Alternate Best Actor 1966: Eddie Axberg in Here is Your Life

Eddie Axberg did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Olof Persson in Here is Your Life.

Here is Your Life follows the life of a young man coming of age. Although perhaps longer than it needs to be, it once again features Jan Troell's great skill at making the seemingly mundane captivating, and at the very least is an impressive theatrically released feature film debut.

Eddie Axberg, who eventually played one of Troell's emigrants, here plays the lead of this story of a young man in Sweden. This as a working class young man trying to make his way on his own after having left his home. Axberg's character of Olof isn't one of extreme complexity, in the sense that the emphasis is on Olof being in many ways this average surrogate. He's not some young man who has an exceptional purpose or intent, for much of the film he's just trying to make his one through one job, one boss and one different event after another. Axberg's performance is one that very much exists within a natural state, and such a thing while not showy by any means shouldn't be entirely overlooked either. What Axberg does though is find the purpose within being just a naturally unassuming young man. This as there is definitely a danger to be just a purely a blank slate, but Axberg is a talented enough performer to do a little more. This is as his state is one that is strictly convincing. He convinces you of the existence of the young man and finds the right degree of nuance, even while maintaining the general sense of simplicity within the character's life. This in finding the right moments to really reflect what is going on around him.

This can be relatively straight forward such as just acting in a brief rage when being harassed by some men, or something subtle such as the brightness of his expression when he's in a moment of, what he believes to be, romance. Axberg's work very much accentuates the situation effectively. This bringing the sense of frustration in a moment of hardship, a bit of charm in moment, or just sort of the sense of enjoyment of life when frolicking in the countryside. This is a minor aspect of potential revolutionary thoughts in Olof. This is more attuned to those around him than Olof himself. Axberg plays these moments well in portraying in his eyes the sense of interest in the words of revolutionary thought, however even in this he is the one who reacts more than acts or speaks these thoughts. This is all intended within the film that works in just basically showing this coming of age, in a seemingly simplistic, yet thanks to Troell's touches, effective portrayal of this young man's life. There isn't some great upheaval just life, and Axberg's performance is a reflection of this. His work isn't really able to go beyond a certain point, however within the limits of Olof as just a normal guy, living a mostly normal life, he's good. He brings life to Olof, and even as just a typical quiet person, he importantly still grants the right sense of individuality, and understanding of his experience.

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.

Rest in Peace Ennio Morricone

We lost today not one of the greatest film composers of all time, but I would simply say the greatest film composer. Morricone's work was part of what marked the transition towards more dynamic scores that would be intertwined with specific moments within scenes, while also offering amplification of the general feeling or emotion of a film. His work was never simplified into a specific era rather he managed to transition from each decade naturally, both in new compositions from himself and recognition of his greatness through repeated use of his unforgettable themes. As with any great composer there was a distinct quality within his work, when one hears so many of his greatest tunes one instantly knows they're listening to Morricone,. The range within that itself though was tremendous and able to explore so much. Although notable is that when called upon it Morricone could cloak his approach to find variations showing there may have been no limit within his ability. Morricone's music on its own is enough to elicit such a striking range of feeling and emotion, intertwined within cinema though he enabled to achieve some of the greatest heights within cinema.

Whether this be epic:

Fun:

Inspirational:

Silly:

Romantic:

Horror:

Melancholy:

Or maybe just transcendence:

And that is only scratching the surface of the many gifts left by this master of an indispensable cinematic art form that stands on its own.

Alternate Best Actor 1966: Anatoly Solonitsyn in Andrei Rublev

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

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

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

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

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 Supporting Actor 2014: Results

10. John Cusack in Map to the Stars - Cusack might actually play his part too low key as he isn't able to overcome the weaknesses of his film.

Best Scene: Reaction to the fire.

9. Sam Claflin in Riot Club - Claflin is properly despicable but not much more than that.

Best Scene: Club at its worst.

8. Chris Pine Stretch in Pine is a whole lot of something, not quite sure what, but it is definitely something worth seeing.

Best Scene: Ending.

7. Irrfan Khan in Haider - Khan brings the right haunting quality and delivers the right impact in his brief screentime.

Best Scene: What happened.

6. Ricardo Darin in Wild Tales - Darin depicts an appropriate mental descent from dealing with the insanity of bureaucracy.

Best Scene: Losing it.

5. Taika Waititi in What We Do in the Shadows - Waititi gives an amusing performance by always being just so genteel as his vampire.

Best Scene: Wearing the pendant.

4. Michael Parks in Tusk - Parks is a far greater than his terrible film in his properly deranged turn as a walrus aficionado. 

Best Scene: Doesn't need a wheelchair.

3. Damián Alcázar in The Perfect Dictatorship - He manages to be both hilarious and menacing as a politician who in no way hides the shame of his corruption.

Best Scene: Threatening "suicide".

2. Matthias Schoenaerts in The Drop - Schoenaerts gives a terrific portrayal of a wannabe threat in more ways than one.

Best Scene: "I killed Richie Wheeling"

1. Shia LaBeouf in Fury - Good predictions Anonymous, Robert, Tim, Maciej, and Emi Grant.  LaBeouf delivers a performance worthy of a great war film. He's in Fury, but nonetheless LaBeouf gives it his all as a man scarred by war.

Best Scene: "Send me"

Updated Overall

Next: 1966 lead.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2014: John Cusack in Maps to the Stars

John Cusack did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Stafford Weiss in Maps to the Stars.

Maps to the Stars is a bad David Cronenberg movie that wishes to be an abrasive satire about Hollywood. One is better off just re-watching Mulholland Drive instead, what a great film.

Anyways watching this bad (mostly, I do like Robert Pattinson and Mia Wasikowska in it) David Cronenberg film it got me wondering why do some of his films work so well, and some don't work at all. This definitely falls into the latter category, but I had to examine why. I think arrived to the why pretty easily though. Great to good Cronenberg is when he's making films about real people in strange situations, his bad films are just about strange people. Obviously a man turning into a Fly isn't realistic, but Cronenberg cares about Seth Brundle in that film, and part of the greatness of that film lies within that approach. The only argument against my thesis here may be Dead Ringers, however I'd argue as strange as the Mantle twins are, the emotions they're going through, the way their going through them is depicted with an honest humanity. When he lets his characters be strange entirely his films tend to fall off the rails. Anyways Maps is perpetuated largely with extreme Hollywood types, in which Cronenberg seems to hold very little sympathy, and in turn the film almost seems to become a zoological exercise "look how weird and shallow they are". Speaking of we have John Cusack as Stafford Weiss a Hollywood self-help guru.

I suppose this isn't quite the ideal review to first start with John Cusack, better known as a young leading man of the 80's and 90's, who, much like the academy, I've yet to encounter in all this time of my endeavor here, until now. I say it's not quite ideal as this isn't within his more typical wheelhouse in the strange world of Cronenberg's creatures. Cusack I'm not sure is ideal for this role either off the outset in that he doesn't really have the "look" or presence of the life style guru type. Cusack's vibe is typically more casual even down to earth, so theoretically Cusack should be working against that. We see him early on as he's treating Julianne Moore's neurotic Havana Segrand, and honestly, in a weird way, Cusack's probably the role where going a little broader probably could've been warranted, however he doesn't take this approach. Cusack sort of plays it as this soft speaker of reassurances to his client. These spoken with a thin sincerity in enough for the client yet Cusack grants no real passion within himself as he speaks the words to her. He does his job though in the most limited possible way. There's more to Weiss as he's also the father to a young child star Benjie (Evan Bird). We have a scene where he speaks to his son as sort of an interrogation put forth as a father son heart to heart. Cusack brings the same sort of emphasis on the lack of sincerity though there is a sense of a minor concern within his eyes, not really so much for his son rather his position. Complications ensue more when his daughter Agatha (Mia Wasikowska), who formerly started a fire that endangered the family, comes back to town from a mental institution. Cusack's scene with Wasikowska, has I think potential, but it doesn't quite work. Again, strangely enough, I think Cusack downplays it too much, this in the scene is kind of Stafford being the guru and "loving father"while threatening his daughter to make her go away. Cusack I suppose at least gets this across, but his rather just cold way of playing it makes it a tepid scene. Although again this may be a problem with Cronenberg in general who struggles with comedy, and in turn his actors often do too, unless you're William Hurt...oddly enough. Cusack's scenes honestly just don't work in general, he's just part of that clock that's broken. Cusack eventually breaks that zen state, although even then his zen state wasn't that refined so the break doesn't have that much impact, when he starts yelling about the state of disrepair of his family. Frankly his best scene is at the very end of the film just for the decently realistic reaction to seeing someone on fire (in a scene that otherwise has to be one of the most atrocious scenes from a filmmaker capable of greatness that I've seen due to CGI fire that needs to be seen to be believed). Cusack isn't the worst part of this film, but he doesn't overcome its weaknesses in the least. He's not ideally cast, he doesn't overcome that, and this is just a largely unsuccessful performance from him.