Alternate Best Actor 1988: Eric Bogosian in Talk Radio

Eric Bogosian did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Barry Champlain in Talk Radio.

Talk Radio tells the story of a shock jock radio host just before his show is about to go national.

The always reliable character actor Eric Bogosian actually crafted his own lead role as this is a reprise of his performance in a stage play that he also penned, and co-wrote the screenplay here. All of this makes sense as the role of a radio host seems ideal for Bogosian given his idiosyncratic voice with its timbre that is of a filling consistency, aka an ideal radio voice. Bogosian sounds like he should host a radio show, so playing a radio host already is perfect, but of course Talk Radio isn't about a DJ hosting any standard radio show. Instead what Bogosian Barry hosts is talk radio show designed to interact with the most fringe, and often hateful elements of society, as we see through the extended opening sequence that depicts a night of callers for Barry's show. It can only be said that Bogosian is stellar in every single moment of Barry as the radio performer. Because it is a performance, just as there are also elements of Barry the man, but he's going about attacking the program as this kind of almost weird song and dance. And while Bogosian isn't literally singing he almost might as well be in terms of the way the words flow out of his mouth in these sequences. He's on, with the radio voice, and when starting to speak there's no hesitation, no thinking seemingly, he's just ready to go. And it is easy to be convinced of the success of Barry's show immediately because Bogosian's work is immediately captivating, even often in a way of morbid fascination.

Bogosian's performance has a unique power to it, because what Barry's place within the radio show is both the man playing off of the fringe, as seemingly speaking some sensible aspect of society speaking against those insane callers he gets, while also being just as much right within the fringe with methods in which he uses in this strange format of combat. Every call Bogosian performs as both a battle and a dance, but what is behind it all is a strange kind of hatred being bounced around. There are the moments of the most hateful callers calling simply to state their hate, or to threaten Barry even, and Bogosian performs these early on with the same hostility though couched within the natural flow of a comedian who is savoring the hate as something he can play with. When it is one of the strange callers, where we never quite find out how many are hoaxers, exhibitionist, or genuine articles within their strangeness, Bogosian's performance is the one simply playing with them often with a bit of an sneer but just as much ease as he's allowing the nonsense to go on while also undercutting it. Then there are the callers who call in with a degree of support or love for Barry, and these perhaps speak most to the nature of Barry himself, as he responds to them with his own disgusted hatred towards any affection, that reveals Barry's own self-loathing, yet even when carelessly insulting those supporting him, Bogosian's performance still keeps that same slick edge of performance. And that is what is so captivating, is how convincing Bogosian makes this performance art, of the man who is juggling, he is dancing, he is singing, but the elements he's doing that with is for entertainment based around hatred, shock and morbidity.

The radio scenes are what make the film great, and it is easy to see why the stage version would've been successful, which were only based in the radio station, as that is where the film absolutely works. Outside of the scenes of performance, is where the film itself is less good, but where Bogosian still thrives within his performance, because he uses these scenes effectively to help inform us of what exactly is true and what isn't about his onscreen persona. As the first radio sequence, we see Barry checking in with his staff who are talking about his moment as he's about to go national. And what we see in Bogosian's work is in a way a less convincing performance in terms of what Barry is doing, but as convincing in terms of what Bogosian is doing. Because Barry still puts on the edge a bit with those at the station, as he seems to be dismissive, yet when speaking about the chance to go national Bogosian couches genuine nervousness and desperation within the persona. Bogosian lets moments slip showing the man who really does want to have his radio show be successful, even with the "suits" he still tries to the best of his ability to put on his sardonic manner even then. Bogosian artfully shows the sort of breaks even with a certain control within that. The one place where we see even less than that are the moments with his wife (Ellen Greene) which are two sides, those before his show and those after.

In terms of the writing the scenes involving Green are the weakest in the film, as they're just pretty rote and basic moments of a guy losing himself to fame against his loyal wife. Regardless, Bogosian does make the most out of using these scenes in terms of showing where Barry sort of crafted his radio personality from. The earliest scenes of Barry being that of the enthusiastic wannabe, where there are shades of the man, but a much more positive direction. Where his remarkable voice leads him to being invited to guest on another radio show where a trolling caller leads to Barry's first sort of dive into the Barry personality we know now. Bogosian's great in this moment because he shows it as less of an invention and more so an immediate inspiration, almost an insatiable urge to go into the combative sardonic style that we see so dominant in him in the future. However in the present, when with his wife, we seem to see the best Barry, where Bogosian pulls back the intensity of the personality, to show a quieter, more humble, even somewhat ashamed man, trying to reconcile with his wife. Where Bogosian hides the personality and seems to show Barry completely through, even if for a moment, and perhaps a better side. But what is notable, is Bogosian's choice to be so meek in these moments, showing that there is so much bluster behind the personality that is hiding the weak man.

The film does come together for the final act with Barry's final radio broadcast, where he takes on some particularly extreme callers including even bringing in a guest in a drugged out man (Michael Wincott). Bogosian's performance is outstanding in this sequence because again it is just captivating to see him run his show, but there's more here as it becomes the most challenging. We have a key moment where a man claiming to be a serial rapist calls, and Bogosian's performance is exceptional in the moment in showing just a bit of active deterioration that goes to show a hint of horror in Barry's eyes as he comes to believe the caller. Bogosian pulling back just enough being so powerful in indicating a bit of humanity. This though is purposefully undercut as when his wife calls him live to essentially ask about their relationship where Barry pours all the bile he can in response before going off on a tirade basically of all of humanity. Bogosian is magnetic but also so brilliantly wretched in basically this intense release of every bit of hatred, but also self-loathing pouring out in the sequence. Creating this moment of a controlled mania where it is unleashing every bit of ire he's held in, while also essentially giving fully to his trade of miring in the muck for the sake of entertainment.  It is a full mental breakdown in Bogosian's hands, but still all pointed as this weaponized insanity. Bogosian is flawless in the moment because he manages to merge the man with the personality, and it isn't beautiful rather deeply disturbing in seeing the man being simultaneously sickened by what he has become while also fully embracing it. And even while the film has weaker aspects to it, Bogosian is never one of them. His work is complete in creating a singular portrait of a man becoming one with his nightmarish creation.

Alternate Best Actor 1988: Results

5. Daniel Day-Lewis in The Unbearable Lightness of Being - Day-Lewis plays an often indifferent character however he still strikes up very effective chemistry with both of his female co-stars and stands out well in any moments of real urgency for his character.

Best Scene: Throwing the paper away.

4. Michael Caine in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels - Caine along with his co-star Steve Martin gives a delightful turn that is particularly enjoyable in tandem with Martin's more wacky turn.

Best Scene: A cure.

3. Michael Keaton in Clean and Sober - Keaton elevates and energizes his film giving an effective and affecting portrayal of an addict slowly coming to terms with his problem.

Best Scene: Final speech.

2. Willem Dafoe in The Last Temptation of Christ - Dafoe gives a great atypical approach to his depiction of Jesus giving a powerful depiction of Jesus as the messiah but also the man dealing with facing his destiny and sacrifice.

Best Scene: Asking for the cross.

1. John Neville in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen - Perhaps a surprise winner however I loved everything about this performance. Every second Neville's work is entertaining and a sheer delight in his larger than life performance. Every moment of it is a risk, and every risk pays off in this wildly endearing turn.

Best Scene: Battle with the Turks.

Updated Overall

Next Year: 1988 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 1988: Michael Caine and Steve Martin in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

Michael Caine did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a Golden Globe, for portraying Lawrence Jamieson and Steve Martin did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Freddy Benson in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is an enjoyable film about two rather different con men making a wager of which one can extort a rich American woman.

For the film we get perhaps get a somewhat unusual team up between Michael Caine and Steve Martin, although actually it feels quite natural as the two often play some form of scoundrel to begin with so here we get to see both fully embrace that side of their onscreen persona. Both are well cast in their respective roles and in creating their respective types as con men. Caine emphasizing very much his most suave English qualities at his disposal and offers the proper sort of grace for the character. That grace of course being this dignified method of conning women out of their cash by pretending to be a Prince in need of funds. Caine exudes such an upbringing so well though with that little glint in his eyes that always reminds of his true intentions. This is against Martin he is a bit less subtle since he's a far less subtle conman, going for the small gains, but in a big way. Martin is a terrific other side of the coin by presenting the completely unabashed style going big in the right way as his Freddy isn't afraid to look utterly pathetic in order to steal meal. Although these two both setup their differing characters well what makes this film work is cramming the two unlike pairs together.

The two's dynamic is a delight given how well their atypical chemistry comes together through their very different styles. Caine, who actually can go rather overt when he wants to as well, wisely keeps his Lawrence the far more subdued of the two, which works quite well against Martin's portrayal of Freddy's fairly bombastic approach to conning. The two are initially quite enjoyable by delivering this extreme clash as the two try to outsmart the other in a more general sense. Caine bringing almost cutthroat sort of deviousness with everyone of his knowing smiles, against Martin who just plays so well into the outrageous behavior of Freddy. Martin goes about taking every moment in bringing not a hint of modesty particularly in a scene where we see Freddy almost parading around in some of his ill-gotten games, and Martin is hilarious by being as coarse as Caine is refined. The two clash so well and I especially enjoy just the initial reactions to each other with Caine conveying a low key disgust against Martin's intrigue and a bit of confusion at his upper class rival.

When the two initially seem to come together, although it is in fact just a ploy by Lawrence to get rid of Freddy, we are granted the great dynamic the two share for much of the film. As we get Caine playing very much the straight man, well to a certain degree as he always captures that duplicitous nature of Lawrence even when he's working with Freddy, against Martin's performance. Martin often actually will often play the straight man himself and this a great example of him doing anything but. This is particularly seen in the series of scenes where Freddy helps Lawrence rid himself of some of his conned women by posing as the Prince's stunted brother. Both Caine and Martin are so enjoyable in these scenes by how well they make them work. Martin is very much off the deep end with his strange twangy accent, and the ridiculousness of his apelike physical performance, which is made all the funnier by the way Caine reacts to it. Caine giving this sincere affection with only the occasional respectful correction towards Martin in these moments is what makes them truly work. Martin goes off to sea, but Caine offers the right anchor in every moment.

Thankfully this continues though in an altered way as the two men make a bet to outfox the other in trying to con the seemingly rich and naive American Janet (Glenne Headly) out of her money. Each taking up a different approach with a Caine going the quieter route, though quieter in that he is a quietly manipulative German psychiatrist, against Martin's more overtly manipulative crippled navy man though only crippled due to a mental trauma. Each are just splendid in their own ways with Caine having such a striking undercurrent of deviousness at everyone of his concerned deliveries about Martin's Freddy though with that sinister intention in his eyes, and the always joyous grins to set him up for failure. Martin meanwhile is comic gold in being such an overt sad sack in every regard. I especially love his reactions of hidden pain when Caine sadistically tests his "injury" or his hilarious wailing when he sees Lawrence dance with Janet, since dancing "caused" Freddy's "injury". The two make so much out of every single setup. Now there is a bit of a divide though as Martin stays wholly vapid, though purposefully so even as Freddy tries to seduce Janet, while Caine slowly portrays a concern for her when it is revealed she is in fact poor. Again this isn't given too much focus however Caine makes the transition work for just a few moments, plus importantly does not drop the comedic nature of his scenes with Martin. The two are simply wonderful to watch together and let us in on the fun they seem to be having in portraying Lawrence and Freddy getting ahead of each other, then eventually both of them meeting a mutual failure.

Alternate Best Actor 1988: Willem Dafoe in The Last Temptation of Christ

Willem Dafoe did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ.

The Last Temptation of Christ is a rather fascinating alternative exploration of the life of Christ.

The Last Temptation of Christ was an extremely controversial film when originally released mostly heavily because of the scenes in the last act of the film which depict Jesus living a human life which includes sexual intercourse. Those originally offended seemed to have ignored the intention of the story at its core, and also did not see the film as I'd probably say the moments from the first act probably should have lead to greater controversy if they had been seen. Those scenes though too only are part of the overarching approach to the life of Jesus which is to treat him as both a man and a messiah creating a sense of understanding to the idea of Jesus being a man. Due to this overarching theme Willem Dafoe gives a performance that is unlike any actor who ever played Jesus. In most depictions there is a sense of the Godly nature of him whether it be the mysterious mostly unseen figure in Ben-Hur and The Robe, the ethereal performance of Robert Powell in Jesus of Nazareth, even in the more directly sympathetic performances of Jim Caviezel and Ted Neeley in Passion of the Christ, and Jesus Christ Superstar respectively have an otherworldly quality to them. This is unapparent in Dafoe's approach.

That is not a criticism since this is the core to Dafoe's portrayal of Jesus from the first frame of the film, where I should have imagined the stronger reactions should have come from, again that would have required actually watching the film, where Jesus collaborates with Romans by helping with crucifixions and spends some of his time watching the prostitute Mary Magdalene (Barbara Hershey) with her customers. Finding the meaning of these scenes depends greatly on watching Dafoe's portrayal of them. Now this is where Dafoe's work is more intriguing as he begins the film with Jesus living as a man. This is not to say he is without divinity, in fact the opposite is quickly proven to be true in the film, but rather what it means to be a man is keenly felt within Dafoe's portrayal. What this means though is in Dafoe's presentation of that this man feels what any man can feel. Dafoe shows him burdened by this specifically presenting effectively this way the man is pulled towards the weakness of being human, conveying ideas of lust, and doubt subtly within his eyes while also portraying the way he is trying to hold them back at the same time.

What is perhaps one of the most engrossing elements in Dafoe's performance is in the way he establishes Jesus as both that man with various temptations of the flesh, but also what it means to be the son of God as well. Dafoe's portrayal of this is incredible because he humanizes technically the superhuman element within Jesus. This is not saying he takes it away rather he delivers the burden of what it means to be aware of who he is, and God's purpose for him. Dafoe's work essentially explains the early scenes by creating what it is that he's going through. Dafoe presents this knowledge of his mission as this underlying constriction in the man as he speaks of his awareness of what God expects of him, there is this overwhelming anguish. This anguish is very specific in Dafoe's performance as it is not of a man hating what he must do, but rather trying to make sense of it. In the moments where he is even approaching sin, though perhaps not participating in directly, Dafoe is incredible in the way he internalizes this struggle. The struggle that he develops as part of this pain but also with sense of an attempt to decipher it himself. This confusion so effectively, and quite powerfully creates an understanding of who Jesus is before he fully accepts why he was put on the Earth to begin with.

As Jesus's journey begins and he finds disciples Dafoe still does not evoke those other well known depictions of Jesus. What he established in the early scenes influences his entire work in creating a different kind of journey though with technically the same final intention. Dafoe allows the viewer a far more intimate perspective into this journey since he does not hide that attachment to Jesus having been born as a man even while being divine. Dafoe portrays so well this realization as he begins his journey, and creation of a confidence from his initial doubts towards becoming the prophet among the Jewish people. Dafoe still does not allow his work to be superseded in his own approach to realizing perhaps the more biblical Jesus as he begins spreading his word, and committing miracles. Dafoe has a far lower key take in this regard than other cinematic depictions however that in no way means his work is any less inspiring. In fact Dafoe's more earthly approach offers something rather special. Dafoe speaks as a man but a truly enlightened man in these scenes, even in his scenes of miracles. Dafoe offers this sense of hardship in his words against violence and towards healing, and in doing so offers a true poignancy to Jesus's message. Dafoe gives the words a real life in his delivery as they come from this place of experience rather than necessarily of only an otherworldly wisdom. 

This approach leads to a very different depiction in the moments of and leading to his arrest as Jesus asks for Judas (Harvey Keitel) to betray him directly in order to fulfill his needed destiny. Dafoe again not only creates sense in this but actually makes it deeply affecting. When he tells Judas to fulfill his own destiny Dafoe presents a certainty in his command, and a passion to this cause. Dafoe still though conveys the underlying suffering of this knowledge of his fate yet with the confidence to accept it at this moment. Dafoe captures the confidence of his initial cause during the last supper, and in his trial with Pontius Pilate. The true feelings of this though are revealed as he is alone in the Garden of Gethsemane where Dafoe presents the full insecurity within the man pulled out in such a moving revealing of his sorrow over what he must do. He is of course crucified however this is where the additional element of the narrative appears that being the titular last temptation Christ. That temptation being given by seemingly his guardian angel to be taken from the cross and being given the chance to live out a normal life as a man. In these scenes are where the controversy of the film most arose however they seemed to ignore the intention as this was the realization of the greatest temptation which was not to be the messiah.

Dafoe's performance is again pivotal to these scenes in his portrayal of the way Jesus initially seems to accept the temptation that is offered to him. It is not of pure happiness but of just a life of any man which may include loss yet requires no divine sacrifice. What Dafoe captures is this contentment to his performance even in the moment of tragic loss. Dafoe doesn't show this as unfeeling rather he presents Jesus seemingly finally without burden, and though his life isn't perfect he depicts the contentment of just being a man. There is tenderness, there is sadness, however there is no larger question of purpose. This seems to continue well into his old age where he comes across Paul (Harry Dean Stanton) the future prophet though he is preaching the word of Jesus, it is a lie as he speaks of the death and resurrection. Dafoe is outstanding in the confrontation scene in first portraying just seemingly a direct disgust and disbelief at the lie. As Paul continues to speak though Dafoe captures in his reaction this realization of perhaps a mistake in his choice, seeing how he did not offer the man the truth behind his noble words. The contentment continues to crumble as does Jerusalem as hate overpowers all, and in his possible last moments he is confront by the still living Judas with his failure. Dafoe's work is amazing as his face captures again the realization with every spoken word that the man must choose death rather than to live a life. Dafoe is wholly harrowing in presenting the heart wrenching sorrow of the man as he loses all composure in such a fierce declaration of failure in order to accept his fate to die on the cross. What the film does and Dafoe's performance offers one of the most moving yet inspiring depictions of Christ's sacrifice on film. They do not do it through overt physical suffering rather through nuanced portrayal of a man coming to terms with his purpose, and denying a life of false contentment. This is a great performance by Willem Dafoe, as he takes an entirely original approach to his portrait of Jesus, yet never loses the inherent message behind him or the power of the sacrifice.

Alternate Best Actor 1988: John Neville in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen

John Neville did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen is a rather enjoyable fantastical adventure film following the Baron through his proclaimed travels that are more than a little farfetched.

John Neville throughout his film career mostly played minor roles with this film being a notable exception. It seems that Neville intended to make the most of that opportunity given the performance he grants any viewer of this film. Neville seems to call upon his inner C. Aubrey Smith to create the legendary, in his own words, Baron Munchausen. We initially meet the character as he introduces himself during a play about his life, which the elderly Baron does not approve of. Although Neville is highly enjoyable in delivering a most refined series of disapproving scoffs towards those failing to properly produce a play on his life, along with some particularly lustful glances towards the young women in the play, this is but a warm up to full force of Neville's performance as the titular man. This comes as the Baron tells the story of one of his previous exploits, that incurred a war with the Turks going on still during the play's performance, which in turns leads to a new adventure by the Baron. This somehow also returns him to a more youthful appearance and we are granted the undiluted legend by John Neville.

Neville's performance here is a sort of marvel in his crafting of the outrageous Baron. This is a full bodied performance in every sense as he makes no waste of his vibrant costuming, or his gigantic nose embracing them fully. What Neville does though is match all that with the sheer spirit of his portrayal of the Baron. Neville's work is of a legend in the making as there is such a grandeur to every aspect of work. This is from his posture that seems almost excessively straight proper for a real man of the very highest order. Any single gesture in the entirety of Neville's performance is something worth noting because it is though he is posing for a painting of a great hero in every moment, in any swing of the sword or moment of declaring one thing or another. Neville performs not as a man on top the world, but actually far above it. In terms of his physical work though my favorite aspect probably is that glorious mile wide grin Neville brings to the part. It is magnificent and fitting to a man who lives life in a way that no one else possibly could.

John Neville continues his marvelous approach though in his magnificent deliveries throughout the film. Again the grander the better seems to be Neville's idea here and I'm inclined to agree. In almost every statement, particularly those when it comes to naming his next move as an adventurer or even more so when he is speaking about his own greatness, Neville grants them a booming boasting voice filled with such overwhelming confidence. Neville grants this earned confidence almost in way through the sheer refinement of it all, since you must just accept that he know what he's doing, and what he says is true since it all sounds just so good coming out of that golden throat of his. Neville fashions in his performance a man who in all of his facets as a man matches the nature of the stories he tells, and the story we witness him in. Neville is downright amazing as his performance is somehow never overshadowed by director Terry Gilliam's outrageous vision. Neville instead brilliantly stands on top of it at every turn since somehow the Baron just seems a bit more than even the most wildest of his "dreams". 

This is actually a rather curious performance to follow for such an adventure film as more often we follow a hero who isn't really use to the insanity, yes this is partially represented through the Baron's stowaway sidekick Sally (Sarah Polley), but the Baron is the true lead. The Baron is atypical since rather than discovering these various incredible places and people, the Baron is fashioning them in a way. Neville's performance though makes this absolutely work for this film in going about amplifying everything through the daring of approach that matches the daring of the Baron. Neville's performance is a performance that is simply so much fun to watch given how well he captures the style of this insane character. It becomes quite entertaining just to go along with him in this way where Neville offers such great spirit in every action scene by portraying a man who just lives for it all. I also do love his just ever so slightly altered approach when a woman comes along as he depicts the same overwhelming enthusiasm yet adjusts it to a lower key charm, well a lower key charm for the Baron it's still pretty outrageous for the average man. Neville is also consistently hilarious so often in this unabashed take, I have particular affection for his completely without shame delivery of "Yes" after one of his old servants accuses the Baron of having left him to rot in a cage yet still expects him to follow him. Neville makes it convincing that the servant would still follow the unrepentant Baron since his charisma is a bit magical. This is not a performance about a character arc, really the only thing that occasionally happens is the Baron gets down on himself and occasionally seems to accept his demise. Neville doesn't make these moments too serious showing them more of just a grumpy reaction to a potential reality setting in than a true loss of the man's spirit. That's just fine though as the film is entirely about going for the grand gestures in every respect, and Neville's whole performance is a singular grand gesture. I loved every second of this performance by John Neville as he simply becomes a man who perhaps died on more than a few occasions, but don't worry he's always alright in the end.

Alternate Best Actor 1988: Michael Keaton in Clean and Sober

Michael Keaton did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning NSFC, for portraying Daryl Poynter in Clean and Sober.

Clean and Sober loses itself in the third act a bit but otherwise I found it to be a mostly effective depiction the story of an addict going to rehab essentially just for a place to stay.

What helps the film along greatly is its cast including M. Emmet Walsh, Morgan Freeman and Kathy Baker. Michael Keaton though is of course the center of the film, and the one who makes it. In the same year as perhaps his most iconic role, or at least his most iconic role he doesn't have to share, with Beetlejuice where he played the madcap and grotesque "humanbuster", this should stand in quite the contrast as a very down to earth drama. Although that is true in some way but the roles, and films for that matter depend greatly on the unique presence of Keaton. Frankly it just seems like Keaton ought to have played a coke head at one time or another in the 80's, giving his always kinetic energy as a performer is perfect for this type of role. That is not all wasted by the film or Keaton who captures the role as basically this functioning, though barely, drug addict so effectively. In the early scenes Keaton's work grants the frantic pace needed for the character who is juggling his, embezzlement funded, stock playing, his drugs, and dealing with a fellow drug addled dalliance who dies after a one night stand with him. Keaton captures the cocaine fueled rush in every moment showing this constant excessive rate in his stressed yet so active speech pattern, and his physical energy that is enthusiastic yet pained at the same time.

What Keaton does here not only sets up the character so well, but he also keeps the tone from becoming too heavy in an effective way. It is not that this is a humorous performance by Keaton overall, however, as usual, there is a certain comic styling that Keaton so naturally delivers to the role. It isn't that he's making jokes, but rather makes things completely seem as though his Daryl would treat some of what's going around him with this certain levity. Keaton makes this work quite well particularly early on as he reacts to the other patients at the rehab with a definite lack of sincerity. Daryl after all is only there initially for a place to basically hideout due to his problems relating to his embezzlement and the deceased woman. Keaton reflects that well by portraying as more of an observer having the occasional laugh at those around him. Keaton keeps this so well in character, though he also does well to add just a few signs of withdrawal as he stays in the rehab. Keaton's approach is the right one for cocaine withdrawal as there aren't overt physical aspects, however Keaton does well to present the growing intensity in Daryl is gets further away from his last high. He builds this especially effectively as he loses any of that initial humor, before finally fully lashing out when the counselor (Freeman) refuses to let Daryl misuse the center.

Keaton is terrific in terms of realizing the gradual change in Daryl's character as he continues to stay at the rehab, as his problems do not diminish despite his efforts. Keaton never makes this easy showing well the right combination of desperation that grows in Daryl, but also the way his smarmy disregard for the place begins to slowly fade. Keaton never misses a step here and his work is remarkable in portraying the difficultly of the process. Keaton nicely never makes it this simple as though Daryl is just suddenly fixed by a single thing. He instead, in just the subtle reactions, conveys when the man truly takes something in, and generally loses that overt confidence of a man who thinks he knows all the answers. I find his scenes with M. Emmet Walsh are very strong, as Walsh plays the man who essentially insists on acting as Daryl's sponsor. Their chemistry together really works as Walsh emphasizes the patience, and support, though with a bit of strictness, against Keaton who throws a bit of venom in some of their interactions. Keaton though is great at making that wall Daryl builds real therefore earning the collapse of it as the Walsh's character's words slowly take hold. Again those reactions just are on point as every so often Keaton's eyes bring that sense of a man finally looking at himself, and understanding the chance to better himself.

The weakest portion of the film is its third act as we leave the facility and Daryl tries to reform his life. Now the problem with this is actually stops focusing on Daryl and moves over to this potential romance with a fellow attendee Charlie (Kathy Baker) dealing with her own recovering. Now there isn't anything wrong with Baker and Keaton together. Keaton is even good in not overly presenting the romantic angle too much, always keeping a certain emphasis on the genuine concern Daryl has for her. The writing here though falters as it just doesn't develop itself well enough, and the pacing of this aspect feels off. The film would have been better off just staying with Daryl's story wholly as the secondary one just seems rushed. Keaton to his credit is good in these scenes though they wrongly take the pressure off of him, until the last few minutes of the film. Keaton makes the most of those final scenes still though making his reaction to what happens to Baker's character appropriately moving even if its overall impact is diminished by the writing of it. Keaton then gets to end the film with Daryl's speech at an AA meeting. Keaton's great in this scene, although it's pretty interesting in that he probably gives one of the most realistic movie speeches because he handles it as a guy who isn't use to giving them. He stumbles a bit during it, and there isn't an overt emotion towards the audience, watching him, although we feel it through Keaton's understated approach to revealing what Daryl's word really do mean to him. Although this isn't a great film, Keaton elevates it brilliantly giving the needed substance and power to this study of an addict's recovery.

Alternate Best Actor 1988: Klaus Maria Brandauer in Hanussen

Klaus Maria Brandauer did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Klaus Schneider aka Erik Jan Hanussen in Hanussen.

Hanussen is an effective character study following an Austrian who after being wounded in World War I becomes a mentalist in Germany.

Well I interrupt our predetermined lineup of reviews to come to Klaus Maria Brandauer during his brief period as a leading man and international star. As with one of his other notable leading turn as a real life figure in Mephisto, Brandauer once again plays a role whose fate is intertwined with the Nazi movement in Germany. As with that earlier performance Brandauer's approach is innately fascinating in itself. Now in the early scenes of the film Brandauer's work is fairly unassuming in presenting just a man first in agony of his head wound from a gunshot, then going through a difficult recovery. We are granted this time with Klaus Schneider which Brandauer uses well to establish a pivotal initial understanding to the man before he becomes the titular figure for the film. Brandauer's work is properly modest here as we see him with the other veterans dealing with their suffering and Brandauer is moving in effectively depicting the somber state of this man. This all changes though when one of the particularly damaged men threatens the hospital with a grenade leading to Hanussen coming out.

The first time we meet Hanussen is a downright brilliant scene for Brandauer's performance, though there are many more to come, this one is distinctive in the way Brandauer approaches this first instance of his abilities. In the scene Klaus calls upon his apparent mental sway to calm the suicidal man, and prevent him from setting off the grenade. Brandauer in this moment brings this sudden power just in his gaze and in his delivery carries such an authority with every word, yet in this instance there is a desperation to the moment. Brandauer doesn't portray as an intentional use of some control, but rather the instinct of the man to try to handle the situation and save everyone in the room himself included. The power is realized yet in this moment Brandauer portrays it as brought on by the emotions of that horrible situation. This is Klaus Schneider using the power he'd be known for but before he realized he even had it. This leads Schneider to examine his position, and Brandauer portrays this as bringing a growth in the confidence in the man that leads to a fuller recovery from his war injuries. In this we are granted with the first sight of his ego which, as proven earlier with Mephisto, Brandauer is a master at a realization of this.

That ego is a major facet of his performance here, and he carefully uses this within his performance throughout. At the hospital the man's ego initially grows through the interest of his doctor who sees his power or at least talent, and even through a nurse who has an affair with him. Brandauer shows the way Schneider takes on these praises and encouragement with a certain thrill that provides with it a most definite joy. Brandauer shows this build the man up to so much more than he had been but this only grows as he changes his name to become Jan Hanussen. This is where his performance becomes particularly fascinating in how Brandauer works in discovering the character for himself. It would be simple enough just to create the megalomaniac but that isn't what Brandauer does with his performance. Instead even as we see Hanussen build up as this creation there is always a sense of Schneider in a certain way that is a central facet to Brandauer's work. There is no simplification as Brandauer presents the various faces of the man which are all compelling in their own right and what is truly remarkable is in the way Brandauer weaves them as one in this strange tapestry of a man.

In private quarters, though in company, Brandauer gives us some of Schneider still but with the confidence of Hanussen drawn within that. Brandauer in his moments with his old doctor and his girlfriend does offer a genuine decency at times. Although again that confidence is of Hanussen in a way, and Brandauer delivers all of these scenes with an inherent distance of the man with this power against those who do not have it. He projects a bit of an enigma, but he allows enough of an honest human being there as well. Brandauer carefully shows the man still is willing to connect, and there are moments of just some real warmth he provides in showing the man still needing normal friendships however they are a secondary goal in the end. The focus of the film is Hanussen, though this is most often as the mentalist performer. It is here where Brandauer is absolutely outstanding in every single scene as this larger than life figure. What he does is so incredible in every instance. Brandauer projects such an extreme and overpowering charisma in these scenes. Every part of it from his ease in delivery yet with such a commanding voice to his physical performance that is so essential in crafting the manner of a mystic who is otherworldly, and wholly in control.

It is enough of an achievement for Brandauer to do as I have already stated, but even here he goes further in the exact way he handles every single one of these scenes. In all of them there is this overpowering charisma yet he handles this in a different way depending on the situation. In many instances we are granted just the pure showman and in these scenes Brandauer is very entertaining with a more overt approach to a man somewhat playing up the mystic act since it is indeed an act. This is different though in a scene where Hanussen takes on a would be heckler. Again Brandauer commands the screen much as Hanussen commands the man's mind. In this time though there is a vindictive force to his pull as he so effectively presents the way Hanussen incisively breaks the man down before calmly dismissing him. My favorite single Hanussen scene though is when he is put on trial for charlatanism. Brandauer at first begins more grounded as he answers the questions of the prosecutor and the judge explaining his act as interest in humans. In this moment Brandauer reveals this quiet yet rather intense passion that holds this as truth to what inspires the man. Still by the nature of the court Brandauer shows Hanussen playing with them a bit, and Brandauer is rather enjoyable to watch in presenting so well the man treating the trial as a bit of a game. When pressed further though he switches to the full power of Hanussen in a way, and Brandauer is mesmerizing to watch pull out essentially that power of the man's sheer will. The whole court rises when he commands them to, and Brandauer makes this seem a natural act.

There is yet the final layer to Brandauer's performance and the man that is Hanussen. This is the most internalized part and an essential facet to this portrayal since it keeps him grounded to a certain extent alluding to the wounded war veteran we met at the beginning of the film. This facet is an extremely subtle part of Brandauer's performance in that it is mostly silent and comes into play with Hanussen's perhaps greatest ability which is to see in the future. Now when he acts as the clairvoyant there is that degree of showmanship, but what I speak to is what Brandauer does when he sees that his predictions have come true. Brandauer is amazing in bringing back a vulnerability to the man and in a way rationalizing the entire story. Brandauer, even though this is where Hanussen's powers are most proven to be true, Brandauer portrays in his eyes and whole body language this loss of ego and definite fear from Hanussen seeing his power as real. In this Brandauer realizes this sense of doubt within the man that should seem a contradiction yet Brandauer's performance is so astute it instead offers a greater insight into the man. Brandauer finds the man struggling with himself and not only whether his abilities or real, but also if really wants them to be. We see this side of the man continue as Hitler appropriates Hanussen's methods for his own ends, and in these reactions off unease there is that scared man just trying to get by again. This unease eventually leads him to take action which quickly leads him to be taken out by a group of Nazi soldiers to be executed. The final scene is another astonishing scene for Brandauer as he briefly begins with Hanussen attempting to play the master of the mind to get out of this, however the men's gun's quickly break this act. Brandauer then proceeds to be harrowing by depicting the breaking man's ego as he is taunted by the men before being killed himself. There is yet one final moment of his power, which is brilliantly portrayed, as Brandauer offers the foresight once again without the ego, and it is devastating as predicts the demise of the Nazis in one of his final breaths. This is a downright masterful portrait by Klaus Maria Brandauer as he not only becomes that otherworldly figure, but he manages to poignantly humanizes this man at the same time.

Alternate Best Actor 1988: Daniel Day-Lewis in The Unbearable Lightness of Being

Daniel Day-Lewis  did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Tomas in The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being follows a Czech surgeon and the two women in his life just as the Soviet Union invades.

Watching this film made me think of the single performance by Daniel Day-Lewis that I've seen where I was underwhelmed by his work, this isn't some cryptic warning for the rest of the review by the way. That performance though is his work in Nine where he was miscast as the dazed Italian director Guido. Now it is easy enough to say that was a bad film, but I started thinking what was it that made Day-Lewis seem miscast there. It may have been the nature of the role of Guido who has a lack of urgency right to the point that a major plot facet of that film is that Guido never even completes his film that he's suppose to be making. That is in contrast to Day-Lewis's other performances where you can find some urgency or at least some purpose even in the most constricted of situations. It got me thinking and that perhaps Day-Lewis needs most of all to be an active performer, and this is not in regards to reactions either. Day-Lewis has one of the greatest reactions in all of cinema on his resume, but rather it is this passiveness was required in Guido that was ill-fitting to Day-Lewis's methods as an actor. Now the reason that got me thinking was here was again a part of a man who partially lets others react around him, but also is a Lothario.

The film focuses on Tomas and the two women in his life the sexually liberated artist Sabina (Lena Olin), and the far more conservative and shy waitress/inspiring photographer Tereza (Juliette Binoche). Now in terms of the film the women are as important as Tomas, in fact there are substantial portions of the film where Day-Lewis is absent, but I digress. The nature of Tomas as a womanizer is very specific here, and fortunately for Day-Lewis it requires often a more active approach. Now in part this does rely on Day-Lewis being a naturally charismatic and attractive to which women are just simply drawn to him. These are the least interesting parts to Day-Lewis's performance actually as again Day-Lewis seems almost to dislike the idea of easy ways out in terms of acting. Thankfully though the more active performer is required in creating the two distinct relationships between the two women. In his scenes with Olin, Day-Lewis emphasizes very much the lust, and with Olin develops well this spirit of antagonism within that which effectively alludes to the way this fuels their flames essentially. These moments are particularly direct with both actors showing there is no time wasted as the two give in quickly to the pleasure with one another in passionate though purposefully limited fashion.

That is in sharp contrast to the relationship with Binoche's Tereza which Day-Lewis portrays initially as Tomas approaching her in a similair way he would any other one of his "conquests". Day-Lewis though naturally realizes the way this changes though as Tereza reveals her hesitations but also desire for a deeper interaction with him. Day-Lewis is very good in portraying a gentler, less lustful, side to Tomas in these moments finding these reactionary moments of the man moving from lust to love, and bringing a real gentle quality to even their sexually charged scenes. In these moments Day-Lewis presents this patience of the man conveying a deeper relationship there. His and Binoche's chemistry works quite well in throughout the film building the two's connection from moment to moment. Although their relationship is frequently challenged by the Soviets, and Tomas's infidelity the two find the foundation of a genuine warmth and affection. In the moments where Tereza questions Tomas's actions even, Day-Lewis is quite good actually by not portraying shame, but rather presenting a man who doesn't designate a deeper importance to sex unlike Tereza. The depth instead comes from the two just being together, and both actors excel in realizing that joy and more so comfort in each other's presence particularly in the closing scenes of the film.

Although much of Day-Lewis's time is spent in those moments of the relationship, returning back to the most active Day-Lewis is the best Day-Lewis holds particularly true here. While Day-Lewis is definitely quite good in those scenes, his best are when Tomas is front and center. This is found in part of the film as we first see Tomas casually disregard the Soviets, which he initially delivers with only a minor intensity though as just someone in a conversation with friends. Tomas though writes a more scathing article against the Soviets, which is problematic when they invade leading Tomas and Tereza to leave the country though they eventually return. This leads Tomas to come afoul with the government who press him to name names of his collaborators or be no longer allowed to practice medicine in his hospital. These couple of scenes offer perhaps the Day-Lewis we all love most as he is downright amazing in the scenes just through his eyes portraying such sheer disregard for the government agent asking the questions. There is such a powerful incisiveness to Day-Lewis's work as in his very being you get such a incredible sense of Tomas's discontent, even though he never once raises his voice in the scene. Once again Day-Lewis is outstanding in this most urgent moment, expressing the most struggle so well in very few minutes, and in a part of the story that isn't given that much focus yet makes a substantial impact because of this performance. This isn't one of Day-Lewis's greatest turns, perhaps because how passive the character is, but that isn't saying much when talking about one of the most talented actors alive. This is still a very strong and remarkable turn from the great Daniel Day-Lewis.

Alternate Best Actor 1988

And the Nominees Were Not:

John Neville in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen

Michael Keaton in Clean and Sober

Willem Dafoe in The Last Temptation of Christ

Daniel Day-Lewis in The Unbearable Lightness of Being 

Michael Caine in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

Steve Martin in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

For Prediction Purposes:

Caine out of the Scoundrels

Alternate Best Actor 1988: Results

5. Forest Whitaker in Bird- Whitaker gives a performance that combines the charm and pain of his character well.

Best Scene: Bird's death. 

4. William Hurt in The Accidental Tourist- Hurt is very strong here by realizing his character's depression while still giving a charming and sometimes humorous performance.

Best Scene:  Macon chooses Muriel.

3. John Malkovich in Danger Liaisons- Malkovich takes an unorthodox but effective approach to his womanizer character by stressing the mechanics of the man's method.

Best Scene:  Valmont tries to reject Madame de Tourvel.

2. Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit- Hoskins is terrific in the lead of this film interacting perfectly with the strange cartoon characters throughout the film as well giving an entertaining and sometimes powerful performance entirely on its own as well.

Best Scene:  Eddie tells Roger what happened to his brother.

1. Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers- Good Prediction Michael Patison, Mark, and Maciej. Well it should be no surprise to anyone that Jeremy Irons wins this year. Although I liked all these performances Irons stands far and above as the best. He is simply incredible in his portrayal of the twins of his film and their interconnected world. Irons here not only gives one but two great characterizations here finding the subtitles that differentiate the two perfectly as well as creating a fascinating connection between them.

Best Scene:  Beverly and Elliot finally separate.

Overall Rank:

1. Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers
2. Klaus Maria Brandauer in Hanussen
3. John Neville in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen 
4. Willem Dafoe in The Last Temptation of Christ
5. Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit
6. Eric Bogosian in Talk Radio
7. Bill Murray in Scrooged
8. Charles Grodin in Midnight Run
9. Robert De Niro in Midnight Run 
10. John Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons
11. William Hurt in The Accidental Tourist
12. Gene Hackman in Mississippi Burning 
13. Michael Keaton in Clean and Sober
14. Bruce Willis in Die Hard  
15. Keith Carradine in The Moderns 
16. James Woods in Cop
17. Joe Mantegna in Things Change
18. Steve Martin in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
19. Michael Caine in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels 
20. Harrison Ford in Frantic
21. Robert Duvall in Colors
22. Daniel Day-Lewis in The Unbearable Lightness of Being  
23. Don Ameche in Things Change
24. Michael J. Fox in Bright Lights Big City
25. Forest Whitaker in Bird 
26. John Cleese in A Fish Called Wanda 
27. Jeff Bridges in Tucker A Man and His Dream
28. River Phoenix in Running on Empty 
29. Mel Gibson in Tequila Sunrise  
30. Isaach de Bankolé in Chocolat
31. Leslie Nielsen in Naked Gun 
32. Tom Cruise in Rain Man 
33. Harvey Fierstein in Torch Song Trilogy
34. James Woods in The Boost
35. Sam Neill in A Cry in the Dark
36. Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu in The Vanishing
37. Eddie Murphy in Coming to America
38. Edward James Olmos in Stand and Deliver
39. Kevin Costner in Bull Durham
40. Gene Bervoets in The Vanishing
41. Andy Lau in As Tears Go By
42. Sean Penn in Colors 
43. Sidney Poitier in Shoot to Kill
44. Tom Hanks in Big
45. Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man
46. Tom Berenger in Shoot to Kill 
47. Kurt Russell in Tequila Sunrise
48. Ray Liotta in Dominick and Eugene
49. Alec Baldwin in Beetlejuice
50. Warwick Davis in Willow
51. Emilio Estevez in Young Guns
52. Richard Dreyfuss in Moon Over Parador  
53. Francois Cluzet in Chocolat
54. Tom Hulce in Dominick and Eugene 
55. Navin Chowdry in Madame Sousatzka
56. Chris Sarandon in Child's Play 
57. Sylvester Stallone in Rambo III
58. Matthew Modine in Married to the Mob
59. Roddy Piper in They Live
60. Clint Eastwood in The Dead Pool
61. Brad Dourif in Child's Play
62. Jim Varney in Ernest Saves Christmas
63. Alex Vincent in Child's Play

Next Year: 1988 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 1988: Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Bob Hoskins did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a Golden Globe, for portraying Eddie Valiant in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Ah whatever happened to Robert Zemeckis in the 80's he made two of my favorite films of all time Back to the Future and this film, but now for my money he has not made a good film in over ten years. Anyway Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a great film about a private detective who lives in a world where cartoons are very much living and he finds he must try to prove the innocence of a toon Roger Rabbit who is accused of murder.

Bob Hoskins portrays the private detective Eddie Valiant, and although the film could be taken as largely a director's film with its flawless use of animation with live action, Hoskins's lead performance is essential to the success of the film. In all of the craziness involving evil judges, a cartoon suspect, and even a looney whole town of cartoons there is Hoskins in the middle. Despite the lunacy going on around him Hoskins never does jump into it himself with his performance instead he acts as hard rock center of sanity within the film as Eddie Valliant whom he portrays like he is playing Jake Gittes in Chinatown. Hoskins importantly takes this role very seriously when lesser actors may not have.

In the role of Eddie Valiant Hoskins plays the private detective as a gruff rather cynical man who is honestly a bit of drunk, and not very happy really about anything. Even though one may, wrongly, say Roger Rabbit is a children's film Hoskins treats the part in a wholly adult fashion. Hoskins does a great job of realizing this over the hill formerly great detective who seems in a bit of a path of nothingness after the death of his brother. Of course I should note that Hoskins does mediate the cynicism properly within Eddie, and he does leave the right amount of life into his character to still make Eddie someone we can easily follow through the film noir murder mystery that Eddie ends up getting involved with.

Hoskins is quite terrific here in that he is able to act as a guide for the audience through world well making Eddie a full fledged character in his own right. One way he does this is through the very important reaction shots through film involving the cartoon characters. On one hand Hoskins does well to ground it all a bit in that he shows properly that Valiant has been around the cartoons for quite some time, and in one way he takes the toons as something that has been there done that. He shows correctly always as Eddie Valiant reacting to the toons in the same way he would to a person the toons are always there because Hoskins certainly never second guesses the fact that they are there.

What works so well about this performance though is that Hoskins just as well interacts with the toons as he should in a more lively way when needed as well such as in Jessica Rabbit's musical number or when he finally ends up in toon town. In say the Jessica Rabbit scene Hoskins is just great in his perfect reactions in his surprise and awe in what Jessica Rabbit ends up being. In the toon town sequence Hoskins almost becomes toon himself yet he still in a odd way manages to stay grounded even when reacting towards the toons on their own terms by playing along with some of their acts such as not falling until realizing he is only standing on air. Hoskins has just the right amount of fun without forgetting the character of Eddie Valiant, and even when absurd he keeps his reactions somehow realistic.

One of the most important aspects of the film is Eddie's relationship with the accused toon Roger Rabbit. Hoskins's performance is especially important here because frankly Roger' antics could wear thin extremely quickly but they do not because of Hoskins being the hard rock of cynicism against him. Their chemistry is excellent because explicitly does not play Eddie for laughs in any obvious fashion as he keeps Eddie always very much in reality. Hoskins though through his more realistic portrayal though actually gets more laughs by finding just the right tone to reign in the craziness in Roger to make the two a rather endearing duo in the end.

Hoskins is terrific in the way though he does honestly establish the cynicism of Eddie as actually coming from his sadness from his brother's death. The few scenes when the sadness is shown directly such as when he is looking over photographs of his brother, or when he retells the story of the death of his brother Hoskins handles them very powerfully creating the appropriate sympathy and understanding for Eddie despite his gruffness. What is especially compelling about Hoskins portrayal here that he even manages to create the transformation within Eddie at the end when he lightens up frankly. It is fat as he never stops to really show this but Hoskins makes work in a delightful fashion by never being too harsh as Eddie earlier, and in just the right deliberate fashion lightening up throughout the film. This is really fantastic performance by Hoskins not only giving an entertaining performance all by himself, but as well making the world of the film come together through his down to earth portrayal in the middle of it all.

Alternate Best Actor 1988: Forest Whitaker in Bird

Forest Whitaker did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning Cannes and being nominated for a Golden Globe, for portraying Charlie Parker in Bird.

Bird is an okay film but not as compelling as one might want about Jazz saxophonist Charlie Parker's problems with addiction.

This particular film about a musician is rather different from say the newer ones like Ray or Walk the Line which both told the same story of a bizarrely unceremonious rise to fame, than fall into drug addiction followed by recovery by the woman he loves. Bird is different in that Charlie does not recover from his addiction as it does eventually lead to his death. This is very different film as well because we do not really see his fall into his addiction instead his addiction is more of a constant. There are moments where he steers from it partially but he never seems to entirely escape from his problems.

Due to the nature of Parker's story Whitaker does not so much have a character arc but more of a rubber band that goes back fourth. He goes from highs to lows suddenly without all that much notice. Whitaker therefore has to take bit of a scatter shot approach to his performance, which is helped even less since director Clint Eastwood even uses flashbacks giving Whitaker an even greater challenge to really portray Parker effectively. Whitaker does take on the role well actually despite the fact that Charlie Parker constantly jumps back and fourth in his way, and Whitaker actually does find the trouble within the man that causes this.

An important aspect of Whitaker performance is that he portrays Parker as never particularly happy even in the happier scenes of the film. Importantly he does not over do it and just have Parker as a man of depression. There is always a certain sadness in his portrayal though. Whitaker shows Parker as really a man who is unable to really achieve the sort of happiness that would really allow him to ever escape from his addictions. There is always a pain that Whitaker creates in Parker that only reinforces his self destructive behavior and he makes it believable that Parker even after seeming to drop an addiction he would only fall right back into it.

Whitaker despite showing the pain of Parker as a constant does still do well to portray Parker as a charismatic entertainer. He has quite a bit of charm in the role and is convincing in the way so many seem to like Parker so much. Whitaker makes all of it quite natural and creates the sort of presence that Charlie Parker really should have. Whitaker makes Parker a likable man who honestly in many situations can make himself seem like a man who has it entirely together simply through his charms. Whitaker properly shows that both his health and his charm seem to diminish in almost equal measure as the worse off he is the less he seems to want to please.

Whitaker is actually quite good in bringing together the different sides of Bird that come from his moments of terrible addiction to his reprieves of recovery. Whitaker does well in showing the emotional pulls in Parker that make him shift so randomly at times because the one thing that is constant is that underlying pain that Whitaker always properly conveys which propels him to his drugs and alcohol. Although Parker's jumps around in terms of emotional highs and lows Whitaker never makes them feel disconcerting as he does meet the needs of Bird whether he is charming a crowd or loathing himself in a drug addled haze.

Forest Whitaker here gives a good performance as Charlie Parker though it never becomes the powerful tour de force that one want from a depiction of a self destructive man. I do feel this is the fault of the film more that Whitaker which never quite strikes the right chords with the material to make the life of Parker come alive as well as it should. Whitaker realizes Parker as well as this version of the story probably would allow which is an interesting and effective depiction but never as striking as one would think could come from the man considering his life.

Alternate Best Actor 1988: John Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons

John Malkovich did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Vicomte de Valmont in Dangerous Liaisons.

Dangerous Liaisons is a well made film about two aristocrats who revel in horrible games of passion and deceit.

John Malkovich's casting here certainly was a point of contention when the film originally came out with his rather unorthodox appearance. The Valmont is a perpetual and successful womanizer, and it seems many would think Valmont would probably look a little less devious to begin with like perhaps Colin Firth in Valmont for example. The same could be said about his charms as well as Malkovich is not especially suave in the role of Valmont either, and one might think he would need to be to be believed in the amount of conquests he partakes in.

The question is though does Malkovich really need to be traditionally handsome and Clark Gable type charming for the role, and the simple answer is no. What Malkovich expresses most with Valmont here is the method in which Valmont goes upon his sexual expeditions. Malkovich instead of really trying to hide the sliminess that really does make up his character he instead portrays Valmont as a man who very much revels in exactly what he is. There is no shame in his performance and Malkovich very much accentuates the mechanics of his seductions more than anything else with his portrayal of Valmont. 

There are many liaisons we see Valmont having but we only see two seductions portrayed in the film a routine one, and more daring one of Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer) who is known for her virtue. In both Malkovich does not show Valmont as attempting really any charm in fact there is always far more of a strategy at play that utilizes both the gender roles of the time as well as the emotions of the woman in both cases. Malkovich is properly calculated as he shows the strategy of Valmont at all times to the audience well at the same time creating the proper ruse that he uses against the women.

Malkovich's makes Valmont's success with both women very convincing actually in the harsh brutality of his seductions. In the first he creates Valmont's method as making himself a bizarre teacher in a most brutal but believable fashion in his success with her through the uncompromising method that Malkovich portrays it all. In the other more difficult one though Malkovich again makes the strategy of Valmont something very clear as Valmont this time makes himself a haunted lost soul who would kill himself if Tourvel does not take his love.

As strange as his seduction method with Tourvel might sound Malkovich brings it to life through his depiction of Valmont who he portrays as throwing himself fully into his demented game. Malkovich makes the "depression" both fake and real enough that it would move Tourvel as it does. It is a difficult trick to pull but one that Malkovich is able to accomplish without any seeming effort. In doing this Malkovich carefully infuses just the slightest bit of moments that suggests that maybe Valmont is not entirely lying about his pledged love for Tourvel. It is in very subtle moments that are very well handled by Malkovich.

One of the most important aspects of Valmont is his relationship with Marquise de Merteuil (Glenn Close). Through most the film both actors portray theirs as a mutual love of their shared despicable nature and the havoc they cause with their games. This does not really change until the end of the film where Merteuil plays her own game against Valmont as she convinces him to brutally reject Tourvel since she sees that he truly loves her. Malkovich and Close are very effective in the scenes as the truly vile nature of both characters are perfectly created by the actors and we see the full extent of their damage that only hurts other but themselves as well.

Malkovich's final scene as Valmont is terrific as he shows him distraught after finally finding some sort of conscious in himself after all. In his final scene Valmont is fatally wounded by a man (Keanu Reeves) he has harmed and reflects on his behavior. The power of the scene is somewhat muted because Reeves might as well say "Uhh sorry dude I did not mean to stab you so hard" and it would have fit his performance. Forgetting about Reeves though Malkovich is quietly moving though as he shows this time finally an honest Valmont for once as he shows the full extent of his depression and self hatred he has created in himself due to his behavior.

This is a strong performance by John Malkovich in both his unique creation of Valmont as well as his execution of his character. He does well in bringing to life every facet of his manipulative character, and never fails to make his conquests believable. He takes a very different approach than many probably would have with the part as he never avoids the sliminess in character, and never really even tries to hide yet he still makes the story work entirely. It quite an achievement that he is able to do this through this method he makes Valmont a compelling as well as properly repulsive character. 

Alternate Best Actor 1988: William Hurt in The Accidental Tourist

William Hurt did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Macon Leary in The Accidental Tourist.

The Accidental Tourist is an enjoyable film about a writer of travel guides who deals with personal troubles after the sudden death of his son.

William Hurt had received three Oscar nominations in a row. He found himself nominated from 85 to 87, but he was not nominated this year despite the fact that his film was nominated for best picture. It seems the academy, as well as most everyone else just decided this was the drop off point for William Hurt as a leading man for whatever reason. After this none of his leading performances made a stamp in the awards season and he did not find himself Oscar nominated again until he was well embedded as a character actor instead. His snub here really did seem to mean more than just not being nominated for an Oscar honestly.

It is a real shame though that William Hurt was forgotten for his leading man work here as I have to say I really like Hurt as a leading man. Hurt is just has a certain screen presence that creates a great deal of likability which is most certainly true of this performance. He is very unassuming as the travel guide writer Macon Leary, and this really works very well for the part. Hurt is careful in his portrayal in he emotes just enough in his part, in that he is someone we can easily follow through his personal story as he pulls us into his character's troubles rather than pushing away with them as one easily could do.

The pressing element on Macon is the death of his son which Hurt portrays marvelously because it is something that he realizes in the subtleties of his performance. There is a depression in his performance, but Hurt is terrific becuase he shows the depression without this being left as a depressed performance. He is very moving in his rather short moments that are very underplayed by him.  These scenes are effective because he brings to life the sadness in Macon from the death of his son as something that has settled within to a certain point that it leaves him not a man of constant overwhelming grief, but instead an internalized grief that leaves him in his haunted state. 

One could argue this film is in a part a romantic comedy involving Macon's relationship with his recently divorced wife Sara (Kathleen Turner), and his relationship with a stalker like dog trainer Muriel (Geena Davis). Hurt though does not at all seem like the romantic leading man with his performance here. In his scenes with both Davis and Turner Hurt does not at all portray the romantic angle in really any scene with them. This actually works in favor to his character and the film as he portrays both relationships in a most unorthodox fashion. In both situations though Hurt portrays Macon as a haunted man attempting reaching to find some happiness, but is really unable to break the certain malaise that he cannot escape from.

In his relationship with Turner's Sara, Hurt is effective in portraying the distance that was caused by the death of their son as well as by her own decision to separate at the beginning of the film. When she tries to reconnect with Macon Hurt is quite good because he shows the appropriate familiarity with her that explains why he returns to her, but he is strong in his ability to create that distance that never does leave him when he is with her. The other relationship with Muriel the dog trainer is very different but Hurt handles it equally well. In the beginning Hurt is quietly amusing with how taken aback Macon is by her persistence. Even when he lives with her Hurt is consistent portraying Macon as looking for something but still not really finding it.

Hurt knows how to portray Macon's very slow change as in his scenes as he slowly opens up, Hurt portrays perhaps a happiness but not one that can ever overcome his sadness as well as in equal measure a certain confusion over what he really wants. The confusion and the sadness do not really subside in one moment but Hurt instead more powerfully shows it to be something that slowly wears away. His final moment of the film, in fact the very final shot, is just perfectly played by Hurt as he shows finally the persistence of Muriel allows him to break out of his sadness with a simple but powerful smile. This is a very strong performance by William Hurt that is a moving depiction of his character's plight, as well as more simply as a charming leading man.