Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1968: Tom Courtenay in A Dandy in Aspic

Tom Courtenay did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Gatiss in A Dandy in Aspic.

A Dandy in Aspic is a spy thriller about a British agent, Eberlin (Laurence Harvey) being tasked to find a Russian spy among their ranks the problem is he is the Russian spy. The film suffers from what seems to be a central conceit to show a contrast between the inhuman loyal British agent against the supposedly sympathetic fake British agent, this is problematic when you cast the man best known for playing a robotized assassin as the "good" one, and an amazing actor as the "bad" one.

The role of Gatiss is an interesting change of pace for Tom Courtenay who usually played more sympathetic roles, even in Doctor Zhivago we learned how his Pasha became so cruel and bent. Gatiss's role is made clear from his first appearance where he is lurking in the shadows of a firing range. Gatiss is set up to be essentially the villain of the film, even though technically in most Cold war thrillers he's doing the hero's work. Courtenay is such a great actor though that he doesn't appear to have any intentions to simplify Gatiss at any point, even if perhaps the film would like him to at times. Courtenay knows though how to create such fascinating characters though, and use what is given to him and build upon that. There is something already intriguing about his shady operative, but they decide to go further in making him distinctive by giving him a strange looking cane he always has with him. The cane that does not help him walk, but rather is his secret weapon of choice. That idea that not even his walking stick can be trusted is within Courtenay's performance, though what Courtenay is doing is creating this man defined by the duplicitous world he lives in, but to be fair the end result of Gatiss's mission is noble.

Courtenay's performance, as usual particularly for his stellar 60's run, is incredibly gripping. Courtenay's physical manner has this certain tightness about him at all times, there is an exactness in any way he stands or even speaks to someone. Courtenay uses this to show the way Gatiss's lack of trust even in his body language. Courtenay portrays the man carefully never getting too close, and even when he does his cane seems always ready for its true purpose. Courtenay does not waste an ounce of himself though as in his eyes there is such an incisiveness as though is he constantly analyzing whoever or whatever is in front of him. There is no moment of rest that Courtenay portrays and reflects this in the restrictive nature of his manner which he reveals as the conditioned state of the man to always keep his distance. Courtenay actually approaches his work similair to the way Gary Oldman would later play spy master George Smiley in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Courtenay though gives it a very specific inspiration in that instead of portraying the man as someone who hides his emotions, he instead depicts him as a man who covers it all up by instead always having such a negative view about all around him as a further defense mechanism needed for his line of work.

Courtenay is terrific as he oozes such palatable disdain for everyone and everything around him. Courtenay infuses such venom into every delivery as he shows the man who indeed seems to hate everyone, and everything. Courtenay never overplays this though and does not use this to just make Gatiss an obvious villain, which seems the film's intention. Now Courtenay acting as such a contemptible sort is compelling to watch in itself, but that is not all there is to his performance. Again Courtenay plays a certain game in this in suggesting that there is perhaps more to Gatiss than the hateful man he presents. This is partially in the way Courtenay always presents the hate with this certain control suggesting that Gatiss uses it for a purpose. He always keeps a certain obsession with his task always as part of his disdain for all things. There is an even more pivotal moment where we see Gatiss gather Eberlin from a hotel room with his love interest, a photographer Caroline (Mia Farrow). Courtenay is brilliant in the scene as in a brief reaction he reveals a certain pain in witnessing Caroline's affections for Eberlin, seeming to suggest Gatiss's frustrations in seeing something he does not allow himself to have. Gatiss does leave a final comment to Caroline that is at the expense of both her and Eberline, but the same venom is not in Courtenay's delivery. He eases it to convey just the slightest hint of empathy that the man usually destroys within himself. He steals the film completely and really the film should have just been from his perspective. Courtenay goes beyond the call of his duty to create a complex portrait of this spy, when it seems the film would have settled for a one note fiend.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1968: Trevor Howard in The Charge of the Light Brigade

Trevor Howard did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a BAFTA, for portraying Lord Cardigan in The Charge of the Light Brigade.

The Charge of the Light Brigade depicts the titular event during the Crimean war, unlike the original film that bared the title this one takes a harsh look at the British military. It's a film where the effort to make a great film seems apparent, but never is it successful in becoming one even for a single scene.

Trevor Howard plays the pivotal role of Lord Cardigan who lead the titular charge that led many British soldiers to their deaths, but without any actual ground gained on the battlefield. The film acts as a build up towards the titular event where we meet the unit and the various personalities in the battalion. The unit includes the somewhat rebellious yet seemingly heroic Captain Nolan (David Hemmings), the amiable yet ineffective leader Lord Raglan (John Gielgud), and Howard's Cardigan. Howard's a natural fit for the character who is a brash and bold leader which is a quality Howard is obviously quite capable in realizing. Howard's performance is fairly broad in his approach but it does make sense for the role of Cardigan. After all Cardigan is a man who in the film, and in real life, demanded punishment for bringing a black bottled wine, to a champagne only dinner. Howard's work makes sense of this insane sort of mentality as he gives the part this innate intensity fitting to such a man. Howard always keeps Cardigan with underlying strictness to the idea of soldering.

Howard's approach is rather clever though in that he shows this idea to be very egocentric as it is to Lord Cardigan. In that Howard always gives himself this stiff manner always in his physical portrayal particularly in his rather tight jaw throughout, along with delivery that is most often this very exact bark as though he is always giving orders even when he is not. Howard does not present this as a man being a great soldier though instead he presents it as a man very much abusing his power as a commanding officer, in that he shows a man so caught up in himself that he only cares about the soldiers in the context that they do not reason why they just do or die. Howard in his approach effectively creates the internal logic in the man that manages to realize the mindset behind such a man who would hound one of his men merely for not for drinking what he's drinking. Howard in that intensity presents the weakness and sensitivity in a way, since Howard shows with a man so wound up that the outrage just seems to come so naturally.

Now this is a film where you can tell it was cut up by studio mandates as there are scenes that indicate subplots that either having been started or are not properly resolved. It makes for a messy film, though it does give us a scene where Howard gets to play more with Lord Cardigan. That is a moment, a historically inaccurate one, where Cardigan goes about having an affair with the wife of one of his fellow officers. Howard makes the most of it by portraying the awkwardness of the career soldier in the scene, as he portrays it with all the needed vigor but in a most improper way. Howard again maintains Cardigan as always the officer and treats the woman less as a woman, and more a horse he's breaking in. Now that scene seems somewhat arbitrarily thrown in but at the very least Howard thrives with Cardigan in different circumstances. That scene though is just a moment before leading to the titular event, which is a strangely muted scene for the most part, and does not deliver the impact it should, like say maybe the ending of Gallipoli does. One can barely sense the climax as it occurs. Howard is consistently good even in the ending though and stays with the terrible man that he has set up Cardigan as even through the charge. In that he still shows the man staying true to who he has always been. When the time comes to name the blame Howard gives just the right bit of final bluster to a man who has learned absolutely nothing from his experiences or from the deaths of his men, adding actually the right bit of cruelty to it all. This is a good performance, in fact most of the performances in the film are good, though it's a shame it is part of a film that almost wastes the great potential of the story.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1968: Klaus Kinski in The Great SIlence

Klaus Kinski did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Loco in The Great Silence.

In this film we are unfortunately not granted the proper Kinski vicious growl in his voice, being overdubbed as per usual for a spaghetti western. Luckily Kinski is not exactly an actor who struggles to speak without his voice. Kinski here plays the lead villain for the film, the evil bounty hunter that stands against Jean-Louis Trintignant's Silent bounty hunter named Silence who only kills in self-defense. Kinski's Loco on the other hand kills without much reservation at all. This is actually a rather interesting performance for Kinski, given it's Kinski and he's playing a character called Loco. Kinski actually takes a pretty low key approach to Loco never delving into his sort of madness found in so many of his performances. Even with the name of the character though Kinski's approach absolutely makes sense for the character given that Silence's greatest challenge in attempting to defeat Loco is that Loco knows Silence's methods, so Loco's plan is to merely avoid ever picking an even handed gunfight with the man.

Kinski makes for a good villain here in that he actually also downplays even the villainy in his performance, as even in his method of killing Kinski portrays this certain ease in Loco's behavior. An ease of a man not of some sort of sociopath indifference but rather that of man just doing his job the easiest way he knows how to. Kinski's portrayal emphasizes the idea almost as a man who has sort of figured out the way to manage the old west, and that is to take things as they come. Kinski's performance actually is a little oddly endearing in a way because of how honestly he presents Loco's behavior as a bounty hunter. When he collects the men he kills, he portrays no sadism in it, in fact his portrayal would actually almost be acceptable as a hero in another western as long as all those he killed were criminals. Kinski never plays Loco as an exact villain in his manner and his facial expressions are always of technically what would just be a cool customer nor more no less. Even in one of his worst actions, where he kills a woman, Kinski does show such earnest emphasis as he clears the killing as self defense since the woman did try to shoot him. Kinski is actually even rather humorous in his interactions with Trintignant's Silence by portraying such curiosity in his reactions, showing Loco's method to analyze rather than get emotional over the man trying to kill him. What Kinski's performance does so effectively is suggest why Loco's should be the one who wins over the day since he offers such a calm and carefully collected man throughout the film. Kinski gives a strong performance that offers a striking presence be presenting one man in the film he seems to be able to take everything in stride. 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1968

And the Nominees Were Not:

Ian Holm in Bofors Gun

Trevor Howard in The Charge of the Light Brigade

Tony Curtis in The Boston Strangler

Tom Courtenay in A Dandy In Aspic 

Klaus Kinski in The Great Silence

Alternate Best Actor 1968: Results

10. Vincent Price - Witchfinder General - Price gives an interesting performance attempting to bring complexity to his morally compromised inquisitor, unfortunately the film decides to use him just as a one note villain.

Best Scene: Being convinced to give a reprieve.

9. Jean-Louis Trintignant in The Great Silence - Trintignant gives a good performance as he brings the steely gaze needed for his swift killer, along with a bit of pathos within his silence alluding to his motivations though he is a tad overshadowed by his more maniacal co-star.

 Best Scene: Silence remembers.

8. Malcolm McDowell in If.... in McDowell gives a good performance as he portrays the gradual breakdown of a student into essentially a psychopath even though if it might feel like a warm up to his more renowned turn as a juvenile killer.  

Best Scene: Killing spree

7. Burt Lancaster in The Scalphunters - Lancaster gives an enjoyable turn portraying the right comical frustrations within his more typical western hero, along with striking the right endearing chemistry with his co-star.

Best Scene: The final fight.

6. Lee Marvin in Hell in the Pacific - Marvin gives a memorable one man show as a man slowly losing his mind as well as a memorable two man show in realizing a most unique yet believable chemistry with Toshiro Mifune.

Best Scene: The curious showdown. 

5. Ossie Davis in The Scalphunters - Davis gives a very entertaining portrayal of his outgoing yet quietly cunning character, and again has great chemistry with his co-star Lancaster.

Best Scene: The final fight. 

4. Toshiro Mifune in Hell in the Pacific - Shares his scenes so well with Marvin, as well as stands out well with his own one man show as the refined soldier struggling through his ordeal.

Best Scene: Finding the magazine.

3. Max von Sydow in Shame - von Sydow as per usual creates such a convincing relationship with Liv Ullmann which is especially pivotal here as the two together offer such a natural and harrowing depiction of a married couple dealing with and being changed by war.

Best Scene: Killing a man.

2. Charles Bronson in Once Upon a Time in the West - Bronson more than fulfills the role of the badass gunslinger, he goes further though creating such an endearing and humorous chemistry with his co-star Jason Robards, then goes even further in offering such an underlying emotional poignancy to the film through his performance. 

Best Scene: The final duel.

1. Burt Lancaster in The Swimmer - This one for the overall came down two rather different performances though by both masterful in their separate intentions. Bronson being such a brilliant minimalist performance, and Lancaster being such a brilliant expressive tour de force. Both have their unique challenges and match every one of them. Lancaster's task is different. Bronson is an essential part to an amazing film. Lancaster though is the factor that makes his film work at all offering a reality and heartbreaking humanity to such a surreal concept. Once Upon a Time in the West would have probably still have been great with a lesser lead, but not as great. The Swimmer would probably have been a failure without what Lancaster does. Even with that somewhat flimsy reasoning though this is still sort of a toss up as I love both performances, but I have to choose one.

Best Scene: "This is my wagon"

Updated Overall

Next Year: 1968 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 1968: Malcolm McDowell in If....

Malcolm McDowell did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Michael Anderson "Mick" Travis in If....

If.... depicts the slow rise of a violent revolution but it is all based within a single English public school.

The film follows those discriminated being the under class men and those just considered undesirably by the elite students, which is ignored, encouraged, or also ignited by the staff. Malcolm McDowell plays "a" student in the school Mick Travis a role he would technically reprise in O Lucky Man and Britannia Hospital. I write technically because the character is only in name only. All three films are directed by Lindsay Anderson but the character is used to serve a purpose rather than being the story of a single man over three films. The latter two films are more alike, and would make more sense to be examined together. This film is set aside a bit more in that even though this film does have a surreal bent it is less extreme or at the very least less comical in nature than those films. This once stands more alone particularly due to the nature of Mick Travis in this film along with McDowell's portrayal of him, which is actually more limited than you'd expect. For much of the film his character is almost depicted as just one of the characters in the story, not necessarily given a greater importance. Early on we see him only as the student most likely to be different, arriving initially in the school sporting a ridiculous mustache.

For much of the film we are only given snippets of McDowell as Travis as the film focuses on several of the various other characters within the school, Travis is just one of them. When it cuts back to Travis McDowell portrays him generally with this general sort of discontent as though he is annoyed by the atmosphere around him and his main focus is that of finding some way in order to alleviate the problem. In these moments one thing does become obvious which is why Stanley Kubrick cast McDowell as Alex DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange based on his performance in this film. In many ways his performance as Mick here feels a bit of warm up to playing Alex later on. In both films he plays rather atypical school boys though in this case he begins as a far less psychotic sort as McDowell very much stay fairly low key particularly early on where he is almost a supporting player. McDowell there is instead sort of personifies the discontent in the school through his portrayal of Mick's own behavior which slowly changes due to the increasing cruel behavior of the staff and some of his fellow students.

McDowell's performance realizes the gradual growing discontent in Travis as the film continues, though this is fairly minor arc since McDowell from the start shows Travis is already unhappy with his surroundings. What McDowell instead portrays the change as almost this loss of humor towards the abuse in a way. McDowell in the early scenes, and for much of the film portrays this cheeky comic sensibility in his reactions to his "oppressors" in the earlier moments which he also attaches to his initial rebellions which usually make up of basically pranks or fairly mild indiscretions. McDowell engages a sense of fun in that behavior early on as though Mick is not technically taking it overly seriously, in each reprimand though McDowell portrays a more severe reaction along with a growing intensity that makes Mick's transitions to more intense rebellious acts fairly natural. Now though most of his performance is attached to that arc there is the occasional pseudo reprieve of sorts such as when Mick goes out riding a motorcycle to a cafe where he meets a girl, named the girl. What follows is a surreal sequence which McDowell does well enough with in just being part of it in that he brings that certain physically mad energy in his performance that works well within that style. Much of the film though is just gradually portraying Travis sinking to the breaking point but the breaking point is a surreal affair. It's an insane bit at the end though to McDowell credit he does make the progression natural to a certain degree though not all the way. The breaking point though still is a jump further but again that goes in line with the way it is depicted to begin with. The rebellion is ridiculous as it goes from a prank to fully automated machine gun firing into a crowd with Mick as the leader of the murderous students. This final moment as it stands alone is a highlight for McDowell as we see him go full Alex DeLarge, as he brings that same chilling glee as he commits such a violent act. It's a memorable moment and it works well enough in terms of the character mainly due to the film embracing the surreal insanity all the more by the end. Where McDowell in that later film both acted as the humanity of the film, and thrived within its insanity, that's not quite the case here. He doesn't stand out in the same way, and not just due to screentime. He's occasionally engulfed by the film rather standing fully on his own as he does not master the tone in the same way. The character of Mick sometimes feels compromised which is never the case as Alex. It's a good performance, certainly a strong debut, but in the end it does feel but a warm up to his most iconic role.

Alternate Best Actor 1968: Max von Sydow in Shame

Max von Sydow did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jan Rosenberg in Shame.

Shame is an excellent film that follows a couple through a war torn country.

The film follows Max von Sydow as Jan with his wife Eva naturally played by Liv Ullmann. The two seemed as though they specialized in playing married couples in a few years also doing so in Ingmar Bergman's other film from 1968 Hour of the Wolf, and later on in The Emigrants and its sequel The New Land. The reason for this seems rather obvious when watching the two together as they have such an authentic chemistry with one another. A chemistry that quite honestly covers whatever part of a married relationship they may need to be in. This is particularly essential in Shame since the two almost share all their scenes together and their relationship is rather symbiotic here. The film actually begins in an unassuming enough fashion as the two just go about what seems a normal day though in the normal day we do see what makes them who they are as a married couple. von Sydow and Ullmann have that ease in each other presence that offers the years together. The two though are equally effective though in sort of portraying the same ease in conflict as when they fight over their past difficulties that too feels so natural and so a part of what they've done to each other over the years such as Jan's infidelities in the past. The two though so elegantly create that rich history as they never define the relationship only on a single facet of their lives.

Their convincing portrayal of the married couple is essential to the film as the two together lead us through their experience through the war, which is depicted here in a unique fashion. The war never exactly happens, we see the military uniforms, the trucks, but it seems almost in the background until the other army begins to show up. This happens without warning with Jan and Eva finding themselves in the middle of it all. The two of them are excellent together in portraying the needed visceral intensity of the moments really as the film takes such a barrage of them which von Sydow and Ullmann have to stay with. Both actors capture the rapid fire confusion in the moment as they reveal the struggle just to keep up what is happening, portraying actually the fear with the lack of comprehension reinforcing the dire nature of the situation. One particularly effective moment in this is when they are suddenly approached by a propaganda crew for a interview and von Sydow and Ullman convey the complete loss of sense in their eyes and delivery as the barely know what is going on. Both are terrific in how natural they in revealing how unnatural the situation is. They are both just two normal people there not soldiers.

I love their physical performances in these scenes as the two of them show so well the two grip one another attempting to hold onto to each other for any source of solace and in the most harrowing moments reveal a particular striking connection than was not nearly evident during peacetime, hidden usually by their various squabbles. The two do not cheat the idea or show that this in anyway truly improves their relationship by any measure. What they instead show is the way the two basically come closer together the more dire the situation given that in their embrace the two show them searching for any comfort in the arms of each other. The two though reveal the desperation in this in that they do not always reveal any success in this act, only the attempt for it and to hold onto something throughout their trials. Again what is so remarkable about this is just how natural the two are together and make every scene have all the greater impact due to that. They pull the viewer right into their struggle as there never feels a hint of acting within either of their performances that offers such a strict authenticity in every scene. The create the needed focal point within every new purposefully random thing that comes from the war.

Now where their performances separate most strongly is within the portrayal of how each of them are changed as individuals through their experiences. von Sydow so effectively keeps Jan an average man in his situation, an average man who isn't quite a coward but also just wants to survive. There is nothing early on duplicitous in this whatsoever through the  genuine fear and confusion he portrays that almost overwhelms the man. This changes though when they are offered some reprieve by an official of one of their armies unfortunately the official requires sexual favors in return. von Sydow is heartbreaking in his depiction of the moment where the implications of this seem to finally dawn on him. The object grief he reveals is palatable as he so quietly just brings to life such earnest devastation in the man. A devastation that is not alleviated by Eva's cold reaction to his sorrow. This soon leads to the other army gaining favor again where they encourage Jan to execute the official. von Sydow is brilliant in the scene as his performances captures such an awkwardness in the moment of a sort of vengeance. He shows the anger within it but also the hesitations of a man who is not a killer. There is something so broken in his performance that fits so well to the average man doing something he should never had to do. The change to the harder man is not a simple transition but rather von Sydow makes it a horrible mess as it should be for a man like Jan. It seems he kills again and von Sydow makes sense of that because of this approach. von Sydow reveals a man on a edge that he barely even understands revealing just this impulsive reactions from moment to moment presenting someone trying to find a way past his breaking point. When Jan in finding his "escape" even suggests Eva need not come, von Sydow makes the brutality in the statement honest by showing it to come from the detached state for survival Jan has fallen into. von Sydow shows the narrow view of the man just looking for any way to depart from his troubles. Their return as a couple at the end is muted and haunting moment as Ullmann and von Sydow leave on the two with each other but lost in the turmoil of their experiences.