Alternate Best Actor 2012: Paul Dano in Ruby Sparks

Paul Dano did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Calvin Weir-Fields in Ruby Sparks. 

Ruby Sparks falls into another film where my tendency not to pre-read synopsis strikes again, as just a glance at the poster, I thought it was your typical two quirky people meet Indie film, but instead it's about a writer inventing said dream quirky woman. 

Paul Dano plays the writer, and it is rare that Dano isn't playing a character with some degree of neurosis. So he seems fitting enough in this role as he just brings that type of energy. A bit different here though is that Dano's character isn't suffering some truly extreme psychological insanity, he's rather a writer suffering writer's block is a bit too isolated. Dano though is effective in playing this lighter note, in again bringing that expected energy of someone always just slightly on edge with his emotions, and never quite seemingly comfortable within himself. Dano's work is a nice modulation of his expected presence here in playing the slight riff to this kind of character. He has an ease at unease, and manages to make it less heavy than usual in a way that does make Calvin likable, enough, when it would've been easy to be too much with his eccentricity, or just too little to the point of blandness. Dano hits the right balance in giving us the starting point of his romantic lead, which is a bit more straightforward than many Dano roles, but also properly distinguishes himself as a somewhat atypical romantic lead, if still very much within that kind of genre. 

Eventually the turn to establish the film's intention comes in when he becomes inspired to write about a woman meeting his dog, who has all her own little bit of written business. Where we first meet his creation of Ruby (Zoe Kazan), who comes on strong in about every regard as the pseudo dream woman. And here you see the chemistry between Dano and Kazan, which is considerable between the two, and being real life partners actually is not a guarantee of onscreen chemistry however in this case the two have it in spades. And what I think works the most in terms of that is actually what it changes in Dano in their interactions, which when truly romantic with one another, Dano's neurosis becomes more limited. There's a greater ease to Dano's performance and it comes together to create the sense of connection between the two by the way we see his Calvin suddenly become more comfortable in general. Of course things get complicated when the real supernatural turn comes, as not only does he create the character in his mind Ruby comes to life in reality, where everyone can see her. This is where the film switches more than a bit to absurdity though played with a certain sensibility of someone trying to deal with the unbelievable with some kind of reality. 

We get this phase of the film where Dano gets to briefly play the note of the comedic surprise of the situation, particularly when he is interacting with his brother (Chris Messina, who is playing the "best friend" romcom trope to quite the extreme himself). And we get a bit of well tuned mania in his performance that works in just conveying the mix of surprise, disbelief but also a kind of wonder as he discovers his invented woman in reality. Then the film hits, for me, its snag as it doesn't quite know fully where to go with the idea, as we enter the relationship going into the doldrums as he goes to visit his eccentric mom and eccentric boyfriend, and she becomes less dependent on him. All of this is all okay, but not quite as remarkable as it seemingly could be. Dano himself has to go through the motions a bit, particularly in the parents scene of being just slightly annoyed. Then as Ruby becomes more independent, his frustrations are also portrayed convincingly, particularly the darker streak as we see him become jealous and truly unable to deal with her behaviors. And the film quickly though runs him to the extreme of continuing to write and change her, to giving her up all in one long sequence. One long sequence which in terms of Dano's emotions he does effectively portray the shifting frustration, to fear, to mania, to a kind of sad contentment, but I would be wrong to say that it doesn't feel a touch rushed. And the move to Calvin becoming enlightened, isn't something that I think the film entirely earns, though Dano gives his best efforts to be sure. And this is a good performance from Paul Dano, however one that I don't think quite carries the impact of his best work. But as a mostly lighter fair, it is largely effective work albeit a bit held back by the certain limitations of the film. 

Alternate Best Actor 1991: Utpal Dutt in Agantuk

Utpal Dutt did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character in Agantuk. 

Agantuk follows a husband and wife, as they receive the wife's long lost uncle, who they aren't sure if he's genuinely her uncle or a stranger there to steal her inheritance. 

As a final send off for Satyajit Ray, this is a very modest, but potent film where essentially we are doing variation on the idea of what exactly bridges the gap between family and strangers. This is personified by Utpal Dutt's titular character, who is the uncle/stranger, who comes into their lives, and creates seeming upheaval as they can't quite be sure if he's the truth or not. Dutt's performance then is essential to creating this mystery of sorts to the film, as the man who could be or could not be who he says he is. Dutt's performance is remarkable in the way he carries himself with this quiet dignity that also is that of an enigma. Dutt importantly plays the part with this sense of knowing in his eyes, about the suspicions of the family, even if he doesn't exactly let on either to completely ease their suspicions. What the man does do though is immediately begin to reveal his great ability for storytelling. Dutt is wonderful in the delivery of his first story with this delivery but also a way of almost looking into the memory as something he is experiencing in the moment. It is difficult to not get caught up with the story yourself as Dutt articulates the memory so authentically as this undisputed truth, that is also filled with a particular style and character that helps to define the man. 

Where the man seems to be less of a mystery is in his interactions with his nephew. Where Dutt brings such an enormous amount of warmth in his performance. There's such a generosity of spirit that seems to exude off of the man as he speaks to his nephew. Dutt is just lovely in these moments in creating the bond, which again he implements through his stories and even just a teaching lesson when he speaks to his nephew and friends about celestial bodies. Dutt suddenly makes the stranger the most wonderful teacher, where he delivers with this exact sense of knowledge, but more importantly the moments he accentuates creates this intrigue. Dutt very much gives a performance as the stranger giving the performance, where he makes the learning not only fun, but creates the sense of connection between uncle and nephew through this experience. And we see this consistently where Dutt brings such a sense of life in each of these interactions. Where Dutt's performance isn't that he shows the nephew brightly shining from the manner of his supposed uncle, but also via Dutt's performance where he brings this particularly important sense of the appreciation the stranger gets from every moment he can entertain and connect to his supposed nephew. 

Still unconvinced, particularly by the husband, we see a series of pseudo interrogators brought in by him to try to decipher the stranger's intention. And these scenes are wonderful "interrogations", where the first one, the man just seems charmed by this man who has these stories from all around the world. And it is easy to find this completely convincing because it is hard not to be charmed by Dutt yourself as he details his view of Calcutta as civilized, or just explaining how the homeless present themselves in New York, it is hard not to get drawn into his calm way of sharing his experiences. But even when barely remembering Pele, which would cause one to think perhaps he's lying about being in South America, Dutt even then is entirely winning in his joking way of noting his complete ignorance of football past a certain geographic area. Dutt disarms with such ease that it becomes impossible to seemingly disbelieve him as just a wonderful man with much history, at least as he runs circles around the first interrogator. The last interrogator is far more intense and far more intended on trying to uncover this man as some liar than reveal a definite truth. And here is where Dutt once again excels here though now with more conflict as the man doesn't just listen to him, but rather constantly challenges him with far more incisiveness than just telling him that someone should know about Pele. A conversation that isn't as much about just who he is, but also the very nature of his philosophy where he has appreciation for traditional cultures as much as he is a man of modern cultures as well. 

Dutt is magnificent in the monologue explaining this appreciation is amazing work, as there is such articulate passion he brings, that so clearly and concisely reasons the man's worldview that while still in conflict, feels just beautifully spoken in every word. When speaking for example on the difference between using a gun to brutally murder many against cannibalism, Dutt's wrapping of the terms of barbarism is almost music in the ease in which he speaks this difficult contrast, and again shows such honest emotion in revealing the very real passions within the man. And what all this reveals is this isn't really a film about a mystery of whether or not the man is this uncle, rather it is merely the story of the discovery of all this man of the world has to offer, and just presenting his unique perspective of the world, while also connecting with who are his family still after all this time. Dutt, who sadly passed away not much later than Ray himself, is essential to the success of this film. Because it is more or less, a series of conversations, nearly monologues in rooms, and the film is a success. One being the words are written brilliantly by Ray as he is able to explore so much with this conceit, but as important is Dutt's flawless delivery of every one of these. Every single one that creates not only a sense of who this "stranger" is, but even more so he makes every story, every philosophical thought, every warm connection with the family, absolutely captivating, pointed, or poignant within his performance. Dutt delivers a truly great performance which does more than make the most of the concept, it gives its essential life, in creating a most fascinating portrait of a most idiosyncratic man. 

Best Actor Backlog Volume 5

And the Overlooked Performances Are:

Eric Bogosian in Talk Radio

 

Utpal Dutt in Agantuk 

 

Laurence Fishburne in Deep Cover 

 

Paul Dano in Ruby Sparks

 

Leland Orser in Faults

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1932: Leslie Howard in Smilin' Through & Results

Leslie Howard did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Sir John Carteret in Smilin' Through.

Smilin' Through is your romantic melodrama about lovers Kathleen and Kenneth (Norma Shearer, Fredric March) divided by WWI and the wounds of family history.

Leslie Howard was a little curious of an actor of the period, as typically one was a leading man or not, but he was going from leading to a supporting role from film to film. Here Howard plays the rare substantial supporting role in this film for the period. The substantial supporting role, in that the film actually opens with his character, older, where he is standing watch over the grave of his wife Moonyean (also Shearer). Howard's performance, despite not really adjusting his voice, is surprisingly convincing in his physical manner in the past in presenting just the age of the man. Howard's movements are slower and just his natural manner has this weight about him in age. What is wonderful though is how much hope that Howard brings as he also expresses  the dismay of the character. In his eyes there is this innate sadness about the man, even as when he's called upon to do anything, there's an unquestioned life to him. Howard establishes, without it needing to be said yet, the tragedy of the man, as he always suffers from his loss, but the man's innate being is not to wallow in the pain. Howard creates the sense of a man very much anchored to the past, even if it doesn't fully weigh him into nothingness. And we see what the man still has in him as he's presented with his child niece Kathleen, who is coming to live with him, and well Howard is just so charming. But he's charming in such an easy way as he invites the child to live with him, as there's kind of a somber quality there still, but his expressions are the man living with that however letting his natural warmth be the best of him instead as he goes about making Kathleen feel as welcome as can be.

We jump in time of course as Kathleen grows up to be Shearer, but we continue to see from Howard just such a loving performance from him. He exudes that sense of affection out of every element of his performance, and you are granted the immediate sense of this uncle who seemingly wants only what is best for his niece. Unfortunately things get complicated quickly when an American Kenneth appears in the old house of his father, and makes his way about charming and romancing Kathleen. And there we have the two sides of the man where Howard brings that quiet sense of assurance and love towards Kathleen as a given, until she reveals that the man is Kenneth Wayne, the son of the man who killed Carteret's wife on the day of their wedding. We first flashback where we get Howard to briefly get to be the romantic lead, and he is naturally charming in portraying the unabashed sense of love with his wife. And again Howard shows this loving man is the innate nature, and is moving in the reaction of immediate anguish when Moonyean is murdered in front him. And we understand Carteret's feelings towards the whole Wayne family including this new Wayne, where Carteret is instantly horrified at the prospect of Kathleen having anything to do with him. I think this is where the challenge of the performance truly is, though I was impressed by Howard's quietly warm and charming work before this point. Because it is easy to play into the melodrama in a way that accentuates the less believable aspects of the plot point rather than make it convincing despite being a fairly over the top concept. This is where Howard shines because of the way he presents the bitterness and stubbornness of Cartlett. The dominant emotion Howard presents in his performance is the sorrow within the man, as his expression is always looking inward, usually not facing who is talking to, and almost shows the man always looking to the grave of his wife in a way in this situation. When speaking about Howard is blunt in his delivery in his bitterness, but there is always the sense that it is coming from the pain of the loss of his old love more than even hate for the man who wronged him so deeply. Because of this, Howard is far more dynamic as the "angry old man", by showing very convincingly where he's coming from, granting understanding to it, being less of an obstacle to the central romance, but rather being a character in his own right. Howard by creating this basis for the behavior then wholly earns the change of heart of Carteret when he sees that Kenneth is willing to sacrifice his happiness for Kathleen's, and ends up encouraging the romance. Howard's work again is wonderful in showing less the warmth coming back, but rather just the bitterness fading away so gently to show the warmth was always still there all the time. Creating a moving depiction of the man changing his mind, because the sudden shift feels so natural because of how motivated Howard made every moment of it. And that might've been my favorite moment, if he didn't have his final scene where he's visited by the spirit of his wife, who had also visited him in the opening of the film, where Carteret mentions his mistakes. I love Howard's quiet self-deprecation of the man's uneasiness, but also sense of hope in giving it all up. But more so, as much as it wasn't the focus of the film, he once again has wonderful easy chemistry with Shearer in the moment, and ties such a heartfelt bow at the end of this story.

Updated Overall

Next: Backlog Volume 5 and feel free to give your recommendations. 

Alternate Best Actor 1932: Michel Simon in Boudu Saved from Drowning

Michel Simon did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character of Boudu Saved From Drowning. 

Boudu follows the interactions between a hobo and the family whose patriarch saved the man from drowning. 

Now with that brief synopsis you may be thinking this is some heartwarming story about the rich and poor coming together, and learning from each other. Well you'd be dead wrong, as it is a film by Jean Renoir after all who wasn't typically about the easiest answers. Rather this is a social satire personified most in the character of Boudu, who you may think is one thing in the opening scenes of the film, however again you'd be dead wrong. As the idiosyncratic Michel Simon, who at the very least always stood out as a screen presence no matter where or when he showed up by the sheer one of a kind nature of his face, first appears as a hobo we see lounging around a park. And while there seems the innate sympathy to be created as his dog runs away after he tells the dog to leave him alone while he's eating, even how he reacts isn't quite what you'd expect. It is though the one moment where his character seems even in mild distress as he asks a policeman if he's seen his dog, only to be aggressively scared away lest he be arrested. What speaks more to the character is Simon sitting on a park bench, seemingly somewhat dejected, until a young girl, prompted by his mother, gives him money for a meal. Simon's reaction to this is of a cold confusion and even annoyance and not at all a loving man you might expect. And we see his Boudu almost immediately give away the food to a random mean with a callous sort of anger before going off to jump in the river, seemingly to commit suicide. His attempt is prevented by the wealthy man Edouard Lestingois (Charles Granval) who saves him from drowning and takes him into his home with his wife Emma (Marcelle Hainia) and his maid Chloe (Severine Lerczinska), whom Edouard also is having an affair with. 

The man being taken into the home is where the film begins and Simon's performance becomes the center of the film as this man exists outside of his world now living in the confined space of the rich. And while one might again presume this instead will be about how cruel and careless the rich are, that really isn't the case either as Boudu along with Simon's portrayal, is that of a man of chaos. Simon's physical performance is brilliant because everything he does paints a man essentially out of sorts with everything around him. Although what is so remarkable is how Simon embodies this into every aspect of his work, not just one. His face expresses a constant kind of discomfort, or a nasty sort of dismay. His chest seems always too tight within his now fancier clothes, his way of walking about the house even has an awkwardness as he almost kicks every step, likely a child bored but it doesn't really end there. Simon's constantly doing something physically, and it is captivating because every choice further illustrates the nature of Boudu in this situation. There's weird moments quite frankly of him even sitting between a door frame, which is amazing work by Simon because it feels so natural within his performance, though not natural within the setting. Every glance towards his rich host, every random spit, there is something so uniquely eye-catching about what Simon does, that makes him not just out of place, but actively trying to almost destroy the sense of place. And there really is the key to this performance, and the story as a whole. As this is not the case of the rich mistreating the poor, though there is certainly a disconnect, rather it is this story of a chaotic force being introduced into the tightly ordered constructed society of the house. 

Simon does not make you want to like Boudu, in fact you might find him as deplorable as the rich family does at certain points, though equally so, Simon does make there just something so captivating about the man even in his strangeness. Boudu spits randomly in the house, and scoffs at any redirection. He acts lustful towards both the wife and maid, which only exacerbates after he shaves his large beard. Simon's performance is piercing in its aggressiveness, of the man who constantly pesters and prods rather than enjoys. The man is incapable of existing in this more structured state, and Simon portrays a vicious disregard for all that he sees. There is something very specific within the performance though that makes him not exactly hateful with any sense for cause or passion, he's not some true anarchist or hippie breakdown the confines of society. Boudu is Boudu, who is a man who strives to exist within his world, his way with disregard for anyone or anything that gets in his way. Simon's performance brings to life this sense of the unwieldy, animalistic and callous. He never makes you care about Boudu, but he does make him so idiosyncratic in his state as a man that it becomes difficult to not watch him. In a way what his Boudu is, is like Laurel and Hardy, or Chaplin, as the men who are so unlikely themselves that it causes intense friction if not explosion against the society they are within. The difference though is Boudu's not comical, at least not in an overt charming way, and his behaviors always reeks of intention in his actions and is not accidental in his nonconformity. There isn't some secret that makes him who he is, there is some great change, even as he visually changes throughout, he is who he is and always is that, as this agent of individualistic chaos against everything that isn't his exact existence. A strange idea, that is realized effortlessly by Simon, who doesn't charm you or entertain you really, but rather he just fascinates you. 

Alternate Best Actor 1932: Charles Laughton in Island of Lost Souls

Charles Laughton did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Dr. Moreau in Island of Lost Souls. 

The Island of Lost Soul tells the tale of a man happening onto the island of a mad doctor who lives in and around a strange hybrid of animals and men. 

As seemed to be the requirement of many of the horror films of the period, it wouldn't be true to the period if the main lead wasn't better named Blandy McBland with a similarly bland love interest, where the film must be saved by a better actor in the juicier part of someone at least responsible for the horror in some way. Charles Laughton obviously was and became known as one of the very best actors of his generation, so naturally he's more than up to the task. Laughton first appears as the man is dumped on a remote stop by an amoral Captain, and Laughton's initial reaction is just quiet frustration of a man who wants nothing to do with outsiders. Unfortunately the man is left and he becomes the doctor's problem. Laughton is working on a whole different level here as well, in portraying such ease in his performance and even more importantly a charisma even in playing obviously a villainous role. Laughton though is charming in his approach, as when he sees he's stuck with the man, Laughton presents himself with a generous enough spirit of the welcoming host, if more than a bit cautious in terms of sharing the whole of the story of his island. An island populated with near feral animal-men who live outside the gates of the Doctor's home, whom the doctor warns his guest against, though with glances by Laughton that immediately share a knowledge of the situation that goes far beyond simple concern. Laughton presents a man who is very much complicit in these creatures, and is just wonderful to watch as he acts out this part. 

Laughton knows how to make exposition in itself natural within his performance, but even more importantly knows how to make it entertaining. Laughton has a wonderful style because he presents his doctor as someone who perhaps was respectable at one time, and in terms of his whole manner treats himself as though everything he is doing is respectable. He speaks with a quiet authority and absolute intelligence as he makes suggestions to his guest, and even convinces his more moral assistant that the man could stay for something that the doctor is working on. The doctor envisioned some experiment to use the new guest as, by introducing him to the Panther Woman, also a beast-human hybrid, however for a greater emphasis on the human side, and essentially wants to test her out via pairing her with the man. Laughton is brilliant in the way he delivers this plan with a complete lack of shame, and even more than that some grand pride in every delivery. A man whose eyes denote this idea with a keen sense of what he thinks should be done. When the attempted experiment begins, Laughton takes it a step further though by showing beneath the veneer of the egotist mixed in with the English charm is obviously just a creepy man living out his fantasies. Laughton brings more than just a glint in his eyes as he watches the two proceed with more than a hint of lust, and Laughton performs the note beautifully in revealing the grand designs of the man that have nothing to do with simple scientific curiosities, let alone noble ones. 

Meanwhile while he enacts his attempts to entice the visitor with the panther woman, Moreau frequently reveals his most obvious nature through his interactions and dismissals of his other "experiments" aka the native populations. A key line that essentially echoes Dr. Frankenstein's line in the 1931 films about feeling what it is like to be God, is more or less spoken by Moreau in this film. Where it was that of mania with Colin Clive's performance, Laughton is that of calm assurance, the insanity is in the glint of his eyes, however Laughton presents it as a man well controlled in his insanity. And we see that as he dictates over his "people" with his calm assurance, yet with an unmistakable internalized intensity for genuine violence. In each instance where the islanders begin to act too animalistic Moreau with a whip, and occasionally some support from Bela Lugosi as one of the creatures, however Laughton presents each as the lion tamer, and the brutal dictator as he insists they follow his rules lest they suffer more pain at his hands. Laughton brings the diabolical sneer of a proper villain who is lording over these creatures as part of an extension of his ego, and portrays the madness of his character even though the man is capable of presenting it all as for the sake of scientific curiosity. But what all this adds up to more importantly than anything, is an entertaining villainous performance, where Laughton simply shines every moment he is on screen. Whenever Moreau is onscreen, the film is working, because Laughton is so engaging. But more than that, while this adaptation purposefully leans closer to the horror aspects of the story than the philosophical, whatever depth can be mined within the screenplay is found by Laughton, as while being enjoyable to watch, he does find an actual character here with greater notions to his evil, even if the film is only slightly interested in that.