Best Actor Back Log Volume 2 Results

5. Paul Newman in The Sting - Newman gives perhaps his most strictly entertaining performance. Having a proper blast in the role, while certainly carrying the proper warmth as the mentor type. 

Best Scene: Poker Game.

4. James Woods in Killer: A Journal of Murder - Although his film is severely misguided about his character, Woods fully understands him in his disturbing portrayal of depravity.

Best Scene: After the murder.

3. James Mason in Odd Man Out - Mason has limited screentime, however doesn't waste a moment in a heartbreaking portrait of a man coming to terms mentally while he decays physically. 

Best Scene: Psalm.

2. Bob Hoskins in Felicia's Journey - Hoskins delivers an absolutely fascinating depiction of a most unusual kind of psychosis.

 

Best Scene: Final scene with Felicia.  

1. Carl Anderson in Jesus Christ Superstar - Anderson delivers one incredible musical performance after another, but also delivers as striking of a silent turn.

Best Scene: "Last Supper"

Next: An extended waiting game (maybe a review or two if I find the motivation).

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1973: Paul Newman in The Sting

Paul Newman did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Henry Gondorff in The Sting. 

I ought to open with a few complete asides and just re-state my enjoyment of this film. It's just a wonderfully entertaining and fun film. I always love when the same people who decry a best picture win like this, also decry the academy not recognizing comedy. The Sting is not a great serious drama, it's great entertainment. Anyways, one of the major reasons for this quality is in the star-pairing of Robert Redford as young up and comer con man Johnny Hooker, and Paul Newman as the old pro Henry Gondorff. Redford was the only actor recognized for the film, perhaps as the "hotter" commodity at the time, which given the academy's love for the film the lack of Robert Shaw as the chief villain Doyle Lonnegan and Paul Newman does feel a bit of an oversight strangely enough. Now it has to be said, despite Newman's star theoretically fading when compared to Redford at this point (though it wasn't really), Newman might as well be in his prime here. In fact while they make for a give and take duo in their previous collaboration Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Newman takes ownership of this film despite definitely not being lead, and...actually on this watch I had to admit something that I couldn't quite believe...Newman is supporting in the film. Now hear me out, Gondorff's role is specifically as the supporting mentor to Hooker, and though he has a few scenes to himself, so do Robert Shaw and Harold Gould as other con pro Kid Twist. Like those two, his scenes are almost exclusively in service to the creation or motivation of the con, that is technically all for Hooker's story. To kind of seal it I did a rough screentime count, where I was generous if anything, and from that I was surprised to learn Newman only has a few minutes more than 15 minutes of screentime, making him in a grand total of about 15% of the film, hard to call him a lead, particularly when Redford is an unquestionable lead standing right there with his over an hour of screentime. If the role wasn't played by Newman, I might've come to this conclusion a lot quicker.

 

That of course speaks to the strength of this performance and the star power of Newman in this role. This as we open with Newman's entrance into the film being a classic sort of anti-star entrance as we meet the "great Henry Gondorff" as he's sleeping off a hangover between a wall and his bed. This followed by being awoken through a cold shower, and we start with not the best introduction for this supposed ultimate con artist. Newman is of course great at being sloppy just as he is at being smooth. This as he instantly endears a bit to Henry in just showing his lack of pretense in his interactions with Hooker. Newman brings a nice bit of warmth just as he attempts to guides Hooker and even cautions him about revenge. Newman does it with really such a naturalistic way that makes Gondorff instantly endearing as this mentor to Hooker. Now as we follow Gondorff as he goes about recruiting his crew to set up Lonnegan, we get full movie star Newman in all his glory. This is just Newman at his most in that regard. Newman could be a great actor, but here he is a great movie star. This just in every one of his interactions, and nose flicks, there's a sheer sense of a joy of performance there. This as it is hard not to have the fun right along Newman every step of the way. Of course Newman does balance this in showing a sense of intelligence as he discusses the plan, pausing on moments to show regarding Lonnegan's potential wrath, but also just bringing so much energy to the build of the plan. He has such a wonderful zest within figuring out each bit of it. Newman making for a great leader for the plan that it is hard not to get wrapped up into the plan, and wish you could be part of his con in some way. 

Now the planning of the con leads to what is the best scene of the film, remember this is a film I adore, largely because it solely focuses on the two best performances in the film, that being Shaw and Newman going to toe to toe in a poker game. Before that though we do get a quick moment that kind of sums up Newman's performance a bit here, and what makes him just so likable. This as he shows off his card tricks to Hooker. This as he shows them off he is so impeccably smooth in his manner, but then when he fumbles a bit, Newman sort of "oops" reaction is perfection. This as Newman brings the right bits of subversion within the confidence to make him all the more likable actually. Now onto the poker game that is amazing in every regard and I love every minute of it. This as Newman is terrific in portraying Gondorff play the poker lout "Shaw". His whole manner being a mess, and being as abrasive and obnoxious as possible. He is hilarious in just how sloppy he is and particularly in stark contrast to Shaw who just is getting more and more angry in his reactions throughout. They make great foils for one another throughout the scene. I especially love one moment where Shaw finally verbally lashes out, and Newman's "aw crap" face (which apparently might've been genuine thinking Shaw was about to actually punch him) is the perfect moment of Gondorff losing his bearings just a bit. Newman's great though in showing in that sloppiness the casual confidence about the performance Gondorff is doing, making it seem all too easy. I especially love his rather comical way of glancing at his final hand, while also eyeing Lonnegan's henchman with a certain suspicion. Newman is hilarious throughout the scene, and against Shaw's reactions, you have a truly classic scene. 

That scene is Newman's highlight however Newman doesn't waste a moment from that point in portraying Gondorff trying to make it all work. This as there's actually a nice balance. This in moments of portraying his concern for Hooker's safety. Newman's actually fairly moving in portraying this low key concern wholly earnestly as he remains uncertain of the kid's life throughout the affair. This while also portraying a nice duality in the moments of the actual sting. This in capturing the degree of stress as Newman portrays a lack of confidence in the moment of running around trying to make it work and creating a good sense of the pressure of it. This against his moments of still playing Shaw as this cocky and mean employer of a corrupt race betting room. Newman though creates a good character in these moments with stiff and dismissive anger he brings in playing the part of the boss you'd believe Hooker's character supposedly hates. Of course this all being just part of the game and in the moments of success where you get that carry over chemistry of Redford and Newman from Butch and Sundance. This as when the two share joy it just seems all the brighter. The final sequence in particularly being all the more joyous just in their mutual jubilation being just so infectious. Even in his supporting screentime, Newman seems the lead just by his presence throughout once he appears. He makes for the proper con man of all con mans. I'll say though watching the film again, I must've had a little bit of a case of Oscar sickness in my evaluation of Robert Redford's work, that is being overly dismissive of it largely due to my love of the Oscar snubbed Newman and Shaw. I will correct that of course. Nonetheless though still, Newman and Shaw do steal the film, Shaw through his vicious and volatile presence and Newman through his charming one. This may not be the technically best acted performance by Paul Newman, but it is perhaps his most entertaining and the clearest example of his star power. 

Best Actor Backlog Volume 2

And the overlooked performances are:

James Mason in Odd Man Out

 

Paul Newman in The Sting

 

James Woods in Killer: A Journal Of Murder

 

Carl Anderson in Jesus Christ Superstar

 

Bob Hoskins in Felicia's Journey

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Paul Newman in Harper

Paul Newman did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Lew Harper in Harper.

Harper is a decent enough if largely forgettable detective mystery.

Paul Newman plays the role of the largely detached detective, honestly most detective stories are helped by a larger degree of personal connection. This is not that case as it is largely a procedural of uncovering one part of a conspiracy after another. Newman plays our hero of Lew Harper, who we see as a slightly hapless sort essentially from an opening scene where he reuses old coffee ground in his disheveled office. Newman really making the most out of that scene just in his less than enthused reaction to the coffee he's made somewhat questionably. After this point is essentially Newman doing his best approach to the detective, who is largely driven to solve the mystery though does do it in a fairly unique way. Newman brings of course a certain definite charm here as is usually the case for him, though he doesn't overly emphasize it here actually. He actually plays Harper with a generally sort of wry and often sardonic manner. This with certain shrugs at certain news and eye glances of disbelief when hearing about the various ins and outs of all those he encounters. Newman portraying all of these interactions as though he really doesn't take any of them that seriously in the sense that as the detective he must second guess every one. Newman creating sort of the false sense of incompetence as though Harper doesn't care at all, though in his eyes there he emphasizes the method within that he does make his moves. Newman playing well though into sort of the joking way that successfully suggests Harper's way of both disarming each person while also prying in his own way.

The procedure in this mystery doesn't have too much of real personal stakes, there is a slight friendship angle with one of the suspects but even that doesn't amount to much. Outside of the main story though we do get moments of Harper dealing with the fact that his wife (Janet Leigh) is divorcing him. These are small moments however effectively played as the bit of entirely earnest work in Newman's portrayal when other ask abut it. His quiet frustrations are well played as one thing Harper isn't going to joke about to others about. Although this is in contrast to his scene of trying to win his wife back by calling her with a obviously fake crank call. Newman's delightful in this scene in bringing the right flirtations playfulness in the moment and all the moments of speaking to Leigh. Newman shows in these moments both how he probably won her over but also how he lost her as he still doesn't quite take it seriously enough. These are good moments but only really brief moments outside of the main narrative. The main narrative that takes Newman through the various expected detective tropes, false leads, incompetent law enforcers, double crosses, and of course suspects denying their true motivations. Newman maneuvers these scenes effectively with the sardonic charm here. It doesn't add up to too much mainly as Harper has limited connection really to the case. Even in his one major personal moment at the end of the film, Newman's delivering still is a sardonic brush off, it works in his character, but just shows the limitation here. The case really though is simply never *that* compelling. Newman though makes it more compelling than it would be otherwise through his reliable performance. Newman though does best when he has more material to really sink his teeth in. When he's coasting he can be good, which he is here, but just good. This stands as a more than decent straight forward detective performance, and stands as a more than decent Newman turn, though it isn't too remarkable in either category.

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

Alternate Best Actor 1956: Results

5. Paul Newman in Somebody Up There Likes Me - Newman frankly tries a bit too hard in the role luckily his natural charm and talent makes up for it.

Best Scene: Rocky proposes.

4. Sterling Hayden in The Killing - Sterling Hayden gives a very efficient performance managing to establish his character while moving along with the film's particularly brisk pace.

Best Scene: Johnny accepts his fate.

3. Toshiro Mifune in Samurai III: Duel At Ganryu Island - Mifune gives a satisfying final performance as Miyamoto Musashi naturally rounding off the character to a true master who values peace even more than his prowess with the sword.

Best Scene: The titular duel.

2. John Wayne in The Searchers - John Wayne gives an outstanding performance as a bitter man driven by hate, and brilliantly subverts his usual western hero image.

Best Scene: They figure out the Comanche's plan.

1. James Mason in Bigger Than Life - Good Predictions GetDonaldSutherlandAnOscar, Jackiboyz, and Luke. I can make a sigh of relief in finally giving the victory to one of my favorite actors James Mason although he did have some very strong competition from both John Wayne and Kirk Douglas. Mason though stands as my favorite for his chilling yet heartbreaking depiction of the transformation of a decent man to a psychotic.

Best Scene: Ed decides on the solution for his son. 

Overall Rank:

1. James Mason in Bigger Than Life
2. John Wayne in The Searchers
3. Kirk Douglas in Lust For Life
4. Eli Wallach in Baby Doll
5. Alastair Sim in The Green Man
6. Toshiro Mifune in Samurai III: Duel At Ganryu Island
7. Henry Fonda in The Wrong Man
8. Sterling Hayden in The Killing
9. James Stewart in The Man Who Knew Too Much 
10. Van Heflin in Patterns
11. Jack Palance in Attack
12. Clifton Webb in The Man Who Never Was
13. Koji Tsuruta in Samurai III: Duel At Ganryu Island 
14. Brandon De Wilde in Goodbye, My Lady
15. George Cole in The Green Man
16. Humphrey Bogart in The Harder They Fall 
17. Karl Malden in Baby Doll
18. Tom Ewell in The Girl Can't Help It
19. Paul Newman in Somebody Up There Likes Me
20. Rock Hudson in Giant
21. William Smithers in Attack
22. Cantinflas in Around The World in Eighty Days
23. Gary Cooper in Friendly Persuasion
24. Burt Lancaster in The Rainmaker
25. Dean Jagger in X: The Unknown
26. Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments
27. Raymond Burr in Godzilla, King of the Monsters
28. Yul Brynner in Anastasia 
29. Jose Ferrer in The Great Man 
30. Desi Arnaz in Forever Darling
31. Gregory Peck in Moby Dick 
32. Rock Hudson in Written on the Wind
33. Gregory Peck in The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit
34. Wendell Corey in The Bold and the Brave
35. Jeffrey Hunter in The Searchers
36. Don Taylor in The Bold and the Brave
37. Yul Brynner in The King And I
38. Bing Crosby in High Society
39. Frank Sinatra in High Society
40. David Niven in Around The World in Eighty Days
41. Don Murray in Bus Stop
42. John Wayne in The Conqueror

Next Year: 1956 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 1956: Paul Newman in Somebody Up There Likes Me

Paul Newman did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Rocky Graziano in Somebody Up There Like Me.

Somebody Up There Likes Me is a solid enough telling of the life of middle weight boxing champion Rocky Graziano.

Paul Newman film career had a false start where his first appearance was the leading role in the biblical epic The Silver Chalice. The film was poorly received and Newman was so embarrassed by his own performance he took out a trade add asking people not to watch the film when it hit television, and I would say probably contributed greatly to him turning down the leading role in Ben-Hur. Newman though would get his second chance with Somebody Up There Likes Me which apparently was made for all the cool actors around at the time. I mean for starters there is the King of cool himself Steve McQueen in a small part. In addition to that James Dean was originally pegged for the part, which is noticeable with Dean's former co-star Sal Mineo in the cast, but his untimely death left them to quickly replace him cool hand Luke himself Paul Newman. This film proved to be Newman's big break and in the early scenes it seems perhaps a little too obvious that Newman is trying to make himself known.

Newman is not an actor known for his accents, usually keeping it towards slight variations on his own accent. You don't need to be great at accents to be a great actor though, and Newman is a great actor. Newman here though clearly was refining himself still as the role of Rocky Graziano with a very heavy, wise guy style, New York accent. Newman overplays it a tad actually in that it's slightly cartoony. It actually seems like Newman might be doing his own attempt at a Brando style characterization, but he's not really as good at it as say Richard Harris in This Sporting Life. Newman even does try for a few mannerisms at all that also don't really quite work either. It probably sounds like I am trashing Newman's performance here, but it was his break out for a reason. Newman thankfully does not go so far with his accent and mannerisms that his work here that it is not salvageable. I mean what what he does fails to really work though it's not so bad that it makes this a bad performance and thankfully a few mannerisms and an accent are not all there is to Newman's performance.

Newman does not cover up what made him such a great performer though. Newman's very natural presence still shines through even if it is technically partially obscured. When Newman is silent in this film he is terrific. Newman reflects what his character is going through quite well with just his more reactionary moments, since Newman does not really go for the mannerisms unless he is speaking. Newman though carries a scene so well even when he does not say a single word. He does match the transitions rather well as he begins with the rough callousness of a troubled youth, and he is convincing as he slowly makes Rocky mature after he is imprisoned both as a civilian in a state prison then as a soldier in a stockade. It's not the most remarkable transformation to be sure, but it's a good one thanks to Newman. As the story proceeds Newman actually seems to become more comfortable in the part, and actually does his best work once Rocky becomes reformed while beginning his professional boxing career.

The romantic scenes between Newman and Pier Angeli as Rocky's wife are highlights in Newman performance. Newman reveals his considerable charm here, and even successfully manipulates it within the whole rough Rocky act to make Rocky's relationship with Norma a rather sweet one. Newman manages to make that kinda the whole crux of his work as the warmth he brings in those scenes leaves Rocky someone you want to see succeed. The last act of his story is Rocky basically accepting the mistakes of his past in order to finally allow him to fully accept his reformation. Really the last part basically is quick replay of the previous transformation, but Newman does well enough once again. This is never quite a great performance and it is not one of Newman's best performance to be sure. Newman though seemed to take note himself and he would late give much more naturalistic performances. Even with the unnecessary actory additions by Newman here his appeal as a star, and talent as an actor still comes through to give a satisfying performance. 

Alternate Best Actor 1956

And the Nominees Were Not:

James Mason in Bigger Than Life

Sterling Hayden in The Killing

John Wayne in The Searchers

Toshiro Mifune in Samurai III: Duel At Ganryu Island

Paul Newman in Somebody Up There Likes Me

Best Supporting Actor 2002: Results

5. Ed Harris in The Hours- The only thing Harris does not seem to try for in his performance is subtly in his needlessly over the top performance.

4. John C. Reilly in Chicago- Reilly is the sap his character should be, and makes the most of his single big scene. It is not amazing work but as it should be.

3. Chris Cooper in Adaptation- Chris Cooper gives an effective performance managing the complex strangeness of his character quite well.

2. Paul Newman in Road to Perdition- Newman gives a moving performance by creating a unique portrait of an aged gangster who finds he honestly does not have the heart to be who he is.

1. Christopher Walken in Catch Me If You Can- Walken easily is my favorite of the year though giving a completely heartbreaking performance as the tragic loving father. This is one performance that I simply love every moment of. Walken creates such an honest portrait that to me is unforgettable. 

Best Supporting Actor 2002: Paul Newman in Road to Perdition

Paul Newman received his ninth and final acting Oscar nomination for portraying John Rooney in Road to Perdition.

Road to Perdition details the attempt of a mob hitman Michael Sullivan Sr. and his son Jr. to get revenge on the gangster who murdered the rest of their family.

Paul Newman portrays Irish gangster John Rooney. Rooney is the gangster who Sullivan works for, and it is his son Connor (Daniel Craig) who kills Michael family after Michael's son saw Connor kill a man. Newman portrays Rooney as a rather quiet old gangster who certainly is past his time of being truly deadly and dangerous man. Newman at the beginning of his performance has a genuine fatherly and grandfatherly quality.

Newman's performance is genuinely a warm old man to Sullivan and his sons. Newman does not portray this as a facade, but that Rooney does honestly care for them. There is of course an undercurrent of the gangster he is in his performance but it is not an overriding facet of Rooney. What Newman more thoroughly suggests is a once brutal gangster who with age has aged past the stage in which he can be as cold as he really needs to be in his position.

The two pivotal aspects of Newman's performance and character comes from his fatherly relationships in the film his first with John's actual son Connor. Newman interestingly portrays this as he does have a love for his son, but a love he actually wants to shake. Newman is very convincing in his portrayal of this strange conflict that John has over his son. He frankly wants to let him die as Connor is not only a screw up but a backstabber, but his natural fatherly love prevents it. 

His other one is with his adopted son Michael. Rooney faces the fact that to keep his actual son alive, and his position he must kill his adopted son. Here is where Newman shows the lack of the killer edge with Rooney who frankly does not heart to go through with the murders. Newman portrays a deep sadness in Rooney showing that he is far too old for who he is, and what he must do. Rooney simply is a gangster who has lived too long

Newman is heartbreaking in his final moments where he shows Rooney reflect all he as done, and eventually accepting his fate that he knows he deserves. This is an appropriate swan song feature film performance from Newman which manages to bring a tragic human element to a character who perhaps could have been only a villain. Rooney is a bad man and Newman shows him as such but creates an honest insight into a bad man who understands exactly who he is.

Best Supporting Actor 2002

And the Nominees Were:

John C. Reilly in Chicago

Christopher Walken in Catch Me If You Can

Chris Cooper in Adaptation

Paul Newman in Road to Perdition

Ed Harris in The Hours

Best Actor 1986: Results

5. Dexter Gordon in 'Round Midnight- Dexter Gordon most likely was only nominated for being Dexter Gordon, as he gives a entirely uncharismatic performance, that has not a single powerful or poignant moment.

4. Paul Newman in The Color of Money- Newman is actually good enough, and has one pretty great scene that almost seems to hearken back to his amazing performance in The Hustle.

3. William Hurt in Children of a Lesser God- Hurt does not have the most complex of characters, but still manages to give a very good performance. This is because of his outstanding charisma here, as well as his terrific chemistry with his leading lady Marlee Matlin.

2. Bob James Woods in Salvador- giving a very memorable as well a manic performance that works surprisingly well considering the type of film that he is in. Woods manages to both be a real man in a horrible situation, but also manages to give a fascinating portrait of a very original character as well.

1. Hoskins in Mona Lisa- Hoskins gives a very powerful performance that certainly overcomes some of the weaker material in the film. Hoskins turns his character into an interesting man, that slowly delves deeper into the truth of the man, well falling deeper into a situation. It is a complex portrait that Hoskins pulls off very well.

Deserving Performances:
(I have seen the Mosquito Coast, Sid and Nancy, as well as the Fly, more than ten years ago each so I really need to rewatch each before I can put them here.)

Best Actor 1986: Paul Newman in The Color of Money

Paul Newman won his Oscar from his seventh acting nomination for once again portraying Fast Eddie Felson this time in The Color of Money.

The Color of Money is the  sequel to the excellent film The Hustler. It once again depicts Fast Eddie Felson, now as a older man, now trying to use others to perform hustles rather than himself.

This is the type of win that is quite obnoxious because Newman would have been deserving winner for any of his acting previous acting nominations besides Absence of Malice. Newman instead won for this film which is unfortunate, since so many of his other nominations were superior to this one. Does this make this a bad performance though, well no.

I would say I feel sorry though for Paul Newman and Fast Eddie throughout this whole film. The first being for Fast Eddie for having to deal with Tom Cruise's character. I frankly wanted Fast Eddie to sock Vincent in the nose almost every time he opened his mouth, Cruise is simply that grating in his performance. Also really this is missed opportunity since Newman could possibly have had an interesting dynamic with Cruise, but anything they could have had is ruined by Cruise, and the character of Vincent.

The biggest grievous makes me feel sorry for both Newman and Fast Eddie together. Fast Eddie is simply mistreated as a character. He was an amazing character as played and as written in the Hustler, but this time the writing falls very short of the writing of the Hustler. The script never really is find out all to well who Felson really is now. There are many indications that he is now like Burt Gordon who was played by George C. Scott in the first film.

Burt Gordon was a player, who manipulated Eddie through Hustles, as well as attempted to manipulate Eddie through life as well. Fast Eddie attempts this a little in the film against Cruise's character, but than he basically stops doing it rather randomly stops, without it only being briefly mentioned later in a non negative fashion.

It would have been fascinating to see maybe Eddie see himself as Gordon, and fight against that, or something like that but it does not even recognize it which is a real problem. There also is no explanation or struggle involving this at all, which is a real problem, since I find it very hard to believe that Fast Eddie would be so casual when replicating Burt Gordon, in fact I highly doubt after the events of the first film he would ever, and I mean ever quote him.

This is just a completely missed opportunity to further explore the great character of Fast Eddie. The amazing character of Fast Eddie is basically wasted in this trivial mess of a film. Barring all that I still don't think Newman is bad as Fast Eddie this time. He still has some charisma most certainly much less than in Hustler, but that does make sense since Eddie has been out of the game for some time. Also Newman does his best to make Eddie suave, and clearly commanding in the right way over manners of the Hustle.

Eddie is inconsistent as a character in this film, but that is not Newman's fault it is the script's fault. Newman at first is effective enough as the extremely manipulative Eddie at the beginning of the film, there is no transition to him stopping his heavy manipulations in Newman's performance but there is not one in the script of the film either, he just basically stops doing it so severely.

After the instant transition Newman's performance is better when Fast Eddie's story suddenly becomes about him trying to get back into being the number one hustler, and pool player again. Newman is effective enough in showing the restrained desire behind Fast Eddie's attempts. Newman also has one great scene where he lets himself be hustled. It is a strong scene for Newman, and actually the only one in the film really since Cruise, and Mastrantonio are basically silent. Newman in this one history really suggests the history of loss in Felson, and a little bit of that old Felson despair that was so well portrayed in the original film.

That single scene though is the only great scene for Newman. The rest of the film Newman though is always natural enough, even when his co-stars are not. He has an ease in the role, and he certainly knows how to play the various aspects of Felson, even though the script doesn't give him enough opportunities. This is a good performance, it does its best with what it has, its just a shame because I think from that single scene of Newman's after Felson is hustled suggest that with a script with at least half of the brilliance of the Hustler, Newman could have given a truly great reprise as Fast Eddie rather than just a good one. 

Best Actor 1986

And the Nominees Were:

William Hurt in Children of A Lesser God

Bob Hoskins in Mona Lisa

Paul Newman in The Color of Money

Dexter Gordon in Round Midnight

James Woods in Salvador

Best Actor 1963: Results

5. Rex Harrison in Cleopatra- Harrison is the only performance that stands far apart from the others, which is a bad thing. Harrison is miscast as Caesar, and his at ease style may work well for Henry Higgins but as Julius Caesar it leaves much to be desired.

4. Albert Finney in Tom Jones- Finney gives a brilliantly charming performance that is winning during every moment that he has.

3. Sidney Poitier in Lilies of the Field- Poitier gives a wonderful performance, filled with charm, and charisma. I love every minute of this performance, and I really could watch this particular performance over and over again.

2. Richard Harris in This Sporting Life- Harris gives a complex and powerful performance, which shows the depth of what may seem like the depth less.

1. Paul Newman in Hud- Paul Newman gives another complex realistic performance that never takes an easy solution in the development of his character. He shows Hud as the amoral man he is, and whenever he does show more about Hud, it is always well placed and within Hud's realm.

Deserving Performances:
Sean Connery in From Russia With Love

Best Actor 1963: Paul Newman in Hud

Paul Newman received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Hud Bannon in Hud.

Hud is a film about an honest aging Texas rancher Homer (Melvyn Douglas), his arrogant irresponsible son Hud, and Hud's nephew Lonnie (Brando De Wilde).

Paul Newman portrays Hud who is basically the opposite of his father. Hud shows none of the work ethic, and decent honest that his father holds so dear. He as well lack the pride in the life of rancher as his father does. Hud lets this be known to his father at all times showing a constant distaste for his father and his morals.

This is a rather change from every other Paul Newman performance that I have reviewed so far. In all of his other performances Newman certianly portrayed some troubled men, but they clearly were not bad men either. Hud most certianly is a bad man, with his constant violence and lusting. Newman excels in the role though, as he portrays Hud not as a complete villain, but more naturally as jerk who  clearly grew into the man he is over many years.

Newman most certainly in unlikeable here, as Hud really tries to turn his nephew down the wrong road as well as constantly mistreats and fails to understand his father. Newman though nonetheless gives a magnetic performance, in sort of the same vein as Marlon Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire. Newman finds the right charisma for the part that show the virile appeal of Hud, and leaves no question why women and his nephew are drawn to him.

Interesting though is the fact that Hud is not a pure evil character who is constantly being brutal, by rather he is more realistically drawn as a man by Newman. I think this is particularly true in his relationship with Alma (Patricia Neal) their housekeeper. In these scenes both actors show the right mutual attraction with each other, and Newman is properly charismatic in a low key fashion to show Hud as not completely bad. Hud though is not patient, or able to control himself and attempts to rape Alma, which is important because Newman presents this as the nature of Hud, a man who just can never appreciate anyone or anything.

Also portrayed well is Hud's dynamic with his father and his nephew. Hud and Homer fight constantly which are portrayed by both actors brilliantly because it always suggests that this is their history history together. Newman though does insert carefully moments showing that perhaps he does not entirely hate his father, they a brief, subtle, and expertly handled by Newman.

The relationship with the nephew is most pivotal though perhaps to the film because Newman displays a wide range of emotion to the nephew. One of just sort of a pity, as well as somewhat a dislike, but as well one of possibly a Uncle's actual liking of his Nephew as well. Newman combines both these emotions impeccably well into his performance to make their scenes together quite memorable.

Newman performance as Hud is a strong achievement, because he never plays Hud as a one note jerk. He certainly portrays Hud as one quite well, but he adds more layers to his performance without ever overriding the rest of the characterization. This is a memorable performance that leaves a great impression because of Newman uncompromising manner, he never cheapens out to be likable, or entertaining instead creating a lasting portrait of a very particular man.

Best Actor 1963

And the Nominees Were:

Albert Finney in Tom Jones

Rex Harrison in Cleopatra

Sidney Poitier in Lilies of the Field

Paul Newman in Hud

Richard Harris in This Sporting Life 

Best Actor 1961: Results

5. Charles Boyer in Fanny- Boyer is fine enough but his role is too small and simple for him to accomplish all that much.

4. Spencer Tracy in Judgment At Nuremberg- Tracy gives a quietly affecting portrayal of a man quietly coming to grips with a terrible situation. 

3. Maximilian Schell in Judgment At Nuremberg- Schell's performance is a triumph of so powerfully presenting on the wrong side of an issue.

2. Paul Newman in The Hustler- An absolutely terrific performance, where Newman really creates a fascinating original character in Fast Eddie Felson. Newman never goes the easy way with his character, always going for instead a complex and creative character.

1. Stuart Whitman in The Mark- This one was extremely close for me, and much harder to choose than I expected it to be, before I watched the Mark. Whitman though completely threw me off with his extremely powerful complex performance of a deeply troubled man trying to change his life. I will say I do not think Whitman is better Newman, they are both equally great, but the nature of the award is choosing one, and for the moment I will choose Whitman. This is a year though where I am sure my choice could easily go back forth, because both create such memorable and powerful portraits of two incredibly unique characters.

Deserving Performances:
Open to Suggestions.