Alternate Best Actor 1979: James Mason & Christopher Plummer in Murder By Decree

James Mason and Christopher Plummer did not receive Oscar nominations for portraying Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes respectively in Murder By Decree. 

Murder By Decree is decent, though the decidedly not great, film that pits Sherlock Holmes against Jack the Ripper. 

That central conceit is perhaps where the film doesn't live up to its full potential as two of the most iconic figures of Victorian England though one being fictional and the other being often fictionalized, right down to the name "Jack" that is likely from a false letter. Where the film does work is in its star pairing of two great actors Christopher Plummer and James Mason, as Holmes and his famed sidekick Dr. Watson. Two actors that do share something in common, which is the prolific nature of their career, as both worked right up till their deaths, suggesting a strong passion just for the act of performance itself. Mason offers his talents, in what is his late period, once again in developing a unique Dr. Watson for this version, an apparent an insistence from Mason himself who did not want to be a buffoon Watson as was the standard set by Nigel Bruce in the Basil Rathbone Holmes films. There is an additional element of an older Watson that presents a slightly different state of the character in terms of being Holmes's sidekick which is slightly shifted here, and amplified by Mason's performance. 

Thinking about the role of Sherlock Holmes, who is a particularly prolific character in cinema and therefore has had many actors wear the deerstalker, I began to wonder what truly defines an actor's approach to Holmes. The function of the character is always as the detective trying to solve some kind of mystery, and in almost all circumstances is a brilliant man with an independent streak, despite almost always being accompanied by the loyal Watson. Plummer with his regal voice and strong manner instantly suggests such a detective. Plummer has the innate quality as a performer, to begin with, that suggests a degree of intelligence. You don't need to question Plummer ever in the role of intelligence as he simply exudes such a quality. In turn, once Plummer is onscreen you accept them as this brilliant man, and you might as well "there is Holmes" the moment you see Plummer. Plummer just feels right for the part of Holmes, and confidently steps into the familiar part with the ease and grace you'd expect him to do. Ideal casting in turn is just ideal performance. 

The part of Watson is often played by a more modest performer, or at least when compared to the actor playing the brilliant Holmes. This juxtaposition isn't the case with Mason who even in his older age is a naturally commanding and captivating figure onscreen. Mason, even though I would say he plays Watson as meek, sets himself up as of equal importance within the scheme of the film, and even if the writing frequently still treats him as secondary, he stands firm in his place as an essential part of the film. Mason has such a powerful presence as a performer that he can be technically meek, fulfilling that requirement but not at all retiring in terms of his presence. Mason even here where his delivery is never lifted much beyond a quiet voice manages to be easily heard in his natural manner of depicting Watson's demeanor as an observant man. His Watson has an innate sort of power because Mason himself has power. He is the secondary to Holmes but in this Mason creates this manner of his own that Watson is watching in a way for the basic truths while Holmes searches for the more complex secrets. 

What I suppose makes any Holmes performance unique in a way is how the performer approaches Holmes as an idiosyncratic man, and there are a lot of different ways to take this as Holmes being this extraordinary man, therefore there should be something decidedly unique about him. Plummer's performance I'd say its closer to the Rathbone template which is going relatively easy on the ego, though it is something that is there, and more so showing him as a more heroic figure even if he definitely has a determination that is all his own. This works and Plummer has an innate grand manner about himself as a performer, however again Plummer so earns it that you don't take it as an obvious ego. Plummer in portraying Holmes handling a crime scene or a suspect, or disguising himself, Plummer brings this certain thrill to the investigation, his manner is someone who loves the chase to be sure, but again there is such a sense of intelligence in his eyes that never does he feel like someone merely playing a game either. Although this also speaks to Plummer's inclusion of his performance, often excised in Holmes's portrayals, but essential to Plummer's which is a palatable degree of empathy. 

Now where the two excel is the way these two performances work against each other both indirectly and directly. Indirectly we do get Mason as the more straightforward investigator, but in his quiet manner, Mason creates such a potent sense of sympathetic purpose in Watson as he tries to figure out different elements of the case. And unlike Plummer, has this wonderful sort of actively thinking quality in his work as he needs to put energy to sort out the details. This honestly could've been played as the fool, but Mason brings this deliberate energy that is wonderful in creating just a man who takes his time to know. What is most remarkable in this is showing the moments of direct competence of Watson, such as taking down the pimp of a hooker he was trying to procure information. Mason's manner is terrific as he shows the ease, but really also reluctance that Watson shows as he engages in the violence. Mason shows this certain distaste in the act even as he shows a man, even at his age, who can most competently deal with lowly threats. Again though particularly potent in contrast to Plummer as Holmes goes headfirst in, while Mason shows the more careful approach. 

Of course, that isn't mentioning how great they are together where they craft a unique Holmes and Watson chemistry, which I think plays well into their age difference. Plummer brings the youthful energy with great aplomb, while Mason acts as the perfect straight man against that with his sincere deliberate manner. Mason brings this great comic energy in their moments together, with such a terrific low key undercurrent to it in Watson being Watson against Holmes being Holmes. A favorite of mine, and honestly maybe my favorite scene in the film, being when Watson is trying to stab a pea, and Mason delivers his intention with such a slow but honest conviction as a man, before Plummer's proper exasperation that leads him to smashing the pea for it to be more easily caught. Mason one ups his earlier moment then by his very specific delivery of Watson so earnestly explaining that he wanted really the texture of biting down the pea and is unhappy with Holmes's blunter approach. Mason is terrific as a fuddy duddy against Plummer being a bit of a whipper snapper in comparison. A highlight of this being when Holmes chides Watson after the latter gets arrested during his prostitute interrogation. Mason's face of gentle stubborn of annoyance is just great against Plummer's beaming, yet very affable joy, at his friend's expense. 

 

Now that empathy that is the most remarkable facet of Plummer's work, outside of his chemistry with Mason, in this portrayal of Holmes. Throughout the end of the film, as Holmes discovers the true nefarious conspiracy behind the murders, Plummer is incredible in bringing such a sense of genuine emotional concern in the moments of finding the truth of the case. This is particularly in two scenes. One being visiting a key woman in the case (one scene wonder Genevieve Bujold), where Plummer as he asks Holmes's prying questions in his eyes conveys such a sense of care for the woman's plight. The other being his final speech where he decries the system but also himself that failed to help the victims. Plummer brings a palatable passion and brings a real striking sense of the care Holmes has for those lost. In many ways what puts this film over to worth watching are these two performances that consistently and artfully amplify their material as a performance should. If the film had a lesser pair this would be a truly disposable Holmes film, but these two best that. Again because of that chemistry but also again through what they find unique within their VERY well worn characters, as you'd expect from two great actors that were Mason and Plummer, two performers that in particular I wish were immortal as it seems like neither would've ever stopped acting if they could've helped it. Again with Mason finding a measured and quietly comical Watson, and Plummer crafting a Holmes with conviction but also a powerful empathy.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1964: Results

5. James Mason in The Fall of the Roman Empire - Mason delivers the expected gravitas, but gets to go further with a remarkable scene of compassion under torture essentially.

Best Scene: The test.

4. Shailen Mukherjee in Charulata - Mukherjee gives an effective portrayal of a mistaken though good husband, and a moving depiction of the man figuring out then trying to amend his mistakes.

 

Best Scene: Figuring it out. 

3. David Tomlinson in Mary Poppins - Tomlinson gives the most mature aspect of the film, while an entertaining portrayal of English properness, also a moving portrayal of a man figuring out what is most important in life.

Best Scene: A long walk to the bank.

2. Christopher Plummer in The Fall of the Roman Empire - Plummer is the properly entertaining mad emperor you'd expect, but with the right nuance to create depth as the son who was always a disappointment in his father's eyes.

Best Scene: Hearing the truth of his parentage.

1. Hume Cronyn in Hamlet - Cronyn gives a masterclass in not only how to make Shakespeare seem as fresh as possible, but how to make the create greatness out of a good, but traditionally not great, role.

 

Best Scene: With Hamlet in the library. 

Updated Overall

Next: 2000 Lead

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1964: James Mason & Christopher Plummer in The Fall of the Roman Empire

James Mason did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Timonides in The Fall of the Roman Empire. 

The Fall of the Roman Empire falls into the middle of sword and sandals epic for me, doesn't hit the heights of Spartacus or Ben-Hur, but is superior to something truly dull like Quo, Vadis or Cleopatra. 

 

One of the assets to "Fall" is its star studded cast that features a slew of notable performers to grant gravitas to the proceedings. The greatest deliverer of such gravitas comes from James Mason himself, whose regal presence is always welcomed, and his voice itself makes any words come from it seem somewhat justified to begin with. Now that is largely Mason's role here and he provides for it as you would expect. That is Mason delivers on the role of the benevolent advisor to the  elderly Marcus Aurelius (Alec Guinness). Mason grants that innate dignity to the part and any line that needs a bit more emphasis Mason is more than eager to deliver. This with his calm assertiveness and here also bringing this engaging empathetic manner to the part. Mainly though I'm talking about this performance in part to fill this lineup as a proper five, and just to talk about his one major scene. This being when Timonides must negotiate with a barbarian tribe for their surrender. That which they take it upon themselves to torture him in some test that he be tortured with a flame that will be pressed against him until he touches the statue of their deity. Mason is great throughout the scene first in portraying a natural loss of usual dignified manner just to quietly and urgently try to speak the men out of the test given with such brutality. It is then some remarkable physical acting from Mason as he writhes in pain while doing so in a silent scream, and infusing within his delivery this sense of compassion for the men actually who are torturing him. It is notable, as he manages to show the goodness of the man even as he faces a theoretical enemy creating a believable scene of victory in seeming defeat. It is Mason's one major scene, but a strong one. Otherwise though he brings his always reliable presence as usual to give this film just a bit more credence by his mere existence. 

Christopher Plummer did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Commodus in The Fall of the Roman Empire. 

Christopher Plummer now gets the most important roles it seems in these Rome adjacent epics, that being the typical best part of any of them, that being the dastardly Roman fiend of one kind or another. Here playing the role that would eventually be played by Joaquin Phoenix, in this film's remake that doesn't call itself a remake in Gladiator. This as we even get the same introduction to his character as Commodus is noted as a bit of a disappointment/loose cannon by his wise father as he joins the Roman army at the edge of the frontier where barbarians await. While I praised his turn as Hamlet the same year I did note the degree of theatricality in his work, there really are no worries here related to that, not because his performance isn't theatrical, rather less of an issue, though actually Plummer is remarkably quieter at times. A part that opens less as a mad emperor actually though and slightly more closely to Stephen Boyd's work as Messala in Ben-Hur, which is fitting as this time Boyd plays the heroic role here as the commoner turned general Livius, who like Ben-Hur is friends with the chief villain in Commodus. This appears to be directly referenced as we get a cross arm mutual cup drink between the two friends in this film too, although really one, even don't watch the whole film, needs to watch this scene for the sheer insanity of it. This as they don't just have a drink they gulp down sack full as a kind of strange contest. It is such a bizarre scene that does need to be seen to be believed in a certain sense. Plummer makes a statement early on though in the demented glee of it, though with it creating a similar kind of Messala kind of affection towards Livius, as a man who seems to truly enjoy their friendship to say the least. 

Plummer is really excellent in these early scenes actually to create a dramatic baseline, for what will be a rather showy performance overall, this in creating that eagerness to see his friend that is genuine, and actually is followed up by genuinely rather powerful scene from Plummer as he hears that his father wants to give Rome to Livius not Commodus his actual heir. Plummer's initial reaction actually is great in its initial subtlety of disbelief but also real sadness, that illustrates a sense of a son realizing the lack of care his father actually has for him. This before going a bit more theatrical, though quite effectively so, as he giggles to himself with a mad laughter that Plummer denotes with pain of the man almost cracking at attempting to come to terms with his father's view of him, yet failing. Plummer does show a mad man here, but with that mad man there is a potent sympathy he actually does elicit in the moment to show that Commodus for his flaws did wish to believe that his father could've believed in him, and in his view love him. Plummer in his following scene, where Commodus wants to take the vanguard of the attack, he conveys the sense of a despairing conviction, a man who wants to risk his life to prove himself, but also seems almost to wish to die as though it is a fruitless effort in his view. The moment allowing Plummer to express a lot more than you might've in this role, and does really create a sense of depth to Commodus. He isn't just the bad son of the emperor, he does actually make you bother to see the tragedy in a son trying and failing to live up to his father's expectation. And unlike the later depiction, Commodus is far less active in his father's demise, and perhaps even only indirectly even unknowingly so. His final scene with him, there is no spite, rather Plummer delivers his last words of the son pensively of the son genuine still trying to understand his failure. 

Of course when he is made Caesar, we get what we were expecting to have from a performance like this, in the vein of Jay Robinson in The Robe, Peter Usitnov in Quo, Vadis, that being in the truly mad emperor, and this sense Plummer does not disappoint. Plummer giving a great indication of this from the scene of being declared ruler, and a most magnificent grin falls upon the face, that can only be described as a man glowing in the powers he will most readily wish to abuse. Plummer is magnificent, and this is where one does not mind Plummer throwing in that theatrical power of is for all its might. His grand voice, and just his impressive presence being ideal in creating a force of a man in his Commodus. Plummer beautifully playing this up in his physical language in just posturing in every step of a man loving his power, and loving the show of it. Plummer then speaking of his tyrannical demand with complete abandonment for shame, literally dancing on his map of the world, and Plummer prancing around in such a delightfully demented way. His casual and just bright way of mentioning that he will simply "destroy" his enemies without a hint of shame. Like Robinson, and Ustinov, it is just fun to watch Plummer every time he appears, as he is having so much it seems, that it is hard not to have it with him. He's incredibly entertaining in playing up these moments for all their worth, but also wholly realizing his character. When speaking with his sister (Sophia Loren), Plummer's grin couldn't be more perfect as he reminds her of his unlimited sway in the empire, however Plummer still successfully segues to a moment of emotional desperation as he questions the lack of affection ever shown by his sister. Plummer consistently finds this though as when he tries to get Livius to run his armies, Plummer's eyes bring forth a striking desire, of camaraderie perhaps to put it too lightly, while still realizing the ferocity and derangement of his ambition at the same time. Plummer doesn't waste a juicy line, in fact he basically is the one that makes them juicy in just portraying the increasingly evil state of the man, but again as fun as this is, he doesn't lose a bit more to the characterization. This found in the last act twist where he learns he is in fact the son of a gladiator (Anthony Quayle, in a role I can only assume had deleted scenes) and not of the emperor. Plummer hits just the right tone of camp in the writhing around of the emperor as he confronts this truth, while also actually finding some real emotion in showing the break in his voice of a man, who was already on an edge, wholly losing his grasp on reality. Through this I have to say Plummer created more complex feelings in me than just a "kill the bastard" in the final duel with Livius, (again Gladiator is definitely a remake) that is the climax of the film. This as much as Plummer is an enjoyable fiend, he does find the degree of pity for a man who was broken by circumstances that by right were never meant for him. I expected Plummer to be fun here, and that he doesn't disappoint in, but he doesn't stop there, creating a far more tragic villain than I would ever have expected.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1964

And the Nominees Were Not:

James Mason in The Fall of the Roman Empire

 

Christopher Plummer in The Fall of the Roman Empire

 

David Tomlinson in Mary Poppins

 

Shailen Mukherjee in Charulata

Hume Cronyn in Hamlet

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Innokenty Smoktunovsky & Christopher Plummer in Hamlet (at Elsinore)

Innokenty Smoktunovsky did not receive an Oscar nomination and Christopher Plummer received an Emmy nomination for portraying the titular prince of Denmark in Hamlet (at Elsinore). 

Hamlet is one of the all time coveted roles for an actor. Certainly for a Shakespearean actor, though Richard III contends, that King lets the actor let loose as a most dastardly sort, but usually within a general understanding of the role, though there are ambiguities. There are greater ambiguities though with Hamlet and perhaps why playing the role is always such a fascinating endeavor. This as in 1964 there were three different high profile portrayals of Hamlet that made it to film, or at least TV film. I actually considered keeping Richard Burton in this review as well, but I will agree with the man himself that the film itself is of poor quality. It is little more than a static shot on the Broadway production and makes other filmed stage productions (or filmed like stage productions) like Hamilton, Give Em Hell Harry and Othello starring Laurence Olivier as positively dynamic. This isn't to say I couldn't see some of what Richard Burton was doing, but any intimacy of his performance (where so much of what is essential to a Hamlet performance) is obscured by the clunky technique, or lack thereof. This leaving that filmed production as just a historical curiosity, well other than Hume Cronyn's Tony winning performance as Polonius where the brilliance of that performance still shines through. So instead I'll be looking at the Russian rendition starring Innokenty Smoktunovsky, in one of the most cinematic adaptations, and the version known as Hamlet At Elsinore, a straight forward though decently mounted version notably filmed in Elsinore itself. 

This in a way gives me the opportunity then to really examine what exactly is Hamlet's path, also will grant me the chance to look at one of the most renowned Shakespearean actors, who rarely got to perform Shakespeare in a true film. Speaking of let's get the obvious out of the way with Plummer, which was also true for Burton, their voices were made for Shakespeare it seems. The language sings from them essentially and never have their voices sounded better in a way. It is as glorious as to be expected, Plummer always had an amazing voice and in turn he shows an expected elegance with the Bard's words. Innokenty Smoktunovsky is dealing with something slightly different in that the words have been adapted to Russian though the intention is still to be Shakespearean just not technical the literal words. Although this isn't a criticism of any kind, rather just really a descriptor. Now the opening of the play is perhaps one of the great ambiguities with the character, as where is Hamlet exactly before learning about his father's true murderer? I think in a way this can specifically help to define how an actor will perform with the character, and how well they will grasp this tragic journey. Plummer speaking his opening monologue presents a man mourning in his state and in a way lost without purpose seemingly. A sadness within the man and striking sense of really lack of purpose. Smoktunovsky is quite a bit different more reserved, again befitting the superior approach overall of his film, which like Olivier literally internalizes the monologue into narration of thought. A great benefit though to Smoktunovsky's approach that in a way presents a man already with a suspicion. There is a coldness and cunning he emphasizes when speaking to his uncle and mo. there, of a man who already suspects something rotten. I love really both men's approach to Hamlet hearing news of the ghost and from his friend Horatio. With Plummer it is a fitting jubilation of a man who wishes to run from his melancholy. Smoktunovsky's reaction is more intimate yet as remarkable as someone who is perhaps already on a path following a hopeful lead.

The ghost sequence is as pivotal in conveying exactly how much Hamlet knows and what exactly he takes from the revelation that his father was murdered by his uncle. The ghost sequence in the Russian version is truly stunning to say the least and I love Smoktunovsky's performance in the scene. This as the horror of it is conveying but also the kind of fascination. This is truly a disturbing sight within Hamlet's eyes and  Smoktunovsky shows this as much as he pushes towards the truth his physical manner retires of a man in presence of something truly terrifying. Smoktunovsky's performance of the moment of hearing that it was his uncle is sheer brilliance this as this nearly maniacal laugh, of man almost in a kind of bliss at experiencing a truth he must've suspected for some time. Plummer's approach is a bit different and just a little bit goes into more than needed for the screen as opposed to the stage, something a slightly more deft director might've been able to purge out. That isn't to say that what Plummer is doing isn't still quite compelling, it certainly is. In fact the intensity of the fascination with the ghost he conveys alludes to a fascinating choice in his depiction. This as Plummer shows a man seeking purpose and the ghost basically being an avenue for it. This as he also shows a sort of cry for joy, but that of seemingly finding his purpose. A moment of jubilation as almost needing the murder plot as something to live for. This that he potently emphasizes all the more in the sudden sense of purpose and determination in his eyes as Hamlet listens to the ghost's instruction for the task of revenge.

 

As Hamlet goes about his task to avenge his father it is then where an even greater ambiguity comes, which is Hamlet pretending to be insane, insane, or a little bit both? This as no one in the court seems to know what to make of him, but what exactly that means is within the actor's purview. Here Smoktunovsky is quite amazing to be blunt. This as his performance just exudes charisma and is magnetic in presenting his Hamlet as a man carefully administering his conspiracy. When he speaks early on to Polonius and his old "friends" of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Smoktunovsky practically conducts them within the speech of nonsense to Polonius as he tries to see where his mind is. Smoktunovsky effectively showing a man purposefully lost and obscuring his purpose. The same with his "friends" who he speaks some more congenially yet in his eyes there is straight cunning where he both seems to decipher exactly what they are doing while also playing on the part as though his Hamlet is wholly unknowing in his beliefs. Plummer is quite a bit different though effective in his own right as playing the part continuing the man of purpose, though now showing the man as having the time of his life in his deception with Polonius. Artfully playing the fool while loving every minute of it. Seemingly equally affable with the doomed "friendly" pair, as again a man whose lost his mind, yet Plummer denotes it as trick, just as he shows Hamlet very much loving his own performance. 

Now perhaps one of the trickiest elements is how Hamlet's once intended Ophelia factors into his plot, as for out technical hero he treats her abysmally so essentially creating the intention within Hamlet's behavior is always a bit of task for the actor's interpretation. Both Smoktunovsky and Plummer excel in this particular regard where Hamlet still seems to prod her along in her interest while also telling her to go off to a nunnery. Plummer's performance is very interesting in the way he presents it as almost that Hamlet has moved on from her. There is a sense of affection in his interest but almost as though he cannot burden himself with the relationship at this time that his devotion towards his purpose being revenge is what compels his crueler behaviors. Smoktunovsky actually is perhaps far more sympathetic I would say in presenting these moments. This as his interactions with her there is a sense of genuine love in moments before he basically thinks upon the interactions. He though shows this palatable distress and struggle in Hamlet's eyes in his moments of rejection towards her. Smoktunovsky emphasizing a real love for her however that love being compromised by the situation. This is different though as Smoktunovsky presents a degree of distrust in the relationship of a man who is paranoid both in the conspiracy that killed his father and his own conspiracy to kill his Uncle. Plummer making Ophelia more so a casualty of a blindness in his quest, while Smoktunovsky makes it more so a casualty of the unfortunate paranoia related to it. 

Now when the play's the thing to capture the conscience of the king we get two very different interpretations of Hamlet's endeavor to trap his uncle. Plummer's performance is defined by excitement for the task at hand and very much presents the fanboy for the players. Plummer emphasizing the way Hamlet is kind of living out a fantasy in the method as much as he is intentionally taking upon this approach. Smoktunovsky's work again in a way brings us more into the man's state of genuinely trying to carefully manipulate the situation. Smoktunovsky projects a low key nervousness fitting someone who is making a big gamble that could either fail or simply reveal himself too quickly. Smoktunovsky conveys that anxiety before making the big ploy through the play. Smoktunovsky is brilliant in again the magnetism he brings within the sequence of the actual performance. This as Smoktunovsky is magnetic in presenting a man wholly within his power within the situation. He basically is conducting every moment of it and shows the man quite effectively executing his plan. Conversely Plummer plays it almost as a court jester both hiding the idea of his intentions while also showing the sheer joy Hamlet is getting from the plot. Both are very different interpretations of the sequence however both incredibly effective in their mutually different interpretations of who exactly Hamlet is in this moment. Smoktunovsky presenting a man with a set plan and executing, Plummer going with the flow of the fun of the whole affair. 

From the success of the plot we have two very different depictions of Hamlet's sort reaction that leads him to confront his mother in her culpability to her now husband's actions that leave a hiding Polonius stabbed to death. Plummer presents more matter of factually a madness wholly taking Hamlet in this moment. This sort of just rush of all his thoughts going in every way now that he has the truth and is almost frothing at the mouth in his vengeance. Smoktunovsky portrays a strict and striking intensity within Hamlet in this moment. Not exactly the same kind of madness, rather a temporary one noted but a kind of narrow minded thought that overtakes him in the moment. A man gripped with wholly his revenge now almost empowered by the thought as he goes about the accidental killing. In the moment Smoktunovsky presenting a man so driven in his task that nothing really phases him from it. Smoktunovsky's portrayal of his confrontation with his mother being the most notable version of the scene that I have perhaps seen. This because he doesn't conduct himself with it as the intensity we see in Plummer's portrayal, which while effective on its own right, there is something all the more compelling in showing Hamlet with his wits about him in this scene. There is almost an angel of death quality within Smoktunovsky moments of accusations, as a man reeking justice for more than just himself. 

The story naturally hits the reprieve where Hamlet goes off to England while Ophelia dies, leading her brother and Polonius's son Laertes rather rightfully seeking revenge, and finding it through Claudius plotting to kill Hamlet via a duel. We open this climax through the comic yet also poignant of Hamlet with the grave digger. Both Plummer and Smoktunovsky acquitting themselves within Hamlet's reflective speech. Smoktunovsky in particular suggesting a certain guidance from his travels, wearing in fact catholic monk robes. This idea forced with the sudden appearance of Laertes and the funeral procession for Ophelia. They're performances perhaps being the most similar here in being Hamlet at his quietest as he just recognizes his mistakes seeking to genuinely apologize for his faults to the man he truly did wrong in Laertes. This following as Hamlet gets his chance for revenge in a duel with Laertes, even though he stays apologetic to his actual opponent. In both we get the man very much being the most romantic type of hero seemingly and both actors get to show off their Shakespearean skill at being the most charismatic. Both thrive in this aspect and they are just wonderful to watch. This is particularly important for Smoktunovsky as oddly the duel is the least inspired scene in the whole film, especially when compared to Olivier and Branagh's cinematic renditions. Where as in Plummer's film it is consistent with the rest of it. Nonetheless each delivers the command of the man as he should. The scene obviously goes through a lot with the random poisoning, killings and dying. A given Hamlet must respond to each point and here again I think Plummer occasionally goes a little bigger than he needs to though not a major detriment, still noticeable particularly in his reaction to the king's treachery. Smoktunovsky is on point in every respect of portraying the joy of the duel, the sudden burst of anger towards Claudius's deception and grief towards the death of the mother and of course his acceptance of his own upcoming demise. Plummer equates himself particularly strongly with the duel just expressing so well Hamlet living out his fantasy fully, and his final moment of poignant reflection. Both of these performances are very different yet wholly successful depictions of the complicated character. With Plummer, while you can see he was getting used to film to a degree, it still is a remarkable Shakespearean performance. Innokenty Smoktunovsky's performance though deserves to put up with the very best of the cinematic Hamlets, Olivier and Branagh. Not only is his interpretation particularly dynamic, his work always breaths life into the words of the Bard with that uniquely cinematic flavor that achieves true greatness within the adaptation.

Alternate Best Actor 2015: Results

5. Ulrik Munther in The Here After - Much of Munther's performance is limited with purpose, however perhaps he limits it too much failing to find the right nuance in his minimalism. That note though isn't poorly portrayed and he does deliver his final outburst well.

 

Best Scene: Breakdown. 

4. Géza Röhrig in The Son of Saul - Limited by the approach of the film, though he does have some striking moments in his performance in his reaction. What there is though seems somewhat limited by the film's approach. 

Best Scene: Opening.

3. Jason Mitchell in Straight Outta Compton - Mitchell delivers a properly intense and charismatic turn that realizes both the gangster and musician in his character.

 

Best Scene: Learning about his diagnosis. 

2. Christopher Plummer in Remember - Plummer is in somewhat shoddy film, however he fills his gimmicky journey with a genuinely moving humanity. 

Best Scene: Finding himself on the train.

1. Paul Dano in Love & Mercy -  Dano gives a wonderful performance that vividly realizes both the creative energy and troubled mental state of his character.

Best Scene: Creating the album. 

Updated Overall

Updated Supporting

 

Next: Will do a few re-watches and a couple more watches before moving on, but won't be doing supporting. So next will actually be:

1964 Lead

Alternate Best Actor 2015: Christopher Plummer in Remember

Christopher Plummer did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Zev Guttman in Remember. 

Remember, that follows an old man suffering from dementia on a mission to kill a Nazi war criminal, I think is largely undermined by its own contrivances. 

That is a bit of a shame however as it has a strong cast, with three actors giving among their final performances in the great Martin Landau, Bruno Ganz and of course Christopher Plummer in the lead role. These performances really lend greater credibility to the film that itself runs too much more so as an exploitation piece than a genuine examination of dementia or the holocaust. Thankfully the performances are there particularly Christopher Plummer. Plummer's performance takes the material very seriously and puts as much effort into the role as if the film was a great one, like say The Father, which does evidently put most similar films to shame. Plummer's performance though is terrific in creating the state of his Zev Guttman an older German man living alone at a nursing home after the passing of his wife. This as he creates a sense of a kind of undercurrent of a malaise of the man trying always to figure out where he is and what he is doing. There is in his performance this moment of calibration essentially that effectively portrays man figuring out what's going on in any given situation. Plummer creating this state vividly of the man who is actively trying to stabilize himself and make sense of his situation, which becomes built around a letter written by his seeming friend, and fellow holocaust survivor Max Rosenbaum (Landau) who sends him on his mission. 

The film then becomes really these kind of curious set pieces as Zev goes about his task and each situation presents him some new challenge whether it be one of the potential suspects of the war criminal, who goes by the name of Rudy Kurlander yet the real one is in fact an Auschwitz commandant by the name of Otto Wallisch. This really breaks the film into two types of scenes, one being the procedure of dealing with his dementia, and the other being the scenes of potential revenge seeking. The dealing with dementia scenes work so well just by how honest Plummer feels in every moment of them. This as Plummer finds in these moments the man being lost and basically finding himself through interacting with others. He's particularly moving by showing the progress of finding himself through these moments. Whether they are the man being completely lost to finding his path just through someone showing him what he needs. There are also the more personal moments where we see Zev as he seems more emotionally despondent. Plummer is great in these moments in creating the immediate sense of urgency as Zev asks for his wife and wonders about those around him. The immediate sense of anxiety is so deeply felt in his delivery, yet what is even more remarkable is the way he conveys Zev calming himself. This moment of kind of a sad realization that those he are looking for are not living, and it is just his memory getting the better of him. 

The other scenes are set up into 4 different scenes of confrontation. The first being with a former German soldier, but not the S.S. officer he was looking for. Plummer projects the approach he will in this scene with this sort of steely eyed determination combined with a certain sloppiness as the man still finding bearings. Plummer makes this seemingly odd combination natural in his manner as he shows the man managing to find his path by fixing upon this singular goal. A goal that he presents with a kind of singular manner when promoting the threat. Each time there is almost a rehearsed quality to it with Zev, this even speaking towards the death of his family, there is almost overly purpose about it. Again this as this point of creating an exact method the man takes to hone himself towards this goal, but also seems like something more. We see this further with the second man, a fellow holocaust victim who reveals himself having been imprisoned for being homosexual. Plummer's performance reveals this kind of generalized kind of sorrow in the man's expression of his family's death even in reaction to this man. It is a real sorrow of some kind however there is this degree of ambiguity in Plummer's performance due to this lack of specificity. The third man though challenges the man seemingly more as he meets the son of the next man, the man having died, however his son being a Neo-Nazi who mistakes Zev as a friend of his father's. 

This man's overt antisemitism throws Zev off however Plummer is incredible in creating this unique state of the fear and anxiety within the situation. This as he speaks towards his Jewishness it still with the man discovering this thought and revealing it as something he needs to hold onto more than anything, even when there isn't a certain specificity. This leading to the final sequence of the film where he comes upon the final man, (Jürgen Prochnow). Plummer is amazing in this scene just from his manner with Prochnow which has initially this innate affability and even camaraderie within their interaction. It is practically instinctual in Plummer work, though just is as the man embraces Plummer revealing himself to being a Nazi commandant but not THE Nazi commandant that Plummer is looking for. Plummer's reaction of disgust to his embrace as he reveals this is with again a kind of conducted disgust of a man who has been implanted a kind of reaction. This of course leading to the film's twist ending SPOILERS that Plummer's Zev was the Nazi commandant all along. This being a twist that I'm sure the screenwriter was very proud of to define the film, though I think makes it all feel a bit trite in overall conception because of it. With the ending being more intended as a "gotcha!" than a genuine resolution to these characters. 

 

Having written all that though, within Plummer's own performance at least he makes it work. This in part to having actually built to it by showing that sort of rehearsed quality intentional to the man who had been conditioned basically to repeat the same lines and believe the same reaction without further depth than that. Plummer leads towards the twist while never undermining his performance. This in creating a man who is largely built upon created memories, however in that there is something genuinely haunted. Plummer playing that ambiguity well throughout, to say whether it alludes to a survivor's guilt or the guilt of a killer. This while also delivering the power within his work in the moment of the realization. This as Plummer becomes the reality sense of distress and despair in the moment. This as contrived as it feels as written, Plummer makes the emotion both honest and potent within his performance. This sense of sudden onset of guilt in the realization is just an astonishing instance in his work, and crafts something special within his own work, even though I don't think the revelation still functions on its own. This speaks to the strength of Plummer's work here overall that I think often deals with repetitive scenes. Again the scenes are either those confrontations or being helped by a random stranger or employee do some, rinse and repeat. What makes the scenes distinct is Christopher Plummer's performance. This in both crafting something natural out of an artificial contrivance, but also just the deftness in every other moment. Every little interaction we get, particularly those with the couple children Zev comes across, are so beautifully acted by Plummer. This as he finds such a genuine poignancy in these little interactions of an old man just trying to find himself, while constantly being lost. Even while the material is not, this is a great performance by Christopher Plummer. Even when the intentions of the film are anything but honesty and truth, Plummer finds them within his quietly powerful and often haunting work.

Alternate Best Actor 2015

And the Nominees Were Not:

Ulrik Munther in The Here After

 

Géza Röhrig in Son of Saul

 

Paul Dano in Love & Mercy

 

Jason Mitchell in Straight Outta Compton

 

Christopher Plummer in Remember 

And reviews of:

 

Tom Courtenay in 45 Years

 

Tom Hardy in Mad Max: Fury Road 

 

But who knows who might show up...

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1970: Results

5. Klaus Kinski in Count Dracula - Kinski's in an uninspired adaptation, but gives an inspired portrayal of a vampire victim of a different sort.

Best Scene: Going to the window.

4. Christopher Plummer in Waterloo - Plummer gives the right degree of levity and grace to leave a strong impression as Napoleon's opponent, even if his co-star doesn't meet him halfway.

Best Scene: After the battle.

3. Bernard Cribbins in The Railway Children - Cribbins gives a wonderfully charming and funny portrayal that finds just the right tone for the material.

Best Scene: Surprise party.

2. David Warner in The Ballad of Cable Hogue - Warner, easily the best truly supporting turn of this lineup, that wonderfully plays with his usual dignified presence with great comedy as a shameless preacher.

Best Scene: "Consoling" the "widow"

1. Warren Oates in Barquero - Oates gives a great performance here delivering a surprising command in his presence, before slowly peeling that away to show the mad desperate man beneath it all.

Best Scene: Shooting the river.

Updated Overall

 

Next: Unfinished business....(though recommendation period also starts, so please feel free to recommend a film from a year that I've already done, a film from 2020  or a documentary/animated film from any year).

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1970: Christopher Plummer in Waterloo

Christopher Plummer did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington in Waterloo. 

Waterloo gives a detailed overview of the battle that would be Napoleon Bonaparte's last attempt to maintain his power in France. 

A film that strictly falters because of the leading bombastic turn of Rod Steiger as Napoleon. The film is divided into two halves, of focusing on the French and English in the battle. It takes the focus of the French on a more strictly personal level, showing the particular investment Napoleon has in the battle, basically as it means his final end if he loses. Sadly Steiger creates no empathy for this cause, and leave a large hole in the story. Christopher Plummer though offers the counterpoint to this, as we initially meet his Duke of Wellington at some formal gathering with his family, as he just about to set out to battle. Against the extremely emotional state of Bonaparte, we instead we see Plummer who exudes just an extremely relaxed and even casual manner. This as even as his wife speaks of herself as some kind of Bonaparte fan, Plummer's reaction to this is with a genuine smile, if minor disinterest. Plummer's manner showing someone wholly comfortable within himself and even more so comfortable with what he will be facing next. Plummer's ease instantly establishes Wellington as the proper foe who isn't treating the battle as his last chance but rather seems to be looking upon it almost with a certain academic sense. In this Plummer creates the idea of a man who faces the battle with an ease and grace and the utmost preparedness. Even when remarking on Napoleon it is with commendation for the man's strategic skills,  which Plummer delivers with the utmost sincerity of one craftsman respecting another. 

Throughout the opening stages of the battle Plummer's performance gives the film some much needed comic relief by depicting Wellington's very confident and casual manner initially within the war. Plummer though makes this work in just showing it to be essentially the natural way in which to broach the fight. This in one particularly enjoyable moment where he is casually sitting underneath a tree with a newspaper as the enemy approaches. Plummer's blithe delivery of Wellington's response is funny, but in the right way as he makes it convincing within the Duke's calm approach to war. This even in within dealing with his troops where Plummer depicts as ease in his demeanor such as coming across an obviously thieving troop who tries to come up with an excuse to steal a pig. Plummer is great in this scene in his quiet and warm chuckle before promoting the man for defending an untenable position. Plummer makes it great by showing really the specific sort of camaraderie with his men in the moment, as his reaction, even towards the criminal soldier, is one of admiration for his men. This as he further speaks of them it is with this utmost pride that Plummer naturally reveals a genuine emotion even within the seemingly quite calculating commander. Plummer in particular creating this great contrast against what should be the emotionally draining portrayal of Napoleon, which sadly we don't really get but still Plummer does his part even if not properly reciprocated. Now as much as I think the film was designed for Bonaparte to be the emotion, the battle to be brutal action, and Wellington to be the balance by offering some natural humor to the proceedings, its off because of Steiger's contribution is so off. Having said that, Plummer basically picks up the slack for Steiger best he can in depicting Wellington's own arc towards the battle. This in slowly the weight of the losses and casualties get to the man. This is quite deftly realized in Plummer's work in every reaction as the battle wages granting a true sense of his personal investment in those who are dying. This slowly losing that casual manner to show a genuinely caring man beneath it all, which again was alluded by his pride in the man earlier. This until by the end Plummer earns the film's most potent emotion in depicting the sadness in the deaths within his expression, and wholly earning his final exasperation with the nature of war. Plummer creates a natural depiction of this loss of the lust for the battle, and creates the most poignant element in the film through his performance. I only wish his off-screen rival was up to Plummer's performance as the film would've been far better for it. Still completely on his own merits, Plummer delivers a terrific turn here, which doesn't make up for his co-star, but does fill in some of the dramatic void left by him.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1970

And the Nominees Were Not:

Bernard Cribbins in The Railway Children

 

Klaus Kinski in Count Dracula 

 

Christopher Plummer in Waterloo

 

Warren Oates in Barquero

 

David Warner in The Ballad of Cable Hogue

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Results

5. Marcel Iures in Hart's War - Iures gives a fine portrayal of the camp commandant, both the needed cold efficiency and some hints at humanity.

Best Scene: Giving the book.

4. Timothy Spall in All or Nothing - Spall gives a moving portrayal of a man in a constant state of depression that only sinks further.

Best Scene: Breakdown.

3. Brendan Fraser in The Quiet American - Fraser plays off his typical presence brilliantly by being both that and far more.

Best Scene: Final talk with Fowler.

2. Leandro Firmino in City of God - Firmino makes for a striking psychopathic murderer, though balances it with enough nuance in his realization of the character.

Best Scene: Benny's party. 

1. Christopher Plummer in Nicholas Nickleby - Good prediction Calvin. Plummer excels with his Dickens villain here, making the most of the miser, but being surprisingly heartbreaking as well.

Best Scene: Revelation.

Updated Overall 

Next: 1950 lead (throw in any supporting suggestions as well).

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Christopher Plummer in Nicholas Nickleby

Christopher Plummer did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Ralph Nickleby in Nicholas Nickleby.

Nicholas Nickleby is a fine, if just that, Charles Dickens adaptation about the titular young man coming to age while having to deal with different ills of Victorian England.

I have to say after watching The Man Who Invented Christmas, about Dickens writing a Christmas Carol it got me thinking what a fully fledged portrayal of Scrooge would be like. This as while Plummer played Scrooge in that film, it was a purposefully arch type portrayal, more for the generalized idea of the character, than really getting into the meat of who he was sort of beyond the page, again I believe this was entirely intentional. Thankfully it appears this thought was already realized in this film. Now, Plummer doesn't play Dickens's most famous miser in Ebenezer Scrooge here, but the character of Ralph Nickleby is definitely a classic miser in his own right. Now, as to be expected, Plummer's demeanor and voice couldn't seem a better fit for the world of Dickens already from the outset. He not only fits into the clothes like he was born in them, but Plummer's voice already is a perfect fit for the Victorian style vernacular. Unsurprisingly Plummer makes a striking impression from his first scene where the Nickleby family seeks help from their uncle after the death of their father. Plummer's performance delivering on the wanted sort of cold precision of manner as he speaks every word with a blithe disregard for nearly any sentiment for his father. Plummer presenting a general indifference towards his family's needs and more so the death of his brother. Ralph providing only basic leads for his niece and nephew, the titular Nick (Charlie Hunnam), for financial support. Plummer finds a wonderful balance in this moment though in that there is the slightest hint of warmth in recommending work for his niece, however for his nephew it is with a diabolical grin of a man knowing far more of the appointment than he is letting on.

This is quickly found by Nicholas as his job is at a horrible boarding school. His slight hint of warmth is even found questionable as Ralph subjects his niece to a creepathon in a dinner with a group of older men. Plummer showing that Ralph is perhaps the greatest creep of all as he presents Ralph as man unable to exactly interact with his niece that isn't somewhat questionable. Plummer plays this particularly well in he presents it as almost the man isn't quite aware of his own perhaps lecherous desire. This as he speaks with a calm support and apology to her, yet his eyes speak as though he is living within some sick fantasy. Plummer making for quite the horrible villain, though in the best ways, and quite frankly makes Ebenezer Scrooge look like a nice chap, even before he is reformed. Plummer though excels here in finding variety within the blunt villainy of the character. This as a moment where one of his clients comes to Ralph over his horrible treatment of niece and nephew. Plummer starting the scene with the smug assurance of a man whose always got what he's wanted and everything seemingly has gone his way. He's effortless though in the switch, and properly horrible still in the sheer disbelief when he sense the man has any distaste for his cruel actions. Plummer's face of being taken aback is properly cathartic, but also so effectively shows the nature of the man's state as he is so shaken by any disruption of his financial control. Plummer is just a delicious dastardly fiend here, in just with such confidence portraying the man's cruel nature with such ease. This again though with a delightful nuance for the material, for example finding humor in reacting to the rather grotesque bad boarding school master with a combination of withdrawn disgust hidden by a phony courteousness for a man he wishes to use against his nephew, this in contrast to another moment of so specifically altering his voice to the coldest tone when speaking of his most hated nephew. Plummer is fantastic here in making the most out of any given scene by never taking a single path in revealing Ralph's villainy.

Now as much as Plummer makes for a great miser villain here, I probably wouldn't even be mentioning this performance it were not for the climax of the film. The climax of this film following Nicholas as he uncovers some secret for a final confrontation with Ralph, where all is revealed in a classic novel serial style fashion. This also where he gets sort of his Scrooge moment, this in facing his past, though not through supernatural means but rather just Nicholas revealing an important thing about Ralph's past. Now before even this we do have a certain descent as everything is going against Ralph largely due to his questionable ways. This within just a great moment where we see Ralph alone reacting to his change in fortunes. It is satisfying in the sense of the man losing that smug confidence, but there is something more within his work. Again Plummer's performance grants something more intimate within the miser a real pathos even in the moment of the man facing ruin, a humanity within the pathetic reaction. Although he doesn't make you sympathize with Ralph in the moment, he so artfully elevates the potential archetype through the degree of depth of his portrayal. That is but a warm up for the revelation scene. The revelation being initially of a secret marriage of Ralph's that resulted in a son who was said to be sickly. Plummer's performance is outstanding in this scene, and really earned largely through even that greater nuance within his portrayal of the generally evil character we found in the rest of the film. This as even mentioning the marriage it is with a quiet recognized regret on Plummer's brow, however a greater somberness is revealed as he notes the death of his son as broken hearted father. A broken heart though long ago. As the story goes on though it is revealed the boy had lived for some time, and it is revealed to have been in fact a boy at the bad boarding school who had become best friends with Nicholas. Plummer's face filling with a dread as he grants such palatable emotion in the moment of Ralph recognizing that he had earlier sabotaged his own son to try to get to get Nicholas, having not known he was his son, though in turn perhaps helping to the early demise of the boy. Although this is not the redemption of Scrooge, Plummer is heartbreaking in that sense in revealing the moment of revelation that does create a change in the man. This in revealing the heart of the man only within sorrow. Plummer's work in this scene is astonishing at times as his expression not only shows the sense of regret but also in his eyes, the sense of man whose long held reality is shattering through these words. This with even though a moment of calling back to the potential love for his wife, and son, that is so beautifully performed as Plummer looks upon the boy's bed with a sense of love wrapped within despair. Plummer realizing his own Scrooge like change, though this time not for a man to renew his life but rather gives into his death. Although overall I'd call the film overall as just fine, Plummer goes above and beyond in his performance here. This by creating both a proper Dicksonian villain but also a genuinely tragic fool.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002

And the Nominees Were Not:

Christopher Plummer in Nicholas Nickleby

Leandro Firmino in City of God

Brendan Fraser in The Quiet American

Marcel Iures in Hart's War

Timothy Spall in All or Nothing

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1978: Results

5. Bruce Dern in The Driver - Dern brings the right color to his purposefully minimalist role, finding the character through his eccentric presence.

Best Scene: Ending.

4. Scott Reiniger in Dawn of the Dead - Reiniger delivers the strongest performance in his film, creating a unique and moving arc within a zombie narrative.

Best Scene: "Perfect baby"

3. Barry Bostwick in Movie Movie - Bostwick best realizes the tone of his film, delivering a properly lively musical performance that has the right fun with the approach.

Best Scene: "I just need the Girl"

2. Christopher Plummer in The Silent Partner - Plummer delivers a properly diabolical turn who only hides his most overt psychopathy for a bit of sadism.

Best Scene: "We're partners"

1. Yaphet Kotto in Blue Collar - Good prediction Luke. GM, Tahmeed BRAZINTERMA, John Smith and Calvin. Kotto makes a memorable impression in the film offering so well a vivid sense of his character's camaraderie with his co-stars, but also the sense of his alternative perspective. 

Best Scene: Speech. 

Updated Overall

Next: 1983 Lead