical for the time. Price's best scene of this nature does come as he is about to be hanged, mainly because Price doesn't really change the nature of the part within his performance. This even in his delivery of the words of Reavis through a ragged breath, it is still with a bit of snide disregard and that ego again of a proper con man. It seems Price wishes to really play an affable fiend, sadly the film doesn't quite go along making this a bit of a missed opportunity. Price is good with what he has, but too much of his work is potential of what could have been a greater character study of a true imp.

Alternate Best Actor 1950

And the Nominees Were Not:

Richard Widmark in Night and the City

Alec Guinness in Last Holiday

John Garfield in The Breaking Point

Vincent Price in The Baron of Arizona

Jean Marais in Orpheus

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Results

5. Marcel Iures in Hart's War - Iures gives a fine portrayal of the camp commandant, both the needed cold efficiency and some hints at humanity.

Best Scene: Giving the book.

4. Timothy Spall in All or Nothing - Spall gives a moving portrayal of a man in a constant state of depression that only sinks further.

Best Scene: Breakdown.

3. Brendan Fraser in The Quiet American - Fraser plays off his typical presence brilliantly by being both that and far more.

Best Scene: Final talk with Fowler.

2. Leandro Firmino in City of God - Firmino makes for a striking psychopathic murderer, though balances it with enough nuance in his realization of the character.

Best Scene: Benny's party. 

1. Christopher Plummer in Nicholas Nickleby - Good prediction Calvin. Plummer excels with his Dickens villain here, making the most of the miser, but being surprisingly heartbreaking as well.

Best Scene: Revelation.

Updated Overall 

Next: 1950 lead (throw in any supporting suggestions as well).

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Marcel Iures in Hart's War

Marcel Iures did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Colonel Werner Visser in Hart's War.

Hart's War in simplest terms is a World War II POW film about the murder trial for an African American officer accused of murder. It's a film that tries to cover a whole lot within this conceit, however the ambitious seem beyond the grasp of its director.

Marcel Iures plays the required role of the German camp commandant, and I'll say for the first half of the film this appears to be the fairly typical cold German portrayal. Iures does this in a way I will say is fine. This carrying himself with the calm resolute manner, having a callous glare towards men he is executing for having tried to escape and speaking with moderate venom towards his imprisoned counterpart Col. William McNamara (Bruce Willis). Standard I would say if entirely fine in presenting the opposition with the required type of efficiency, perhaps with a bit less charisma than say an Otto Preminger in Stalag 17, but good. Eventually Iures gets more to do when a series of events leads to one African American pilot being executed by the Germans via framing, and then the man likely responsible for that getting killed. This leading to the other African American office Lt. Scott (Terence Howard) being accused of murder. He is given a proper court martial, where our main character, the wet behind the ears somewhat cowardly law student Thomas Hart (Colin Farrell) is called upon to act as the defense. Although complications begin to occur, this including Colonel Visser offering Hart some help by giving him a court martial manual. This scene is Iures's focal point scene where he reduces his typical manner to portray the moment as though Visser is just one making speaking to another. There is still a certain distance in his overall tone, but Iures does well to accentuate a man of speaking genuine interests in a more casual, as well as more humane manner. It's a good scene for Iures as he effectively differentiates the man from the soldier. This only brief though as we see him reacting to Hart's new abilities to mess with McNamara's plans for the court martial. There though Iures is good though as the manipulator with the smiles of bemusement of seeing his manipulations working. Iures work here in general finds a degree of nuance to present as well an interest in the proceedings that go beyond his manipulations, again alluding to the degree of humanity in the scene with Farrell. Much like the film I don't think it really builds towards something substantial, and is more on the border of something greater. I don't think Iures is able to quite find that greatness within his own work, but it is good performance. He goes beyond a stock villain to find some complexity within the role, even if I wish there was perhaps a bit more.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Christopher Plummer in Nicholas Nickleby

Christopher Plummer did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Ralph Nickleby in Nicholas Nickleby.

Nicholas Nickleby is a fine, if just that, Charles Dickens adaptation about the titular young man coming to age while having to deal with different ills of Victorian England.

I have to say after watching The Man Who Invented Christmas, about Dickens writing a Christmas Carol it got me thinking what a fully fledged portrayal of Scrooge would be like. This as while Plummer played Scrooge in that film, it was a purposefully arch type portrayal, more for the generalized idea of the character, than really getting into the meat of who he was sort of beyond the page, again I believe this was entirely intentional. Thankfully it appears this thought was already realized in this film. Now, Plummer doesn't play Dickens's most famous miser in Ebenezer Scrooge here, but the character of Ralph Nickleby is definitely a classic miser in his own right. Now, as to be expected, Plummer's demeanor and voice couldn't seem a better fit for the world of Dickens already from the outset. He not only fits into the clothes like he was born in them, but Plummer's voice already is a perfect fit for the Victorian style vernacular. Unsurprisingly Plummer makes a striking impression from his first scene where the Nickleby family seeks help from their uncle after the death of their father. Plummer's performance delivering on the wanted sort of cold precision of manner as he speaks every word with a blithe disregard for nearly any sentiment for his father. Plummer presenting a general indifference towards his family's needs and more so the death of his brother. Ralph providing only basic leads for his niece and nephew, the titular Nick (Charlie Hunnam), for financial support. Plummer finds a wonderful balance in this moment though in that there is the slightest hint of warmth in recommending work for his niece, however for his nephew it is with a diabolical grin of a man knowing far more of the appointment than he is letting on.

This is quickly found by Nicholas as his job is at a horrible boarding school. His slight hint of warmth is even found questionable as Ralph subjects his niece to a creepathon in a dinner with a group of older men. Plummer showing that Ralph is perhaps the greatest creep of all as he presents Ralph as man unable to exactly interact with his niece that isn't somewhat questionable. Plummer plays this particularly well in he presents it as almost the man isn't quite aware of his own perhaps lecherous desire. This as he speaks with a calm support and apology to her, yet his eyes speak as though he is living within some sick fantasy. Plummer making for quite the horrible villain, though in the best ways, and quite frankly makes Ebenezer Scrooge look like a nice chap, even before he is reformed. Plummer though excels here in finding variety within the blunt villainy of the character. This as a moment where one of his clients comes to Ralph over his horrible treatment of niece and nephew. Plummer starting the scene with the smug assurance of a man whose always got what he's wanted and everything seemingly has gone his way. He's effortless though in the switch, and properly horrible still in the sheer disbelief when he sense the man has any distaste for his cruel actions. Plummer's face of being taken aback is properly cathartic, but also so effectively shows the nature of the man's state as he is so shaken by any disruption of his financial control. Plummer is just a delicious dastardly fiend here, in just with such confidence portraying the man's cruel nature with such ease. This again though with a delightful nuance for the material, for example finding humor in reacting to the rather grotesque bad boarding school master with a combination of withdrawn disgust hidden by a phony courteousness for a man he wishes to use against his nephew, this in contrast to another moment of so specifically altering his voice to the coldest tone when speaking of his most hated nephew. Plummer is fantastic here in making the most out of any given scene by never taking a single path in revealing Ralph's villainy.

Now as much as Plummer makes for a great miser villain here, I probably wouldn't even be mentioning this performance it were not for the climax of the film. The climax of this film following Nicholas as he uncovers some secret for a final confrontation with Ralph, where all is revealed in a classic novel serial style fashion. This also where he gets sort of his Scrooge moment, this in facing his past, though not through supernatural means but rather just Nicholas revealing an important thing about Ralph's past. Now before even this we do have a certain descent as everything is going against Ralph largely due to his questionable ways. This within just a great moment where we see Ralph alone reacting to his change in fortunes. It is satisfying in the sense of the man losing that smug confidence, but there is something more within his work. Again Plummer's performance grants something more intimate within the miser a real pathos even in the moment of the man facing ruin, a humanity within the pathetic reaction. Although he doesn't make you sympathize with Ralph in the moment, he so artfully elevates the potential archetype through the degree of depth of his portrayal. That is but a warm up for the revelation scene. The revelation being initially of a secret marriage of Ralph's that resulted in a son who was said to be sickly. Plummer's performance is outstanding in this scene, and really earned largely through even that greater nuance within his portrayal of the generally evil character we found in the rest of the film. This as even mentioning the marriage it is with a quiet recognized regret on Plummer's brow, however a greater somberness is revealed as he notes the death of his son as broken hearted father. A broken heart though long ago. As the story goes on though it is revealed the boy had lived for some time, and it is revealed to have been in fact a boy at the bad boarding school who had become best friends with Nicholas. Plummer's face filling with a dread as he grants such palatable emotion in the moment of Ralph recognizing that he had earlier sabotaged his own son to try to get to get Nicholas, having not known he was his son, though in turn perhaps helping to the early demise of the boy. Although this is not the redemption of Scrooge, Plummer is heartbreaking in that sense in revealing the moment of revelation that does create a change in the man. This in revealing the heart of the man only within sorrow. Plummer's work in this scene is astonishing at times as his expression not only shows the sense of regret but also in his eyes, the sense of man whose long held reality is shattering through these words. This with even though a moment of calling back to the potential love for his wife, and son, that is so beautifully performed as Plummer looks upon the boy's bed with a sense of love wrapped within despair. Plummer realizing his own Scrooge like change, though this time not for a man to renew his life but rather gives into his death. Although overall I'd call the film overall as just fine, Plummer goes above and beyond in his performance here. This by creating both a proper Dicksonian villain but also a genuinely tragic fool.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Leandro Firmino in City of God

Leandro Firmino did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Li'l Zé in City of God.

City of God is the excellent film that follows the lives of children as they become young men in a slum.

One of the risks City of God takes is that  director Fernando Meirelles used almost entirely a cast of non-professional actors. I'll say this is always a risk, and often times even when it is successful there can be certain sort of traits of such an ensemble. This even in better ones there can be some very obvious off-moments, or more often sort of a lack of risk taking within the performances. City of God is notable then, in that I wouldn't have guessed this cast, other than the child performers I suppose, were non-professional from the start, and even with the child actors I wouldn't have been surprised if they had prior experience. The film lacks any of those qualities within the cast. Now the film is largely an ensemble, the pseudo lead is Rocket (Alexandre Rodrigues), who we see go from a child to an adult trying to make it as a photographer. His story is very much parallel to the more tumultuous action, where he typically is only an observer of the criminal underworld of the slum. Within the underworld there is a vast array of characters we find, some with little vignettes many with more. The one with the strongest perspective being Li'l Zé, who we first meet as an overly ambitious child criminal. A child criminal who cuts his teeth by committing a robbery and even killing/leading to the deaths of sort of the old guard of wannabe hoods. This switching over to his adult life, in turn switching from the child actor Douglas Silva to Leandro Firmino, in a particularly memorable montage of Li'l's coup de grace's on his victims as he ages into the fierce gang leader who will dictate so much of the story going forward. 

Firmino opens with that image of his face already of a performer you wouldn't guess that this is first film. This in the confidence in a sense of portraying the overt psychopathy in the moment of his smile brimming with glee. This portraying L'il as a man who doesn't shoot for the sake of it, he shoots for the love of it. We find L'il quickly making massive expansion as it jumps into the young adult lives of the central characters, where L'il Zé and his more balanced partner Benny (Phellipe Haagensen), have almost completely taken over the slums in terms of the criminal underworld. Firmino's performance again suggests such a strict confidence that is ideal for L'il as we see him as a man in the criminal world. This both in the ease he brings to the threats of violent L'il will so easily dispense with a human life if he decides he needs to or he for the fun of it, but also through the sense of the man as a boss in the criminal underworld. Firmino speaks with that same ease as he commands one thing another. I particularly love his bravado when he acts more like a king than a gangster when letting someone go, or making a particular grandiose declaration. Firmino brings the right bluster in granting the sense of this delusion of grandeur within L'il Zé who believes himself to be more than just a criminal within the slum, but rather this lord of it whose laws must be obeyed. This in a particularly horrifying scene where Li'l orders the shooting and killing of a few child thieves he feels has broken his orders for the slum. Again Firmino's performance creates a chilling quality in the manner in which Li'l so easily speaks his order, but even more so does it as though he is treating the situation like he is punishing a trespasser not ordering the death of a child. Their unopposed reign leads Benny to expand his horizons while L'il stays the same, and here Firmino excels in showing a different side to the man, in his complete failure to thrive outside of the criminal life. This as we see, by Benny's mocking, his first attempt to try to pick up a woman. Firmino is excellent in the moment by bringing a hint of vulnerability as makes these attempts. This in his eyes suggesting a genuine desire but also important hesitation of a man who really doesn't know what to do, but wants to do. When rejected though he doesn't deal with it, or attempt to better himself, we rather see the worst of L'il again. This in Firmino portraying the man falling upon what he knows in violence and again with the needed visceral edge to the sheer cruelty of the man. This again we a zero sense of remorse within his murders of others in his quest that soon becomes a rivalry about his failures with women as it does his actual criminal enterprise. Even in this downward spiral he effective balances the sides of the man, this in the moments of reminded of his inadequacy with find just the humorless killer, however whenever given the change to prop himself up based on his criminal work, we see such joy within Firmino's work. A man portraying this unearned pride in every moment to the point of loving to pose for pictures as though he is an egotistical celebrity rather than a brutal killer. Firmino's work here is one of the greatest successes of the film's risk regarding its casting. You'd never second guess his work here, as he gives a wholly captivating portrayal of tyrant, though a tyrant of a slum.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Brendan Fraser in The Quiet American

Brendan Fraser did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Alden Pyle in The Quiet American.

I must admit I always liked Brendan Fraser. One of the very the era specific leading men of the late 90's and early 2000's. Now he's an actor who wasn't always in the best roles, in fact many of his roles are quite silly, but I have to admit I liked him even in those often silly roles. Fraser, despite being disparaged by some perhaps for this very reason, I felt really had an old school earnest quality in his presence as an actor. This making him seems perhaps odd, though in fact ideal, casting for one of his strictly dramatic roles in this film. Although overall the film focuses on the British journalist Thomas Fowler (Michael Caine), within Vietnam during the war though while France tried to maintain the power structure there, the real focal point in a way is Brendan Fraser's Pyle who is the titular character, though not the leading character. We open with the film actually finding out Pyle has been murdered, and from there we are then following basically Fowler's relationship with Pyle as we uncover who this "quiet American" is. This though in the initial meeting we see the intelligence of this casting as Fraser could be any ole' Fraser role as Caine's Fowler meets a somewhat silly looking American sticking out like a sore thumb within Vietnam.

Fraser's typical eagerness is found here and is ideal in painting our perspective of Pyle, just as it does Fowler's, as this generally affable if unassuming man. Fraser brings a very low key charm and seeming naivety towards the role early on. This with a believable earnest quality as he speaks to Fowler with sincerity and is surprised to hear a grenade explosion soon afterwards. Fraser creates an easy likability to Pyle even if he seems ill-fitting to his placement within Vietnam, though one seemingly shouldn't be concerned as he claims to be there for medical purposes only. This to the point that early on as Pyle to Fowler's Vietnamese mistress Phuong, one can believe Fowler's initial near lack of reaction as Fraser presents a distinct purity of interest through that specific charm of his. Fraser makes Pyle more than anything seemingly just a perhaps slightly out of his element yet just generally charming fellow who one shouldn't worry too much about. His chemistry with Caine in this is particularly important as he always does greet him with an honest smile as just a genuine friend. There are important moments though that Fraser effectively uses early on to really give us the truth of Pyle earlier though painting in a way that you don't really give him a second thought. This as he speaks to the philosophy of a third force in Vietnam to essentially take power. Fraser delivers these words though of just a school boys sort of interest in a fascinating concept, and doesn't raise any alarms in Fowler, nor the viewer.

The nature of the man reveals itself more after Fowler visits a Vietnamese General, who may be making a 3rd force, and on his way home Pyle takes a ride with him. The two avoid a seeming assassination attempt and within that sequence Fraser is terrific as there is a snap switch in his performance that creates an instant different agency within the man, but also an intensity. The intensity he brings the moment that is a bit startling initially as the affable Fraser naturally performs this switch to seemingly allude to another nature to Pyle. Again though we see Pyle essential reset himself and the constant state of the man Fraser presents is as the "quiet American". This just with that low key charm, even as the two men eventually battle over Phuong, Fraser's presents Pyle's manner even in this as courteous and gentlemanly with that overt sincerity once again. What Fraser does here is honestly realize proper operator and essentially a spy in Alden Pyle. This as one watching Fraser in his typical manner doesn't take second note other than an overly eager yet unassuming man. What is so remarkable is the revelation that Fraser realizes. Again as related to that philosophy of the third force that Pyle takes any action to support, even if it means support civilian bombings to create a public fervor. Fraser's work is terrific as he successfully rips off the cloak with such an ease. This in revealing a much darker figure in manner and again that intensity seen in the earlier scene coming fully out as a man with determined and violent purpose. Fraser's performance utilizes his own presence to create the false image of Pyle, yet makes a notable impact by subverting that presence by effectively revealing the darker side of the character. Although most coming into the film initially might've second guessed casting Fraser in this role, I'd say this is just about perfect casting as he truly embodies both the falsehood and the truth of his character.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Timothy Spall in All or Nothing

Timothy Spall did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Phil in All or Nothing.

All or Nothing is more mid-tier Mike Leigh, in that while it doesn't feel aimless like the least of his efforts it doesn't quite find that cathartic rhythm of his best work, about 3 working class families that live in the same apartment complex.

Frequent Leigh collaborator Timothy Spall returns once again to play a technical patriarch as he had done in Secrets & Lies. This man though not exactly living his best life, but you know I'd feel the same way if James Corden was my son (okay that was a bit cruel but so was his performance in Cats). This as we find him in the first half of the film slogging through his life as a not particularly invigorated cab driver, who is the husband of the similarly downtrodden Penny (Lesley Manville) with two young adult children who live with them. Spall's performance in the early scenes of the film is a man in basically a depressive haze. Spall's quite powerful in fashioning just the way the man just is always looking almost like a beaten hound dog with his shrunken expression, and the way he always seems to look away from any conflict. This as we see as his wife attempts to speak to her son their son who is an overweight layabout, we Spall just staring with that same somberness. Later Phil does attempt to get his son to do anything and he speaks with just a meek sense of defeat even before one word comes out of his mouth. Spall realizing a man in Phil he basically has become stuck within this state, and has been brought down within it for a long time. This as even as he drives his cab it is with eyes of a man somewhat lost within those perpetual troubles that are sitting within his mind.

Spall most important moment in the first half of the film is when he has a conversation with an initially rude French costumer who berates him for his carelessness. Eventually the conversation turns towards a more positive note. Spall is wonderful in he is able to combine a dreariness with an affable quality. This as he has a sincerity in his still so modest way of speaking in the conversation though there is a positive spirit as the costumer seems to show a genuine interest. When pressed about his personal experience with his wife, and the love of their relationship though, Spall's voice falls further into that sorrow of the man. This to the point that after that Phil drives towards nothingness for awhile, this while his son suffers a non-fatal heart attack. Spall is exceptional in the scene of bringing such an honest reality to someone trying to escape his for a moment. This as we see Phil just go drive to the coast and away from it all. There Spall brings an unsentimental moment of a man trying and really failing to find happiness, and instead stuck still in that glare of depression. This coming to a head in the film's second half where Phil and his family take more closely center stage. This as his wife Penny derides him for trying to escape work seemingly and taking so long to react to his son's condition. Spall moment of finally breaking from internalized depression to it externalized is simply incredible. This as it isn't angry it is just a desperate statement of his depression in his anguish in every word as he speaks of his wife's treatment of him, but more so his fear that she no longer loves him. Spall in every moment, as he still looks away, and speaks still so modestly even when heightened, finds such a genuine vulnerability in every second of his speech. A speech that evokes basically a complete hopelessness. Penny though reacts though with tenderness towards Phil, where as much as the two performers so effectively portrayed that state of deterioration, that are as effective in the moment of just sincere warmth between them. This allowing for an earned final scene of the two visiting their son who is recovering. Both don't suddenly change the people entirely rather we just see just the same people with a hope and a happiness in the moment. Spall's little smile still isn't big, but all the sweeter in a way as it feels so authentic in the man he showed us throughout the rest of the film. This earning this change even with the transition as brief as it is. Spall's performance being again just a powerful modest work ideal for the approach of Mike Leigh.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002

And the Nominees Were Not:

Christopher Plummer in Nicholas Nickleby

Leandro Firmino in City of God

Brendan Fraser in The Quiet American

Marcel Iures in Hart's War

Timothy Spall in All or Nothing

Alternate Best Actor 2002: Results

9. Sol Kyung-gu in Oasis - Sol delivers a convincing portrayal of a man with disability, if only it was in a film I had more patience for. 

Best Scene: Bus.

8. Greg Kinnear in Auto Focus - Kinnear gives a fascinating depiction of a man living as a contradiction and the degradation that occurs as he tries to maintain this strange illusion.

Best Scene: Seeing his agent the last time.

7. Leslie Cheung in Inner Senses - Cheung gives a performance that leaves all the greater impact due to its real life connections, however even standing on its own it is a moving portrayal of dealing with guilt.

Best Scene: Ending.

6. David Gulpilil in The Tracker - Gulpilil excels in his off-beat portrayal of a man quietly taking control of a situation.

Best Scene: Making the turn.

5. Bill Paxton in Frailty - Paxton plays off his presence well in helping to create his southern Gothic horror story, in being both the seeming a genuine father and a deranged fanatic.

Best Scene: After the death of the sheriff.

4. Philip Seymour Hoffman in Love Liza - Although I found the film repetitive I found Hoffman as usual gives a convincing portrayal, here offering a moving portrait of a man suffering through his specific despair.

Best Scene: Reading the letter.

3. Olivier Gourmet in The Son - Gourmet gives a compelling portrayal of a normal man essentially dealing with a revenge scenario.

Best Scene: Confrontation. 

2. Chiwetel Ejiofor in Dirty Pretty Things - Ejiofor delivers a compelling leading turn portraying effectively a decent man trying to navigate a troublesome situation.

Best Scene: Airport goodbye. 

1. Hiroyuki Sanada in The Twilight Samurai - Sanada delivers a brilliant low key turn as a samurai who more than anything just wants to be able to live his life.

Best Scene: Talk before the final duel.

Updated Overall

Next: 2002 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 2002: Sol Kyung-gu in Oasis

Sol Kyung-gu did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jong-du in Oasis.

Oasis tells the story of an off-beat ex-con trying to bond with a woman with cerebral palsy.

Telling that quick little summary really doesn't cover the half of it, as is the case it seems for every film by Lee Chang-dong, a filmmaker who tells his unique stories in his own way at his own pace. This film is no different in this regard, as all his films are more a spiral of storytelling than a through line. Poetry was about a woman dealing with dementia but also not that. Burning was about a man trying to discover what happened to his girlfriend, but also not that. Well here we have that central conceit that honestly sounds like the set up for a bad Hollywood feel good film like I Am Sam. Made by Lee Chang-dong though it is of course not that, but it isn't wholly not that either. I guess though the "feel good" intention it itself more than a bit of struggle I think, where I have to digress into how one even examines a film with a particular subject matter. I suppose this was on my mind a bit more from also watching the unlikely original screenplay Oscar winner from this year in question, Talk to Her. A film I would describe as well written in a general sense, well directed, and in general well acted, however the essential conceit of the film, and how that conceit was treated prevented me from at all embracing the film. This as that film features a man who is essentially a stalker very intimately treating a coma patient, the woman he was stalking. Now the film treats it as though that character is some innocent sort of character that alleges a purity of some sort, however that approach in a way made me reject that film all the more. Again even though I could recognize overall the film was artfully done, however that barrier stood too tall fundamentally within the narrative to quite overcome it.

I say all that as a similar experience came from Oasis, which again is by a filmmaker who clearly has a vision and is attempting to take a risk. This in this unlikely love story between Sol's ex-con and the woman with cerebral palsy, who is also related to the man's past, as she is family member of the person Jong-du killed in a hit and run that led to his imprisonment. Well the man takes interest in the woman, Han Gong-ju (Moon So-Ri), but that interest is to first attempt to sexually assault her, which is only prevented from her naturally freaking out about his behavior. This element is frankly less fundamental to this film than the conceit of Talk to Her, but it did cause my interest within the story to almost immediately cease. Again though it is more execution than just content, as obviously I've followed technically far more sinister leads in films, the problem is though this isn't the story about a sociopath, it seems like it's trying to be a sweet romance. Although all of that isn't really all that much attached to what I'm here to write about, Sol's performance, however it is a starting point that is where I come to this film. Anyway, so how about Sol's work. Well he has the secondary challenge within the film, Moon's is greater in terms of portraying a mentally and physically handicapped person, his Jong-du is just somewhat mentally handicapped, which is never gone into great detail. Sol's performance though is one of a man who just is off in some way anyways that is hard to exactly completely put your finer on though one thing that is obvious is he stands out like a sore thumb.

I must grant Sol credit that he does disappear into the role as the man he portrays he finds just a naturalism within the man's manner. This in the slightly odd way of overly smiling, and his movements that have a consistent sort of awkwardness to them. He portrays them with the right quality as basically a given as the man. This amplified further in his way of speaking that is with an over eagerness that again emphasizes a man whose mind is functioning fully, it is broken in more than one sense. This as he successfully presents a man who is too eager to please, and his whole manner seems as though the man has some constant wish to do this. Of course this then leads into the relationship that portrays that initial meeting, which I won't fault Sol's performance. His portrayal is that of the man's awkwardness going to the point of becoming dangerous in the moment of the attempted rape, which I'm not quite sure why it is in the film. Anyway past that questionable inclusion though we get to the meat, which is why it is more questionable, as the film has scenes of more sincere bonding between Jong-du and Gong-ju. This that I had no real interest in again, not to keep harping on it, but..."what the hell Lee?". In a setup like this though the worst thing that can happen is becoming detached from the film's reality, which unfortunately happened for me....so things went a bit more slowly as the film went on. This in that I just didn't care about the romance of any potential at this point, so I guess I really looked just at the acting, which for a film like this is a bit of a problem actually.

Not taking stock into the character's leads one to just look at the posturing of the actors. Again I can praise Sol to the extent that I believed him, less so for Moon So-Ri unfortunately who sadly is no Daniel Day-Lewis. This in that I wasn't at all convinced by her physical portrayal of the palsy leading to me just feeling as though it was just...well acting. Again this leading to further problems in the romance I was already not invested in, this as I found half it not even convincing as a person within the film. This only leaving Sol in his character that I didn't care about, playing his part with a reasonable degree of effectiveness, again only in that I believed his portrayal of the disability. The character though remained static, this as really the creation of the humanity and sympathy for him should come from the romance. The romance I don't care about nor do I believe. So there's a bit of a problem here for Sol, who honestly can only do so much in my mind. This in that he hits the note that he does hit, he sets up really the template for the man and is convincing in that. Lee Chang-Dong's choices though left it as a template and only that however. Again I say this without relishing the criticism as I've liked all his others films that I've seen and found their off-beat approach intriguing to say the least. I suppose though then it is only befitting that one of his great gambles doesn't pay off. Well that was the case for me and Oasis. The off-beat choices frankly detracted from the conceit rather than amplifying it. A conceit that was genuinely already a big enough risk on its own. Its choices for brutality to avoid sentimentality didn't work for me, frankly didn't even make it any less overly sentimental, just jarring. Sol does what he can in the lead, but I'll admit the film ended up obscuring my perspective of his work.

Alternate Best Actor 2002: Mads Mikkelsen in Open Hearts

Mads Mikkelsen did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Niels in Open Hearts.

Opens Hearts tells the intertwined lives of two couples created after an accident.

Well in a bit of a reworking of this year's lineup I've decided to hold off on Timothy Spall's work in All or Nothing, where I have to describe him as supporting for the said to supporting work of Mikkelsen here, who I must describe as lead. This is while the film gives time for all four parties, that is those being cheated on and the adulterers, the latter is the focus, with Mikkelsen's doctor almost taking the major focus later on in the film. Anyway I think this can continue off my review of Hiroyuki Sanada's work, as Mikkelsen is another actor somewhat wasted in the world of Hollywood, not to the extent of the former, but still notable. I think this falls into the unfortunate Hollywood mentality where apparently if you have a European accent you must be evil. This unfortunately doesn't give Mikkelsen enough of a chance to show of his ability in multiple types of roles, such as this fairly low key one here. This in playing the doctor to, and husband of the person who ran over, a man Joachim who becomes bitter as a tetraplegic. In turn he meets the man's financee Cecile (Sonja Richter), whom he takes a liking to. This being an example of Mikkelsen excelling as the normal man. This in portraying initially just this general likability within the films purposefully overtly reality based style. Mikkelsen thrives in this normalcy in presenting just an ease onscreen and in particular an earnest charm that is never too much but importantly never too little in making the doctor just a sympathetic man.

The man though that falls into an affair with Cecile which Mikkelsen excels in portraying in avoiding extreme cliche. This in presenting the man just naturally coming together with her in the moment, and portraying the complexity after their initial tryst. This in the shyness he brings as he speaks that it is the first time he has cheated on his wife, and captures in the moment his affection for the woman he just had sex with along with though the embarrassment for the betrayal of the situation. Mikkelsen's work is remarkable in how tangible he makes every element of the situation within his performance. This that he strictly ever avoids melodrama within Niels's manner at every point. This being entirely convincing in portraying the genuine moments of affection with Cecile, though being just honest and vulnerable as he is confronted by his wife. Mikkelsen is great in how much he downplays these moments in just showing in his reactions the man pulling within himself and accentuating the shame that overwhelms the man. My favorite scene of the film actually is after Niels moves out for some time from his family to be with Cecile though coming back to visit his kids for Christmas. Mikkelsen is outstanding in the scene because he very much articulates the difficultly of the situation within Niels, without forgetting a single complication. This in that he finds an a real warmth in his moments with his kids showing that Niels is genuinely loving towards them. This though even towards his wife though that captures the underlying tension that still exists.

This though when pressed about his affair, Mikkelsen is great in his expression that captures again the palatable shame of his existence. This though again not simplifying it as he shows a believable sense of the man living with that shame though evidently still of course pained by it when pressed to really look upon the duality of his life. This with the forces of his family he still cares about out against his affair that he's in part forgotten them for. Although the film does cover other facets of the situation the most compelling moments are consistently the depiction of Niels's failing marriage. A great deal of this is Mikkelsen's work that manages to so effortlessly create the reality of the situation. This finding artfully what can be found in the real degradation that is created within Niels as even the affair begins to struggle. Mikkelsen's work is heartbreaking in crafting every moment with just pure honesty of this normal man dealing with the harsh situation. This moment of lashing out against her, with just a distraught pain of a man realizing his mistakes as the "perfection" of the relationship falls apart. Mikkelsen crafts every moment of the man's reality that is potent with emotion yet never feels forced or inconsistent with overall design of the film. It again shows his great ability to portray just a normal man going through a difficult situation. Mikkelsen's work here is example of his incredible range which is rarely touched upon in this way in his international work. This in one of his greatest assets being his ability to portray such intimate vulnerability so potently.

Alternate Best Actor 2002: Hiroyuki Sanada in The Twlight Samurai

Hiroyuki Sanada did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Seibei Iguchi in The Twilight Samurai.

The Twilight Samurai is a wonderful film depicting a widower samurai near the end of the feudal system.

If I may quickly bemoan the Hollywood mentality when it comes to foreign language actors. Where evidently they wish to cast them after seeing or at least hearing of their work in their own home countries then only to cast them in largely thin and generic roles. That is of course the case for Hiroyuki Sanada, though I will say that always creates a bit of a bread crumb trail for me to find what was that sparked this interest to begin with. Well here it takes me to this film, where I'll admit I always have a bit of enthusiasm to find Japanese cinema outside of the golden era, given sadly so little of it makes an international impression. This film being both a throwback and modernization I'd say on so many of the films of that golden era however, being based around the life of the samurai. The difference being that our central character of Seibei Iguchi isn't some great lord or general, nor is he a renegade ronin or something. He's really just a guy who happens to be a samurai. Well and Hiroyuki Sanada's performance is wonderful by portraying him just as that. This in the early scenes of the film where we see him interacting in his little home with his 2 daughters and his mother. Sanada bring such a fantastic unassuming quality to his work. This in just a guy really very much content within this existence and most importantly brings this warmth within his interactions with his family. There's such a sense of love in his eyes and we see a man who really adores his existence in a certain sense.

We witness though Seibei interact within society where things are a little different however from that contentment within his home life, no matter how simple or small his surroundings might be. In this we see Sanada portray this certain shyness within the samurai as he must interact with the feudal hierarchy,  however as a man unable to really deliver on the pomp or circumstance requested for his class of samurai. This to the point that when he ponders if he could maybe someday be a farmer instead of being a samurai Sanada delivery is of just this earnest question of a man who really would rather live as such. Sanada shows the shyness really in this sense of a man who knows he will be looked upon with ridicule by other along with this sense of unease largely by the nature of the life he really has no great comfort with. This when he is admonished for his somewhat unkempt demeanor Sanada is great in showing that rather it really being a blow to his pride it rather just the intense reactions of others that causes a sense of any distress. This as Sanada shows a man really just wanting to do the best to succeed with his family and with those around him rather than holding a need to be seen anything more than he is...in fact Seibei might honestly be fine with being seen as less if it would help his circumstances. Sanada creates the right sympathy for this though in creating that understated quality of the man who isn't looking to make a big splash but rather just float within the joys he does have.

Things change slightly when an old childhood sweetheart returns, Tomoe (Rie Miyazawa) who comes to stay with his family and reminisce though no romance is spoken of. Sanada's chemistry with Miyazawa is pitch perfect. This in as Sanada brings a genuine charm within that warmth he brings with the interactions and a strong sense of their connection from the past. In that though he grants still that hesitation and shyness of the relationship of old now technically detached. Sanada being terrific again in showing the man's very palatable love for her in glimpses though hidden still within his nearly always retiring manner. This even when Seibei is proposed the idea of marrying Tomoe through an intermediary, Sanada honestly is heartbreaking through how genuine he makes Sanada's distress in the moment. This in reacting with embarrassment as though it would be ridiculous for a woman of some status to marry a samurai of his low standing of wealth. Sanada is great as he speaks every word of his own struggle with his former wife due to the very little he makes from being a retainer samurai. Sanada is fantastic in bringing such a quiet heartbreak within every word of Seibei struggle that shows the man's wish more than anything to avoid further complication knowing how life can be difficult within poverty. Sanada emphasizing the man's vulnerability of this beautifully within the man's modest style as a person.

The one place where it seems that perhaps there is more to Seibei than meets most eyes as the samurai derided by most as the "twilight samurai" that is in dueling. This we initially see as he defends a friend from an ornery samurai through fighting with a wooden sword. In this duel though Sanada's performance is important as he presents a man directly to the point in every action. This as a man attempting to end the conflict as quickly as possible, not as a purposeful badass but really an accidental one. This in he grants the sense of conviction but only to finish the fight, not to relish in any sense of defeat. This as we see after the successful duel, Sanada's manner shows a man looking down and away, along with a timid voice that denies any great feat or any great skill within himself. This again showing a man avoiding being beyond his source of contentment within his family. Eventually though pressed to take on a rogue samurai by his Zenemon Yogo (Min Tanaka) who has balked at a request harakiri and instead killing anyone who approaches his home. Although in his usual manner Sanada depicts the man avoiding really pushing his boundaries, but eventually is forced to through the demands of his lords.

We then see different shades of the man one real and one sort of fake. The real one is when he decides to take the chance to fully declare his love to Tomoe. This is an amazing scene for Sanada as the earned pride in the moment, and the reflection of the internalized love now externalized is palatable. This made heartbreaking when it appears she can't accept because she's accepted a different proposal. Sanada's switch back to the man's old self is heartbreaking, as in his eyes you see the man's being torn up from it but he speaks with just quiet assurances that he was foolish to make any such request. Now there Sanada showed a real different side, however in his intention as a lord's warrior we see the false side. This in Sanada showing the man basically trying to be the cold calm samurai as he approaches his task, and faces the man in his home. Sanada's manner though instantly reverts when the Yogo instead surprises him by inviting him to a drink to discuss their mutual lives of hardship despite their status as samurai. Sanada is outstanding in the scene in his reflections upon Seibei's hard life particularly regarding the death of his wife. This as Sanada brings the right somberness but almost this comical manner of laughing upon his own misfortunes given how poverty seemed to create one problem after another for himself. Sanada in the moment granting this idea of truly living the memory within his head as he speaks the words to Yogo. Sadly these troubles eventually amount to Yogo believing Seibei isn't taking the man seriously leading to a duel after all. Again I love the way Sanada makes the inherent skill of the man a given as he attempts to avoid killing the man as long as he can in this state of consistent control but never hateful violence. This within the overarching idea of the character that Hiroyuki Sanada so beautifully realizes This as a samurai who is defined through his love for his simple life and his family, not his ambitions of any kind. This creating a uniquely moving portrait of a samurai in turn, one of quiet power of a family man just trying to life his simple life.

Alternate Best Actor 2002: David Gulpilil in The Tracker

David Gulpilil did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character in The Tracker.

The Tracker is an intriguing off-beat film about a posse tracking an indigenous man accused of murdering a white woman.

The posse features a tyrannical and violent leader known as the Fanatic (Gary Sweet) with two other white men whom he also berates, and their tracker played by David Gulpilil. As mentioned some reviews ago, Gulpilil has a unique presence as a performer which once again comes to play here. This as he can stand out really without doing much of anything. This being essential in the early scenes of the film which almost play like a musical in a strange way where there is very little dialogue as we see the men walking through the desert, title cards telling us their purpose, and really the music filling most of the blanks past that. In these scenes we see the tracker technically as part of the group but not as part of the group. This as Gulpilil delivers this certain distance in his manner as a man doing a job he doesn't particularly like. This in his eyes a gaze of lack of investment as they follow the brutal Fanatic. One of the earliest acts of the Fanatic being to slaughter a group of aborigines. The initial cut to Gulpilil's immediately after this act is depicted through a painting is incredible. This as his reaction is a specific heartbreak. He's clearly devastated but more internalized as a man who knows how he must behave in order to survive the circumstances he is in. This as even with that monstrous act he must continue going on with the group and the Fanatic's whims.

Gulpilil is great though in almost bringing a comic quality to his performance as it continues on. This as he finds the right tone in his manner that is both uncaring to Fanatic's cause, but also as disarming as possible. Gulpilil finds this effortless combination as he portrays the Tracker showing his ways to try to basically avoid the Fanatic's wrath while also in a way mocking him in his sort of quiet way of delivering every mention of his expertise in trying to find the supposed murderer. This of course doesn't satiate the mad man who instead chain up the tracker to bring him along the trip.Gulpilil still makes remarkable use of his presence in he has this certain command in presence in the sense of assured intelligence within the man even when shackled the way he is. He keeps both a reality and dignity intact with the character that simply is wonderful. There is a particularly great moment for Gulpilil takes a moment even to eulogies one of the fallen men of  the posse. Gulpilil brings such an understated yet palatable warmth in the moment, showing the tracker caring for another even within this divide with such a honest humanity. Again Gulpilil is captivating in his work by being so genuine in every moment here even in the film's rather atypical and at times overtly stylistic approach, Gulpilil is able to stand out in this essential reality within his own work.

After the tide turns though, where the tracker and the other surviving posse member team up against the fanatic, Gulpilil's performance changes. Naturally he shows the tracker more overt in his defiance, after all he is in charge. This is so powerfully shown though in the intensity he brings in a moment when he shows the fanatic directly his cruelty by looking upon a dead aborigine. There is such a notable strength in Gulpilil's glare no longer diluted by the need to seem harmless. This eventually leading to the tracker condemning the fanatic, where I love how straight forward Gulpilil is in the moment. This as his sentencing is even delivered with almost this casual quality, however in this creates such an honesty if even humor in the moment by showing that same manner of how he used to survive now inform him in his way of punishing the Fanatic. In this though still Gulpilil's casual quality has a real power to it as it feels so pure to the man and the character. It is again part of the man's presence so wonderfully. The film continues past this point as the tracker decides to still go to figure if the man is guilty or not. Gulpilil's sort overt confidence in terms of how much he expresses grows all the more. This again reinforcing the idea of the hidden intelligence of the tracker basically no longer being hidden, and the confident man that was there all along just being completely open in the moment. In the end we see the man wholly within his power and it is great just to see Gulpilil own the screen in these moments, no longer on the edge of moments but just dominating them. Now that is a relatively brief part of his work, however it is the natural end to his work. This being a fantastic realization of this arc of the tracker in a way revealing himself, but Gulpilil's artful gradual increase of his basically his charisma as a performer.

Alternate Best Actor 2002: Bill Paxton in Frailty

Bill Paxton did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Mr. Meiks in Frailty.

Frailty is a chilling directorial debut by Bill Paxton about a man (Matthew McCoanughey) recounting his childhood that involved his father claiming God has told him to kill demons in the form of people.

The one of a kind Bill Paxton cast himself within the co-leading role of the Meiks' father, who we initially meet in semi-idyllic settings where he lives as a single father, his wife having died in childbirth, with his sons Adam and Fenton. Paxton's performance beautifully sets up really the unnerving switch we will quickly see. Paxton creating this seemingly just warm and loving father. This in just an earnest demeanor as he hangs out with his two sons and has a generous caring demeanor. This quickly switches though as the film takes it turn, and exactly what this film is, is essential really to Paxton's performance. This is it is a horror mood piece, a scary sort of southern Gothic style story, not in a fully kitschy way, but in a definitely stylized fashion. I think one can almost take this as the type of performer Paxton was, which he had a style kind of within himself that was typically heightened. This made him far more ideal for certain roles more than others, however it definitely granted him an idiosyncratic presence that made him stand out nonetheless. This being ideal for his directorial debut here, where there is just something particularly skin crawling the moment Mr. Meiks wakes up his two sons in the middle of the night. This where he immediately begins to tell them of his vision from angel that he has been told that he must start killing demons on the earth and will be given tools to do so. Although this is technically lower key Paxton, Paxton is terrific in carrying that same earnestness before, but here speaking towards a concept that immediately raises more than just an eye brow.

Paxton though portrays the man with this sort of clarity of man that is in fact particularly disturbing as he shows his kids an axe and gloves given to him as weapons to destroy demons. Paxton speaks as though this would simply be a job for them at first. Paxton wisely does change this manner, though more info on why, later as he captures the first demon on the list, also seemingly just some woman. Paxton in the capture importantly actually shows more of a rush of emotion than any maniacal glee in the moment. When he shows her to their sons Paxton brings a certain undercurrent of fear into his own performance both upon looking at the woman but also after touching her allowing him to see her "true" nature as a demon supposedly. Paxton's delivery portraying this as not something wholly with conviction with the first kill actually. This in throughout the moment there is that undercurrent of a personal terror potentially at his own act, or potentially in seemingly the burden of his "mission". Either way though Paxton is terrifying though by making the emotional context so palatable and not portraying the moment with any distance. He rather shows very much the act of killing with his portrayal of Mr. Meiks as he goes about his perceived duty. This with the support of his one son Adam who claims also to be able to see the demons for what they are against his other son Fenton who claims to not see anything, which we as the audience also see.

Now as his mission continues and Mr. Meiks kills more people he claims are demons, while Fenton continues to doubt, Paxton's performance moves closer towards sort of the more extremes of the Paxton style. This entirely works in granting the sort of extremism needed as he paints Mr. Meiks fanaticism with this certain emotional desperation within it. This in speaking every word of his mission with a ferocity though within that an anxiety that makes it all the more unnerving as though the man is potentially trying to convince himself of his own mission. This element of his performance though actually basically has a double meaning. This as upon initial viewing it is easy to take Paxton on face value as just a desperate crazy man, but by the end of the film you learn that spoilers the demons are entirely real. With that in mind Paxton's performance works a bit differently as one can instead see that desperation as attached to both the burden of the duty and his genuine need for his son Fenton to see, the son who is in fact a demon. This informs Paxton's performance for the rest of the film as on initial viewing he is terrifying in creating the all the greater intensity of the man who is so emotional in speaking his zealotry like a deranged preacher, but upon re-watch he's a man with the same desperation trying to save his son. The key technically to this is when Fenton informs the local sheriff of the killings leading Mr. Meiks to kill the sheriff. After this kill Paxton presents Meiks differently as there is a sadness over it and there are no words that support his claims that it was an earned killing. This is against the final attempted demon kill where again Paxton shows in the view of the man, who is in fact not insane, in a way emotionally burdened still by his mission particularly as it pertains towards his son. Paxton's performance ends up working both was, and is actually quite powerful and disturbing both ways. This as Paxton portrait of a mental illness wrapped around in a wannabe zealot is chilling within that intensity he brings to it, but also works as a man being driven to a brink by the difficult calling he must fulfill. As much as the film itself is an impressive debut as a filmmaker, it's a shame his directing career was so limited overall, it is also an excellent example of his own talent as a performer. This in finding a role that effective wields his own unique presence to create a memorable impression as a deranged killer and as a burdened crusader.