Best Actor 1973: Results

5. Robert Redford in The Sting- Redford provides the right anchor in a way that provides the right stakes to the story and facilitates his showier co-stars.

 4. Al Pacino in Serpico- Al Pacino's performance here always failed to impress me with his rather repetitive routine of quietly discouraged, than suddenly really loud and angry over his problems. He never is bad, but I always wanted more from this performance than I got.

3. Marlon Brando in Last Tango in Paris- Brando supposedly admitted to not understanding this film, and I do think that comes through in his performance a bit, since I never fully was able to understand what the deal was with his character, but despite this Brando still is interesting to watch with all of his various scenes of soul bearing acting.

2. Jack Nicholson in The Last Detail- Nicholson is terrific in this film, in a very interesting way. He fully develops a fascinating character who is very much reactive to another character in the film. Through his reactions though he creates fascinating original character, and just to add tot hat he is has some great classic 70's Nicholson moments.

1. Jack Lemmon in Save the Tiger- This one was rather difficult for me to choose between the two but in the end I must choose one so I am going with Lemmon. Lemmon although in a complete Oscar baiting role never turns it into a Oscar baiting performance. He amazingly always stays realistic, and completely embedded in his character. It is strong powerful work that frankly overcame the material.

Best Actor 1973: Robert Redford in The Sting

Robert Redford received his only acting nomination for portraying Johnny Hooker in The Sting.

The Sting is about con men doing a con in the thirties against an Irish mobster.

Robert Redford's only Oscar nominated performance is one of those oddities, since one usually says Robert Redford was only nominated once, and for this film. It is most certainly a lightweight role, and not really the traditional type of role that one really is usually Oscar nominated for. Just due to the fact there is not bearing of soul to be found here, but rather just a leading man going through a plot.

That does not exactly mean his performance is bad though, since if someone is a great leading man, they deserve all the praise they can get. I wouldn't quite put Redford in that regard. He is good here though I have to admit after all this time. It is not that he is not fine as Johnny Hooker, he is charming enough, and easy enough to follow through the plot. He is overshadowed by likes of Robert Shaw as the villain Lonnegan, and Paul Newman as the more experienced conman Henry Gondorff give far more interesting and effective performances with less overall screen time. Having said though, apart for occasionally slightly wooden deliveries, really just the ones where he's dismissive to Newman when his heart isn't in it. Redford is rock solid here in the part, and I really need to say he does deliver in general.

Redford is believable in the part as the young con man learning the ropes, and trying to pull off the big con, he realistic enough in his reactions to the various situations he finds himself in at the different phases of the con. He provides what is needed for this film, a straight forward anchor. He finds the right sense of enthusiasm to the con and recklessness within this. In the scenes of avoiding one contract killer or another, Redford delivers the right sense of excitement both in portraying the genuine fear, but also sort of joy of the thrill of escape. Redford brings enough really emotional context as well though. This in his reactions towards the death of his mentor, Redford brings the right real sense of loss to it. It isn't anything too impactful but it nicely sets the stakes. Redford does carry the film when Newman and Shaw aren't around. He isn't as compelling as them, but he doesn't really need to be. He makes for a properly compelling general lead, and gives good performance. 

Best Actor 1973: Jack Lemmon in Save the Tiger

Jack Lemmon won his second Oscar from his fifth nomination for portraying Harry Stoner in Save the Tiger.

Save the Tiger is not much of a film, more of just a display of Lemmon's acting talents as a businessman who is basically on the end of his rope.

This is an acting showcase for Lemmon, and it does seem that it was tailored made to give him that chance at his lead Oscar. I think you can sort of tell this by his jubilation at hearing his name called when he won this year, clearing wanting to win a whole lot. This though even though is Oscar bait, his performance luckily does not feel like it even though it seems like it should, because Lemmon really does indeed invest in his character.

I have been a little mixed on Lemmon's past dramatic performances, I loved him in the Days of Wine and Roses, but I really hated him in Tribute. What were the major differences between these performances, well a lot of things, but most importantly the obviousness of the performance. In Tribute Lemmon never stopped his Lemmonisms, and his overacting, where in Days he stayed on the mark and realistic, even in the sanatorium scenes luckily for Lemmon his performance here is far more like his Days performance than his one in Tribute.

Harry Stoner is a businessman who really is just barely getting through life clearly always having a hard struggle to make it through the day. Lemmon is quite effective early on in presenting the sheer horrible state of the character. After all his performance starts with him screaming with pain in bed, over what the film does not say, but I think one could easily say it is over his entire life. Lemmon is good because he does not overplay the state of his character as he easily could, but is better showing the persuading pain in Stoner in a realistic fashion.

Lemmon is interesting in that he does show that Harry goes through a whole manner of facades through his day, at rather different levels. He tries to to act like a competent businessman, around his workers, he tired to act happy, and be high energy, but Lemmon carefully shows the overarching dread that is always prevalent in some way in his character even when he is pretending to be happy, even though he is not at all.

Lemmon's performance is manic, and covers a lot of different emotional ground in his performances, whether it is regret, hatred, exhaustion, and desperation but Lemmon always stays consistent in his portrayal. It is always part of Harry Stoner. Stoner never really stops moving which works extremely well for his performance. He tries anything to make his businesses work, or his life work, and Lemmon is perfect in showing how painful his struggle and desperation is because he never seems off which is what makes his performance effective.

This performance really honestly works which I find is amazing especially since there are scenes that are most certainly pure Oscar baiting scenes. One in particular is his speech at the beginning of a fashion show of his companies where he breaks out thinking of the dead men of war. This scene seems to come almost of nowhere, but Lemmon sells it anyways because he absoultely invests his heart and soul into the scene, to make it completely of Harry Stoner, and completely heartbreaking.

The same goes for many of his other Oscary moments as well, surprising as it is. When it slowly focuses on him an he talks to himself, I felt that was authentic and interesting because it showed into the rapid fire mind of Stoner, and how his mind refuses to stop, and really how on edge he is, or as well his looks and the way he walks in the film. As obvious of an actor thing it could have been, it again honestly intensely portrays the detrimental state of Stoner. 

This is really a fascinating performance because despite being in a purely Oscar baiting film, Lemmon manages a honest and effective performance. He never overacts in a performance that could have been only overacting. Lemmon is always makes every scene, no matter how strange or possibly over dramatic still part of the whole of desperation and isolation that is Harry Stoner.

Best Actor 1973: Marlon Brando in Last Tango in Paris

Marlon Brando received his seventh Oscar nomination for portraying Paul in Last Tango in Paris.

Last Tango in Paris is about an affair between a young Parisian and an older American who have a liaison with no names, and no conditions, for awhile at least.

Marlon Brando performance in this film certainly has a reputation that proceeds. I have heard from many sources touting this as not only Brando's best performance, but also one of if not the best performance ever. Well I must say that certainly does automatically effect your preconceptions but it should not define your conception of the performance, and it certainly does not define mine. It is a common criticism of various accolades given to the most of something rather than the actual best, well I think that can actually be allotted to this performance by Marlon Brando, since if there is one thing for sure this is one acting performance. The whole character is constantly doing something that is extremely dramatic psychological, crazy, whatever, this character never seems to stop baring his soul, and is almost the polar opposite of Jack Nicholson's nominated character from this year.

Brando most normal scenes, I think, come early in the film where he shows the grief over his wife's recent suicide. Brando I think is extremely good in this portrayal of grief, because he shows clearly that this has deeply wounded Paul that has pained him right into the emotional core, and his this portrayal of grief does a fairly well establish the mental state of his character, and partially explain his course of action in the film. Paul decides to start a liaison with a Parisian woman Jeanne (Maria Schneider), the relationship does not have much of a pick up scene though, since they really just begin the affair immediately with no strings attached, and not too much of an explanation either. They do, which means it is time for Brando to act, and act a lot, with deep soul searching not stop.

Now although I did see as fairly actory, I still feel he manages in the character of Paul somewhat, not just of Marlon Brando himself. My only real problem was though I think he does indeed portray an original character, I don't think he really completely understands who Paul is suppose to be precisely. Brando supposedly said he did not understand the point of the film, and I did feel some of that come through with his performance, in that I felt he had great scenes, but they did not fit into an amazing whole. I never truly understood, although I do not think I was really suppose to, why he would react to his grief in this specific and rather odd way. Nor did I understand where this man came from, and why frankly his behavior was as erratic as it was, particularly when he became sadistic. Now part of his character is suppose to be a mystery really, but what I did see I felt was many parts of a character, but still missing something that melded the whole of him as one.

This not to say Brando does not have some exceedingly fascinating scenes, and moments. Whether it is his scene where he talks dirty, his scene where he tells about how he learned to love nature, the butter scene, his crazed antics on the dance floor, his big scene next to his wife's dead body, Brando certainly is interesting to watch, and does make a great amount of interesting moments. But I always felt they were just that interesting, not amazing. The whole performance for me was most certainly a spectacle to watch, as Brando never stops doing something different in the role, but I must admit I did not feel it turned out to be a perfect performance, and I always far from the greatest performance of all time. In fact I did not even feel it was great, but rather just interesting. It is interesting to view, but not incredible to view, it just always feels as a performance that is less than the sum of its parts.

Best Actor 1973: Al Pacino in Serpico

Al Pacino received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Frank Serpico in Serpico.

Serpico tells the story of Frank Serpico who refused to adhere to police corruption despite it being all around him.

Frank Serpico as a character is one of some repetition that is sure. It is a lot of him coming into a new part of the police in New York City seeing some sort of corruption and responding to it publicly in a low key fashion, although becoming more upset by it in more private settings. In between being upset by corruption he usually gets upset by his current wife, and yells at her, or responds quietly to her. I don't know Pacino's performance here just never really amazes it me as it does seem to some. In the early scenes Pacino sets up how his character reacts with a quiet passion at first over the corruption he sees, and he keeps reacting in that same way throughout, thrown in with some angry disbelief over the ability of others to actually help him, and his feelings of danger by putting his neck out.

I don't know his whole plight never became as interesting as it seems it should have, because Pacino I feel should have done even more to show how the problems really stacked on Serpico in a better fashion, rather than just that tired face, along with the occasional scene of yelling. It always seemed to be less than Serpico really could have been in this film. I think the whole incredible honesty of Serpico really needed to be better explored by both the film, and Pacino's performance. Was all what he did because of his nature, or because of of something else, I really felt Pacino really needed to more heavily develop what about Serpico made him want to be so honest, since it was not just to be a decent guy since frankly he does not seem to be always one.

Also another problem I had with his performance was his relationships with his two major wives. I will admit they are not helped by the two rather stilted performances by the actresses playing his wives, but Pacino himself does not create a very interesting relationship either. The relationships in the film feel rather cold, by the lack of energy Pacino puts in them, nor are they made into another type of relationship, like say mutual desperation or something like that, none of the three actors develops the relationship into anything the least bit interesting.

Pacino has yet another problem I feel and that is Serpico whole odd policeman persona, when he slowly seems to become more and more unlike a cop as the film progresses with his growing beard, and continually more hippie like clothing. Why does Serpico do this other than for cover, and one would think it would be more than just for cover, never is realized, is it because he is really a hippie, or anti establishment or something, I don't know the film, and Pacino just do not develop it well enough.Although I have been very negative I think up until this point, I do not think this is really a bad performance, but just a lacking one that could have been a lot more. Pacino certainly has good moments throughout, and he is believable as well as technically realistic, I just never felt what he did amounted to any sort of an interesting characterization or performance. 

Best Actor 1973: Jack Nicholson in The Last Detail

Jack Nicholson received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Signalman 1st Class Billy L. "Bad Ass" Buddusky in The Last Detail.

The Last Detail tells the story of two naval petty officers Badass, and Mule (Otis Young) who have to transfer a very small time thief Seaman Larry Meadows (Randy Quaid) to the brig, but at the same time they try to provide a little bit of adventure and life experiences for the soon to be imprisoned young man.

Jack Nicholson has a rather interesting role in the film, since although he is the main character he really is not exactly the focus of the film precisely. It instead interestingly focuses on how he reacts to the naive Larry. It is a interesting dynamic, that might seem not seem conducive to developing a fully realized character, by Nicholson does this without fault, and it is fascinating that he does through his role that never really stops to tell specifically about Buddusky.

Nicholson though portrays this role with absolute ease, and charisma, it is another seventies Nicholson performance which really does mean a whole lot. In this decade Nicholson just has something else that no other actor ever hard is going to have. He is this unique presence and technique that is simply unforgettable in his nominated performances of this decade including this performance.

Nicholson develops a rather fascinating character in Buddusky because he is a career naval man, who does most certainly does his job thoroughly, and despite having problems with it he does not obviously hate it, yet still has an air of anti-establishment sentiment at the same time. It is an incredibly interesting mix of a character that Nicholson pulls off without a fault.

Nicholson is great in this part because he portrays it in an especially dead on realistic fashion throughout. Due to this fact, his somewhat reactionary performance is simply amazing at times. I think in particularly strong moments are when it shows how much he really pity and feels for Larry. Two extremely powerful moments of this aspect are probably his reaction to seeing the inside of Larry's home, or when he really contemplates what will happen to Larry.

This performance is not all reactionary though, and since it is a 70's Nicholson performance this of course has some classic Nicholson moments. The best of is of course when he confronts the racist bar tender who won't serve Larry, and right after that scene where he proclaims his badassery. Nicholson just has an amazing visceral energy, that is incomparable, and just incredible to watch. It also always works in these performances though because each scene in these performances although distinctly Nicholson, also always makes them distinctly the character he is playing, because Nicholson most certianly is a complete bad ass as bad ass.

Nicholson performance is just an amazing piece of acting, because I felt I really did meet Bad Ass Budusky in this film, and spent time with him as he did this job, and attempted to teach, or show Larry something. It is a strong piece of work becuase he develops Budusky so smoothly, and never does he ever seem like he is acting, even in his scenes that only Jack Nicholson could possibly do. It amazing to see how Nicholson truly develops a unique characterization and manages to create an outstanding memorable character without ever having a single scene that is obviously written just to develop his character. This is a great achievement by Nicholson that is all there is to it.

Best Actor 1973

And the Nominees Were:

Marlon Brando in Last Tango in Paris

Al Pacino in Serpico

Jack Lemmon in Save the Tiger

Jack Nicholson in The Last Detail

Robert Redford in The Sting