Alternate Best Actor 1993: Results

5. Anthony Wong in The Untold Story - Wong manages to stay just above the terrible film he's in by having just enough fun with the material while still managing to create a cohesive character. 

Best Scene: His confession.

4. Jesse Bradford in The King of the Hill - Bradford gives an unassuming yet moving performance, realizing a young boy's perspective through a tumultuous time.

Best Scene: At the party. 

3. Leslie Cheung in Farewell My Concubine - Cheung's silent work is a powerful portrait of internalized turmoil within a graceful performer.

Best Scene: Cheng recovers from his opium addiction. 

2. Daniel Day-Lewis in The Age Of Innocence - Daniel Day-Lewis gives his second brilliant performance from 93, this one being a heartbreaking portrayal of a deeply emotional man repressed by society.

Best Scene: The Ending.

1. Anthony Hopkins in Shadowlands - Good predictions Luke, Maciej, mcofra7, and Varun. Anthony Hopkins gives one of his best performances in his harrowing yet heart warming portrayal of not only of the creative spirit, but also a unique journey of a man coming to terms with both love and death. 

Best Scene: Lewis finally pledges his real love for Joy. 

Updated Overall

Next Year: Hmmm I might just wait, but I would also like to hear the suggestions for 1993 supporting, in order to see whether or not there is really a five to begin with.

Alternate Best Actor 1993: Leslie Cheung in Farewell My Concubine

Leslie Cheung did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Cheng Dieyi in Farewell My Concubine.

Farewell my Concubine is an intriguing film that follows two Chinese opera performers through social and political upheaval in China during the 20th century.

A point of order that must be quickly addressed is that well known Hong Kong performer Leslie Cheung was overdubbed by Beijing actor Yang Lixin in this film simply meaning that his vocal performance must be deemed inadmissible for the purposes of this review. Cheng though happens to be a character where the physical performance is more important than the verbal one. The character is often silent and when he is not he most often is merely reciting portions of an opera. The film follows Cheng Dieyi and Duan Xiaolou (Zhang Fengyi) throughout their lives starting with their time as beginners in the opera which consists of constant repetition and beatings in order to basically mold them into performers. This is accomplished and the two become friends through supporting each other through the brutality they endure. Their relationship early on is when it is perhaps most earnest, as the two merely care for each other, when they become adults is when the complications begin to ensue and when Fengyi and Cheung take over the roles.

Now there are several scenes throughout the film where we are given the performances which are very strict representations of the Chinese Operas. Now Cheung is very good in terms of portraying this sort of picturesque perfection in manner while still exuding this grace of the performer. His work shows how well Cheng has become in fulfilling the female roles of the opera, in that it has become second nature to him at this point. There is no hesitation or difficulty in Cheung's performance of the performance which is exactly as it should be. In the film the opera is essentially the constant though. The two men always come to perform the roles they learned as children and do so without issue, this is despite the changes in China going around them including the Japanese occupation and multiple revolutions. Early on it seems they can wholly ignore them as even when in public the two men exude the same type of grace as they travel around in their troupe, despite the fact that so many other Chinese disprove of this certain detachment.

In private the men are very much changed by life as they begin to grow apart due to Duan becoming involved with a prostitute Juxian (Gong Li). This proves to be difficult as Cheng's affection for Duan goes further than friendship. Cheung is excellent in his portrayal of this desire in Cheng given that it largely left silent and unsaid for most of the film. The understanding of it comes from Cheung's work as the very way he interacts with Fengyi is very particular. Cheung never suggests the glances of a friend, but rather conveys this connection that alludes to sexual attraction. Cheung though does not simplify this though to make it look as though Cheng is merely lusting after Duan. He makes it purer than that in a way, in that he suggests a real love in Cheung for the other man. A love that transcends even sexuality in a way as Cheung inhabits this history of the men as he looks upon. There is a history of mutual burden but also one of mutual warmth and affection.

Unfortunately for Cheng Duan's own affection only goes so far, and Duan's growing relationship with Juxian slowly creates a divide between the two men. Cheung manages to illustrate the wretched pain in Cheng so effectively, as he brings this intensity to the hatred against Juxian, which only grows the deeper her relationship with Duan, grows, and builds to the breaking point which seems to end the personal relationship between the two men. Cheung is very moving in portraying this decaying state of Cheng after this point, suggesting a man almost lost without the guidance Duan once offered him. This leads to him becoming addicted to opium which Cheung shows as almost his attempt to find a comfort of sorts due to having no one to turn to any longer. Eventually though his condition worsens to the point that Duan and Juxian return to nurse him back to health. Both Cheung and Fengyi are incredibly moving in the quiet reconciliation between the two. They make it convincing as it is all in their eyes that seem to reach an understanding by once again returning to that same warmth as they comforted each other as children.

Their reconciliation only lasts for so long before the Chinese Cultural Revolution takes place which forces out the worst of both men as they are interrogated by Red Guards and prodded to betray each other. Duan does so by accusing Cheng of having performed for the Japanese invaders while Cheng returns the "favor" by revealing Juxian's former profession to the mob. Although this is one of the few heavy speaking scenes for Cheng in the film, outside of the performances, Cheung's work in no way should be hand waved. In his face Cheung brings out this madness brought upon a rage, an old pent up jealous rage built up over years for Duan's preference for Juxian over him that is light to even further by Duan's betrayal. The fallout of the revolution still leads them once again back to the opera for one more performance. Cheung is rather heartbreaking though as he reveals the very end of Cheng after so many years of physical and psychological torment. In that Cheung reveals a man almost captured into insanity in the moment as he seems to technically embrace his role more than ever, but in his eyes there is the sense of a man who has lost touch with the very reality of his existence. Cheung through his powerful silent portrait creates makes Cheng's final act an inevitability, as his performance has shown the path to this final act where essentially his real life finally crosses over with the static life of the opera.

Alternate Best Actor 1993: Anthony Hopkins in Shadowlands

Anthony Hopkins did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a BAFTA, for portraying "Jack" C.S. Lewis in Shadowlands.

Shadowlands I found to be a surprisingly effective film detailing the tragic romantic relationship between famed writer C.S. Lewis and American divorcee Joy Davidman (Debra Winger).

Anthony Hopkins was nominated for leading actor for his turn as the very repressed butler in The Remains of the Day, therefore he could not be recognized for this film. I have to admit coming into the film I pondered if this was going to be a similar performance to The Remains of the Day, which is good a performance by the way, due to the fact that he is playing another Englishman around the same general time period. Well that is not the case in the least in this, his fifth collaboration with Richard Attenborough as a director. I suppose the idea of playing such a famous writer one might expect something a bit stuffy, that's not the case. Even from his earliest scenes Hopkins brings such a life to his portrayal of C.S. Lewis, known to his friends as Jack. This is not just some literary figure in Hopkins's hands as he so effortlessly engages the role. Hopkins's performance has this real energy about it, which is rather fascinating since it still entirely fits in the way he realizes Lewis's character. Rather interestingly Hopkins gives us a man who is very happy in his life, even before we get into the central romance, portraying Lewis as someone who at least believes himself to be where he wants to be, more or less.

This performance I'll admit surprised me quite a bit just by how enthusiastic Hopkins is as Lewis. Now Hopkins never only played villains particularly in The Elephant Man where he played the very good hearted Dr. Treves, but that was in a more internalized fashion. Hopkins here is far more extroverted in bringing out Lewis's good nature while keeping in the right confines for a dignified university professor. There is actually one moment I rather love early on in the film when speaking with his fellow professors at the pub. As Lewis turns the conversation to speak of his dream world Hopkins is brimming, almost bursting, with this certain remarkable cheer of man who, in a way, truly believes in what he speaks of. Hopkins shows a different kind of creative spark than is often the case where we deal with the tortured artist. Hopkins is careful to show there is nothing tortured about Lewis. Hopkins instead finds such an endearing passion connected to his own creativity. Hopkins plays these moments as a man almost trying to share the joy he receives from these dreams of sorts with others and brings a real sense of the beauty in this act. Even though it is technically just someone going on about their ideas, that enthusiasm Hopkins brings creates such a sense of purity about it.

Hopkins manages to be equally compelling though even when we see Lewis working directly as a professor. In these lecture scenes Hopkins is rather effective in portraying the charisma of a great teacher. There is this grace that Hopkins brings to his these scenes suggesting the right ease Lewis has in such a setting. Now this is whether he is delivering a larger speech or merely just giving some quieter instruction. The eloquence Hopkins finds is rather perfect actually, aided of course by his very notable voice. Hopkins in no way uses this as some sort of crutch though and I love the nuance he even brings in these moments. There is a running subplot with Lewis attempting to deal with one of his students who doesn't seem to make the right sort of effort in his, non mandatory, classroom. There is a great moment where Lewis uses the man's sleeping in his classroom to explain Aristotle theory on character as defined by action. Now I quite honestly could listen to Hopkins break down such theories all day, but that's not all there is to Hopkins's work. Within that still Hopkins portrays the right fascination in even the difficult student. In that Hopkins is able to accentuate the idea that Lewis very much has a drive to share his own knowledge though he does it in very much his own way.

The central aspect of the film though is Lewis's relationship with the American Joy who comes to see him, basically as a fan, along with her son Douglas (Joseph Mazzello). It is here in which lies Hopkins's greatest challenge in the film in that there is Lewis's arc which has steps to it in the script, yet they are very light and likely would have felt vague without the proper guidance. Hopkins's performance brings this guidance through the way he realizes change in Lewis in his interactions with Joy. Now in their initial meetings Hopkins portrays a real warmth, a rather charming side of him that one does not often see from him. Hopkins shows Lewis in these scenes as a gracious host. He brings a real gentlemanly quality as he complies with any requests though Hopkins still keeps in mind a certain awkwardness in the interaction. An awkwardness that Hopkins makes rather natural in that it actually really is in no way unpleasant rather just something one would expect from an author who is dealing with a fan. Hopkins importantly though shows that the warmth he portrays is in no way a put on at any point, and subtly plants the seeds to the central relationship.

Some time goes on though and by chance Lewis and Joy meet again at one of Lewis's public readings. Hopkins is excellent in the pleasure he expresses in Lewis at seeing Joy again, and there is something truly brilliant how elegantly Hopkins presents this. The happiness Hopkins shows is automatic in a way, and creates the sense that even Lewis isn't quite fully aware of how much he seems to get out of her company. Their encounters no longer become chance though after she moves to England, after abandoning her abusive husband, and Lewis becomes a frequent visitor. In a way to "legitimize" her societal standing she even marries her in the court of law. Now the initial marriage ceremony is a key moment actually in which Hopkins establishes where they are in their relationship. In the moment Lewis gets marries and basically leaves as though all they were doing was taking care of some paperwork. This could be seen as the actions of a cold man, and in fact the more expected way to play this whole thing could have been to have Lewis begin as cold. Hopkins doesn't take this approach, portraying instead something a bit more complex. Hopkins again carries a real affection, but also suggests a certain uncertainty in knowing how to interact with Joy entirely past that. Hopkins though is careful to show this does not come from being uncaring, but rather effectively illustrates Lewis as inexperienced with such matters.

Hopkins's work is very intriguing in the way he connects that ease of his life into Lewis's certain disconnection with Joy at first. In that Hopkins shows a man who is content with his life therefore almost fails to consider properly the idea of changing it in any real way. When Joy calls Lewis out on his behavior not to exactly challenge himself, Hopkins's performance earns the sentiment since he so honestly presented Lewis's peculiar form of creating a personal distance. Things turn for a worse though when Joy collapses revealing she has an advanced form of cancer that will no doubt be fatal. Hopkins is incredibly moving by showing that in this moment is when Lewis fully realizes that he is love, which had already been there but he had trouble seeing it clearly. Hopkins poignantly finds tragedy in the way he expresses the combination of anguish in Lewis at the same time as he expresses his true feelings for Joy. It is pivotal that Hopkins does not make it just some sympathy for her pain as the cause though, as Hopkins brings this heaviness in Lewis's very being as though the lateness of the realization weighs on him deeply. Hopkins is devastating as he brings so much raw emotion in the second marriage ceremony, in the church, as he makes it as though Lewis is trying so hard to keep Joy with him to make up for lost time. They are given a small reprieve to spend time together, and Hopkins finds the bittersweet tone of these scenes so perfectly through his performance. There is such tenderness and adoration in every word through Hopkins's delivery. Again he brings this curious yet powerful portrayal of a painful elation as Lewis spends the time as well as he can even though the underlying thoughts of a difficult future remain. Eventually the future comes to pass and Joy dies. The story lingers to follow Lewis dealing with the grief. Hopkins's work is downright outstanding as he completely loses that ease of life from before. Hopkins shows even an intense anger at the world and God, as he stresses the difficulty in Lewis attempting to understand why Joy was taken away. The only solace he finds is in trying to comfort her son, though they end comforting each other, and Hopkins is utterly heartbreaking as he depicts Lewis's breakdown as he admits to how much he misses her. Hopkins doesn't provide an easy solution to the grief though as even at the end of the film Hopkins gives us a man changed by this forever, a man having lived through something that finally challenged his life of comfort. I love this performance. Hopkins not only gives an effective depiction of this famous author, but goes so much further in his incredible portrait of so much a man goes through with love, life and death.

Alternate Best Actor 1993: Jesse Bradford in King of the Hill

Jesse Bradford did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Aaron Kurlander in King of the Hill.

King of the Hill is an interesting film, when Steven Soderberg had a lighter more effective touch as a director besides a montage near the end of the film, about a boy living by himself in a motel just before the summer begins during the great depression.

A funny thing about King of the Hill is for me it almost came off as a companion piece, well we'll say a much darker cousin to A Christmas story, to explain. Well both films are based on the semi autobiographical writings of a man recounting their childhood who were both born in the early twenties. A major difference though is A Christmas Story's basis was written by a humorist while King of the Hill's was based on a memoir. Either way though both focus upon a boy in the 30's and the various events going around his life. This film though technically demands more from its child lead, as there is no adult narrator to buttress the character a bit. It is all on Bradford. The idea of focusing on a child actor actually in itself is a bit of a gamble as it is easy enough to get the two typical sorts of bad child actors. The bland type that just kind of is there and recites their lines with no meaning behind them, or the chronic overacting type that seeks to be cute rather than convincing. Bradford is neither of these thankfully, but this performance is even a bit atypical from of the few other child performances I've praised in the past.

The film opens simply enough with the young Aaron reciting his story about Charles Lindberg though he has written in a way as though he is a personal friend of the man. This just seems to be a method to frame the story though. Now what Bradford does so well is that he makes this like any other kid just delivery a homework assignment, though with just a bit of apprehension as he gives the details to notice most of the other students are bored by his story. Bradford is equally natural, and endearing in a very naturalistic way as Aaron takes his seat and receives more than just a glance from one of the girls in class. Bradford realizes such an honest confusion as he looks around rather sure that he's not the one he's admiring. Now after that point we get the essential set up for the film where the boy is first separated from his younger brother, then his mother due to her illness, and eventually his father while he goes on the road as a salesman. This eventually leaves him all alone at a hotel with some strange characters in and around it. From here on in the film we get more of scenes and moments then a plot line, which actually something I rather like about the film.

This structure works particularly well in tandem with Bradford's unassuming but not underwhelming approach to the part. Bradford is careful to show that Aaron isn't this deeply troubled boy really as a person, and in a way is not quite aware of just what his situation might be given the time and place. Bradford is careful to still have a general undercurrent of childhood enthusiasm within his performance, very utilized by him. In that Bradford conveys a definite sense of fear with the unknown at times yet he links it well to suggest a certain interest in the various new people he's discovering and getting to know. Bradford doesn't inflict Aaron with an inherent damage still exemplifying that he is still a kid in this situation, and importantly interacts with his situation as a kid not an adult. This can even be in rather simple, yet very effective ways, such as his relationship with a girl, Ella, also in the hotel who suffers from seizures. It isn't a romance that Bradford depicts, as he so well shows a shyness in Aaron of a boy who just wouldn't quite know how to react even when it obvious a girl likes him. What Bradford instead gives a warmth of a real friend instead, and brings such a delicate sweetness in these scenes suggesting the right gentle concern as her condition worsens.

That is one of his experiences though as Aaron attempts to find some other source of income, all the while trying to avoid a sinister bellboy attempting to change the locks on his room. Bradford is again incredibly good at portraying this so honestly as a boy attempting to gain money, whether it is hatching bird eggs or attempting to be a golf caddy. In both circumstances his attempts do no go particularly well. Again Bradford does not portray any sort of emotional collapse in Aaron in these failures, portraying instead a resilience within the boy to keep going. It is not to say Bradford doesn't portray anything though instead he very subtly wears these defeats in his performance, very quiet yet very moving all the same. This method of Bradford's alludes well to Aaron's nature, which is to try to take things in stride since that's really the only way he can take them given his situation. Bradford by doing this no seems underwhelming by internalizing every moment so well, whether is the genuine happiness at seeing his mother again, or the horror at discovering one of his neighbors has committed suicide. That is all except one aspect of his life that comes back to Aaron's story of Charles Lindberg at the beginning of the film. The first person perspective of the story ends up connecting to the frequent lies that Aaron tells his classmates and even his teacher in order to avoid revealing the truth about his difficult circumstances at home. Bradford portrays these lies as something that come so easily from him, yet within his words there is an unease not of the lie but rather for his peers to learn the truth about his home life. This nervousness about his situation grows until he attends a party where he finally hears that so many of the students are well aware of what he has been trying to hide. Bradford is rather heartbreaking by so effectively realizing Aaron's pain. He perhaps loses his composure most at this scene, yet Bradford still wears much of it within his work to show the anguish in his silence. Aaron never gives up despite his hardship and that is the key of Bradford's performance. His work is poignant as it conveys the experiences of this boy, as it makes it through his life. Bradford is convincing in showing the difficulty of it as well as the joys that can be found, and most importantly the ability to keep going.

Alternate Best Actor 1993: Jeff Daniels in Gettysburg

Jeff Daniels did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain in Gettysburg.

Gettysburg divides its time between the Union and Confederate forces during the battle of Gettysburg. The southern forces focal character is sort of General James Longstreet played by Tom Berenger, one of the leading generals on that side. That character is more passive in a way, and his story is in way dealing with the various personalities of his fellow southern leaders. On the northern side though the focus is given to a lower ranked colonel, but one who ends up playing an essential role in the titular battle. This focus is one of the strongest elements of the film, and a great deal for that being the performance of Jeff Daniels as that Colonel. We get a very narrow perspective in his scenes as we are given a man who must deal with everything as they are, and what comes to him. Now what comes from these scenes goes beyond I feel than even just the events of his portion of the battle. Chamberlain story begins when his unit receives a group of soldiers, considered deserters by their refusal to fight, where he is given the choice to deal with the men as he wishes, which includes the possibility of having them shot. At this time we are also introduced to Laurence's brother Thomas (C. Thomas Howell) a lieutenant under his command, and his more battle worn Sergeant Buster Kilrain (Kevin Conway).

Daniels instantly establishes something that contributes so much to his work, which is his approach to portraying Chamberlain. He does not present him as this man of the military, which is fitting having been a college professor before the war, but even more so seems so much of a man than a period figure. He never seems to be that to merely represent something, as Daniels performance feels so lived in and authentic even with that overgrown mustache needed to match the historical portrait of the man. Daniels in the early scenes brings this lightness to his performance, that does not stem from a lack of understanding for the material, but rather an effective realization of the state of the person. Daniels shows a man technically living his life, though his life is an unorthodox circumstance. Now in this approach Daniels adds so much more to the role by this. Daniels brings these nice touches that he delivers in such a casual yet wholly authentic way, such as his humorous attempts to get his brother not to refer to him as Laurence. Daniels is great in this moment as he does no show the unease in him stemming from trying to be some tough guy soldier, but rather just so earnestly presents a guy attempting to fulfill his position properly.

In his first scenes we see him deal with the problem of the deserters, and I love how Daniels handles the scene. As he speaks with the man Daniels actually doesn't express the utmost command as he deals with the man, instead portraying a man of a different nature trying to gently get through the situation. In the scene where Laurence speaks with the deserters' spokesman, who names his amount of engagements as well asking Chamberlain his own amount, the humble way Daniels delivers the admission of "less" so effectively realizes the Laurence's modesty. In order to deal with the deserters though Laurence attempts to encourage the men to continue fighting essentially by telling them his own purpose in the war. This is an essential moment not only for Daniels's performance but for the overall film as it gives life to pivotal element in the civil war that is virtually left out due to the constrictions of the narrative. That element being slavery. Daniels in the scene so beautifully renders Laurence argument for the cause to end slavery. It is actually a very quiet and calm yet powerful speech that Daniels gives, so eloquently verbalizing not only his distress towards the institution but also his passion for ending it in order to free men. The majority of the deserters end up joining with Chamberlain, and it is Daniels's performance that makes that result absolutely convincing.

Again though so much of the strength of Daniels's work comes in the quieter moments, and something I love is the way he crafts the relationships with both Howell's and Conway's characters. With Howell, Daniels is terrific in that awkwardness he brings of the older brothers attempting to look out for his younger brother, while trying to be his commander at the same time. Daniels is great in realizing the difficulty in that and helps to suggest how their relationship was before the war, with Thomas perhaps expecting too much from his older brother with Laurence possibly giving his younger brother a bit too much leeway, yet behind it all there is a very assumed love of such a relationship.A different relationship though is with the hardened vet Kilrain. Daniels and Conway's chemistry is even stronger in a way than with Howell, as the two actors convey so honestly this mutual respect the two have one another. It is often stated yet so perfectly assumed in the way Daniels shows just the way he listens in their scenes together. Daniels shows the way that Chamberlain is really taking in what the man has to say and so values not only his experience but also their friendship. It is all so effortless though as you can see the two have spent some time serving together in their ease and warmth in their interactions.

The middle section of the film ends up being the pivotal part that Chamberlain plays in the battle, which is on the second day where he must defend a hill known as Little Round top. The hill is essential to preventing the South from flanking the Union army. This engagement is the strongest sequence in the film, and Daniels's work is one of the major reasons why. Daniels throughout the scenes always so effectively continues to show this man, this professor of etiquette, in this dire situation as he must lead against the onslaught of southern soldiers attempting to take the hill from the Union army. There is nothing taken lightly in this situation as Daniels brilliantly realizes the wear of the battle not only in terms of the physical degradation but also the mental degradation of the fight. Again though he's also a brother in the situation, and one of the most moving moments in the film for me is the anguish Daniels brings in Laurence, brief as it must be given the battle, as he has his brother plug a hole in the defense. Daniels is incredible as he completely shows a commander trying to keep his troops together, a soldier trying to keep himself alive, and an older brother's terrible concern for his sibling he cares dearly for. Daniels makes the distress feel so real, especially in his harrowing scream of "Tom!" when it appears his brother is about to be shot. So much of the intensity in the sequence comes from Daniels's devoted performance, that never allows a single moment to lay flat. He internalizes all of it into his performance. It doesn't end there as Laurence must make a daring decision to lead a charge in order to defeat the southern forces after he runs out of ammunition. Daniels is downright amazing in the scene as he makes it more than simply a man taking the charge when he most needs to. Daniels realizes that of course, but throughout the moment he also keeps alive a real fear of a man who's not entirely sure of  his action but has no other choice. Daniels makes it a particularly rousing moment though because he earns it so much be finding Laurence's inexperience in the moment making the victory all the greater. Daniels only brings this home all the more in the relief and just the right amount of joy Daniels expresses in this success. The pain of the battle is completely embodied by Daniels work yet he makes the triumph all the greater, as this is just a normal man accomplishing something he perhaps wasn't even aware that he could do. Again the whole sequence is made something truly remarkable through Daniels's portrayal of a real man going through every second of the attack. 

Now that sequence is when Daniels leads the film, but he continues to appear in the final day of the battle which focuses upon the South's last effort to advance. Daniels has a few key moments, that have a great impact through everything else in his performance that already helped to establish. Daniels in these scenes again wears the battle, not only in his direct leg injury, but also in the haunting way he presents the horrible experience of it all even now that he is given a "break". The loss of that attack technically is not finished though as evidenced when his brother reports on Killrain's condition, who was shot twice during the battle, which is to reveal that the man died. Although the death is off screen it is the most heartbreaking one in the film, Daniels devastating in his reaction, showing just how torn up Laurence is by the news, and conveys just how much Laurence cared for his friend. His simple delivery of "yeah" to acknowledge his friend is all that is needed, as Daniels infuses it with such honest emotion. In the end Laurence's final scenes in the film are simple yet fitting entirely to the character, and does not feel underwhelming due to all that Daniels brought beforehand. The final sendoff being but an embrace between the Chamberlain brothers after they have survived the events of the entire battle. It is poignant and all that is needed. This is an exceptional turn by Jeff Daniels. I love the performance as it is such nuanced and powerful depiction of one man within a great war.

Alternate Best Actor 1993: Daniel Day-Lewis in The Age of Innocence

Daniel Day-Lewis did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Newland Archer in The Age of Innocence.

Age of Innocence is a fairly remarkable film about the very proper romantic entanglements in upper class 18th century New York.

1993 offered yet another banner year for Day-Lewis, much like in his breakout year in 1985, through his vastly different characters he portrayed. His Oscar nominated turn as a seemingly aimless Irish youth wrongly accused of a bombing in In the Name of the Father, a performance I feel I underrated in my initial assessment, and as Newland Archer in this film a repressed American in the late 1800's. The characters could not be more different in not only the backgrounds of the characters, their stature in society in their stories, but especially in their emotional nature. It is interesting in that Newland Archer's story is not one of hardship or tragedy in the more straight forward way. He's a consistently well off individual financially yet this is an interesting story of a man being held prisoner by society in a most particular sort of fashion.  It is essential then that he must be a man of the society and it must be said that if all of humanity depended on one man being sent back in time in order to complete some mission that requires integrating into the peoples of the past, the only man for the mission would be Daniel Day-Lewis.

Daniel Day-Lewis seems to walk right into any time period he wishes to inhabit. There is something so eloquent about this incredible ability in Day-Lewis. As, despite the evidence otherwise, it feels so effortless within his performance. Day-Lewis here seems like a man you'd see within a picture from the period. In that no facet of his very presence that feels in authentic to his setting. This of course begins with Day-Lewis's refined American accent that is stilted though in a way that alludes to a man who always seeks to conduct himself properly in society and in business. The accent though is so nicely gentle about it realizing a man of Newland's life and background with such ease. His physical manner is all part of this as again there is something in a man who is very much set within his place in society. He's strict in his manner so to speak yet there is not an inherent discomfort that Day-Lewis portrays in this either. He instead shows a man very much right where he should be merely in terms of being a man in his place in New York at this time. As usual, which what makes Day-Lewis synonymous with great acting, he makes it all so natural as it only ever serves his character.

The film itself is such an interesting period piece in the way it differs from the usual period piece given that it is directed by Martin Scorsese, a director known for his stories with more naturally volatile characters. I have to say I love Scorsese's direction here actually in that it acts as a brilliant companion to Day-Lewis's performance. The two's collaboration here is something to behold as they both in tandem realize a very particular state of being. In that both are constricted seemingly by the laws of the society of the story, yet I don't mean this is a negative sense in any way. In fact quite contrary. I love the way Scorsese's usual vibrancy is apparent yet it springs in bursts in moments where it pierces through the fabric of the tightly wound society. Day-Lewis's performance follows the same idea. Now Day-Lewis previously played what could seem like a similair character in A Room With A View. In that film he played a repressed Edwardian man. The thing is there, which was a supporting part, Day-Lewis cleverly gave a comedic performance by so effectively illustrating such intense repression. Day-Lewis's intentions here are quite different in that Newland is suppose to be the figure with empathize within the film, which could be challenge given the state of the character.

This is Day-Lewis of course that I am writing about and his greatness as an actor, is something I cannot dispute further proven by his performance here. This turn is so beautifully rendered that it is rather astonishing at times. There is never a breakdown moment in the entirety of this performance, not once. Day-Lewis stays true to the man whose greatest failing comes from the fact that he can only speak from the heart at the wrong times, and even then perhaps not with enough passion for it to matter. Day-Lewis work here is yet deeply emotional in the end. This is an intensely subtle performance as he always works within the proper confines of Newland Archer, a distant man in ways to those around him, yet he is never quite distance to us who can  see his deepest thoughts through Day-Lewis's performance and some brilliant touches on Scorsese's part. Newland Archer's problems stem from his relationship with a married woman Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer) and later the woman cousin May Welland (Winona Ryder). The problem being that Newland truly loves Ellen, with just a hope granted through her troubled marriage, while society expects him to marry and stay with May despite a lack of genuine affection.

I have to admit I found Day-Lewis's performance often painful watch do to so how effectively he realizes the tension of this conflict within Newland throughout the film. He makes it such a sympathetic plight through the honesty in which he presents his scenes with Pfeiffer. Day-Lewis does not present lust, rather a true longing for who seems to be his intended soul mate. One moment in particular I find especially heartbreaking is a brief fantasy of Ellen coming to embrace him, one of those small bursts of emotion given in both Scorsese's and Day-Lewis work. There is a purity that Day-Lewis brings to the moment, that is defined by love in the moment, of a few seconds. Throughout his performance Day-Lewis always maintains that truth in Newland, which is unfortunately contained by the demands of society. Day-Lewis is incredibly moving as he realizing the difficulty of essentially the act of Newland's life as he is forced to refrain his true hearts desire in order to basically please others. Day-Lewis's work is fascinating as he expresses the real emotion of the man at the end of sentences in these lapses of his refinement. The lapses being unnoticeable by others, yet we can see them through the screen. There is such a poignancy as he makes the emotions so palatable within the edges of his performance. Day-Lewis technically maintains the man of a proper stature, yet we are allowed to see the real devastation in the man as happiness is denied for one reason or another, again and again. Day-Lewis never breaks once again, yet the torture of this life is understood through those margins, of a man crying out with a stern face and sometimes even a smile. Day-Lewis so cleverly infuses these scenes with the truth, even as Newland "lies". There is a scene late where Newland is attempting to work something out to be with Ellen, yet his now wife May gives him news that forces him to abandon his dream forever. Day-Lewis never yells out, yet the loss is all in his eyes, the anguish lies within him, yet never fully breaks outwardly. The most poignant moment in the film though comes for me in the last act, that takes place many years later where Newland is technically free to see Ellen, prodded to do so by his own son yet decides not to. This is said in but a few unimportant words. All that it means to Newland is made readily apparent in Day-Lewis's work. The sadness is persuasive in his gentle looks to Ellen's balcony, suggesting the years wasted and the despair of man recognizing that his dream was just that, only a dream. I found this to be such a powerful piece of work by Daniel Day-Lewis that proves not only his ability to craft this representation of a person from any period, to also more importantly give them real humanity and life.

Alternate Best Actor 1993: Anthony Wong in The Untold Story

Anthony Wong did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Wong Chi-hang in The Untold Story.

The Untold story tells the true story of a serial killer cook, although this version of the story is the type you might find within a dirty copy of a sleazy gossip rag in the trash of a smelly bus station bathroom.

The film though is acutely aware of this as it goes for pure exploitation here. The film would be like if in Zodiac you spent half the film watching Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards ogle their boss’s girlfriend and mock their female coworker for her lack of ample breasts. That's half the film as the investigators are portrayed to be utter buffoons in sequences of rather broad comedy. In rest of the time, we are with Anthony Wong, which are even more ridiculous if you can believe it, despite winning the Hong Kong Film Award for Best Actor that would be like if Terry O'Quinn won the Academy Award for The Stepfather. Here's the thing though as proven by his work in Hardboiled, Infernal Affairs, and especially Beast Cops Anthony Wong is a higher caliber of actor. He's not a simple exploitation actor in terms of talent, which means he offers a little more than you might expect. That's not to say Wong gives this serious performance, quite the contrary, Wong knows the type of film he's in and he embraces it to its fullest.

It needs to be said that this performance is technically just as insane as the rest of the film, yet Wong's approach elevates it beyond through his understanding of the material. Unlike the majority of the rest of the cast, who are pretty bad in their goofy performances, Wong knows how to play into his material while not being wholly consumed by it. Wong knows the intentions of the part and decides to be as entertaining as he can be with that in mind. After all, past his prologue, Wong's first appearance is as he is chopping meat at his restaurant while watching his waitress. Wong's does not hold back in the sweaty sleaze he brings to his manner. He blares his eyes wide open watching her, and makes his mouth tight as he really emphasizes just how disgusting his character is. Wong though is careful in his performance to just chomp around on the scenery in the right ways. It's a curiously mesmerizing performance to watch at times, as Wong brings certain unpredictability to the madness he inflicts not only the character but his whole performance with. 

Wong is at times downright hilarious as he goes about amplifying the film any way in which he can through his unrepentant depiction of the killer. Whether this is the murder scene which Wong relishes in as his namesake goes about killing people in a variety of ways, which Wong depicts with the utmost glee. Whether this is setting fire to a man or beating a man to death with a ladle. Or his portrayal of the other side of Wong as he brings such haphazard awkwardness to the man as he sloppily attempts to cover  his tracks. Wong's delivery is so enjoyably inept, intentionally inept that is, of a man whose arrest is simply an inevitable. I have to admit I have an especial affection for Wong's dramatic turn he employs after the waitress begins to tell the cops about how suspicious her employer is. Now technically speaking nothing within these scenes stops being exploitative, in fact I am going to say most would find these scenes are downright distasteful especially given that they are based on real events. However Wong does his best to alleviate this best he can by playing up this silliness in an effective fashion. 

Now again much of this is dependent on Wong's talent, which actually does suggest that he could have played a more realistic depiction of the character. Technically in the murder scenes, which get pretty brutal, Wong has the needed intensity for such scenes though apparently knowing the film's direction he takes this up just another notch to derive some actual levity among the grotesque. Again Wong shows the potential for something else, if the film had required it, particularly in the scenes where Wong attempts to commit suicide. Wong does bring the gravity of the situation within his eyes as he begins the act, but again playing into the film's tone he just takes a step further. Making the distress seems less that of a lost soul on the last lengths but rather a pathetic act of a vicious monster. Now because of that Wong's best scene is probably his confession where he gets the unabashedly embrace the character’s wretchedness.  Wong brings such psychotic joy into his devious smile as he boasts about his accomplishments, spending an extra bit of time to note that he made his victims into food which he then fed to the very cops investigating him. This is not a great performance by any means.  It is a lot of dark fun from a good actor really slumming it though. 

Alternate Best Actor 1993

And the Nominees Were Not:

Daniel Day-Lewis in The Age of Innocence

Anthony Wong in The Untold Story

Anthony Hopkins in Shadowlands

Jesse Bradford in King of the Hill

Leslie Cheung in Farewell My Concubine

And finally a review of:

Jeff Daniels in Gettysburg

Alternate Best Actor 1993: Results

5. Jeff Bridges in Fearless- Bridges shoots for the sky but never quite reaches the heights that his performance wants to reach.

4. Kevin Costner in A Perfect World- Costner in a very atypical fashion dominates his film well, as well as gives a moving portrait of a man wounded by abuse.

3. Bill Murray in Groundhog Day- This is just a great performance by Bill Murray that is both a hilarious joy that makes this film enjoyable to watch all the way through, but as well does realistically portray his character's life changing realizations.

2.Michael Douglas in Falling Down- Douglas who gives both an incredibly viscerally effective performance that pierces through every scene, but he as well shows a moving portrait of a man completely lost in the ills of modern society.

1. David Thewlis in Naked- Thewlis gives an outstanding performance that is a fascinating portrayal of drifter, that is extremely watchable.

Overall Ranking of the Year:

1. Jeff Daniels in Gettysburg 
2. Anthony Hopkins in Shadowlands
3. Daniel Day-Lewis in In the Name of the Father
4. Anthony Hopkins in The Remains of the Day 
   
5. Daniel Day-Lewis in The Age of Innocence 
6. Liam Neeson in Schindler's List
7. David Thewlis in Naked
8. Michael Douglas in Falling Down
9. Bill Murray in Groundhog Day
10. Leslie Cheung in Farewell My Concubine 
11. Tatsuo Matsumura in Maadadayo
12. Robert Duvall in Falling Down
13. Kevin Costner in A Perfect World
14. Max von Sydow in Needful Things
15. Jesse Bradford in King of the Hill
16. Clint Eastwood in In the Line of Fire
17. Kenneth Branagh in Much Ado About Nothing 
18. John Lone in M. Butterfly
19. Donald Sutherland in Six Degrees of Separation
20. Anthony Wong in The Untold Story
21. John Goodman in Matinee
22. Harrison Ford in The Fugitive
23. Jeremy Irons in M. Butterfly
24. Jason Scott Lee in Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story
25. Sam Neill in Jurassic Park
26. Kevin Kline in Dave
27. Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire
28. Johnny Depp in Benny and Joon
29. Kevin Conroy in Batman Mask of the Phantasm  
30. Fengyi Zhang in Farewell My Concubine
31. Tom Cruise in The Firm
32. Kurt Russell in Tombstone 
33. Nicolas Cage in Red Rock West
34. Al Pacino in Carlito's Way
35. Jeff Bridges in Fearless 
36. Johnny Depp in What's Eating Gilbert Grape
37. Danny Elfman in The Nightmare Before Christmas
38. Chris Sarandon in The Nightmare Before Christmas 
39. Bill Pullman in Malice
40. Tom Berenger in Gettysburg
41. Ed Harris in Needful Things
42. Mike Myers in Wayne's World 2 
43. Charlie Sheen in Hot Shots Part Deux 
44. Aidan Quinn in Benny And Joon
45. Sean Astin in Rudy
46. Trey Parker in Cannibal The Musical
47. Carey Elwes in Robin Hood Men in Tights
48. Tom Hanks in Philadelphia
49. Will Smith in Six Degrees of Separation
50. Alec Baldwin in Malice
51. Laurence Fishburne in What's Love Got To Do With It
52. Denzel Washington in Philadelphia
53. Francis Capra in A Bronx Tale
54. Lilo Brancato in  A Bronx Tale
55. Max Pomeranc in Searching for Bobby Fischer
56. Arnold Schwarznegger in Last Action Hero
57. Sylvester Stallone in Cliffhanger
58. Sylvester Stallone in Demolition Man 
59. Bob Hoskins in Super Mario Bros. 
60. Ernie Reyes Jr. in Surf Ninjas
61. Omri Katz in Hocus Pocus
62. Tom Guiry in The Sandlot 
63. Dan Aykroyd in Coneheads
64. Thomas Ian Nicholas in Rookie of the Year
65. Austin O'Brien in Last Action Hero 
66. Chris O'Donnell in The Three Musketeers
67. Simon Fenton in Matinee
68. Mason Gamble in Dennis Menace
69. John Leguizamo in Super Mario Bros.
70. Christian Slater in True Romance
71. John D. Lemay in Jason Goes to Hell

The Next Year Will Be 1985

Alternate Best Actor 1993: Jeff Bridges in Fearless

Jeff Bridges did not receive and Oscar nomination for portraying Max Klein in Fearless.

Fearless is film about a man dealing with his new found fearlessness after surviving a terrible plane crash, the film itself is well made, but I always felt it was never nearly as moving as it wanted to be.

Jeff Bridges is an actor I must admit I liked more before I started reviewing his performances. This really is mainly because most of the performances are saw of him beforehand are relatively lighter performances where is unique charm and humor came into play. When he goes for more complex portrayals I can't say he always succeeds. Here Bridges goes for something unique as well as quite strange as he portrays the man who lost all his fears because a traumatic accident. Bridges actually attempts to show almost an otherworldly quality to his performance as the character of Max Klein frankly feels between the world of the living and the dead.

I hate to say it, and I know many will disagree with me, but I just was not all that impressed by his performance here which is for a great while rather repetitive. He keeps giving that same stare as if he is looking between life and death a lot of the time, while usually smiling in his Bridges sort of fashion, while still seeming to be perfectly detached at the same time as well. His detachment goes away randomly, but it does goes away at times. Sometimes in the form of anger at those seeking to trivialize the tragedy, or just at those who do not understand because they were not part of it. There is not really a lot of method to this side of Max, but nor does there really need to be.

Now what did not astound me about this performance is I never really felt Bridges achieved that otherworldly quality he most certainly is looking to portray. He certainly tries to but I more of saw always as Bridges just being stuck in the same slightly out of it stare for most of it. Now I do not want to be mistaken I do no think in any way shape or form Bridges is bad here, especially achieving what Bridges is going for here is most certainly not easy task, but nevertheless I have to say I never did feel Bridges reached the place in his performance. Because he does not reach the point he needs to the performance never quite comes to life as vividly as it needs to be.

In the scene where he does break the mold actually do work well enough, they do not have a great deal lasting impact on the overall characterization really since Bridges portrays them as random as they should be considering his character's state of mind. Bridges shows the quick outbursts of anger pretty well as they are quick sharp and to the point, less impressive for me is his big scene where he tests his fear by standing on the very edge of a building looking down. This scene should be the powerful pivotal moment for the performance, but Bridges whole portrayal of it seems like he is just going through the motion of a powerful scene more than making it a truly powerful scene.

There is not anything about this performance that ever became as outstanding as it should be, he never really drove the film to the degree he should have. Much like the film itself it is always a work that wants to be more than it really ends up being. Bridges though really is never bad though either I should point this out as he does still portray the emotions as they should be I suppose for the character in mind, but as you might notice I am mentioning this in a very technical fashion because it only ever felt Bridges' performance to be technically good in almost every aspect, never turning into a great one.

Bridges does have one moment in his performance that I feel shows what might have been the rest of his performance which is when it shows the scene on the plane just when he it is about to crash. In this scene Bridges finally does seem to achieve that otherworldly quality, and shows exactly how good the rest of his performance could have scene. It is a very remarkable scene and Bridges finally creates this feeling of being in the in between. This scene only really serves in showing just how good he possibly could have been through the entire film, but for me this is the only great moment in an otherwise adequate performance.

Alternate Best Actor 1993: Bill Murray in Groundhog Day

Bill Murray did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Phil Connors in Groundhog Day.

Groundhog Day is a very enjoyable film that tells the story of a weatherman who covers the groundhog ceremony in Punxsutawney, but finds he is reliving the same day over and over again and he is the one who knows it.

Groundhog Day is much like It's Wonderful Life, and even more so like A Christmas Carol in that it is about the main character having a growing realization, and change for the better. Bill Murray performance entails the journey of this realization of Phil Connors, but since it is Bill Murray pre-Rushmore he is going for laughs all along the way as well. Here Murray screen persona of the time is perfect for this role, and from the beginning he could not be better as the snarky meteorologist prima donna who thinks very very little of his assignment to a small time to cover an event he has absolutely no respect for whatsoever.

Murray really is a master at playing a jerk in the film. What works so well about his portrayal is the fact that he most certainly does not avoid portraying the more negative qualities, and his smug and cynical behavior is always on full view. What is interesting though is that even though he avoids being a jerk in the role, Murray still manages to be likable nevertheless and very funny. Murray plays the moments when Phil is suppose to be obnoxious such as when he is constantly ridiculing the idea of the Groundhog Day with perfect wit and sarcasm that he both still fits what his character needs to be doing as well as still not being ever actually obnoxious at all.

Eventually though the story springs into action and Phil finds himself reliving the same day over and over and over and over again and again and again. Murray is excellent in this process and he brings us right in there with him as this is one of the very best examples of Murray's particular charm. Yes of course he was smug man just minute ago, but since Murray played that with humor he still is very easy to follow along the rest of the way. Murray particular comedic presence is perfect for this situation, since unlike many comedians Murray's whole style rarely has him act out in just a look at me sort of fashion, even when he screams Murray still makes it grounded within a character.

Murray makes his way through every one these days with excellent precision. Early on when he is mostly just confused by this very strange thing that is happening to him, Murray does actually realistically portray this. He shows that Phil is not horrified, since after all this is not a horrible day, but Murray appropriately convinces us just how taken aback he is by the entire process. In the early days Phil just decides to exploit the day since he faces no consequences for whatever he does. Murray here simply has a lot of fun, and is consistently funny as Phil just does random stuff for the thrill of it.

In the middle though he sets on his sight on his kind but in some ways no nonsense producer Rita (Andie McDowell), and tries to gain knowledge from an infinite amount of encounters to try to seduce here. Again Murray is terrific here as he shows Phil has pretty much just a one track mind, but also more deeply this is quite the shallow pursuit at the moment. There is no want for a deeper connection here just more of a chance to score pretty much, and Murray makes no excuses. Interestingly despite the fact that the group of moments are technically repetitive they never get boring because Murray consistently keeps them fresh with his always enjoyable reactions and little jokes he makes in every realization.

After his repeated failures we have a set of scenes in which Phil commits suicide in various ways to try to end the cycle, but finds he has absolutely no results. This actually here is an outstanding achievement on Murray's part because not only do these never seem in bad taste their in fact hilarious all because of Murray's portrayal. What is fascinating though is Murray even does show the depression fittingly for his situation, but nevertheless his well for the lack of a better word delivery of the suicide scenes are pitch perfect hilarity. Everyone of these could have gone terribly wrong, but Murray makes everyone go absolutely right.

Once his suicides all fail to end the cycle, he finally instead just tries to better himself, and be the best that he can actually be. What works about this is Murray does not really show it to be Phil becoming a new man, but rather making a transition to really what he always could have been. Murray is excellent here because he does not become boring, but frankly his wit is still there is just comes to serve better things. It is a realization that Murray portrays not a change. Murray genuinely shows that Phil simply does find the beauty, and the joy  to be had of his surroundings that was always there.

This is a terrific achievement by Bill Murray because he not only is a great comedic performance, but it does actually is a emotionally convincing one as well. He is the perfect jerk as well as the charming romantic lead, even though I should say his chemistry with McDowell works a great deal because it is not overly romantic, but that really is the perfect tone for the relationship. Really if the lead actor was not someone who is such a joy with to be with through everyone of the groundhog days the film would have not worked. Murray brings this joy to every scene though with his truly memorable work here that is probably his personal best.

Alternate Best Actor 1993: Michael Douglas in Falling Down

Michael Douglas did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying William "D-Fens" Foster in Falling Down.

Falling Down is an about an unemployed man who lashes at what sees as the flaws of society. At the same time a Detective (Robert Duvall) on his last day before retirement attempts to follow his path of destruction.

Although one can easily look at Falling Down at an easy exploitation feature without all of the scenes taking out flaws and annoyances of society such as traffic, seemingly pointless construction, gangs, bad fast food and more, it is kept from that through the lead performances and characters by Robert Duvall and Michael Douglas. Douglas is always a man in the role of William Foster the former defense contractor worker before being a force of nature against society. I should also say that Robert Duvall is also great in that nearly as flashy role, but important in ground the film as well as acting as the other side of the coin of Douglas's character.

At the beginning of the film we know nothing of Foster other than he seems to be a white collar worker who seems to be stuck in traffic. Douglas from the very beginning though shows that this man most certainly is ready to crack at any moment. You can see all of the pressure building inside of him. There really  is a great dynamic between his clean cut hair cut and his proper shirt and tie, compared to Michael Douglas' face although also in many ways technically proper, after all he is not screaming out yet, but there is most certainly some sort of hell going on inside of this man's mind. It is a initial image that perfectly sets up the rest of Douglas's portrayal of Foster.

After this opening sequence we he finally just up and leaves his car to walk home is when his rampage begins. Douglas's slow and deliberate rampage is a peculiar one but brilliantly portrayed. His path begins small enough and at first he really is not instantly hostile just trying to do things as he clearly always had beforehand which is being a proper man in society. Douglas interestingly shows that this is that Foster really is all a bit of a stiff, and Douglas brilliantly portrays him as such. This is brilliant though because Douglas knows how to be a stiff without a being dull or boring which certainly would be the easier approach. Douglas  though always has this incredible energy always bubbling just underneath.

In every one of his scenes of outbursts Douglas is extremely effective, and makes the scenes work as well as they possibly could actually. In all of the scenes there is the same troubled emotional state there, which slowly becomes worse and worse as he gets closer to home. Douglas shows how Foster every scene with the utmost efficiency, and his style pretty much goes along with the severity of the societal annoyance. Douglas mediates the rage perfectly in the role to bring out the right reaction in each and every one of his scenes. What is amazing though is that he is both harsh at times fittingly when he does yell showing the rage of Foster at society, but as well he keeps quieter moments in these scenes as well.

Douglas is incredibly chilling in these scenes when he is cold and very blunt in basically showing Foster coming up with judgments regarding dealing with the people. In particular his moment where after a group of gang members fail to kill him in a drive by and crash Douglas does not in anger confront the last living one rather he shows it in a more business like approach, since at the moment Foster is in charge completely. His target practice with the gang member's leg is made frightening by Douglas by just how much he underplays the moment, and shows just how incisive Foster he is about the whole thing.

Something truly special about Douglas's performance though is that he even manages to bring some humor to his performance strangely enough. Obviously the humor of his performance eventually leaves where he gets closer and closer to the end of his rope, but Douglas miraculously manages to bring it even in the roughest of scene without it ever seeming out place. This is really because Douglas takes the few comedic lines he has in along with all of his anger in a quick precise places the work in perfect harmony with the rest of the scene. He doesn't overplay these small moments but he still makes them noticeable that in fact stop his performance from being overbearing as this character easily could have been.

Although this is an extremely effective performance in a visceral sense, but what makes this performance truly something special is the portrait of this man whom Douglas creates. Even though in the end Foster is the villain after all, Douglas never portrays him as such, and instead successfully turns him into a tragic character. Douglas even though does portray Foster as unstable, but not necessarily in nature a terrible man. Douglas rather portrays him as having gone this way in a great number of circumstances, on being his own belief in basically the American dream that he never achieved despite desperately trying to do.

Douglas's final scenes where Foster and Duvall's finally meet is the pivotal moment of the film. Douglas here shows the full extent of how the day has finally worn Foster into a psychotic rage, and his final breaking point at the end of the day. It is a complex moment because he does not turn him into just the rage, but always constantly as well there is the pain of seeing everything that he has lost to bring him to this point. When he is finally confronted by Duvall, Douglas is absolutely heartbreaking in the moment when he realizes he is the bad guy, and that all of what he has done in life has amounted to almost nothing, even though as he puts it, he did everything they told him to. It is surprising moving moment, considering what Foster likely was going to do, but Douglas makes this way because he shows that it just did not have to be this way. This is a great performance by Michael Douglas it is powerful work with a tremendous impact that creates a complex memorable portrait of this man.

Alternate Best Actor 1993: Kevin Costner in A Perfect World

Kevin Costner did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Robert "Butch" Haynes in A Perfect World.

A Perfect World is an effective film about the man hunt for a man who has escaped from jail who takes a young boy hostage but ends up becoming a surrogate father to the boy.

Kevin Costner is not a favorite actor of mine as his only actual Oscar nominated performance found itself very close to the very bottom of my overall ranking of leading performances nominated for best actor. I can't say this is just a case of an actor being nominated for his worst though since I have not particularly cared for him in many other roles such as Waterworld and the Untouchables. My usual problems with his performance is there seems to be a distinct lack of conviction or interest in the roles themselves. For me this causes him to either come off as an excessively weak even when he is not suppose to be, or just plain dull as he was in Dances with Wolves.

Luckily though this is an unusual turn in many ways for Costner, and watching the film his performance most certainly acted as a pleasant surprise for me. In the role as the intelligent escaped convict who was abused by his father, who is trying to escape the law Costner has the one thing here that he tends to lack in the role which is conviction. Kevin Costner here actually has a strong presence through the film and it is easy to follow him all the way though his attempt to avoid capture while trying as well to be a father figure to a boy who never had a good one just like himself. This is not a vastly different performance by Costner than his others in terms of his actual style but it is in terms of execution.

Costner still actually does sort of do his average man routine as he does in many of his films for better or in most cases for the worse, but here there is just the right twist in that he is portraying a criminal. He never portrays him as a thug of any sort and in most ways he treats him like a smarter but normal person who happen to go that path. I say most ways though because Costner actually infuses in his performance just the right amount of volatility and danger with his presence. Even though he makes Haynes seem like a nice enough man for the most part, there is always an underlying tension in Costner's performance to show Haynes's ability for violence when needed.

What I really like about this performance though is the intelligence of Haynes which Costner effectively brings to life. Costner keeps this rather all rather quiet through his performance as Haynes never shows off the fact that he is intelligent, he merely is. Costner brings this along well in his performance as he conveys the inner workings of Haynes through the film, he is a man who is constantly thinking, and attempting to figure a way out of his predicament. Costner also interestingly has the power in this performance he usually lacks. Here there is the similar type of presence that for example Clint Eastwood had in his younger days, which works perfectly to show strength of Haynes.

The main aspect of this performance though is Haynes's attempt to be a surrogate to the father he kidnapped, as well as dealing with his own feelings he feels toward his own father who abused him. I will say there is one big thing against Costner here and that is in the portrayal of the boy named Phillip played by T.J. Lowther. The problem is Lowther's performance at best is only okay, but rather bad when at his worse. Whenever there is a scene where he really is pressed to show emotional pain, or being distraught he just kind of makes a weird face like Eastwood was desperately trying to get something from the kid but that was the best he had.

Even with a lackluster co-star I still quite liked Costner's portrayal of Haynes's attempt to be a father. Costner is careful in that he does not overplay it to be some excessively heartfelt man ready to instantly become this boy's father. Costner instead shows a wounded soul just trying his best. He is never overbearing  in any way, and he shows it as just a natural reaction on Haynes's part. There is though just the right amount of warmth in his performance as he does his best to act in the father role for the boy, even though the connection never becomes quite as strong as I would like. The reason is though because of Lowther, if a better actor had been in that role it could have been astonishing. As it is though it stands as still moving due to Costner's effort but lacking on a whole due to Lowther.

Costner gives a strong performance throughout but the very highlight of his work comes in the very end of his work as the more violent side of Haynes appears when seeing a man habitually abusing his son as he had been. Costner is excellent here actually as he shows Haynes's rage over his own past his own hate at his father which becomes a intense hatred at this man just like his father. In this scene we gain a window into the troubled past of this man incredibly well handled by Costner. He really shows just how wounded this man is that has brought him to the terrible point in his life. For me this is a powerful work by Costner, and I was surprised how moving his final scenes actually ended being for me. This easily Costner's best work that I have seen, although that technically speaking seems like a low standard, this performance raises my view of Costner considerably.

Alternate Best Actor 1993: David Thewlis in Naked

David Thewlis did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Johnny in Naked.

Naked is a bleak but fascinating film about a drifter of sorts who flees from Manchester to London where he drifts some more. I do have to say though the evil landlord subplot and character was a bit much, or maybe it was just Greg Cruttwell's performance which seemed a little too cartoony especially considering the rest of the performances in the film.

David Thewlis was not nominated for his performance despite winning Cannes and several important critic awards including NYCC for best actor. This I suppose it easy enough to explain as the Oscars sometimes aversion to negative characters, although it should be noted Laurence Fishburne was nominated for portraying an abusive husband, but I suppose his character was domineering. Thewlis perhaps is just a little too haggard and downtrodden for the academy, or maybe it is because he is not obviously evil like Ike Turner was in this film, and his character is in many ways one big gray area.

Thewlis in this film really does not learn any lessons as David and almost seems to be in the same place at the end as he was at the beginning of the film. His various experiences seem to effect him very little, and it seems almost everything that he does is basically because there is nothing better to do with his time. He recognizes the fact of his place in society and life, he is sort of angry about, but he is never going to do anything about it either. He really is a character without a purpose yet he is the character we follow through most of the film, and the only think that seems to really get a rise out of him is a random beating.

Thewlis therefore has quite a challenge on his hands in his performance as Johnny, as he must carry a film as a character who at times just regulates himself to a chair and stare to pass the time. Thewlis though meets this challenge with his performance as Johnny as he has a strange charisma and magnetism in the role. It's hard not to watch Thewlis as Johnny as there is a certain way Johnny moves, and talks that it is immanently watchable. Thewlis does not do this though by trying to show some sort of more likable aspect of Johnny, he consistently makes Johnny as shaggy as he should be, but he brings us in with his unique presence nevertheless.

Thewlis creates a vivid and memorable portrait of this drifter. He never quite says exactly what has brought Johnny there, but he does not need to because of his flawlessly creation of this man's current state. Thewlis never strives away from all of Johnny's flaws which there are many of. Thewlis is always very casual in the role, nothing seems to be the most important thing for Johnny at any moment. Whatever Johnny happens to be doing, Thewlis usually displays the slightest bit of disinterest in Johnny at all times. Even when he goes and seduces a woman for some immediate pleasure, Thewlis is clear at showing as not some big broad gesture of love, but just something to reduce boredom.

If there is a cause or basis for Johnny's behavior it might in fact be something he can not do anything about such as a clinical depression, and Thewlis suggests that this just might be the case for Johnny. Thewlis amazingly actually makes this possibility far more painful but subtly suggesting that having it as an overbearing factor. This depression always seem to be underlying in his eyes which leads to his lack of interest with so many things, and his inability to ever becomes something. Thewlis shows a certain pain always bearing on him that he never seems to shake in the way he is always so cramped in his stance like he is sick, or the way even when he smiled that even seems a tad forced even when he means it.

What is important about this performance though is that although Johnny usually is quite a bored individual this is never a boring performance by Thewlis. There is lyrical quality at times to his work that really brings to life Johnny uncommon outlook on life. I particularly love his long scene with a night security guard with tedious duties who invites Johnny in to talk. As odd as it might sound it is quite a joy to watch Thewlis bring out Johnny various opinions on so many subjects whether it is the end of the world, God, or the tediousness of the security guard's job. It is incredible and unique fashion that Thewlis goes off on all of these subjects and no matter how far off the deep end Johnny might be it is made fascinating by Thewlis.

Thewlis never becomes dull in the least in his portrayal even though his character is in a funk through almost the entire film. The only time he breaks out of this funk is actually caused by a group of men who randomly decide to attack and beat Johnny for awhile. Here Thewlis is absolutely amazing because he shows that his casual constant depression is broken, and all of his deepest fears held by that finally come out. Thewlis shows bluntly the pains of Johnny all coming out at the same in an absolutely striking sequence, as he falls apart losing that disinterest that permeated through the rest of his portrayal.

The important part of Thewlis's performance in the end is that he shows that even after the beating, all that Johnny decides to do is regain that form of distance and disinterest and revert to it. Thewlis is not afraid to shows that Johnny really has learned nothing from his various adventures, and meetings with the different people. All Johnny as been doing according to Thewlis is going about the same drift, the beating only breaks that for a moment it does not cure, as the way it should be. This is just an amazing performance by Thewlis, wit a role that very easily could have gone a numerous ways. Thewlis though keeps this as a truly compelling performance of a man lost in London as well as in his own mind.