Alternate Best Actor 1967: Scott Wilson in In Cold Blood

Scott Wilson did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Dick Hickock in In Cold Blood. 

Scott Wilson had a notable year in 1967, playing a supporting role as a wrong suspect who happens to also know some very important information in In Heat of the Night, a performance that ended up being a mini showcase for Wilson, bringing a lot of naturalism and color to a what could’ve been a forgettable role in lesser hands. That role, which apparently got him this role via recommendation by the great Sidney Poitier, was in many ways a warm up to this role. Wilson plays the secondary lead here, the one of two men responsible for the death of a family in a small town, the other being Perry Smith played by Robert Blake. Smith being the killer typically more focused upon due to his more idiosyncratic life, his more pathos driven existence and possibly because Smith was the one who literally committed the murders. Hickock however was as responsible, despite not pulling the trigger, a dynamic realized within Wilson’s performance. Wilson’s performance that naturally elevates the film to very much emphasizing the “true” within the true crime, as the moment we see Hickock join Smith on their deadly trip, Wilson doesn’t seem like an actor presenting himself as a part, rather just this small-time criminal coming onscreen. There’s a history about Wilson’s performance that is innate, and his history isn’t so distinct, Hickock is a “run of the mill” compared to Smith, but yet the man’s history is still important. The moment he says goodbye to his dad, Wilson’s suddenly this working class son being supportive to his dad, acting as though he’s going to make it big with this new idea of his. 

Wilson is completely natural in the immediate switch we get when he joins Perry in the car, and Wilson suddenly dominates, sorta, as one of the fascinating elements here is the way the relationship between the two men is never a singular note. Rather a switch between them, however the basic setting is that Hickock is dominant as he is the one with the plan, which is to rob and murder a farmer he “knows” has a safe filled with money. Wilson’s performance is fantastic in the bravado he brings that is of a certain very specific career criminal quality, where in his mind this “score” just is exactly what he needs to get everything set for himself. Importantly Wilson paints no doubt within the notions and even goes further than that he sells the notion believably to Smith. This includes even noting that they’re not going to need anything to cover their faces because they aren’t going to leave any witnesses. Hickock has the murder plan already as part of the deal, but presented Wilson delivers it as the means to any end for a man who exists within the mindset that being a crook is just his innate nature. Importantly, the idea of the murdering is presented by Hickock but Smith is part of the plan with the knowledge that Smith has already killed someone. A moment where Wilson is brilliant and creates an essential dynamic at times in their relationship. Wilson has this pestering quality, such as when he purposefully briefly sets off Smith knowing he’s brought out the killer instinct. Something Wilson doesn’t deliver with fear, but rather an easy going smile, the smile of the man who doesn’t see that killer’s quality as a danger to himself but rather a tool for his horrible plan. 

Much of the film skips over the actual murders, something we don’t return to until near the end of the film, the rest of the time spent with Hickock and Smith attempting some kind of getaway despite stealing very little from the farmer, who in fact paid almost everything with a check. Where Wilson is great by portraying the burden of the murders so differently within his own work, yet is wholly convincing in playing this alternative note than the pathos driven one portrayed by Blake. Wilson captures the amorality of Hickock with such a disturbing believability in his ease about living with his murders, even encouraging more potential murders along the way. Wilson’s presentation has an eerie convincing quality in just being fed up with any talk of any mistakes they’ve made with an insistence that the two are distanced from it. Wilson makes this practicality disturbing because in his performance, it isn’t that he doesn’t care, but rather his reactions of frustrations around it are more so man just being thrown off from what he believes to be his job than having taken part in the brutal murders of four people. The ease about the criminal nature is what is so chilling in Wilson because every second of this you just believe this guy who takes in the killings as a calculation like any other. His downplaying moments of it to Smith, even Wilson accentuation on it as like a forgettable mistake, is brilliantly performed, because he shows that in this man’s mind that’s all it was to him. 

In their on the run period Wilson has some stand out moments where he illustrates further the career criminal nature of Hickock where it is just second nature, something that Wilson also makes second nature. A standout scene is when we see Hickock approach a clothing store manager to fashion himself and Smith for a “wedding”, something that is all a lie of course, but Wilson’s presentation of this is amazing. He’s beaming with confidence in every step of the process bringing so much warmth in his language as he’s building trust with the manager, by having such an affable charm as he “sells” the lie so convincingly. Particularly as we get to the payment, you never doubt his ability to not only to get to pay by check, through the ease Wilson brings such commitment to friendliness, that he even convinces you that he’d get the manager to give them some spending money by increasing the check. Wilson’s smiles, his physical “good ole boy” manner, every bit of it is a magnificent dance of a con that he takes through and pretty much convinces you to “sell” him something with your own money. A quality consistent in their other schemes, including trying and failing to kill a motorist for their cash using Smith of course as the actual hands of the operation, but Wilson again accentuates the needed “team” in their potentially horrible crimes. As we see when Smith is preparing to kill a man, Wilson is that charming smile of a distraction that would make it all so easy and just “part of the job”. 

Eventually their luck runs out as they are arrested for a stolen car, but I love the moment just before this where Hickock suggests they just try to make their cash ride at a casino. There is no hesitation in his delivery, Wilson presents a man who absolutely believes he could make this plan work, even as the odds are so obviously against him. Under interrogation the dynamic shifts substantially, as Wilson tries to play the note of the cool operator, however when pressed the facade breaks down. Wilson is excellent because you see the attempts at playing the cards he thinks he has, from first the attempted confidence, then attempting to play the scared innocent as he reacts finally with emotional distress to the murders, not because of guilt but rather having been caught, which is a striking contrast to Blake’s far more controlled portrayal of Smith in this instance. A dynamic we see as he flashbacks to the murders, an all time great, and all time great disturbing scene, where both actors are essential in the realization. As with Wilson we saw the “fun” of playing the conman, now we see the man who has planned out the murders, and Wilson’s great by honestly presenting a caustic stupidity in every step. Playing up the fiendishness and even giving into it with such slimy disregard, including considering raping one of the victims, only stopping due to Smith’s interference. Wilson shows a combination though that is chilling between the power of his threat in the scene, and the lack of power in his growing anxiety as it is obvious there is no money safe whatsoever. Smith shows us the fool, and in that fool we see such danger of a man as his mistake leads to the death of innocents. The final segment of the film is more so Blake’s showcase but Wilson is still great even in the bits he has as the men wait for their execution. Wilson’s fascinating because he presents himself as though Hickock is almost living in the “retirement” plan or “all star” setup for criminals. As the career criminal there is a glee almost in Wilson at times, and a practical manner who accepts his situation as it is at this point. Wilson brings depth to a lack of depth, as Hickock basically espouses his support of capital punishment, as he’s about to be the victim of it, showing the reasoning not a great thinker, rather a man who accepts it all in his limited view of life. Although a shorter moment for him, Wilson is outstanding in depicting the execution scene because come off that same idea as before, the whole time Wilson presents so powerful this dawning realization of the reality in every second. The man's eyes are that of someone emotionally despondent but more than that someone seeing his whole semblance of his reality cracking finally just before he is about to be killed. Although in many ways the less showy part, Wilson delivers also a great performance by creating a different portrait of a criminal, not as a one of the kind, but rather the run of the mill man who could enable and exacerbate the nature of both men to the most heinous deeds. 

Alternate Best Actor 1967: Michel Simon in The Two of Us

Michel Simon did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning the Silver Bear, for portraying Pépé in The Two of Us. 

The Two of Us follows a young Jewish boy Claude sent to live with an elderly couple in the country. 

Michel Simon was simply one of the first actors to “get it” when it came to film acting, becoming one of the early consistent performers on film who not only seemed to understand the medium but had the ability to take risks with dynamic characterizations. A career that lasted from the silent era to the 70’s. One of the few major awards received by Simon was for Berlin top acting prize for this film. Simon plays the grandfather of the elderly couple who take in the boy and Simon’s ability on screen is readily apparent as it always is. There’s a natural ease to his performances and this one is no different. Simon brings instantly a sense of this man of the country who has long lived there and pretty much is an innate product of this existence, something we will find is both a good thing and a bad thing. But let’s begin with the lacking complication of the good, where Simon is truly wonderful in portraying the overabundance of warmth in his performance towards the boy Claude. Simon is just beaming in the way he presents that the grandfather couldn’t be more fulfilled than when he is playing with this boy. He is loving every second of it, and is something you feel come across the screen to create such a warm loving dynamic. Simon has so many great moments that aren’t defined by any great drama just of great fun. Such as rough housing with the boy, or a moment of the two swinging each other on a swing. There is such a zest to it all and Simon succeeds in making that sense of fun come to the viewer, while also seemingly getting the best out of the child actor who too seems to be just having fun at least from what comes onscreen. It feels wholly natural and just wholly honest in every moment of it. 

But of course it isn’t all good, and even then Simon is great such as a moment where Claude is sent away to school where he is immediately bullied, ridiculed and has his head cruelly shaved. Simon’s reaction is heartbreaking because you do so how much he loves the boy in his eyes and his delivery of saying that he’ll teach him instead couldn’t be more reassuring or supportive to the struggling boy. With that though we have the most challenging aspect of the film and something that I think is its greatest ambition but also its greatest deficiency. Because as much as the film devotes so many lovely moments to Simon’s Pépé, it as often gives him moments of his views on the world which are openly antisemetic, prejudicial to outsiders in general and fully supports the Nazi puppet French leader Philippe Pétain. There’s a struggle here as the film is directed by Claude Berri, that depicts a boy named Claude in a situation that apparently mirrors his own life where he too was sent to the countryside to an antismetic couple, so theoretically he is just delivering his life story, and so maybe why the reckoning of this element is light, and the commentary on it beyond the depiction is somewhat limited. Berri himself seems to want to focus on the good times more but wishes to depict that nagging element. Something that should be potentially fascinating but maybe his closeness to the subject matter limited his commentary. So creates a curious situation because so much of it, and so much of what Simon does in the role, wants you to love Pépé yet he has these horrible beliefs behind him. 

Well as much as the film limits the resolution of this, Simon I think does what he can in terms of trying to kind of make you understand this man, and show that someone can be largely likable as long as you don’t bring up certain subjects, which to be fair holds true for some. Simon very much emphasizes the limitations of the man’s perspective for his politics. When he goes off on Jewish people, foreigners, communists or anything else, there’s a routine in his delivery, it is the standard statements of expectation and something he doesn’t even really reflect on. It is an old man’s rambling, sadly given the situation such mentality leading to horrible events so it is difficult to ignore. Something that the boy slightly challenges by questioning if he’s actually met Jewish people, which Simon’s reaction in these moments is perfect as it is of someone who never even furnished such deep connections to the topic as he presents confusion and naivety. An element Berri seems to be partially commenting on such as when Pépé happens upon a brutal Nazi regulation, where Simon’s reaction is terrific in showing the suddenly the old man being completely lost at such a horrible notion before being hurried along. Or another moment where with the war ending Pépé is still holding onto Pétain as this great man, to the point even part of Pépé’s family threaten to leave forever if the old man doesn’t take the picture of the disgraced false leader. We get the moment after he’s caved in, where Simon would be deeply affecting with the emotion he brings out in his performance by showing so convincingly this man who is just lost and confused by the revelations of the world around him…if one can’t be so easily detached given what he’s sad about is a man who was an active tool of the Nazi regime. So it’s a strange situation, but in all of this Simon is effective in playing every emotional beat, and creating a cohesiveness in presenting the more savory and less savory elements of this character. As he is genuinely unquestionably affecting by comparison when Simon shows with such empathetic heartbreak the old man's reaction to the death of his faithful dog. There isn't a second where the emotion doesn't feel absolutely real and tangible. And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention his scene of presenting himself as he was as a soldier in World War I, which is a terrific vaudevillian bit of over the top physical performance, where Simon is having a blast but is also very entertaining in the grandfather making fun of himself by lampooning old serious soldier self. But that scene is just another example of so much of what Simon does well with this part, challenging you to like this old man, even as his stated beliefs are that of a terrible person. 

Alternate Best Actor 1967: Ljubiša Samardžić in The Morning

Ljubiša Samardžić did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning the Volpi Cup, for portraying Mali in The Morning.

The Morning follows the period of time of victory immediately after WWII in Yugoslavia, which results in an odd combination of celebration and killings. 

I’ll admit going with a festival winner might not always be a guaranteed choice for analysis as there have been the examples where the winner seemed like the juries pulled a name out of the hat and said “sure” rather than really accrediting a great performance. And I’ll say while Ljubiša Samardžić’s performance isn’t entirely that but I wouldn’t call it a great performance either. His actual appearances in this already fairly short film are limited as it takes a wavering perspective and he only becomes lead by virtue that the film keeps coming back to him as it frequently diverges to other people dealing with their new found “freedom”. We to Samardžić depiction of Mali as a man who basically is killing people still even after the war even having this strange urge to do so, where it appears the people may be guilty in some way, but still the jump cuts we get to depict the executions leaves some questions in mind about that guilt. Samardžić’s performance is interesting in the exuberance he brings to it, that is a kind of madness he creates in the man. He doesn’t play it as fully insane as though he’s a psychopath, despite his killings, but rather someone who has become detached from his existence to have this sort of dreamy enjoyment of the madness. This state of his is captivating when the film chooses to depict him as his physicality even maneuvering around almost like a ghost himself, but the way he seems so carefree about everything. He’s captivating as far as he can go in depicting this, as we see him talk to a few women about either the present or the past, but even that Samardžić depicts with the same sort of casual ease that seems eerily disjointed. It all works in his performance in crafting this very specific state of being that does successfully realize this man is sort of ripped from reality, but still playing with it in his own way. BUT, the film’s choices to constantly divert attention to someone else or to some extreme stylistic swing does limit how much Samardžić actually gets to explore, even as the technical lead of this film. He’s good with what he has but we don’t really get to play with it in more directions. We get a stylized scene of getting into fineries but even that is far more visual than something the performers really get to sink their teeth into. Regardless, Samardžić gives a good performance, but it was one where I felt we got a great starting point that sadly the film didn’t allow him to explore beyond a certain point. 

Alternate Best Actor 1967

 And the Nominees Were Not:

Michel Simon in The Two of Us

Ljubiša Samardžić in The Morning

Sergei Bondarchuk in War and Peace Part IV

Toshiro Mifune in Samurai Rebellion

Scott Wilson in In Cold Blood

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2017: Kōji Yakusho in The Third Murder & Results

Kōji Yakusho did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Misumi Takashi in The Third Murder. 

The Third Murder follows a defense attorney Tomoaki Shigemori (Masaharu Fukuyama) for a man who murdered his boss. Sounds like a straightforward mystery or courtroom drama but given it is Kore-eda, if only it twere so simple. 

Kōji Yakusho this time around is decidedly not playing the kindly bathroom cleaner in Perfect Days, the last film I reviewed him for, something that is abundantly obvious in the opening of this film that is perhaps the clearest picture of the intention of Yakusho’s character Misumi, but then again maybe not. What we do see is a double act of brutality as Misumi not only bludgeons the man, his boss, to death he then sets the corpse on fire. This seemingly is the undisputed act of the piece and perhaps our best method to understanding the enigma of this character…maybe. Yakusho’s performance in the scene, which we assume is real at the very least and the facts as presented. There is a hostile extreme in the act and Yakusho presents us with a violent man. Something that seems to fit when Misumi was formerly imprisoned for murder avoiding the death penalty only by the act of Shigemori’s father who was Misumi’s judge. Leaving Shigemori to essentially try to figure out why this man was deserving of such mercy, something that will not be easy for him or the viewer in uncovering the enigma that is Misumi. Yakusho’s performance here is brilliant right off the bat because of how much he frustrates you in a way by his ability to answer questions while not saying a damn thing about anything. When his defense team first meets him, inquiring about the crime and essentially trying to reduce the sentence by making it more of a side effect of a robbery, Yakusho’s performance seems almost disinterested by the questions. Yakusho has the vibe of a career criminal in a way looking for the “cheapest” way out of a situation he’s been in before. He’s captivating though because he’s not precisely that, he’s sort of that, as that sort of disinterest is only can be a criminal to treat his obviously severe crime as just something for him to throw away. He makes you sorta believe this but the problem is there’s the edge of every word where Yakusho is presenting at least a slight or severe lie in his eyes in each delivery. 

You can’t believe the man so clearly particularly when it becomes clear the robbery came after the murder therefore requiring a new defense if there is any chance at avoiding the death penalty. So the next try is to suggest he was motivated by the murdered man’s wife to kill her husband as some sort of illicit lover’s pact. Something that when Misumi’s asked about it he doesn’t deny, but doesn’t confirm either. Again Yakusho’s performance is key to all of this because he too doesn’t confirm or deny it either. Which could be an excuse just to be nothing but it is the something that Yakusho plays around with that makes him so transfixing in his vexing qualities. When asked point blank about an affair, Yakusho’s shrug is a masterclass of alluding to something but not quite alluding to enough. There’s some kind of embarrassment, and suddenly you can perceive him as a different kind of crook. There’s something he sort of cares about, but at the same time there is a callousness about him that makes it seem like it is a standard issue sleazy murderer…maybe. The only truth you can truly accept is that Yakusho captivates in his peculiar way of dodging the questions, without saying no or saying yes. But kind of saying both at the same time. Shigemori, still struggling to find some way to prevent the death penalty, seems to find some other motive where the murdered man may have been molesting his daughter and Misumi acted in judgement of that heinous act. Naturally when Shigemori asks him about it, Yakusho doesn’t make things easy for us. Rather Yakusho shifts again this time most powerfully to portray a different kind of killer, and here is curiously just as he’s given the potentially most sympathetic motivation that Yakusho actually doesn’t make it the simple way of showing the man burdened by performing this kind of vengeance. Rather Yakusho goes to a darker place, particularly as he speaks of tragedies of his family where Yakusho doesn’t give motivation still, but what he shows is suddenly this more chilling intensity in the man. Suddenly he speaks with the type of viciousness of a killer, even a serial killer which Misumi technically is, but you can take it as hate towards the world, due to injustice or just hate towards the world. Yakusho makes it a most striking declaration by keeping the ambiguity alive as the man is speaking an emotional truth but he still is not speaking the truth. Even when he demands that Shigemori answer with his own belief, where Yakusho is genuinely scary in the intensity of the moment, how can one be sure with this man?

Shigemori’s path isn’t easy as Misumi seems ostracized by his own family, however the daughter’s story gives credence to this motivation though no one speaks an exact command or choice at any point. But as the best possible approach Shigemori attempts to get Misumi to pursue this course, until in court he does the exact opposite and insists that he’s innocent saying that he was pressured to make a deal. Suddenly as he is pleading his innocence Yakusho’s performance manages to be his most obviously false and guilty, where everything else he says you can’t be sure of, Yakusho brilliantly overplays this moment of creating a man playing the part now of just the criminal making up stories for the sake of it. Yakusho brings a different kind of blithe quality now where there’s more of an act than in his early scenes where you just can’t be sure of it, here you know this is the one place that Misumi is unquestionably lying. Leading to his death sentence, Shigemori visits Misumi with that sentence placed to try to figure out the mystery one more time. Of course Yakusho/Misumi still remain extremely cagey in his exact intentions, but captivating in his enigmatic state. Yakusho delivery of Misumi stating it would’ve been better if he had not been born seems real and creates the penetrating nature of a deep pathos…but this doesn’t exactly tell you why either which is the brilliance again. Something that Shigemori attempts to challenge by stating that Misumi’s actions must’ve been to protect the young woman, even his plea change protecting her from testifying makes it so he does have a good deed out of his existence. Yakusho is outstanding in his reaction to this because in the first moment you do believe this along with Shigemori as his face brightens a bit and the man seems to accept his good deed within what appears to be a rotten life. BUT when Misumi shrugs off that this may all be the lies of an old murderer, Yakusho doesn’t make it easy once again, as even his grin in this shrugging suggests you can’t believe any exact intention of the man at any point. And that’s the greatness of this performance, because while you can choose to take an interpretation as Shigemori does, Yakusho doesn’t enforce it, nor does he prevent it. He manages to instead brilliantly tiptoe around the lines to create a cohesive whole yet remain an enigma, which we know he’s a murderer, but why, well Yakusho gives you riddles but he never gives you answers in the best possible way. 

Updated Overall

Next: 1967 Lead

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2017: Nawazuddin Siddiqui in Mom

Nawazuddin Siddiqui did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Detective Dayashankar Kapoor in Mom. 

Mom follows a college professor Devki (Sridevi) who seeks revenge for her step daughter after she is brutally sexually assaulted by a group of men. 

I will say Nawazuddin Siddiqui is an actor I reviewed three times before this and in each instance has been a disparate performance and character. Siddiqui physically in each instance looks very different, no more so than in this film as he appears as a mostly bald private detective with a style all his own, who happens to hear about the plight of Devki’s stepdaughter, being missing initially, who is eventually found near death. Unfortunately for Devki, due to the stepdaughter having been drinking her testimony is put into question and the four men are exonerated by the courts despite their obvious guilt leading Devki to take the law into her own hands. In order to do this more effectively she calls upon Siddiqui detective Kapoor to help her. Siddiqui’s initial appearance is well performed in establishing the idiosyncratic nature of his character. Siddiqui is once again very much doing his own thing and successfully in the way he holds himself as a purposeful peculiarity. Something that works as presents himself as a peculiarity, where Siddiqui specific eagerness to help he paints with the right ambiguity between someone who is genuine in his keen eyed interest as he almost looks like a dog waiting for a treat with his specifically curious eyes and particularly accentuated grin, that may denote almost an ambulance chaser version of a detective, or just a man who presents his genuine interest in helping in his own unusual way. Well it becomes the latter clearly when Devki utilizes his skills as a detective to track down and find different ways to seek revenge against each of the guilty men. Siddiqui continues his ambiguous but entertaining note, where basically what he does is offer some levity within the rather dark situation. He does so in a way that works just through his off-beat delivery that fits and works for this off-beat oddball character. So every time he comes in for some exposition or moment of maneuvering the revenge plan, Siddiqui comes at it with his own unique angle that fits this eccentric character. What Siddiqui does effectively is show sort of the growth and investment of Kapoor into the revenge that is beyond monetary benefits. Something we see when he keeps mentioning his mother, something that Siddiqui plays initially seemingly within the eccentricity of Kapoor, but as he continues to mention it his eyes effectively denote a real care and outright empathy where his mother represents what Devki is doing for her stepdaughter. Siddiqui utilizes just that much more investment, he doesn’t lose the eccentricity by revealing sincerity as the ambiguity leaves to show that his investment goes beyond monetary compensation. An element that is featured even more strongly in his final scene where he comes face to face with the most dangerous of the men. Siddiqui’s wonderful in this scene by playing the shades of a sense of dread, but with a bravery of a man who has no desire to suffer fools of this hideous man. His delivery of correcting the man about a correct pronunciation is pitch perfect because he manages to make it a joke to Kapoor but also with it this real belief in Devki as he spells out the man’s own doom. Siddiqui hitting his height in this moment that exemplifies his overall effectiveness in the role, that makes the comedic elements of the character speak to more than just the comedy, though it works straightforwardly as well, by funneling within a highly specific character that he makes believable, while also using it to allude to a greater depths to the real motivation of the man. It’s a strong performance that really other than Sridevi, manages the very tricky tone of the film to deliver another wholly engaging performance, that for Siddiqui is yet another performance that didn’t for a moment make me think of the other performances of his I’ve reviewed here. 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2017: Mark Rylance in Dunkirk

Mark Rylance did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Mr. Dawson in Dunkirk.

Dunkirk follows three stories related to the Dunkirk evacuation by the British army. 

The nature of Dunkirk is one of the most pure example of a cinematic approach where I do think it is one film where it was absolutely meant for its original format to the most pronounced extreme, having said that, still works for me even in the lesser format of a home viewing, even on a larger television screen. Relevant though is Christopher Nolan’s emphasis on the visual approach for the material where the amount of backstory per character is very limited. The character probably with the most backstory is Mark Rylance as the “lead” of the boat story, where an older English gentleman goes with his son, and ill-fated friend George (Barry Keoghan, who I was taken by being reminded of just how not creepy he is here) to rescue men from Dunkirk using his own boat. Rylance's performance very much from the outset is about stature and developing that specific comforting presence of an old fashioned unfussy English gentlemen intent on doing the right thing. Initially what Rylance does is to not really put too much on anything, showing a very internalized determination fitting for the quiet man he is as he prepares the boat, before the navy can commandeer it themselves and set sail. Even his warning to George that they are going into war Rylance’s delivery of the line is with a subdued yet potent urgency of someone who speaks in fundamental truths and with an innate earnestness about himself. Rylance sets up the character effectively as empathetic respectability with the presence of a quiet established dignity for the good natured patriarch of the time.  

The journey is naturally not the easiest though on the more hopeful outset of the trip Rylance’s moment of beaming with pride at the spitfire planes, even giving a bit of history on their engines Rylance exemplifies the specific belief in the planes. Something that one could take as just belief in his country, but it extends to something beyond that. Rylance lays the groundwork for what are the essential truths of his character. The first important moment of the trip comes in as the boat picks up the only survivor of a sunken ship, the shivering soldier (Cillian Murphy). A man clearly suffering PTSD from the attack and refuses to stay on the boat that is headed back to the danger in Dunkirk. Rylance is fantastic in the way he presents the measured approach Dawson takes to dealing with the man at a breaking point. Rylance brings first just this considerable calm where his eyes bring so much empathy for the man’s brokenness, yet there is the perfect type of conviction in his voice as he notes that they can’t run away from the way. Rylance brings such a simple certainty to the moment that is absolutely wonderful. As is his moment of realization of just how of an extreme the man is, and falsely says they’ll turn around. Rylance brings such a gentle disarming quality to his performance, where his eyes note the real danger the man is posing before doing his best to alleviate the situation. Rylance offers such calm as he lies to the man by saying that they’ll chart a course. Even when shortly afterwards the man attacks Mr. Dawson, in order to get control of the wheel, Rylance’s reaction is still not of anger or fear but rather surprise at the extreme desperation of the man in the moment. Even after that though Rylance believably stays largely as this rock of dignified determination. And what makes Rylance stand out though is the quiet internal life in every decision, with an innate empathy, and the suggestion of key moments of pride. Rylance consistently offers some greater sense of the story of Mr. Dawson even though we are eventually only given one clear piece of motivation for Mr. Dawson. Something that Rylance establishes before we are told the moment when the boat has the chance to save a downed fighter pilot. Suddenly Rylance loses all his composure, and it is especially striking because of how quietly reserved he is the rest of the time. The urgency Rylance brings is emotional and honestly very moving as the panic is real and there is more going on with Mr. Dawson then just trying to save this one pilot. Rylance’s delivery suddenly hurried and in his own way desperate in his insistence that they try to save the man. A moment that is later explained when Dawson’s son tells the saved pilot that Dawson's older son had been a pilot who had been killed. An element that doesn’t change Rylance’s performance but rather one can see that Rylance already made it clear. The quiet determination, the moments of specific pride in the RAF, and that key moment of losing his own grip, all reveal a grieving father who wants to live by his son’s example and do everything in his power to honor his memory. Rylance manages to fully embody the type of the volunteering older gentlemen but naturally goes further both in the bigger moments but also the nuance in every small detail he has. 

Alternate Best Actor 2017: Results

5. Josh Brolin in Only the Brave - Brolin gives a consistently good portrayal of a firefighter insistent on the importance of his duty. 

Best Scene: Final fight with wife. 

4. Kamel El Basha in The Insult - Although slightly limited by the narrative El Basha finds nuance and humanity beyond the symbol the screenplay sometimes forces him into. 

Best Scene: The apology. 

3. Vladimir Brichta in Bingo: The King of the Mornings - Brichta goes all in bringing an intense and dynamic energy even if the film doesn't always give him the best path to take. 

Best Scene: Removing the makeup. 

2. Jamie Bell in Films Stars Don't Die in Liverpool - Bell has one of the least interesting parts in this lineup making him all the more impressive through the nuance he consistently finds throughout. 

Best Scene: Final goodbye. 

1. Joaquin Phoenix in You Were Never Really There - Good predictions Ytrewq, Jonathan, Marcus, A, Luke, Anonymous, Tim, Matt, John Smith, Robert, Razor, RatedRStar, Calvin,Tahmeed, Emi, Shaggy & Harris. Phoenix gives an understated yet intensely powerful portrayal of a man defined by violence in a very particular way. 

Best Scene: The water. 

Updated Overall

Next: 2017 Supporting

Note: I will be updating other rankings later as I want to re-watch a few films first. 

Alternate Best Actor 2017: Vladimir Brichta in Bingo: The King of the Mornings

Vladimir Brichta did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Augusto Mendes in Bingo: The King of the Mornings. 

Bingo King of the Mornings follows the unlikely trajectory of an aspiring actor, doing softcore pornos, becoming the star of a hit children’s clown tv show. 

Vladmir Brichta plays Augusto the actor where the film opens with almost a kind of Safdie brothers like intensity as we follow him to try to get out of his particularly humble beginnings. Brichta approaches the role with a fundamental truth behind Augusto as a man who is destined for greatness, or at least he believes him. Something we see as we open the film where he is spending time with his young son just before a porn shoot. Where Brichta plays the moment with his son, towards his less than appealing job, as a hype up moment where Brichta presents not as delusions of grandeur rather this self-motivation method to a certain kind of madness of someone insisting that he'll be big. Brichta undercuts it with just a glance here or there before the hype up, showing that at this point he’s not there, but with the conviction of a man who just knows he’ll be there somehow. Where we quickly see one opportunity through a tv show, and one success of this performance is Brichta’s ability to modulate his performance per the performances of the character of Augusto. Obviously the softcore doesn’t require much of him, but in the brief tv show appearance, Brichta reinvents his presence to this very specific type of actor, where he comes across well but in a very specific alternative charisma than what we will eventually get as Bingo. Brichta effectively portrays the potential of the man as a performer, something that naturally carries to Brichta’s own performance. 

Brichta’s charisma he delivers here is very much attached to the drive of the man where in his eyes you see that insistence that he can do anything. Something that comes into play when he decides to audition for the new children’s program Bingo instead of the tv show. Where Brichta brings this predatory quality even as he darts towards this chance at fame even if it seems ill-fitting to his previous jobs in showbusiness. The intensity he delivers as he very nearly bites into the idea of the children’s clown denotes the need to find a path to his own fame. Where we see Augusto make his impression by not playing into the clown trope and in fact using inappropriate language for a children’s show, unheard by the English speaking studio bigwig, to get people to have a bigger reaction. Brichta’s approach, where this is almost an uncurrent of insanity in the “sell” of his Bingo, works though in the way there is just so much energy in his delivery, a specific chaotic energy of someone rolling with the madcap punches more than anything. Something that naturally extends to when he’s dealing with the sometimes unruly children of his show, where Brichta combines a big smile with also an often hectoring edge, but with just the right blend that he never quite becomes unbelievable, even if he is a bit more hostile than you’d expect a children’s clown to be. 

Within the world comes his fame, which initially is something that Augusto thrives with where Brichta plays into that drive now also into a self-satisfied ego, to the point of insisting he’ll easily have sex with the religious show producer Lúcia (Leandra Leal). Brichta continues the chaos with that same energy effectively though now with a bit more of a pompous stride. An element that becomes less clear for him when it becomes obvious that he cannot reveal his identity therefore limiting his actual exposure. Leading Brichta’s performance to blend that previous intensity that he used for his performance to become now this tipping towards vexing frustration. Something that Brichta effectively builds in his performance, along with moments out of makeup where you see him stewing in it against other moments of fantasizing of being able to reveal himself or have unexpected success with sex with Lúcia, neither of which happen. Unfortunately this leads me to the elements of the film which were less successful for me. One being his relationship with his son, who I’m sorry but came off as a prop to me. Other than the opening scene, I thought he was just kind of there. The other also being his fame obsessed mom, something that I also thought needed to go further. Although I think Brichta is good in showing the quiet consideration of the otherwise very blunt man to his mom, along with later his unconsolable desperation when she dies later. But even that transition seems rushed there that it doesn’t overall have the impact it should even if Brichta is certainly giving it his all. Additionally the whole path of frustration, along with his relationship with Lúcia have a lot of potential but just feel repetitive in the actual execution. Hitting the same beats too many times, and while Brichta I think remains good, I’ll admit Augusto becomes less and less interesting in every repeated bit. Brichta portrays this growing mania about him, but it never builds towards anything that is cathartic as either a failure or success…though the film paints it as all success in the end. Something that happens but it wasn’t something I felt in any profound way in terms of the realization of it in terms of the writing or direction. Brichta I never feel fails in his task but there is a certain limitation of the result, particularly in terms of his personal growth where the postscript suggests far more than we get. I will say however the moment of Augusto finally getting to wipe off his makeup, even if the build to it isn’t perfect, Brichta’s performance in isolation is moving in creating that sense of relief at finally getting the recognition he was waiting for in just the modest way he approaches the moment in each second of the reveal that he does end on a high note even if I don’t feel everything comes together in terms of the writing of Augusto’s/Bingo’s personal journey. 

Alternate Best Actor 2017: Joaquin Phoenix in You Were Never Really Here

Joaquin Phoenix did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning CANNES, for portraying Joe in You Were Never Really Here.

You Were Never Really Here follows a hired gun as he gets involved with retrieving the kidnapped daughter of a state senator. 

Joaquin Phoenix is obviously an actor I have covered many times, and have covered him many times for playing men who are on some sort of extreme psychological edge. As Joe in this film this is yet another entry, yet an extremely unique entry within his oeuvre, and as I’ve written before, the great actor isn’t always about playing extremely different roles but rather finding compelling variation within similar roles. Within that idea Phoenix immediately crafts something quite different here as Joe than his earlier Freddie Quell or his later greatest hits rendition in Joker. It begins with his specific physicality and I will say while this is an expected element within Phoenix’s work in terms of an inclusion, it is completely different than expected in terms of execution. While Phoenix previously depicted Quell as the literally bent man unable to even physically stand like a healthy man, as Joe Phoenix reinvents that to create something I quite honestly wasn’t aware he could do, which is be physically intimidating. While Phoenix obviously bulked up for the role, it isn’t just that, rather the way he holds himself. Where Freddie was bent, here Phoenix reworks himself into that of essentially a lumbering brute, where all of the intensity he typically has is somehow all forced into himself as a singular shroud of protection. Phoenix wholly convinces at being someone you don’t want to reckon with, and while Phoenix has obviously been dangerous in other roles, it was usually as a live wire type situation, here, you can see him as a specific force. 

That brilliant physicality, which again just is wholly convincing and grants you something immediately new from Phoenix, it goes further as is common to Phoenix is a character dealing with trauma, but in this instance the reaction to that trauma is something quite a bit different. An overriding and callback to aspect of the character of Joe is his suicidal ideation, where throughout the film we see Joe play with methods of killing or harming himself. The film opens with a bag over his head to suffocate himself and soon afterwards, when visiting his elderly mother, he plays around potentially stabbing himself with a knife. Phoenix is incredibly disturbing in the way he handles these scenes, because there is no dramatic element to them either speaking towards intensity of the moment like say Riggs in Lethal Weapon, nor is it even say the way Freddie Quell is festering in his own anguish such as in the prison lash out scene from The Master. Rather Phoenix does something entirely differently by playing it as incredibly casually, which in terms is particularly off-putting. Phoenix portrays this unnerving comfort in Joe in these actions as though they are everyday occurrences for the man, because they are everyday occurrences. What Phoenix presents them as instead as his version, his very disturbing version, of playing with a stress ball, as he brings the same kind of matter of fact quality to these early moments, as a man who just uses that as part of his way of dealing with existence. 

There’s an idiosyncrasy within Phoenix’s approach here within his own turns but just performances in general, particularly within the revenge or vigilante genre. Phoenix makes Joe his own beast and even subverts your expectations of such a character in many ways. There is for example quite a bit of calm in his performance, and calm is usually something that denotes the badass in one way or another. While Joe has traits of such a type of character, the approach Phoenix takes ensures that you would never describe Joe as such. Part of it is the way this calm is more so the way he presents Joe as existing in his world as more so part of this near malaise of his existence that is burdened by unending trauma and violence. And in a way if you had a less intimate view of Joe, you could believe him as a badass when you see him interact with his liaisons, Phoenix delivers his lines with confidence of a man who knows the job and the routine. He has no questions or hesitations about it. Even when he goes about infiltrating the house where the senator’s daughter is being kept, Phoenix interrogates the runner for the house again as a man who is most efficient. Menacing even in his way of just so matter of factly requesting the information where the violence of the man is so innate in himself that Phoenix can barely raise a pulse in his questioning and getting set up to go in for the retrieval. Phoenix does command the space, but what he does is connect this to that same blasé manner towards his own suicidal tendencies, of a many with an eerie comfort towards death. 

That comfort to death extends to the particularly practical but also particularly brutal method of killing each time, which is largely with a hammer he buys at a hardware store. Where we see him go about his trade where Phoenix plays the sequence of killing all the men in the house with not exactly ease, but the same sort of approach someone might take to hammering down a ton of floor boards. It is absolutely routine for him, there is no weight in it, it is just what the man does. An approach that could seem like too little yet I found what Phoenix does here absolutely captivating in creating the idea of a man who in a way thrives with violence because internally he is filled with so much horror that to put it out externally is merely a continuation of that existence. As Joe is haunted by so many horrors of his own abuse as a child, the abuse of his mother by his father, death as a soldier, a mass grave in law enforcement, the man has more ghosts than people, and Phoenix is able to create this state within his performance. One where the horror is within his stare and even so within his consistency when he is killing or facing more death. Phoenix portrays someone so broken by his experience that he is a curiosity in himself and living still is also part of that curiosity. The only breaks whatsoever coming specifically from anyone who seems to try to present themselves to him in any way that isn’t violence. 

The moments where Phoenix breaks the state of Joe in any way are impactful through that consistency he crafts in his idiosyncrasy. As through his journey with his mother, we do see a loving if in no way untroubled son as he helps his mom out in her decrepit state. When he rescues the abused girl the first time, Phoenix says much in the moment where she first embraces him, then tries to kiss him. Where Phoenix in his subtle reaction creating how much any tenderness is more so a knife than what an actual knife would do to him, as he shows both surprise of the care and horror of her attempt to kiss him, stemming from her own mistreatment, where Phoenix reveals the broken psyche of Joe by how deeply each impact him, of course deeply within the malaise of Joe. The next break comes when after the initial rescue the plot gets murkier as the governor has her kidnapped again, trying to cut off all loose ends including Joe who barely escapes and finds that the men even went to his home and killed his mom. And there’s a powerful contrast between two scenes of when Joe sees his mother has been killed and when he “interrogates” one of the men who killed his mom. The former is again a rare moment of released emotion where we do see how much Joe still loves his mom even through the drama, and Phoenix is incredible in letting it eek out. It is amazing particularly since Phoenix often is so emotive, that it becomes so powerful in the way he artfully breaks the state of Joe’s mind only in these rare but impactful moments. And that is further emphasized by when, after wounding the man, asks the man if he killed his mom. Joe is back to his violence and state of perpetual trauma, and Phoenix is almost relaxed in the way he asks. Something that makes sense through Phoenix is realization of this particular state where more suffering is merely the norm. A powerfully shown element when Joe goes about weighing his mother in water and choosing her initially to join her in death by drowning himself. Phoenix’s portrayal creates the turning point of the man just going about accepting what he has been as there is comfort as he goes about his own death, until he sees a vision of the girl he did not save. Leading to the final act, where Joe seems to save the girl, who is him in so many ways, right down to how the plot realizes itself. However pivotal is the final release of his own defenses by seeing himself reflected in so many ways, and Phoenix doesn't suddenly go big. He’s remarkably small, still yet so incredible in the way he releases the emotions dormant, not as a pressurized valve, but rather this quiet erosion through the final scenes. Phoenix presents not a man with an understanding of any of it, or what to do with it, yet Joe cannot escape it. His final line delivery of repeating “it’s a beautiful day”, after being told so by the “rescued” girl, Phoenix is amazing in his underplay, of reaffirming, as an acceptance, yet in no way is it of renewed optimism or anything easy. Rather a man living within his fate of existence, as painful as it is, but speaking that it is what it is. I loved this performance by Phoenix, as much as it is a man on an extreme, Phoenix uncovers wholly new ground in crafting a different kind of tragedy and different kind of experience. Utilizing a more minimalistic and quieter choice, which pierce still so powerfully in creating captivating and unique portrait of a withdrawal of emotion rather than an explosion of it. 

Alternate Best Actor 2017: Jamie Bell in Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool

Jamie Bell did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite receiving a BAFTA nomination, for portraying Peter Turner in Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool.

Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool depicts the relationship between faded and dying film star Gloria Grahame (Annette Bening) and a much younger Englishman/aspiring actor. 

The whole film is obviously about the relationship with the uniqueness being this down to earth setting being “invaded” by a well known Hollywood actress, where Bell’s Peter Turner just happens to come across her in the same apartment building. An instance where the relationship basically begins as an invitation of the older woman who very openly entices the younger man, by only at first suggesting he dance with her. The nature of Peter as a character I think speaks much to Bell’s abilities as a performer given that in the wrong hands, say he was played by Richard Gere in the 70’s, this would be a part where just playing into potential “himbo” tropes would be easy enough. Thankfully as much as Peter isn’t the most complex of all characters, Bell approaches to play it as a real person. Where Bell smartly plays very much the simple attractiveness of getting to spend time with the old Hollywood starlet, even in her off-beat ways, as he first accepts her invitation. Bell is terrific by not making it too complicated but not simplistic either. In his eyes you see the intrigue and the attraction, though with a dash of a knowing quality that the situation is unusual. Bell plays into initially that sense of fun in a way that brings you more so into the relationship than if he created more so an immediate belief in that this a wholly normal situation. 

The first hurdle in the relationship comes in as Turner fairly blithely discounts Grahame's dream of joining the Royal Shakespeare company to play Juliet in Romeo and Juliet, noting due to her age she’d be more appropriate for the nurse. A tricky moment honestly for Bell to play and one where I think it would’ve been easy to lose all sympathy for the character. Bell though uses effectively to create a sense of the growth of the character through the moment. As in the scene Bell manages to deliver the words as all a joke and more so than that a lack of connection within Grahame on a genuine level. Emphasizing instead the words as coming from a young man just going with the flow of his unlikely situation and barely even considering that he’s dealing with a genuine person despite the singularity of the relationship. Bell’s reaction to Grahame lashing out as his attitude is essential in creating the initial sense of unease and the particular growth of maturity within just that reaction. Bell earns the next move where Turner decides to not only apologize but proceed with a romantic and sexual relationship with Grahame. 

 

The actual relationship is where the film comes short where the specifics don’t quite cut deeper towards any greater truths. The ideas are sorta there but one can always feel they can go further. Having said that, Bell and Bening are certainly game in their “why not” approach to their relationship that becomes a bit deeper over time. Bell creates the right sense of that curiosity that now becomes more of a genuine fascination with the older woman, and Bell is terrific in the way he expresses the simple way he is stricken by her essentially. Bell plays so well within the lines of expressing the growth of empathy as their relationship progresses, so far even to have Turner visit Grahame’s mom and catty sister. Where Bell again plays within the confines so effectively in showing, as Grahame’s sister brings up her multiple marriages including both a father and son, Bell shows not judgment but rather empathy at every turn. Bell earned the moment of Turner instead of saying something negative after this interaction instead revealing his own secret of bi-sexuality. Bell’s fantastic moment in the simple honesty of the delivery where he shows it is a man getting something off his chest but also him wanting to ease the tension away for this woman he is coming to love. 

The last phase of their relationship consists of Grahame’s failing health and her struggling mental state where she is lashing out then loving Peter, randomly, not sure what to do, denies really facing her death for much of her time, while also hiding away at Peter’s family’s home. All of this is theoretically juicy material but it feels mostly like repeated beats that never grant too much insight. Bell makes what he can of it regardless particularly in his reactions to all of it with this convincing and moving combination between frustration and that still genuine empathy. Something that he shows in these scenes as something that truly weighs down in just his physical manner as the grief begins to overtake him. Something where Bell goes further by realizing this degree of almost confusion of the young man unsure of how he can cope exactly and where he exactly sits in Grahame’s life. Bell found this strange purgatory in a consistently moving way that kept me engaged even as the film repeats itself. There’s a pseudo climax as Peter takes Grahame to perform Shakespeare together, where both are quite good in playing earnestly the moment while presenting the tenderness of the appreciation in every moment of it between them. Playing so well in the scene in the moment of the two fully just being in love it would seem for this moment, before it being broken again by Grahame needing to go home to die with her family. Leaving a heartbroken Peter, where again Bell’s slow breakdown is heartbreaking because he showed you the path of this man, and brought you to this place. Making the unlikely relationship more than a curiosity but something genuinely impactful to the man’s life. 

Alternate Best Actor 2017: Kamel El Basha in The Insult

Kamel El Basha, despite winning the Volpi Cup, did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Yasser Abdallah Salameh in The Insult.

The Insult follows two men, a Palestinian refugee, and a native Christian in Lebanon as they get in a conflict that begins with an insult. 

Kamel El Basha plays the Palestinian half Yasser to Adel Karam as Tony the other half. With the film opening essentially as a feud between Tony at his home and Yasser as one of the men doing construction on his building. Something that essentially begins with angry glances and some angry words between the men with a great deal of hostility. El Basha’s work in these early scenes is honestly where his character is the most interesting because he feels the least symbolic in these scenes. El Basha brings a blunt reality of the man initially just as a guy doing a job with the exasperation around that being the defining factor of the character. Something that we get within his delivery calling Tony a “fucking prick” as just a result of a man just annoyed at having to re-do the job and deal with a person getting in the way of it. An element then that is something that can be gotten over when initially he comes to apologize and El Basha plays well the note of just holding his anger in however as someone willing to accept this way out. That however changes when it becomes clear that Tony’s views are more intense in his anti-Palestianian sentiment. Where El Basha’s largely reactionary performance in these scenes becomes more intense is basically in the repressment of the anger, to the point it is boiling in his face, even if he doesn’t let any of it out until Tony openly states his wish that the Palestinian should’ve been wiped out. Leading to Yasser to punch Tony, a moment which is well realized by El Basha as a tipping point of his frustration, momentary but impactful. 

The film then shifts to become a legal battle that ends up essentially unearthing this conflict between two men to connect it to generational conflict between ethnic and religious groups. In turn El Basha has far less interesting material to work with. As he is mostly tasked with being the put upon man hounded by Tony through two different trials in order to perform some kind of revenge against Yasser but really the Palestinian people. El Basha to his credit doesn’t fall upon easy choices to become the wailing victim or too much of a righteous indignation. In his reactions he brings an earned frustration quietly stewing within himself that he slowly eases up throughout his scenes. He isn’t all that focused upon though within this and it is mostly left to El Basha to bring these changes alive. He does a decent job, particularly the quiet humility of his work when Tony ends up unexpectedly giving Yasser some help when Yasser’s car won’t start. But both men’s personal struggle ends up taking the backseat to the symbols they become within the larger struggle. What this eventually culminates in is both men basically leaving behind their personal conflict mostly as the societal one builds up with them becoming pawns in a way. Leading to a climactic personal moment eventually, which is the most compelling thing El Basha gets to work with in the latter half of the film as he meets with Tony on his own. Where he begins bombarding him with negative Christian sentiments, and El Basha is good in playing it with a certain knowing distance while selling the words. Playing the moment as basically Yasser presenting himself as Tony from the beginning of the film, not as a falsehood but a presentation of his own anger filtered through hateful means. Leading to Tony to punch Yasser, which El Basha reveals the reality of the moment, so effectively through his way of accepting the punch with a wholly earnest apology followed afterwards. El Basha presents suddenly the rage honestly having been gone and one man to another just trying to genuinely make amends through what they’ve been through. It’s a strong moment, one that makes me though slightly annoyed by how much Yasser as a character takes a backseat up until this point, given El Basha is so game to find the nuance within the character. Regardless it stands as a good performance but the writing behind is illustrative of the film’s overall shortcomings. However even with that in mind, El Basha delivers an impressive performance by accentuating the nuance whenever can. It would've been easy to fall into the easy notes, something I feel his co-star unfortunately does do, but El Basha consistently elevates and maintains complexity rather than simplicity. 

Alternate Best Actor 2017: Josh Brolin in Only the Brave

Josh Brolin did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Eric Marsh in Only the Brave. 

Only the Brave tells the true story of a unit of Hot Shot firefighters, who use fire to fight the fires. 

In a role primed to be poorly played by Mark Wahlberg, we instead are granted Josh Brolin as the leader of the firefighters. Brolin is most welcome as an opponent and has a fitting presence for this kind of part, as his rougher look is a natural fit for the hard hat wearing firefighting pro. Brolin in turn chooses not to try to overemphasize anything in order to be believable in the part. He doesn’t heavily adjust his presence rather bringing just a naturalistic quality in being this sort of “man of the people” type of character right from the outset. Brolin delivers a quiet leader of the crew charisma in his scenes with the men, he doesn’t make big speeches but has often the right kind of stoic certainty in his manner that would be convincing that you’d follow this guy into a burning building. He’s not the greatest leader known to man in Brolin’s performance, rather just a guy who knows what he’s doing and acts as a straight shooter in most arenas. We see him bring the fatherly warmth in moments with his men, particularly troubled newcomer Brendan (Miles Teller) who he takes under his wing despite hesitations by some of the other men. Brolin brings it directly and earnestly, never going into overemphasis theatrics instead fittingly playing very straight to the bone as the guy who wants to get his job done, knows how to do it and cares for his men in a very blunt and direct fashion. 

Brolin isn’t only the leader among the men as part of the film’s story is Brolin’s Marsh getting certification for his crew to be considered elite firefighters. Something that we see early on when Eric makes some suggestions to other firefighters, who not only ignore him but dismiss Eric as lesser than. Brolin’s performance is good in the scene bringing more modest quality in the delivery of the suggestions of someone who isn’t trying to act up but genuinely trying to help, and internalizes well the frustrations that he keeps inside yet are still evident when being dismissed. Something he brings to their eventual certification test where the observer tries to pull rank on him and push him around with the approach to fighting the fire. Brolin brings just the right controlled exasperated rage when he reminds the observer of his place, and shows within the frustrations the years of having to deal with that sort of nonsense. The controlled rage being of a mad intent on setting his flag clearly and within his mind proper justification. Brolin plays the leader of the men, but a leader who has been challenged, angered by those challenges yet willing to persevere through their rather intense challenges. 

Beyond his role as a firefighter the major conflict for Eric is the relationship with his wife Amanda (Jennifer Connelly). Where Brolin and Connelly I’d say have okay though not truly remarkable chemistry in their interactions which are a mix of flirtation and frustration. The latter stemming from her concerns for his safety and his workaholic attitude towards the firefighting job. Something Brolin again handles well in presenting just this torn loyalties where he portrays the severe conviction to his job as basically a truth, but still is earnest in his frustrations towards his wife’s concerns. An idea that ends up explored in a somewhat too little too late fashion as the film introduces very late that Eric and Amanda met as mutual alcoholics who recovered together, and leads Eric even to treat Brandon’s request for a safer gig as a potential avenue for faltering once again to addiction. Brolin is good in these moments in portraying the unease when being called out about essentially a new addiction in firefighting as the truth, where his reactions take in this quiet sense of anxiety as he tries to brush it off via his conviction of the nobility of the profession. Brolin finds the appropriate complication of the sentiment to the degree he can because this is an aspect the film could’ve explored more or at least with more depth, rather than something they bring up right towards the end of the film limiting that possible exploration. And after that the film is essentially over with only the central tragedy left, where Brolin’s performance in that surprisingly short sequence is good, particularly the growing sense of dread in his face, however it doesn’t quite leave the impact one would imagine possibly given the tragic nature of the story, although that is hardly Brolin’s fault. Brolin gives a good performance that suggests a greater potential within the material than is wholly realized. 

Alternate Best Actor 2017

 And the Nominees Were Not:

Josh Brolin in Only the Brave

Vladimir Brichta in Bingo: The King of the Mornings

Joaquin Phoenix in You Were Never Really Here

Kamel El Basha in The Insult

Jamie Bell in Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1986: Results

10. David Bowie in Labyrinth - Bowie delivers a perfectly serviceable performance which coasts heavily on his presence, a little too heavily as he's strangely just sort of there much of the time. Playing very much with a lack seriousness without being funny, a lack of menace without being fun and even is musical performances don't really have that much flair to them despite his costuming. 

Best Scene: Dance magic dance.  

9. Rutger Hauer in The Hitcher - Hauer is effective at being menacing in his charismatic way even if it asks far too little of him. 

Best Scene: Opening. 

8. Clancy Brown in Highlander - Brown basically gives two performances, one as a brute, one more so as a crazed villain. He's good at both even if there is a lack of cohesion. 

Best Scene: Church

7. Chow Yun-Fat in A Better Tomorrow - Chow is charismatic and brings the only real emotional impact within the overall scheme of his film. It's only a shame he's not the lead. 

Best Scene: Shoot out. 

6. Michael Caine in Mona Lisa - Caine gives a properly menacing and sleazy performance. 

Best Scene: Final confrontation. 

5. Tom Noonan in Manhunter - Noonan gives a quietly creepy performance that gets under your skin by his calm. 

Best Scene: Do you see?

4. Ray Liotta in Something Wild - Liotta takes over is film with ease giving a charismatic but properly threatening performance of a man going out of control in pursuit of his wife. 

Best Scene: Home invasion. 

3. Dean Stockwell in Blue Velvet - Stockwell gives a brilliantly idiosyncratic work that is so wonderfully one of a kind in its Lynchian goodness. 

Best Scene: His scene. 

2. John Goodman in True Stories - Goodman delivers the most compelling vignettes consistently in is first funny though later moving portrayal of a man searching for love. 

Best Scene: "People like us" first try. 

1. Alan Ruck in Ferris Bueller's Day Off - Good predictions Luke, A, Tahmeed, 8000's Ytrewq, Lucas, Harris & Bryan. Though within overall a light comedy Ruck gives a genuinely emotionally nuanced and in the end quite powerful portrayal of an depressed teenager finding is strength. 

Best Scene: Killing the car. 

Updated Overall

Next: 2017 Lead