Alternate Best Actor 1979: Results

10. James Mason in Murder By Decree - Mason gives one of the best turns as Watson, emphasizing the character's low key manner compared to Christopher Plummer's Sherlock. 

Best Scene: Dealing with the prostitute. 

9. Steve Martin in The Jerk - Martin gives an entertaining turn of just emphasizing the blunt dumbness of his character. 

Best Scene: Unearned excitement. 

8. Frank Langella in Dracula - Langella successfully reworks the role of Dracula to that of a cunning and alluring romantic figure, though still vicious in his own right.  

Best Scene: Introduction. 

7. George C. Scott in Hardcore - Although I wouldn't say the film around him is the strongest, Scott gives a compelling portrayal of a man descent into both violence and the world of pornography.  

Best Scene: Attempted apology.

6. Klaus Kinski in Woyzeck - Kinski gives one of his most subdued performances, powerfully showing a man pushed around until  he's pushed too far.  

Best Scene: The murder. 

5. Malcolm McDowell in Time After Time - McDowell delivers a surprisingly charming and endearing turn that makes for a proper hero, a proper romantic and a proper man out of his time. 

Best Scene: Negotiations with Ripper.

4. Ben Gazzara in Saint Jack -  Gazzara gives a vivid characterization that so well realizes this man who seems to not care, but probably cares more than anyone would ever believe. 

Best Scene: CPR

3. Alexander Kaidanovsky in Stalker - Kaidanovsky gives a brilliant portrayal of a guide who treats his particular expertise with a religious like reverence, conviction and even anxiety. 

Best Scene: Ending. 

2. Patrick Dewaere in Série Noire - Dewaere delivers a brilliant completely off the wall performance, that just has so many weird choices yet they all pay off so wonderfully well. 

Best Scene: Final conversation with his wife.

1. Ken Ogata in Vengeance is Mine - Good prediction Bryan. Ogata gives a great uncompromising depiction of a serial killer, showing the callousness of the man through ever step of his merciless journey. I'll admit in this list, and the overall, my winner isn't decided by unanimous thought, nor is this even an example of having to choose between two performances, I could make a case in my mind for any of my top five. Ogata's cold brilliance, Burns's heartbreaking earnestness, Dourif's pure id, Dewaere's off the wall insanity, or Scheider going against type and achieving sheer greatness. I could swing to any five on the right day, I'll admit that but for now #1 is the #1. 

Best Scene: Final conversation with his father. 

Updated Overall

Next: 1979 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 1979: Alexander Kaidanovsky & Anatoly Solonitsyn in Stalker

Alexander Kaidanovsky and Anatoly Solonitsyn did not receive Oscar nominations for portraying the titular character and the writer in Stalker. 

Stalker is a great film about a guide taking two men into a forbidden zone towards a room that is said to grant the wish of those who enter it. 

The film follows three men the stalker, the writer, and the professor, who each offer a different perspective within this journey that is indeed more philosophical than practical, though within the film there are moments of tangible threat and supernatural. The idea though appears to be to put very human characters within this strange journey. We enter the film through Kaidanovsky's stalker who we see as he dismisses the concerns of his wife (Alisa Freindlich) in order to proceed by taking two new people to the zone for some unstated bounty. Kaidanovsky's performance, which his whole work will be defined with to some degree, is this innate sense of urgency as he dismisses his wife's concerns and leaves her alone with their daughter supposedly mutated by the zone's appearance. Kaidanovsky's physical manner has this almost rat-like manner, that though as a survivor of sorts in his physical manner that is introverted within the way he rarely faces others and so often seems contained within himself, yet within that there is this dogged determination about it. With that, we meet the two men, one being the professor who seems straightforward yet is mainly an enigma for much of the film, and the writer whose whole point seems to be that he's far less of a mystery. The writer is played by Anatoly Solonitsyn, once again playing an artist technically after his turn as the titular Andrei Rublev, however, Solonitsyn's writer character is a far cry from the quietly devoted artist of that previous film of Tarkovsky's. Contrasting Kaidanovsky, Solonitsyn has initially this ease of presence as he seems relaxing with an adoring girlfriend before going to join the other two for their unexpected adventure. Solonitsyn's performance has an innate ego in his manner, this confidence as he speaks towards a scientific view of everything, and just ease of man very much projecting an artistic genius. 

Of Andrei Tarkovsky's films that I've seen, this is the film where he gives the most breathing room for his actors to realize a scene, though his vision certainly is most prevalent and striking throughout the film. Part of this is through the focus on the interaction between the men, though the professor rarely participates too much at first, we instantly come to understand the dynamic between the writer and the stalker rather quickly. Kaidanovsky carrying this lowkey disdain in the stalker towards Solonitsyn's writer, as he seems dismissive of the man, and for his own measure, Solonitsyn presents a certain cynicism towards the stalker's claims of expertise, initially always peering at the seemingly more lowly man with his own kind of disdain. Both men do not really trust the other, and both actors give a strong sense of the gap that separates the two of them. Following that is essentially an action sequence of the three men alluding guards to enter the outskirts of the zone. Although the work is very "in the moment" so to speak, both Kaidanovsky and Solonitsyn are terrific in portraying different states. Kaidanovsky presents a degree of confidence here in exchange as clearly someone who has done this trick before, though there is clearly still an undercurrent of fear that alludes to the sense of danger. This is in stark contrast to Solonitsyn presenting the man gripped quite bluntly with fear and just barely holding it together. A great scene for both actors, even as functional as it may seem, in that it immediately shifts the state of the two characters, and the two performances from their first scene together, and does it in such a dynamic yet still wholly natural fashion. 

Entering the zone is when we begin to adjust the men into their positions, with the professor and the writer often talking about the stalker's teacher, called porcupine by them, who was said to have been a stalker before suddenly becoming rich after visiting the room, then committing suicide shortly afterward. The professor is this strange sort of centerpiece within discussions, with the contrast still being the writer and the stalker. Kaidanovsky's performance within the zone is quite fascinating in that he manages to portray this combination between extreme confidence and a kind of zealous desperation. Whenever he speaks to the men about his knowledge of the zone, about its various traps, and how it can be so difficult to navigate, Kaidanovsky doesn't speak these words with a kind of natural ease but rather it is with this sort of zealot's passion. He is speaking to the men about the state of the zone almost as maybe a preacher would warn the men about sin and hell with the way he speaks with a very particular kind of assurance and passion. An assurance and passion though that has intertwined within it a low-key sense of that desperation of the man, even as we see him move about with such seeming confidence as he gives the men times to go ahead, and where to start and stop. Once again contrasting that is Solonitsyn finds this fantastic combination between this sense of anxiety and fear, with this almost a pompous kind of cynicism towards every claim by the stalker. His performance finds this right balance of in between as he grants the sense of a man who probably doesn't want to believe in the prospect of the zone, yet also is quite fearing that its dangers might exist after all. 

The two craft a striking dynamic as they are at this particular odds about the whole thing. Solonitsyn often presents the skeptical view of each point, even if the fear of the situation is always very present in his performance, against Kaidanovsky who presents the true believer who at every point, every discussion, he is always emphatic on his belief of the zone, but also that of his teacher's teachings, despite the bitter end. Kaidanovsky even speaking towards that only unhappy people can make a wish is with the blunt reality even as when questioned he doesn't exactly give straight answers of proof. Kaidanovsky rather speaks as a man of faith within that conviction no matter what. In turn, though there is this quietly pestering manner he brings whenever he requests that the writer take the risk of walking one path or another, each that Solonitsyn presents with near petrification as he goes along while still always bringing this sort of doubtful anger towards the stalker. The two of them have this conflict that is developed brilliantly within the performances as both men seem to speak with such a contrasting state even as the two technically move along together. Each man though is challenged as elements of their journey question the stalker's knowledge, but in turn, the writer's disbelief also is often challenged by the strange occurrences that do happen. Each actor shows this particular and powerful sense of externalized and internalized conflict with each men, which is partially in verbalization but most often in reaction towards wherever they are. Each man fighting with different elements of themselves, and a different sense of conviction or lack thereof. The uncertainty is especially well performed by both actors because neither is vague, rather they show the real potent nature that exists in uncertainty, even as this exists from very different perspectives. 

The truths of some sort seem to come about as the two approaches just outside the room, and we see a very different writer from the one we saw at the beginning of the film, where Solonitsyn exuded a pompous man planning on wishing for another grand work. This is in contrast to the man, fearing that he might've almost died, now speaks truly to the nature of the writer and the demand of the state of people always expecting more of him. Solonitsyn is truly powerful in his delivery in this scene speaking bluntly now without any facade of the cynic. He shows rather the man speaking truly as himself now allowing his fears to surface, and loses the certain smugness of his manner at other times. Just a man offering what is a real truth he knows which is a bit of a curse that comes even within his perceived success. From there on the writer's manner has changed, and less bluster, a deeper honesty within the man in Solonitsyn's performance, as a man seemingly accepting his flaws to an extent, particularly his personal fears. The challenge of Kaidanovsky's performance comes as the professor reveals his own quest was also false, as he originally claimed to be there for scientific study, but in fact wanted to blow up the room to prevent evil men from using it. Kaidanovsky's portrayal of the stalker's defense of the room again is with a certain kind of passion. An explosive passion of someone whose belief in the room is beyond a tool, but something fundamental within himself. The intensity he brings is tremendous of the man trying to make them understand it to be something respected beyond any of them, needing physical punishment from the writer to subdue him from stopping the professor. In the end, all men return from the zone having not taken a wish, and Kaidanovsky's stalker is perhaps the most changed, though not in terms of being a different man. This as we see him this despondent state fully that Kaidanovsky powerfully illustrates as a man essentially fighting against having his faith shattered due to the faithlessness of others. Kaidanovsky's amazing in his final moment shows such trauma in the man's eyes, and this anxiety is wrapped with the passion that shows a man who so painfully needs to hold onto his faith that any question of it, therefore making him question it, is more than he can bear. Both actors deliver great performances, and more than any Tarkovsky film I've seen, performances that are essential in realizing the potency of his vision. 

Alternate Best Actor 1979

And the Nominees Were Not:

Frank Langella in Dracula

 

Malcolm McDowell in Time After Time 

Steve Martin in The Jerk

 

Alexander Kaidanovsky in Stalker

James Mason in Murder By Decree

Predict Those Five, These Five or Both:

Ken Ogata in Vengeance is Mine

 

Patrick Dewaere in Série Noire

 

Ben Gazzara in Saint Jack

Klaus Kinski in Woyzeck

George C. Scott in Hardcore