Backlog Results

5. Chhabi Biswas in Devi - Biswas gives a striking depiction of an idiosyncratic zealotry.

Best Scene: Final scene.  

4. John Gielgud in Prospero's Books - Within a director's film Gielgud remains present and elevates its style with his refined yet fluid performance. 

Best Scene: Constructing a romance.

3. Matthew Macfadyen in Pride & Prejudice - Macfadyen plays to the truth of a betrayed introvert in creating a more dynamic Mr. Darcy. 

Best Scene: First declaration. 

2. Tatsuya Nakadai in Kill! - Nakadai gives his own take on Yojimbo essentially and brilliantly finds his own alternative method of the clever badass.  

Best Scene: Final fight. 

1.  John Heard in Chilly Scenes of Winter - Heard gives a captivating but also unnerving depiction of a man's privileged view of a relationship crashing with reality.   

Best Scene: The breakup. 

Next: The very brief waiting game. 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1960: Chhabi Biswas in Devi

Chhabi Biswas did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Kalikinkar Roy in Devi.

Devi takes place in the home of a lord who begins to believe that his daughter in love may be the goddess that he worships. 

Previously on the obsessive characters of Chhabi Biswas, Jalsaghar followed him, also a wealthy man obsessed with music to the point of losing sight of everything around him, although a delusion one could argue was as much to do with his trauma as just perhaps his love of an art form. Said process is a little different in this film, in part, because Biswas’s character of Kalinkinkar Roy is a supporting role in the scheme of the film, although the film’s particular tapestry only leaves Sharmila Tagore as the young bride Doyamoyee, as her onscreen husband Umaprased Roy, played by Ray’s frequent collaborator Soumitra Chetterjee has a strong presence however he too comes in and out of the film. We find the elder Roy though from the open as a very specific sort of religious zealot and what Biswas’s performance is, is an articulation of the different forms this realizes itself in, within his relatively sparse, but impactful scenes. One of his earliest scenes is holding a ritual in front of his statue of the goddess where Biswas’s particular portrayal of devotion is beyond just faith or belief. There’s something deeply resolute in his eyes and more importantly a conviction that is clear obsession as he looks upon the statue as his whole life, not just an aspect of it, or just an important part of it that gives him meaning. When Biswas looks up to it we see Roy seeing everything that is of value to his reality in that statue, a fundamental anchor that will define this man going forward. 

We see as the elder Roy has a dream of Doyamoyee as his goddess and Biswas’s performance in the moment is a man captured by the fascination of the idea. Where we then find as he now accepts this as a simple truth to everything, Chhabi’s performance successfully brings this specific sense of a spiritual passion within the man that is never doubting and just pushing him through. Every delivery within his idea of pushing forth Doyamoyee as a reincarnation of his goddess is with the utmost belief and determination. Biswas portrays someone who firmly believes this and in that approach is convincing in creating this unlikely situation from occurring as this powerful man goes about fulfilling essentially his own prophecy. When his younger son is horrified to discover this, the Biswas’s performance as the elder Roy is a man beyond gone within his mania, to the point that he’s essentially singing the words to his son of how meaningful and how true his prophecy would be. Biswas’s performance is marvelous because as much as it is an expression of self-delusion essentially what he creates is a purity within it, where even the “singing” delivery is a man fully embodying every notion of the spirit he believes he’s captured by making Doyamoyee essentially this living altar. An altar going so far as to supposedly provide healing to the Elder Roy’s grandson, of Roy’s older son, until it no longer works and we see the end result. Biswas’s final scene is remarkable as we see the dejected man, because it is with the same intensity as we saw with his blind devotion that Biswas portrays the man’s broken faith in his crafted deity. Biswas doesn’t portray a specific moment of true self-reflection or clarity, rather the despondency he brings so palatably is within the same narrow focus, and intensity that created his prophecy in the first place. Biswas crafts a striking portrait of the progression and regression of a personalized zealotry. 

Alternate Best Actor 1979: John Heard in Chilly Scenes of Winter

John Heard did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Charles Richardson in Chilly Scenes of Winter. 

Chilly Scenes of Winter is essentially an anti-70’s romantic comedy.

John Heard is probably one of the most recognizable actors to the general public where the general public, and even some of the more knowledgeable cinematic public doesn’t have a hint of an idea of his actual talent level. I will freely admit being one myself until I saw his utterly brilliant transformative turn in Cutter’s Way, which while I knew him more than Kevin’s dad in Home Alone, that performance showed an entirely different avenue Heard might’ve taken, but that’s not where the story ends. As we have his performance in this film, which unlike Cutter’s Way he looks exactly like John Heard as we know him as we follow a workaday guy in the 70’s as he deals with his family and the relationship with a married woman. The latter being an important note because the sort of “freewheeling” relationship was a trend within 70’s films whether it be Touch of Class, Same Time Next Year or Shampoo, where honestly the relationships were celebrated and the protagonists treated as “cool”. Well this film and Heard’s performance seem weaponized to eviscerate those notions and turn that subgenre on its head ...despite the marketing team behind the film later trying to re-release it as exactly the type of film it is subverting. 

Heard’s performance is a unique lead for any film because he’s a terrible person in such an uncommon way, which this is not a man with any pageantry to his behavior, he’s not any grandiose villain, he’s not someone where we see motivation of the man, alcoholism, drug addiction, even while his family is a little strange, hardly enough to create the horrible man that we find here. Heard’s Charles Richardson is a moderately successful man and a terrible person regardless of all else and notable in Heard’s performance is the fact that he manages to pull off a compelling performance by uncovering the nature of the man, without ever excusing the behaviors. Heard is fascinating in the specific guide he offers as his character who in many ways is commenting on his existence not unlike Woody Allen in his films. Yet what Heard does here isn’t about comic asides rather uncovering the nature of this man with an unnerving honesty of someone just telling you exactly who they are without exception. 

We follow Charles as he goes about spending time with his more than a little off-beat unemployed brother, his mentally unwell mother, his overly jovial step-father and his seemingly well to do sister. Heard’s performance is one of constant judgment with a callous dismissiveness frequently even in his narration that speaks to his sister having it together there is a degree of resentment. Heard reeks naturally of a lived in bitterness of the man within his family with almost a rejection of familial connection, despite technically interacting with his family a lot. Heard looks upon all of them as a burden to Charles on one level or another, there may be a smile but even the smile while not wholly forced is weighted with a lack of natural warmth within it. Heard presents it as another aspect of Charles where we see nothing to make the man likable, although again a curious effectiveness in Heard’s part in that he manages to be captivating despite being so horrendous and horrendous in such an average day to day manner. There’s nothing special about Charles, and within that Heard perhaps realizes within this normalcy a different type of creep, because he is a tangible one. 

The central element to the film is Charles’s relationship with a married woman Laura (Mary Beth Hurt), a relationship that even at its start there’s an unpleasantness even within the initial connection. As Heard's delivery of his flirtation is with what can be described I think as a privileged matter of fact entitlement to the notion of connecting with her even though she’s married. When she states her interest in him, Heard’s performance accentuates a certain immediacy to exploit the notion and no hesitation in terms of her obviously vulnerable state. As we see the relationship progress, Heard has a natural manner to himself but also a certain extra push about every little segment of the relationship. Heard creates this particularly unnerving obsession by the way he develops it so naturally in such a disturbing way. Heard’s performance is so incisive because of how subdued yet penetrating he is in his methods of creating Charles’s particular form of toxicity which grows throughout the film. 

Even in the initial stages Heard brings no innate joy, more of this twisted kind of enjoyment of his “steal” in a way, but even that particular joy is brief. From there Heard’s performance becomes increasingly paranoid, controlling and despicable. What is so remarkable about his work though is the ease he brings to it, that isn’t of psychopathy but rather of an unpleasant expectation in his mind. Heard’s eyes don’t share love, just concern and critique. Something that becomes more penetrating as we go on in the relationship where he becomes less and less accommodating to her having any kind of actual freedom within their relationship, even though their starting point was knowing she was married. Heard lets us see the spite building in his mind that is not of love but of obsession and control. As when he builds a fantasy in his mind of Laura cheating on her, explaining first with this playfulness, that Heard makes shaky to start but seemingly like he can find any levity in the situation. Heard so naturally swings though as this “fantasy” turns into a disturbing violent threat that is especially disturbing because Heard’s portrayal of it feels so honest in depicting a particular sort of controlling man. Heard commanding the putridness in a uniquely disturbing way, particularly as becomes more aggressive with her there is the calm determination that makes every word feel beyond threat, given the emotional desperation mixed in with this precise viciousness. Within this horrible man though in the off-beat nature of the film, Heard’s depiction even becomes within a classic romcom silly situation where he pretends with his brother to insert himself between Laura and her husband at the latter’s home. There’s no fun to be had however as we do get the playacting, Heard’s performance isn’t performing rather just another form of obsession as he stares down both members of the couple before stating his “love” less as a grand romantic gesture and more so emphatic need to set his “claim” to her in a point of despondency. Although much of that fails the film isn’t even exactly about him getting his comeuppance though he finds no happiness, which I suppose is a form of it though a twisted version of the expected protagonist. Such as even a theoretically comedic scene of him unloading his life on someone randomly, which is a brilliant scene for Heard but again not comic in the way you’d expect. Rather Heard even in the more comic sendup is this unleashing of every bit of insecurity as an onslaught of the man’s essential hatred of everything and its treatment of him as just another inconvenience. Notably a true seventies protagonist, where the lessons are not learned, although comical realization of the difference in the values of the decades as the 80’s re-release attempting to put a square socket in a round hole, in trying to make the film more so a traditional romcom with a lesson. But it’s not that, it is rather an uncompromising portrait of a casually horrible person, realized in a masterclass by Heard, because he doesn’t soften an edge, nor do he heightened an element, he rather just shows you this man’s heart in vivid detail, a rotten one at that. 

Alternate Best Actor 2005: Matthew Macfadyen in Pride & Prejudice

Matthew Macfadyen did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Fitzwilliam Darcy in Pride & Prejudice. 

Although as I recall when this version came out, the age old question of how many adaptations do we need? Although notably, despite many tv movies/television miniseries, this is only the second straight adaptation of the novel after the 1940 version with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier in the central roles. That version takes many liberties including fashioning the story in many ways as more so as the romantic comedy standard of that time. This version attempts a more earnest adaptation of the novel, specifically in terms of placing us within a stricter perspective of Elizabeth Bennett (Keira Knightley) as the story unfolds, particularly within how we see Mr. Darcy is played by Matthew Macfadyen. Macfadyen’s performance in turn is not as the instantly romantic seeming man, far from it, and not at all the more benevolent caddish quality of a William Powell/Cary Grant type. This idea being something Macfadyen strictly plays into as we first see him in full brood quite honestly. A man basically just muttering to himself, barely looking at anyone at a party, and being altogether unpleasant in both words and manner. 

Macfadyen’s starting point is key for a few different reasons. One is this from the perspective of Elizabeth, so we shouldn’t really like Darcy much either since we are seeing it through her eyes and within that perspective Macfadyen is that you’ll take him quickly as just a pompous prideful man who evidently doesn’t have time with those he’d deem too lowly. Macfadyen’s performance goes beyond that however as what he also does is more convincingly play the introvert here. As introversion is oftentimes one of the most inaccurately portrayed ideas of film, and too often is depicted as basically an eccentric version of extroversion where even the awkwardness of the person seems still part of being outward. Macfadyen’s performance is more honest to the personality type as what his expressions emphasize in these early scenes is a man lost in his own thoughts, perhaps his own insecurities and within his own mental fixations. An honest depiction of an introvert, which again can be tricky as it is all about making it a man in part more preoccupied within his own thoughts, and that is something that Macfadyen conveys quite effortlessly without being vague either. 

One other pivotal element within this introduction though is also the starting point of his Darcy as the unlikable man from Elizabeth’s perspective but also the more unhappy man within that from Macfadyen’s performance. We essentially see Darcy at his worst and Macfadyen crafts that convincingly. He could be just that stuffy fellow we never see again so what Macfadyen lays out is essentially a pathway for himself, where the audience along with Elizabeth will discover him, but we also will see what Darcy gains from the discovery. What Macfadyen then creates is the pathway for Darcy as Elizabeth learns more about him, but also the change in Darcy from that process. The second time they even meet Macfadyen is still rather cold as Darcy but we are granted a bit more nuance seemingly suggesting more to the man, even as his presence is still off-putting to a degree. Macfadyen does bring this exact conviction within Darcy’s words as he speaks of George Wickham, who wrongs Darcy in the past despite Wickham claiming the opposite. Further however is Macfadyen revealing more of Darcy such as the introverted creed of not being able to make conversation with strangers easily. Macfadyen’s delivery of this line honestly is pivotal because he doesn’t speak it as a rudeness, rather honesty of a man who finds discomfort in such crowds. 

There is the nature of the surprise then of the scene where Darcy rather imperfectly proposes and states his love to Elizabeth most unexpectedly to her and really the audience. Something especially well realized in this idea because Macfadyen has been so cold, dismissive and direct, and could be simply a rude man, or a shy man suspicious of betrayal, something we will eventually learn is largely the latter. Macfadyen’s performance though is key because as imperfect as the surprise declaration is there is an earnestness within the nuances of Macfadyen’s performance. Deep down you can sense there is something so honest in the love as in his eyes there is even less of a weight as he states his intentions, even while still wrapped in the imperfection of the presentation and the context of it all. Something that only gets trickier when Darcy prevents a marriage for one of Elizabeth’s sisters with a degree of carelessness, where again Macfadyen’s delivery presents a man perhaps too gripped by his own logic and distrust as he explains his thoughts with very specific analysis however perhaps without much empathy. Macfadyen manages to present it though as someone too lost in his suspicions than purposeful cruelty. 

When however Elizabeth stumbles into a more intimate moment where Darcy is listening to piano with his younger sister we are granted an instance of a different sight of the man, as we see the charm and even glow about him with his sister. We see the introverted no longer so guarded and Macfadyen’s specific expression of joy with her feels so honestly earned as the loving man beneath the armor against both betrayal and just general social requirement. What progresses naturally within the relationship is we both see a better Darcy and the growth of Darcy into a better man. Where Macfadyen does so much with the easing into connection with Elizabeth which is two fold where his deliveries and manner become more open, and wanting with connection. Importantly though this combined with this growing sense of joy that overcomes the weight of brooding, as he expresses in his work even just a levity in movement and a growing joy exudes off of him. Where Macfadyen crafts essentially the journey of the man as the introvert making connections to comfort, but also a man betrayed in the past willing to look beyond suspicion more easily to genuine connection. Naturally earning the shift within Darcy as he helps Elizabeth’s family openly which seems just the honest reaction through Macfadyen’s performance. Earning then the morning mist second declaration of love which Macfadyen plays so pitch perfectly. As now instead of sort of mutedly declaring against his judgement we see a man brimming with a personal confidence as he looks directly upon her and more importantly speaks the truth filled with a calm emotion of someone just stating his love so passionately. Macfadyen’s Darcy isn’t about charm, though I do think there is a charm to him, rather it is about creating a convincing pathway from a cold brooding betrayed man, to a good loving man, which Macfadyen articulates in powerful and moving detail. 

Alternate Best Actor 1991: John Gielgud in Prospero's Books

John Gielgud did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character of Prospero’s Books. 

Prospero’s Books is a strange Avant Garde adaptation of the Tempest. 

John Gielgud plays the role of Prospero however not any version of the character you’d think in your typical adaptation. Although he is frequently visually onscreen the performance shares much in common with his stellar, largely vocal, performance in Providence. It is hardly exactly the same however as Providence. Even in his storytelling and ramblings he is distinctly a tangible human we are visiting through his night of random thoughts and ideas. Prospero here isn’t a character you can grasp onto in the same way; rather he is often literally at a distance in a near constant recitation of various speeches. A critical choice however as Gielgud is one of the very best actors to call upon for constant Shakespearean or at least Shakespearean-esque endless monologuing. Gielgud after all has this specific almost singing way of delivering the verse that I think is important here in creating the flow not only for his performance but for the film as a whole. As we need to prevent any stops or even more so feelings of strict repetition or even dullness. Gielgud skirts each by just the precision of his performance where there’s not a moment where you do not feel in assured hands as Gielgud presents us with every dictation and thought of Prospero through the film. 

Prospero isn’t Prospero as a character however in fact he is more so Shakespeare conceiving the world and characters as we also see him acting upon it. So Gielgud’s performance beyond his dictatorial delivery isn’t exactly a certain through line of a character in any kind of traditional sense, rather what Gielgud does is highlight certain aspects of the character and of the “creator” as we progress through the narrative. As we have moments of Gielgud where he brings a grandfatherly kind of grace, other moments where he switches to a more demented kind of fixated vengeance, others where he has a curious charm and joy all as Prospero. We don’t see the shifts as much as the picking up from one idea to another. As more so the creator Gielgud plays very much the power of the dictatorial god where there are moments of him placing his decisions on those in his view. Moments where Gielgud accentuates in his eyes a certain mischievousness of someone playing with his pets, sometimes that shifts to a calmer demeanor of a graceful man just doing what he sees as right in the moment, and even more so where his eyes glow of the more loving man allowing the character’s happiness at times. Although these elements are theoretically disconnected, Gielgud never feels disconnected in his one performance which is one of the natural flow, albeit in a purposefully unnatural way.

Gielgud’s performance delivers on its very specific task which he previously achieved with Providence which is to carry a film on his great voice. I would say Gielgud does so again and it is pivotal you have him where he never loses his specific tempo and control. I will say however the performance never exactly became more than just a marvelous bit of almost musicianship, where I admired the technique here more so than it connected with me on an emotional level beyond, well, admiration. And yes it is experimental but contrasting that Providence very much did connect with me both as an amazing bit of technique and genuine emotional impact in exploring a character. I don’t feel I really *know* Prospero from this, nor do I see where he’s coming or going, or even as some otherworldly entity. Having said all that, it is still incredibly striking work that in lesser hands would be completely lost in all the visual madness of what is going on around him, or he could’ve been monotonous. Gielgud does neither and instead consistently elevates the film. A film I wouldn’t say wholly worked for me as I honestly felt the style went from inspired to a little tiresome, to repetitive at times, however Gielgud’s work I found an essential anchor that carried me through the rough spots and highlighted the more exceptional moments from the film. 

Another Year and Another Official Lineup

Lead actor this year seems to have to close to sure things in Chalamet and DiCaprio, who have powerful films, extremely well regarded performances and all the momentum. Following that is probably Jordan in his twin role, a showy notion however not really all that popular with Oscar voters historically. But given his film is in the top 3, and the likely nomination leader, it is hard to argue against him too much other than the fact that action/genre oriented roles often often struggle more, but probably won't matter this time. Moura has plenty of momentum, awards and is probably well known enough internationally to make the jump, but non-English contenders aren't too common in this category so lock would probably slightly too strong worded even if he's in a very good position. The last spot is the last spot to me, and for me it is probably between Joel Edgerton and Hawke. Edgerton likely will have the stronger film with the academy nomination wise, but Hawke has the far "showier" part. Showy usually wins out so leaning there but wouldn't be surprised by Edgerton getting in either. I wouldn't count out a passion push for Plemons, biopics never hurt either so I wouldn't say Johnson or White are totally out of the game either...in fact I'd say either could easily show up at SAG. Clooney also is around if Jay Kelly has any momentum. 

Supporting seems easy, too easy probably. But Penn and Del Toro seem ready to continue the semi-trend of two supporting actors making it, this time as the chief villain and comic relief/comfort of the best picture frontrunner. There's no reason to doubt either. Nor Skarsgård, despite being an obvious lead in his film, his film is probably in the top five, and seems primed for the vet recognition. Speaking of leads, Mescal also in a top five film, in a juicy role as Shakespeare, hard to doubt him either. Leaving only Elordi, who is also in a film that is likely to be in the top 7 at least. He has the raves though, and even detractors tend to praise him. But he is playing a very genre part so I struggle to say lock, despite looking very strong at the moment. BUT Lindo maybe could happen if Sinners overperforms. Sandler if Jay Kelly is a thing. But I do feel pretty comfortable predicting these five.