Showing posts with label Anatoly Solonitsyn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anatoly Solonitsyn. Show all posts

Monday, 18 July 2022

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. 

Monday, 20 July 2020

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Results

5. Eddie Axberg in Here Is Your Life - Axberg gives a largely reactionary turn, however it works in creating the right naturalism within his character for his film.

Best Scene: Date.
4. Anatoly Solonitsyn in Andrei Rublev - Although very low key Solonitsyn's often observant turn effectively still realizes his character's quietly striking arc throughout his film.

Best Scene: After the bell rings. 
3. David Warner in Morgan - A Suitable Case for Treatment - Warner effectively gives a wild comic yet intense turn, even if his film doesn't use him all that well.

Best Scene: Trying to assassinate someone.
2. Donald Pleasence in Cul-De-Sac - Pleasence brilliantly captures the suffocating neurosis of his character and its degradation throughout the story.

Best Scene: Final breakdown.
1. Per Oscarsson in Hunger - Oscarsson performance naturally captures the tragic state of his character while doing so with a remarkable levity.

Best Scene: Hunger.
Updated Overall

Next: 1966 Supporting

Sunday, 5 July 2020

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Anatoly Solonitsyn in Andrei Rublev

Anatoly Solonitsyn did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character in Andrei Rublev.

Andrei Rublev is a masterful film that follows the titular Russian iconographer during the 15th century.

The nature of a film by Andrei Tarkovsky is unique to the filmmaker, in that despite expansions in technology or what have you, his work crafts an experience of its own. This as I think one could just examine the way he films a stream that is unlike any other filmmaker. Often it is the great director that realizes the viewer as a voyeur within the characters they're watching, that isn't the case with Tarkovsky, or at least not to me. This as he doesn't make you one who views what's going but rather oddly grants an empathetic state within the experience that is almost otherworldly in this achievement. In this sense though Tarkovsky's protagonists are almost the viewer in certain sense, as his focus upon the technical protagonist is different than most. Although this film technically it is about the painter of religious imagery Andrei Rublev, played by Anatoly Solonitsyn, the film is more so about the time and place of Russia. Rublev is in a way the guide, though only in a way, but most often as an observer. Solonitsyn's performance is one befitting of a man who lives in a monastery. This with careful consideration and manner. There is an intensity within his work of a man who is burdened almost by his thoughts as he must think about his artistry, his faith and his existence. A careful performance that fits well within a man whose behavior is similar, this even when compared to his brethren artists and his mentor, who are more outward in their passion and philosophy. Solonitsyn depicts a man of thought, and does so effectively. He creates the right presence to this state of the man.

We witness Rublev through a series of technically vignettes that are in some way associated with his period. These moments though typically don't always personally connect to Rublev other than he is in proximity of them. Solonitsyn's approach shouldn't be hand waved this as he is never invisible in the role even though Rublev is often in a way just part of the crowd. This in so many of the moments we see him witness various acts of quite the extremes that reflect his times from the performance of a fool, to the cruelty of a prince, to a pagan ritual or even a massacre around him. Solonitsyn's performance is tempered much of the time as a man of an internalized manner and whose ambition is associated with artistry. His performance though does reflect the right glints of the truth on the surface of those internalized feelings. Whether this bit a slight sense of lust at the naked women of the pagan women, or similar sense of horror or shame within his eyes at the violent cruelty he bares witness to. Solonitsyn realizes the very honest emotion of the man however with the sense that he essentially must keep it largely within himself if he is to function within his time and place. The most open initially is in his conversations with his mentor Theopanes the Greek, who more openly speaks on matters of faith and art. In Rublev's few replies and moments of reflection upon the words of his mentor, Solonitsyn conveys the idea of a man in the constant state of flux towards attempting to uncover his own truth. He grants the sense of a man who isn't quite aware of it himself even as in the same way we see the man's diligence and conviction within his approach to his artistic endeavors. The greatest change comes within the turmoil when Rublev takes a life to save another, a moment of brief intensity, followed by quiet yet potent sorrow within Solonitsyn's performance.The rest of his performance then is a solitary one though powerful. This in his eyes become affixed with this sense of a need for penance. He creates the sense of this with silence, despite even the prodding of others to break it, particularly as Rublev refuses to continue his artistry in this time. Although aided by some remarkable makeup, Solonitsyn impressively portrays the wear of this act and time in his physical motion, which is always minimal yet becomes more labored and weak as an older man. This is the man's state until another extraordinary, if almost accidental, act inspires him again. It isn't a big moment in Solonitsyn's performance yet still potent in granting the sense of the man finding inspiration. This in just again a glint in Solonitsyn's performance, yet still notable. That is his work in microcosm though. This isn't what one likely takes from the film, yet still an essential part as being the observer of the period, apart from it in ways, yet changed fundamentally by it all the same.

Thursday, 2 July 2020

Alternate Best Actor 1966

And the Nominees Were Not:

David Warner in Morgan - A Suitable Case For Treatment

Per Oscarsson in Hunger
 

Eddie Axberg in Here is your Life
 

Donald Pleasence in Cul-de-sac
 

Anatoly Solonitsyn in Andrei Rublev

And a review of:
Paul Newman in Harper