Alternate Best Actor 1981: Sam Neill in Possession

Sam Neill did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Mark in Possession.

Possession is supposedly about the fallout after a woman Anna (Isabella Adjani) asks her husband for a divorce...but that hardly gives you a sense of things now does it. 

Sam Neill plays the man, Mark who we see in his professional shady world briefly, before just as briefly having a harsh conversation with his wife who wants to leave him, he then seems completely gone over the hill in drink, then he is a loving father disturbed his son seemingly being mistreated by his wife then he confronts her however while doing so is sinisterly and intensely going back and forth in a rocking chair that is far too swift and dangerous than the recommended rocking chair use. Now the purpose of that rambling description is to give you at least a minor understanding of the experience of watching the film and the introduction of the character of Mark. I suppose though one must in turn ask about Neill's performance which defies traditional logic in many ways. As the extremes here are also represented in Neill's performance without traditional pacing involved. Neill though is convincing as the man is just a bit taken aback by his wife's seemingly sudden request and the proper cold professional disposition when we see him discussing his enigmatic work. As sudden, as it is Neill certainly shows the extreme gaunt expressions of a man over the bend as he falls into despair. He brings warmth suddenly when trying to see what is going on with his son and projects a realistic concern. Then immediately has full-on brutal intensity as he confronts Anna. Of course, though this is without that connective tissue you'd expect in performance. The rub, as is a term often used, is obviously in the disconcerting design of the film, so judgment becomes a bit trickier as the work defies convention. 

All performances though are contextual in some sense and therefore what the context here becomes is essential in looking at Neill's work. The real question becomes then is Neill compelling or successful in depicting this unusual extreme? Well largely so I would say, and the film does begin to calm down...a bit when it comes to Mark's emotional state. Although the strangeness hardly goes away as we see Mark perhaps trying to figure out the situation that only becomes stranger. This includes Mark confronting Anna's supposed lover who himself seems more interested in Mark than Anna in these confrontations even if in a sadistic sort of way. Neill's performance though manages to realize something within them in the confusion and frustrations as the man presents far more riddles than solutions. Confusing things further is Mark finding that his son's teacher Helen looks just like Anna, more or less. There as he tries to raise his son alone and interacts with her again you suddenly get a kind of reality from Neill. Just a kind of thought as there is fully a man who seems to be dealing with the truth of it, as he might be too accepting of it all, although there is something compelling in Neill's quietly emotional moments in crafting a man seemingly accepting this sudden bent reality with this new woman who looks almost like his wife. At the same time though Neill still makes Mark occasionally equally bent in some of his reactions towards others, such as an overly loving delivery to the man reporting more disturbing news about Anna. 

Neill is effective as he is in his own blend of insanity, but I'll admit it really is but a warm up act for when the film shifts focus closer on Anna/Adjani. Adjani's performance is completely insane yet utterly transfixing to the point all other elements of the film are overshadowed in comparison. In one easy comparison, there is a moment of a freak-out by Adjani at a certain point that is absolutely unforgettable. Neill also gets such a scene, though while it isn't forgettable, it doesn't quite leave as strong of a mark, probably the best moment of it is Neill's blissful grin after it is over. Where the film goes at a certain point isn't about logic it is about insanity and a whole insane notion. There are tangibles kind of, but to say anything makes sense in an obvious way would be quite wrong. Neill's performance, as was in the earliest scenes, is basically a vortex of emotional and physical extremes. One moment he's full ferocity of violence to the next he's a man whimpering as crawling in agonizing pain. Every switch as such is as extreme as the extremes themselves. What Neill's performance though does do is actualize them to some extent in that at the very least it is captivating to see him perform the insanity of these moments, even if it is a bit of "take what you will from them" at a certain point. One does ponder what if Mark had been portrayed wholly straight as a complete foil to what Adjani is doing, however that isn't what we get here. We get a performance more befitting the overall madness of the film by being completely mad itself. This including Neill's work at the end of the film as Mark's seeming clone where he is truly creepy in the completely joyful smile that is twisted in the "perfection" of his state. This is a performance that is all over the place and over the top, both matching the nature of the film's intention. Does it work, yes, in at least my reaction, although even then perhaps not to the degree of Adjani's work that truly embraces the madness in a way that somehow elevates psychotic ramblings to a kind of genius.