Best Actor 2007: Tommy Lee Jones in In the Valley of Elah

Tommy Lee Jones received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Hank Deerfield in In the Valley of Elah.

In the Valley of Elah is an extremely heavy handed and slow film about a man trying to find his son, than learning of the mental state of many of the soldiers returning home.

The character of Hank Deerfield is the type of character right of Tommy Lee Jones' alley. Deerfield is a war veteran, hard edged working man, and Jones is instantly comfortable in the role. Jones' whole prescene also does a great deal in giving the background of the character in his initial scenes, showing him to be a quietly intelligent, and patriotic man, who needs to know what happened to his son.

This character and the film itself reminded me a bit of Missing, and Jack Lemmon's character in that film, which is a good thing in a few ways, but unfortuantely a bad thing in many ways. It is a good thing in that Jones does a strong job in showing his care for his son, and his honest loss he feels when he learns early on that his son has been murdered.

The problems come about though when he joins in the investigation completely for his son, where the film wants to be a message film as well as a police procedural, as well as a character study, and unfortunately the message is abundantly clear the whole time, the procedural is boring because the conclusion is obvious, and the character study of Hank is given a back seat to the rest of the film.

Jones is rigged into the investigation which unfortuantely gives him little to do, as he either just asks question politely, or gets angered by those who impede his investigation. Unfortunately that is all he really gets to do most of the time, which was part of my problem with Jack Lemmon's performance in Missing. All he does is investigate for too much of the time, in an investigation that is frankly not portrayed interestingly at all.

Jones does get an occasional scene away from the investigation such as with a police officer (Charlize Theron) who helps him in the investigation. He has a nice scene where he tells the story of David and Goliathe to her son, and he is okay in creating some sort of fatherly relationship with her as well, although not good enough for it to overcome the script and be considered anything special.

The most annoying aspect of his performance, to me is his relationship with his son in the film. He slowly finds out more and more negative aspects of his son, until at the end where he changes his entire worldview basically. Now this might have worked if the script was better written, or Jones was given more time but he is not. Jones is good in showing the pain over his son, and his frustrations, but he certianly is not able to show his character changing so much with so little time to develop this change.

The film frankly takes a well handled characterization by Jones and misuses by giving him thankless scenes, and than even worse trying to force his character to do that change of his. Now I must make this clear I think that the change in the character could have been done, but it desperately needed to be written better, and Jones needed more time for development. Overall this is a performance that is fine, but it is held back by a rather poor script.

Best Actor 2007: George Clooney in Michael Clayton

George Clooney received his second Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character in Michael Clayton.

Michael Clayton in my opinion is a pretty routine thriller about an evil corporation, and its ties with a large law firm.

George Clooney is an actor many people do find very charming, and say he has a certain ease, and sway on screen. I could not disagree more with these statements, since I almost always find him to be an actor who tries to be charming, but frankly tries to hard, and I just never feel he really has that interesting of a screen presence either. He never really is that charismatic of a performer either, to me he just isn't.

In this film I will say he does not at all try overly hard to be charming, since he is playing a down and out fixer for a law firm. The down and out character is no stranger to Oscar consideration, and no strange character for Clooney who won the Oscar for portraying the down and out character in Syriana.

In portraying this down and out character of Michael Clayton who shows just an annoyed, and tired reaction to the slightest job he is given, or the slightest thing he is given to do. Clooney I will say does make a tired face. Just making a tired face is not good enough, the actor needs to try to convey more than that through more. Clooney in this film does it just slightly, but does not convey nearly enough to make this a really effective performance.

In a thriller like this one must carry the film. A lead in a film like this is extremely important, because they are the one pulling the audience along through the journey of the film, and should probably create some sort of empathy or connection with the audience. Clooney fails to really do this in my opinion, since I never really find him to be a compelling or charming lead.

Clooney's performance is not terrible though, and probably is one of his better performances. Clooney does manage to be realistic enough in the role, and avoids being just Clooney. I really do not think he creates a compelling or, all that individualistic of a character either. For me it just is not ever an interesting performance, that fails to make the film at all compelling or interesting.

Best Actor 2007: Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood

Daniel Day-Lewis won his second Oscar from his fourth nomination for portraying oil man Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood.

There Will Blood tells the story of a greedy oil man's search for wealth during the early 20th century.

Daniel Day-Lewis's performance is generally regarded as a brilliant performance by many, but there are also dissenters as well who criticize it as being an over the top performance. Well I think it should be examined for both of these qualities actually.

This is one performance that can never be accused of playing it safe, Day-Lewis here goes for something completely outside what most performances try to do. Day-Lewis creates an entirely unique creation in Daniel Plainview with his whole manner, as well as his John Huston voice he uses in the role. The use of the Huston voice is certainly a bold move, and it is one that work well in Day-Lewis' favor since he is entirely consistent with the voice, and it just works incredibly well for this larger than life character.

Now in addition to his voice he uses he does also take on many mannerisms that further suggest Plainview as a character. The little things he does with his mouth, and his distinct way he walks in the part. I will say again these mannerisms are very well done, and do seem to be part of the character, and work very well in favor of his performance. Day-Lewis was clearly trying to recreate someone from the period, and Day-Lewis certainly does that incredibly well.

The sheer force Day-Lewis puts in the role is incredible. He controls every single scene period. There is never a single question, because Day-Lewis creates an overpowering presence throughout the film, that refuses to be challenged by anyone, even though Paul Dano tries as the town preacher Eli. Day-Lewis creates the right intense power in every scene, especially in his speeches to the towns people that perfectly suggest the overwhelming authority Plainview creates.

Now Day-Lewis is also effective in his creation of the greed in Plainview, and showing the intensity of his personality. He is best in his scenes with his "brother" where he tells of his true feeling about people. Day-Lewis brilliantly shows the insight into the mind of his character, and makes his greed something that cannot at all be swayed by anything or anyone.

The strongest aspect of his performance to me though might be with his adopted son H.W. It is interesting because this is where Day-Lewis does display some subtly. It is fascinating because he is able to suggest that Plainview does not only think of his son as a business tool entirely. Day-Lewis does carefully show he does have a love for the boy, even though Plainview does his best to hide it, Day-Lewis lets it show subtly in certain moments of the film.

Best Actor 2007

And the Nominees Were:

Tommy Lee Jones in In the Valley of Elah

Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises

Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will be Blood

George Clooney in Michael Clayton

Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd

Best Actor 1983: Results

5. Micheal Caine in Educating Rita- I like Caine's performance and he realistically portrays the tired, disinterested nature of the character. He just is not given enough to do though, and the very nature of the character forces him to be almost an entirely reactive character.

4. Tom Conti in Reuben, Reuben- Conti's first scene is absolutely brilliant 5 material in my book, he has the perfect charm, and intelligence in that scene, he is also great in his last scene, but between these two scenes he is subject to some redundant material, though he performs it well.

3. Albert Finney in The Dresser- This was a somewhat difficult choice to make, as Finney is very good in portraying his domineering, as well as very much vulnerable actor, extremely well. It is a very challenging role especially in the constant pain of Sir only alleviated briefly by his duties for the show. but Finney meets the challenge well. 

2. Robert Duvall in Tender Mercies- This is a brilliant performance by Duvall, that never comprises for a cheap trick, but always stays true and honest to his character.

1. Tom Courtenay in The Dresser- He made the dresser a fascinating character, and made a lasting impression with his heartbreaking final speech showing how much Sir meant to Norman.

Deserving Performances:
Christopher Walken in The Dead Zone

Best Actor 1983: Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay in The Dresser

Albert Finney received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Shakespearean actor Sir, and Tom Courtenay received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Norman the titular character in The Dresser.

The Dresser tells the story of a troubled actor and his cast and crew including his faithful dresser during WWII, as they put on King Lear.

The reason I put both of these performance together is because I find it difficult to talk about either of the two performances completely separately, as well as avoiding the especially important relationship between the two. I did not do this for Sleuth, Network, or Amadeus, because in Sleuth and Amadeus the two leads their relationship was divided very much by the concrete conflict of the characters, and Network the leads just do not interact really at all. In the Dresser though the two men's relationship is a pivotal aspect of both characters. Neither of the two men could go on without the other. The two are deeply connected through their professional relationship which certainly is also very personal between the two as well. The Dresser finds his life through his work for Sir, and Sir basically could not function if it was not for the restless effort of his Dresser. The reason also for this little re-examination is two-fold. One is re-watching the film which I supremely enjoyed once more, as one of the more underrated best picture nominees around. In addition though I watched the BBC remake of the film starring Ian McKellen as Norman and Anthony Hopkins as Sir. This as one thing to make you love a performance all the more is to watch an inferior take.

Both of these performance by these actors certainly, are most certainly and visibly acting. They are in fact the complete opposite style of Robert Duvall's performance from this year, but that does not make them bad, just a different style. Courtenay portrays Norman as a flamboyant man, but also in his own way withdrawn from others, well Finney portrays Sir as a loud, overwhelming man, who refuses not to be known. Courtenay is terrific his creation of the dresser Norman, as his mannerisms naturally craft the flamboyance of a character, whose performance in a way is within his preparations off-stage while preparing for those who will be joining on stage. Finney as Sir is also quite good, and portrays the outward command and theatricality of him well, and I did feel he did seem to channel, quite well, Donald Wolfit in a rather interesting fashion. Finney making a man almost struggling with himself in this near constant rage of his own age. Now Ian McKellen is also a great actor so it is not as though this is some major downgrade in casting, however watching McKellen in the role showed me all the more how magical Courtenay is. This is in the state of the man in itself Courtenay just thrives with as a full bodied performance. McKellen is fine, however he struggles more in truly expressing the flamboyance of the character properly. This particularly in the delivering of the dialogue strangely enough. Marvelous dialogue to begin with, that McKellen speaks with enough conviction however Courtenay makes it sing. This in Norman's words are seeded within the that eccentricity of the character with his little pet names for characters, and different asides. Courtenay embracing that flamboyance in every moment makes every word seem so much part of everything that is Norman, making him come to life all the more as a character. McKellen is fine, but just that. Now Anthony Hopkins, also a great actor, I'd actually say fairs better in the comparison. This makes sense though with the history of the story as Courtenay defined the role of Norman for years on stage with several different "Sirs". Hopkins is an interpretation among interpretations, rather than McKellen attempting to face against the interpretation. 

Their dynamic together is quite fascinating because their relationship. It is interesting in how Courtenay displays Norman's method of keeping the show on its way as energetically as possible, always moving and urging, this is interestingly offset by the way Finney shows Sir's distinct commanding actions that keep the show on, I think this is best shown in an early scene where Courtenay shows Norman constant pleading at a train to wait for the actors to get on the train, but Finney displays instead instant command by making the train stop through only saying stop. Courtenay properly the pure but strained effort of Norman to try to make everything work, against Finney displaying the singular command of Sir, who can make things with such ease, with nothing other than a single word. To return back to the remake, that scene that is missing from this version as the original film is an excellent example of how to translate a play, this is that it carries the spirit of the material fully into the work, but with natural expansion befitting a more cinematic approach. Nonetheless this does address the work. Again Courtenay's work is something special as this particular hero of attempting to making everything work to get the show to go on. This in bringing that energy into his work, however a wonderful desperate energy of just trying to always spool a thread no matter how small the hole is, or how quickly he must thread it. Hopkins's performance actually is quite different from Finney, in a way perhaps due to the state. Finney was playing a part far greater than his actual age of the time, Hopkins's more comparable to the part. Finney therefore is more so a transformation, required, but also a forceful but distant character. Hopkins's performance is more approachable, in part due to this, but in turn more emphasizes the empathy one can for Sir. His performance is less of a distant expression of this great actor, and more intimate portrayal of such a man.

Both characters are rather troubled in their own particular ways which intersect, Finney's Sir is distraught and quite ill about his life, where Norman worries of his own purpose with the deterioration of Sir. Finney half is almost thankless in how much the part requires just for him to put the whole damaged nature of Sir on display. The Finney almost puts too much of Sir's pain in the film, but still Finney is quite effective, in his display of it, showing with it that Sir almost can never stop acting. Courtenay on the other hand more briefly shows Norman's pain, since he shows that Norman can't spend too long on his own problems since they are intertwined with those of Sir. Courtenay's darker asides being these wonderful moments of revealing the man's real vulnerability, that he doesn't have time to face, but also must avoid lest he fail Sir, which would be the end of the world for him. I'd say this is the greatest difference between the performances of Finney and Hopkins, something that I would not say one is better or worse, they are just quite different. This as Hopkins quite effectively portrays moments of the old charm of the man when his mind is together. This granting a smooth professional of the great man that sir once was. Finney on the other hand you sense a man on the breaking point even when his faculties seem to be together, even when the man appears to be somewhat together he's still falling apart. Again not one I'd say is obviously better or worse, Hopkins allows you to like Sir, Finney doesn't, but at the same time Finney's is more distinctive and striking innately, even if less sympathetic. That quality on the other hand is almost forgotten with McKellen who portrays basically only it in reflection of Sir, where Courtenay is great by showing the quietly sad man, beneath it all, and removed from the central relationship.

It is fascinating to see there relationship as they prepare once again for making King Lear. Finney displaying Sir's constant fear and pain, as he depends for any comfort he has with his dresser. Finney though also shows of Sir's ability to hide the pain and control it just enough by hiding through his acting, as well as through his domineering such as when he deals with the other actors. Courtenay though energetically moves, and support Sir, as Norman. He frankly never stops, always prodding and pushing, Courtenay puts the right push and energy, as well as always briefly showing his own pain whenever he has a chance. Courtenay again is outstanding in portraying the variety of the spirit in Norman to try to make anything work, and is more than just supporting to Sir. I love his moments of that of course that is so filled with warmth, however he also delivers moments of tough love or just a man fed up with the other. Courtenay orchestrates that with such ease showing the many methods of the man, but also giving the sense of Norman's own suffering in all this. McKellen largely stays within the reflection of Sir. He's again good, but his Norman, though still not, feels supporting, where Courtenay we truly gather him as his own man even as we see him in the largely symbiotic relationship. Hopkins again thrives more so through his alternative depiction, this as we see him speaking to the less of the actor, there is less of an aggressive ego, and more so a genuine charisma in the man preparing his cast.  

Together they do display a fascinating relationship of co-dependence on one another, that leads to their final scene together. This scene is interesting because rather than coming together after their technical success, they instead drift different. Finney interestingly displays Sir's contentment with his ability and success in service of Shakespeare, but at the same time showing Sir has created his own world really almost ignoring Norman. Norman on the other hand seeks a little recognition trying to come closer, Courtenay shows an incredible earnestness in Norman for just to be noticed, than transitions perfectly from happiness when he thinks he has been to sadness when he quickly finds he has not been. Courtenay's performance is one I honestly cannot praise enough this as he so grants as sense of who Norman is, while also offering virtuoso entertainment of the work. This as he is entertaining and fun to see the man just barely pull it all together. We also see though the man's slow decay as well through the night of performance. This both just in terms of his man wasting away in his own way, and just the sense of a brewing betrayal of the man. This in granting the right shades of darkness within the spry man, while being so compelling in portraying that side of the man. Of course with Finney it seems like his Sir is so self-absorbed he has a relationship without anyone but himself, and those that are there it is with just a stroke of his own ego. Hopkins in turn again lets us into the man struggling with his ego, attempting to connect at least, but struggling to maintain what he believes is important. Again, I don't think either is inferior to the other they rather just offer different styles to the same character each with their own roles. 

Both of their performances are connected but they both have a few scenes where they do stand out without the other. Finney displays it when talking to a young woman who wishes to act, Finney does well in showing Sir's odd interrogation, seduction almost, and than more of just finding out how easy she was to pick up is well and believably handled and is a standout. Courtenay though has a few more though such as when he himself goes on stage briefly, and Courtenay is incredibly good in displaying Norman difficulty to stand out in front of the crowd, than his his need of wanting to know if he was able at something he feared to do, showing his complete naivety of on stage, despite being a virtuoso back stage. Courtenay's onstage scene though is something he makes a highlight. This in the gripped fear of his performance as he ease it out, and makes his mistake. The shyness of it that is comic highlight that we also see though the gripping nervousness of the back stage man trying to go up front. In turn again, McKellen is fine in just portraying a slight apprehension, but again Courtenay says so much about Norman in that moment. I especially love the little bit of attempted pride in asking if others noticed his muck up. In a similar idea I love the additional moment of admiring the handiwork of the stage in a local pub where a man in tears. Courtenay's reaction is perfection as we see what the man is granted from it. Also more remarkable, featured in both, is the storm creation. Courtenay showing how the man is putting all of himself in the moment, every bit he has of it, and the sheer jubilation as grants the storm. McKellen on the other-hand is a fine display of stage support, but no more. The stage side of the performances are quite different for Finney and Hopkins. Hopkins being the greater Shakespearean shows Sir to be as such as well, whereas Finney is such an extreme ham as the Sir onstage. This befitting the overall man's performance, however if I were to watch either man in a production of Lear, I'd likely rather see Hopkins's Sir than Finney's.

Where Finney's performance is technically quickly cut short Courtenay is granted the denouement. His final speech is fascinating, and brilliantly portrayed by Courtenay, as he finally shows Norman's compete vulnerability, and how much Sir really did mean to him. It is notable of course that that both men were Oscar nominated, while today the forces that be would push hard for Courtenay to be placed supporting, because "he's subservient" or some nonsense. Of course on that note, one of the awards the remake was nominated for best supporting actor for McKellen. I'll say though McKellen's performance also does defer more than he should, he's still a co-lead, but isn't nearly as dynamic in the proceedings. Part of the greatness of Courtenay's work is that he makes it perhaps even more so Norman's story, by showing the man existing through this relationship so brilliantly. This in every facet, both the life he gets from it, the struggle from it and the loss. I'll say looking over my original thoughts I did not give Courtenay enough justice to the outstanding work as he looks upon a dying Sir. This in first expressing the extreme horror, just as the alcohol has reached him, the first cry of just a pain of confusion and worry.  This turning to anger as Courtenay unleashes everything he ever would've said to Sir in a drunken messy rage, offering the intensity of years of having enough, but also sensing the pain of it wrapped within it. This is until finally his recognition that "I had a friend" where Courtenay expresses so poignantly in that anguish all that Sir did mean to him even within the frustration. McKellen's on the other hand just seems of a man slightly upset. His delivering of "I had a friend", almost as a "oh well", which couldn't be more underwhelming. The scene though shows the greatness of Courtenay's performance that creates such a powerful portrait of Norman's story that while "dressing" Sir, is never lost for a moment in the vivid detail he grants the man every second he's onscreen, while also just be absolutely magnetic every second he's onscreen. Courtenay simply is Norman, though being quite the departure from so many of his roles, he seemed as though he was born to play it. McKellen simply played the part. Now Finney and Hopkins though are both more than admirable in their very different approaches. Finney being a contemptible fool of a man raging at all as he moves towards the end of his suffering, and Hopkins being a flawed though likable thespian quietly going into the night. Neither definitive but both wholly worthwhile interpretations of Sir. The true star of the material itself though, was and always shall be Tom Courtenay.

(For Finney)

(For Courtenay)

Best Actor 1983: Robert Duvall in Tender Mercies

Robert Duvall won his Oscar from his fourth nomination for portraying Mac Sledge in Tender Mercies.

Tender Mercies is an incredibly quiet story about a has been country singer, and his finding of a new life in a rural town.

Mac Sledge makes this the third character so far that is a drunkard. Luckily he is only a drunkard for basically the first scene of the film, something that is sometimes forgotten by modern descriptions of this film. He only has one scene, off camera, where he is actually being an alcoholic, with his fighting for a bottle, but that is all just noise which does give an indication to what Mac Sledge has being doing for many years before his arrival to a rural gas station and motel run by a young widow and woman Rosa Lee (Tess Harper).

After this initial scene we finally see Duvall as Sledge, and he creates a just about perfect characterization of this ex-country star. It really is fascinating because this is a the type of performance where I really never felt I saw Robert Duvall, only ever Mac Sledge. He does not do this with any makeup or overt mannerisms, but rather with a quiet incredibly subtle performance. The voice Robert Duvall uses for Mac Sledge is perfect, because it is so incredibly natural. He does not all ever seem to force his accent, but rather this is how Mac Sledge talks, simple as that. The same is also true for his whole manner, and demeanor for Mac. It certainly is quite different from many of Duvall's other performances, particularly The Great Santini, it certainly is a distinct manner but one which is created with the utmost authenticity by Duvall, that does not feel like acting, but rather that it is just a real person.

Something that I find absolutely fascinating about this performance is the deep emotional range Robert Duvall displays as Mac. It is particularly fascinating because only raises his voice at the very beginning of the film, and briefly again later in the film. Duvall shows absolute emotional honesty through his entire performance, but through always going for a quiet subtle performance. This is one performance that is almost entirely through his eyes of Sledge, since his actual emotional outbursts are rare and short when they do occur.
It is not that his character is at all a repressed man, Duvall rather shows that Mac's way is naturally of quietness. It is outstanding though how emotionally effective some of the slightest, smallest facial expressions, and eye movements Duvall makes can be. A moment of anger and frustration Duvall internalizes brilliantly when he is told his song he has written is no good, Duvall channels Sledge's frustrations without fault, and always with pure realism.

More powerful than his moments of anger though are Mac's moments of happiness, or reflection of his life. Duvall creates the history of Mac Sledge through his eyes, his face, and manner, which I think are best shown in particular moments such as when he finally sees his daughter again in a long time. Duvall does not over express Sledge's happiness, but he makes it clear showing it in a deeper more true to life fashion. This minimalistic approach is amazing, because of how incredibly effective  it is, and it makes even some of the film that seems almost impossible on the page work. I think in particular Mac's love relationship with  Rosa Lee, they marry basically instantly even off screen, yet it seems entirely natural to the flow of the film, because Duvall shows Sledge's love for the moment not in broad strokes but in an understated and entirely truthful fashion.

One aspect of his performance that should be noted is his singing in the film. Duvall is indeed entirely believable as a singer, and makes Mac's past believable as well, but more importantly is his performance of the songs in the film. Duvall makes each of his songs powerful and honest not because of his fine singing, but because he shows the way Mac puts his heart and soul into his songs infuses his feelings with the songs turning them into one. Duvall performance punctuations every single moment of this effective film, with emotional honesty. He never strikes a single false note with Sledge, he is always completely on the mark, without every seeming to act, which is an outstanding achievement. This is a brilliant performance by Duvall, that never comprises for a cheap trick, but always stays true and honest to his character, creating one of the best performances of this kind or any kind.