Alternate Best Actor 1979: George C. Scott in Hardcore

George C. Scott did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jake Van Dorn in Hardcore. 

Hardcore follows a devout Midwesterner who goes in search of his daughter in California after she appears in a pornographic film. 

 

This film marks the second film written and directed by Paul Schrader after his excellent debut in Blue Collar. It is once again working within the same starting point, as Schrader starts in almost every one of his films written or directed, that is a man on some kind of edge, usually inhabiting a world in some kind of fringe. Although this film isn't nearly as effective as that film, a bit of a mixed bag overall, particularly with some of the "action" scenes but certainly with some intensely effective emotional moments. The film opens though with a snowy Michigan with a quiet seemingly peaceful religious life. Scott is barely even particularly present in these moments as basically just a quiet father figure, not even exactly stern as the man keeps his distance from his daughter who soon disappears on a religious school trip. The most we get with Scott is the man handling his business with a certain cordiality but a hard line in terms of what it is that he wants and doesn't want with his company. A lot of what makes the character have a presence in these scenes is just Scott himself being such a strong presence innately within himself. We get him though as this kind of hard rock of a man who then the film is going to challenge, the first challenge being when a sleazy Private detective (Peter Boyle) hired by him brings Jake some evidence of his daughter, that being a low rent pornographic film staring her. A great scene for Scott in his reaction to the film as you see the striking different emotions of initial disbelief, then heartbreak then intense anger that all flash against his face. 

We then follow him as he goes about infiltrating the world of the sex trade Scott's performance is basically these different mixtures of this outsider experiencing this. Scott is quite effective in managing to modulate between the states of the character. There are moments of intense anger of course that are these pent-up snaps well performed as the innate reaction of the man towards the world. This amidst moments of trying to infiltrate it as some wannabe producer which Scott brings the right awkwardness to in each scene never quite hiding his true nature all that well as he either is just barely hiding his disgust or anger towards the various people he comes across in his intense search. Eventually, this changes slightly when he meets a prostitute Nikki, who offers some kind of help to him, while also offering a more human expression within this world that feels so alien. This is an aspect that I don't think quite hits the sweet spot in terms of its realization of it though the general idea is a good one. Scott is effective though for his part in portraying many steadfast aspects of Jake as he states all his beliefs regarding his religion and against sex with this certain strict certainty in his delivery. This is against his moments of interacting with Nikki on a slightly more human level where Scott brings these excellent glints of a momentary empathy though he never seems to fully embrace Nikki as a person in her own right. 

 

The last act of the film is Jake getting closer to his daughter as he explores the even more extreme fringes of a fringe world. This has some truly pointed moments in there where Scott shows the intensity of the unnerving qualities as he seems to find a snuff film, and more expectedly I think brings the powerful sense of bluntness in the character's conviction to find his daughter. What is unique though is that Scott never feels the avenging angel for a moment, and there is always a greater kind of messiness with it, even a sense of coldness about it that suggests what maybe made her leave to begin with. Scott shows this measured man in conflict with himself in every scene of letting the emotions of a given moment only out carefully most of the time either because Jake is hiding essentially undercover, but just as often because that is the nature of Jake as a man. Scott earns the final moment of meeting his daughter again, who blames him for being loveless. This is an uneven scene because the actress as his daughter is pretty terrible. Scott though is excellent in the way he shows the struggle for Jake to show his genuine emotions to this daughter, the strain of it is wearing on him, but also the force within himself to show it all in attempt to connect with her. Scott is powerful in the scene because he shows that every tear is being forced out, not as an unnatural act, but rather the man fighting against his nature to bluntly show his love finally.

Alternate Best Actor 1979: Steve Martin in The Jerk

Steve Martin did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Navin R. Johnson in The Jerk.

 

The Jerk is an enjoyably dumb comedy about a jerk going through life. 

 

The Jerk marked Steve Martin's successful breakout from stand-up comedian, who occasionally cameod in films, to a full-on movie star. This is an interesting film to look at in terms of Steve Martin's later more expected presence which was a more white-collarish jerk, where he played a distinctly blue-collar jerk. Although more importantly than that, Martin later would play an intelligent man where the comedy of his work came from that in some context, particularly the idea as the smartest man in the room one way or another. This is the opposite as his Navin R. Johnson is always the dumbest man in the room right when we seem to see him in his sharecropper roots. Martin's accent he uses here I think is perhaps the greatest risk of this performance, which is really on a certain tight rope of goofiness, to begin with, and is rather wonderful in just how dumb his voice is. It isn't quite a southern accent, instead, it is best described as a stupid accent, a very stupid accent that manages to be hilarious in its odd dumbness. His way of not quite being anything that makes sense just makes for perfect sense in creating a strangely endearing kind of dumb for his Navin as we see him move from his rural life to find his fortune. 

What this performance then becomes is this series of Martin being funny as a complete idiot and getting into ridiculous situations often due to Navin's idiocy or by mere happenstance. Martin's work here is pure in the sense of him just trying to be as funny as possible with his overly earnest delivery which might be the key to his portrayal of Navin as the jerk. This as Martin is kind of everything you'd want in this performance, as there is the right lack of awareness that Martin brings as the fool. A kind of essential ingredient that is interesting to see upon reflection given Martin would be known for smarter seeming characters. Martin's approach wholly works in his foolishness because there's just something pure about his smile that suggests little to few thoughts of Navin as he first finds work at a car garage. A place where we get great comedic timing from Martin whether it be his hapless reactions to his boss (Jackie Mason)'s strange advice, or his physical comedy goes around with a sort of incompetence. That run of his alone is needed for a bit of analysis for comedy. It is just the right kind of dumb, natural unnatural dumbness. It is too much, but also not too much. A highlight of Martin's approach perhaps finding his closet apartment where the excitement in his voice and wonder in his eyes as he looks at the dingy place is hilarious because Martin is too much, but there is something strangely authentic about it as well. He makes it that Navin is a ridiculous fool, but in that foolishness, his delight at his crappy apartment is 100% true. 

I think a great example of just this is when we see him find two very different lovers one a rough-around-the-edges stunt woman and the other a sweet woman, Marie (Bernadette Peters). With the latter, there is a scene of the two talking that is hilarious as Martin shows Navin's particular ineptness that Marie for whatever reason finds absolutely endearing. The thing is it is endearing because of the pitch-perfect nature of Martin's performance. Martin says completely stupid lines like asking Marie to think of her boyfriend when making love to him, but he says them with this sort of boyish honesty that makes it so funny. The film's romance itself is really dumb, right to an initial kiss of Navin's being licking Marie, which Martin does in such stride, which is also what is so funny. Martin shows the key of trying not to be funny is often the key to hilariousness and here we get kind of a great mix of trying to be funny, while also being funny, and trying not to be funny and being funny. Martin knows how to fluctuate his performance from going all in, such as the silly way he evokes Bruce Lee in a sudden battle with racists, or his quiet "seriousness" when a lost soul is forgotten by society. Both are Martin throwing all of himself in from the strict conviction of a battle stance as a fighter to a dumb saunter of the loathsome creature attempting redemption. Martin's work here has no higher purpose here, but he does not need it. This is just Martin being funny, by so purely being this idiot, and doing so in a way that is truly delightful in its idiotic ways.

Alternate Best Actor 1979: Klaus Kinski in Woyzeck

Klaus Kinski did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying  Friedrich Johann Franz Woyzeck in Woyzeck. 

Woyzeck is perhaps an overly brief, though still intriguing, film about a soldier in a rural town. 

This film was made by the team that made Nosferatu, with production starting immediately after that larger-scale production, compared to this shorter, smaller-scale film. What you have though is said to be an exhausted crew and an exhausted star in Klaus Kinski. The quiet and solemn, though still animalistic turn, from Kinksi, offered a bit of a swerve from his innate presence, though it certainly used elements from it. That is the case here again in the role of Woyzeck, who to say is put upon is an understatement. Kinski's trademark intensity is of course present, however, utilized quite differently here as seen from the opening scene of the film. We see Woyzeck as he is put through the soldiers' paces but alone, making it almost look like a comical affair. Kinski has a kind of intensity as he physically straightens up and moves around with all the required soldiering you'd expect. His face though is of exhaustion and desperation within the paces. He's not having fun, nor is he determined in his task, he's rather moving around as a fearful schoolboy just doing what he has to because he's too scared not to do so. 

Kinski's performance here is fascinating because he really is not at all the fearsome warrior, despite playing a soldier, rather he's this rather weak-willed man and while Kinski is many things, that is probably on the bottom of the list when it comes to potential descriptors. Yet here it wholly works in Kinski's performance, where he presents this timid and exhaustive state in his performance. Kinski shows Woyzeck both as a soldier, and often the jack of no trades around town, with a glint of terror in his eyes at all times. He's a man just discomforted in his life and discomforted in his place, yet really too weak to do anything about it. There is that trademark madness in Kinski here yet where we see it is not in outward rage, but rather this kind of internalized petrified quality. He's a man stuck within himself and within anxieties. His whole performance is stiff and overly modest in the right way as someone just defined by his constant fear of the world along with everyone else. Woyzeck basically being this town fool, which Kinski delivers in a uniquely potent way. 

The one area where Woyzeck doesn't seem completely lost is a relatively brief scene of the man with his wife and son as they watch clever Hans the mathematician horse. A notable scene in a way in that for once in his career it seems that Kinski might be just a normal man, however, if that wasn't enough of a stretch, Kinski goes further by bringing this kindly meekness of the moment. He portrays this quiet joy of the man at the moment who does seem to enjoy his family, even as there is still the constant undercurrent of fear still present upon his brow in this moment of comfort. This is quickly subverted as we see his wife entertains another local soldier, who gifts her earrings. This leaving Woyzeck just to ask about them, and even in this Kinski's delivery is remarkable because he manages to be so painfully timid. There is a shyness in this confrontation even and continues to show a man who is basically beaten down by every aspect of the world. 

Naturally being a film that stars Kinski there is going to be a point of no return and this comes as he confronts his wife again, dragging her to a river to murder her for her infidelities. Kinski is downright amazing in this scene. First, as the actual motion of the stabbing is different from usual Kinski's rage, there is such a sense of desperation and kind of confusion about it. Even in this unquestionably permanent act, there is still such a sense of uncertainty in his eyes. The expression on his face is truly what is so incredible about his acting in this scene as it immediately and so naturally segues towards the moment of realization and sadness for his act. His face falls into the man coming into his sense to look even more lost than he already was. Kinski's final scene of him raving as he tries and fails to halfheartedly move on from the crime is still with this weakness even in this state. Kinski shows the man even more cowering than he was before, wholly defeated as he tries to explain to himself the truth of the matter. Kinski portrays just a terrified creature with nothing but his fear to hold on to. Although a relatively brief performance due to the brevity of the film, Kinski delivers a memorable turn here. A performance that contains the intensity he's known for, however, mutilated in a different direction to create such a striking portrait of a man breaking from his confines to become only more pathetic and desperate than he already was. 

Alternate Best Actor 1979: Frank Langella in Dracula

Frank Langella did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Count Dracula in Dracula. 

 

This adaptation of Dracula is a little bit of a strange bird, as essentially a re-adaptation of the play that the 31 version was based on. A version mind you that could use an update, however, given it is rather a flawed film. This isn't it, there is an idea in there based on what I will be writing about today, but that really isn't all that effectively explored by John Badham, who is a workmanlike director. 

What spurned this version was a Broadway hit production that starred Frank Langella in the title role of Dracula, however the key to that version, and the whole play is that it emphasized the erotic horror ideas of Dracula. An element one could argue is a subtext within Bela Lugosi's portrayal, however certainly not an overt emphasis. That is Langella's emphasis who fittingly gives the exact opposite style of vampiric performance, that we see from Klaus Kinski, in the other Dracula remake with Werner Herzog's remake of the original 1922 Nosferatu, an unofficial adaptation of the original novel. That version emphasizes the ugliness of the creature, and even the tragedy of the state of being cursed as this sort of pestilence, where the vampire is more like a rat than a bat in design and even manner. Here though Langella is barely even the bat, in fact when he enters in this version, he is far more a playboy ready to make a different sort of conquest in a new land, looking for victims, but victims of a bit of a different ilk. 

Here is where you have really what is often the trade of the stage actor, many ways why the stage is truly the actor's medium, because so often a performance defines a piece, particularly when that performance is instrumental in crafting a new take on a character. With Langella, you have a nearly complete reinvention of the character of Dracula and a rather fascinating one at that. In a way Langella looks at the text entirely different than what we saw with Bela Lugosi's take, a take that more so revealed a man from the past, out of time in a way, navigating the world in his own monstrous way. Langella's performance is of a man who has been living for hundreds of years but isn't stuck in the past, he's rather learned from it. In all honesty, Langella's performance is actually a touch more modern than even the period it is set in, which is wholly logical as a presents a man who never stopped learning. He presents him as someone who in a way has knowledge beyond anyone, which makes him a way a man beyond the current time, and in turn offers a fascinating atypical approach for depicting Dracula, that also feels logical to the character despite seeming so different. 

Langella's initial entrance in turn is so very different from that of the gothic horror monster and instead portrays him as a much more disarming visitor. Langella fashions no strange walk, or unusual stare, rather he's a man who comes through as Count Dracula, introducing himself to all and having an obvious interest in all the women that may be his present company. Langella commands the space though and makes it very much his own with his calmer approach to the material. There is something still quite remarkable, and to put it bluntly, as he seems on the quest of seduction right from the start. His eyes do penetrate though in a way that is filled with allure. As he introduces himself it is with a genuine charm and this innate sense of knowledge. Langella makes Dracula a most worldly man, in that he is very much of the flesh, and within that idea is as much as he's bringing his vampires' curse, he's also bringing this new perspective of the world, of the man who doesn't repress himself nor his sexual appetites. His Dracula is that of a modern bravado who through that breaks the expected social mores of this part of Europe that he is invading by the mere virtue of his presence, his manner, and his attitude. 

His villainy then is very different, while still present. There is a menace to Langella, though it is more subtle, and in a way, he fashions it simply through the overt confidence of his Dracula. Langella carries this whether he is enticing a victim or facing one of the would-be vampire killers. Langella's performance works in fashioning this atypical charisma for the character, which crafts him as someone using the world as his playground of sorts. His portrayal in the scene of attacking one of the women is not of the cold stare, but rather a full-on seduction. As such Langella is quite striking to put it lightly as the Don Juan at height of his powers and very much would be the romantic lead in many erotic thrillers with the same performance. Langella portrays every moment, with each delivery as this method of intrigue and enticement. Langella presents it as a strange kind of love as he invites his victim to make more of his kind, and in no way in these scenes emphasizes a more obvious kind of villainy. Langella very much portrays Dracula as a character who sees himself as a higher being in the right as he attempts to preserve his way of life. When confronting his enemies, or his "Lower" servants, Langella's performance is with this corrective tone as though he is admonishing them for interfering with Dracula's being that has far outlasted any normal human. His performance consistently offers a new approach, that is rather fascinating in revealing a different nature to the character who is usually a more overt villain. Langella instead presents a man being himself in a sense, even if being himself involves making the women he seduces undead and killing anyone else in his way. Langella is suave rather than scary, his looks more often undress than chill, and that is entirely the point. The only unfortunate part of this approach is the film itself seems more of just trying to make a more traditional horror film, where something truly inspired could've been made if the direction had been more so in tune with what Langella was doing. Although that is a missed opportunity, Langella was still able to leave his mark on with the role with a properly biting performance (apologies for using both biting and mark in that sentence).

Alternate Best Actor 1979: Ben Gazzara in Saint Jack

Ben Gazzara did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jack Flowers in Saint Jack. 

Saint Jack is an intriguing character study about an American pimp in Singapore. 

Ben Gazzara's performance is what makes this film really, which on its own merits isn't bad, but somewhat scattershot in its storytelling. Gazzara is what holds it together and really elevates to the point of interest. This is a performance where there is just so much life inherent within his performance. Gazzara coming onto the screen you just immediately get a sense of his Jack Flowers. His face wears a world-weariness of a man who is exiled in a way to his spot in the world, and while we don't exactly learn what the man's been through, there is a strong sense of it just in Gazzara's manner. He just exudes this time of alienation, but also with that a particular sense of a kind of strange sort of understanding with this state at the same time. It is an essential trick that Gazzara pulls off as his performance develops an immediate history with Jack Flowers from the moment you see him. You sense this guy who has been making his way in this peculiar state for a long time and the ease about it. Different from comfort though as Gazzara never shows Jack as a happy man exactly or someone truly content, but there is the sense in every frame that this is a man who clearly knows his life and has been living it his way for a long time. The idiosyncrasy then of the man and in turn Gazzara's performance is what makes him such a fascinating figure to follow throughout his film, and importantly engages you into this world through the unique nature of the perspective offered by Jack. 

Everything that Gazzara does here in terms of his performance is kind of a fascinating sort of lie while doing so always suggests a truth. And if that doesn't exactly make sense, well it really shouldn't but it completely does when viewing Gazzara's performance. One is that in a certain sense Jack, as this tired aging pimp could be or maybe even should be a boring man as he seems somewhat done with life. What makes Gazzara so good is he wholly embodies that state of distaste for life, while wholly being this man so filled with life all the same. A key truth to this performance, and perhaps why you don't become tired from watching Jack, despite Jack being a tired man in a lot of ways, is that Gazzara's whole performance in a way is playing from a deep core of the man that in a way is the opposite from the most immediate surface of him. This is as we see him going around being the pimp, he is the man whose face says "I don't give a damn about anyone or anything". Yet in the moments where Jack is interacting with some of the women or some of his clients, there is a charm in his little smile that appears in his greetings. It isn't false, rather there seems to be a man beaming with a long-forgotten life, and a man that once was Jack who probably loved life, at least as much as he could. There is that hint though that makes Jack, despite his better or worse nature, likable in his strange way that is essential in crafting the investment in Jack and in turn investment in his little world of his. 

A part of the strangely endearing quality in Gazzara's performance is very much in the personal style that is so distinct within the character, a man of specific words, with often an incisive comment or story to be mentioned from him that just speaks to years of experience, whether misspent or not. Gazzara just breaths a natural life about every moment that makes Jack so tangible in the best of ways. It's a performance that is captivating in such a unique way because there's nothing about Gazzara's performance that is traditional kind of aggressive energy or charisma. Don't get me wrong there is charisma and there is energy, but Gazzara makes it all this exact rather style for the man that is Jack, that just feels right for the man that is Jack. What makes this an intriguing character study more than anything is Gazzara because he just so much IS Jack in a way that makes it easy to be fascinated by this one of a kind character as he goes around his seedy world, yet does it in a way that makes at least his space strangely friendly. Gazzara's nuance is what is so substantial here, as that setting of the slight exasperated grump, isn't who Jack is, even if that what his face suggests. This in every word Gazzara brings that sense of living, sense of wisdom and personal sense of style. Gazzara pulls off the trick as it is in those slight changes that in one moment he can be just one of the guys hanging out, and the next can stare down a gang of violent men with the same sense of that peculiar kind of "Cool" of sorts. 

Now the key to all of this might be the brilliant execution of Gazzara's performance that is in showing, somewhat almost seemingly hypocritically, the decent nature of Jack that continually reveals itself even as he seems to present himself as the cynical ex-patriot. Gazzara's work is pitch perfect in the specific realization of this, take the moment where an associate of his is murdered, Gazzara's reaction isn't big, in fact a cursory look might make one think he doesn't care, but for a man like Jack, who has seen too much, it's heartbreak. Gazzara's expression does reveal this quiet sadness, and really his low key but oh oh so perfect near whisper of "pricks" says it all in a way. His humanity is revealed the most in his relationship with a milquetoast English accountant William (Denholm Elliott), where Gazzara's small reactions to Gazzara reveal a genuine care for the man that slowly grows the more they interact and the more William shows himself to be a bluntly decent human being. What is so great again is that Gazzara is so low key, yet in the low key style does he so naturally reveal the way a guy like Jack reveals his care and affection for another human being. It is then a profound moment when William collapses and Jack goes to his aid. Gazzara's performance is remarkable, and quietly powerful, because in the moment he releases all cynicism and is tremendous in showing Jack truly care for a moment. It is still a muted reaction, yet for a guy like Jack it is though he is yelling in anguish. And that is the brilliance of this work is where Gazzara teaches us a lot about this guy, while always being honest to the character. He finds the right detailed nuance in the minor of changes in his work, while creating such a vivid sense of the history of the man that defines his more static state. It is terrific work that really makes the film worth watching. Although the story Jack exists in isn't incredible, just being with Jack is something special, and Gazzara is the essential ingredient in making it so.