John Randolph in Seconds
Will Geer in Seconds
Murray Hamilton in Seconds
Paul Meurisse in Le Deuxième Souffle
Donald Pleasence in Fantastic Voyage
Monday, 20 July 2020
Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1966
John Randolph in Seconds
Will Geer in Seconds
Murray Hamilton in Seconds
Paul Meurisse in Le Deuxième Souffle
Donald Pleasence in Fantastic Voyage
Alternate Best Actor 1966: Results
Best Scene: Date.
Best Scene: After the bell rings.
Best Scene: Trying to assassinate someone.
Best Scene: Final breakdown.
Best Scene: Hunger.
Next: 1966 Supporting
Alternate Best Actor 1966: David Warner in Morgan - A Suitable Case For Treatment
David Warner did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a BAFTA, for portraying the Morgan Delt in Morgan - A Suitable Case For Treatment.
Morgan - A Suitable Case for treatment fits within the English comedies of the time which typically were particularly chaotic, often to a fault, satires. Here we have a less than okay one about a failed artist dealing with his wife (Vanessa Redgrave)'s affair, sorta
David Warner takes on his first leading role here as the titular character. This being a different performance for him in many ways, as Warner is typically best known for his rather controlled individuals, even when playing evil men, they are more often of the calm and collected sort. David Warner though plays a man who is a suitable case for treatment after all, so it is fair to say that mentally he isn't all there. Warner's performance is pure madness here, that isn't helped by Morgan's situation where his wife is sleeping with his former best friend. What doesn't help matters though is she seems as bonkers as he is, just a little more low key about it, but in turn entirely encourages the madness of Morgan as he attempts to win her back. This is not some traditional endeavor though because Morgan isn't a normal man. Warner's performance is remarkable just in the overall setup of this as he has a ferocity in his energy, as he brings his typical intensity here but externalizes it more. This as he succeeds in creating a less controlled individual where there is a manic quality in his manner, particularly that of the physical. At the same time though he does have that Warner sort of power within his performance that does create the best moments in the film. This being in the manner in which he tries to kill his former best friend, and in these moments Warner is hilarious. This with what is best described as casual intensity Warner brings as he threatens the man while also maintaining a certain courtesy about it.
There are some enjoyable bits just through Warner's off-beat delivering that combines his typical presence though in a more unwieldy sense. Warner though also does offer a touch of depth within his moments with Redgrave. This as much as he still makes Morgan a raving lunatic who seems both pent up with lust and range, there is a minor sense within his expressions a more earnest need or concern for his wife. This though is randomly interspersed with the eccentricities of the character, that frankly feels a bit over written and under written in the same measure. This as we get that he has some strange ideas of communism, not as a believer of the views but just that he holds himself attached to the figures therein. This really doesn't add up to much other than acting as a fodder for in which Morgan can rave about. Enjoyable ravings in Warner's performance, but not much more than that. We also have his animal obsession than naturally, or maybe not so naturally, eventually leads Morgan to wear a gorilla suit while trying to foil his wife's remarriage. Again Warner is more than up to the task in terms of granting the idea something in his own performance. His physical manner, which often takes upon a simian like manner, is well drawn, and again creates the madness of Morgan in at least an entertaining way through his own work. Here is the problem with this film, which I guess I probably had a bit less patience for after watching a similarly styled Lord Love a Duck, as it like that film it introduces general ideas but really lets itself be just a chaotic mess with thinking that the mere introduction of an idea is enough. It isn't enough this as the film gets repetitive quickly because it doesn't grow or examine its ideas as bits, and the bits themselves end up losing their oomph after awhile because they don't change. We really don't get to explore Morgan beyond a comic idea, those eccentricities really don't have any real depth to them, and seem almost created as an illusion of depth. This as the film seems to suggest one can satirizes a communist radical by merely having the words, but it doesn't do anything with it of note. This leaves the talented David Warner to effectively create the setup for the character, and even thrive enough within the repetitious nature of the film. It sadly though loses its momentum by never reinventing itself and only getting more indulgent as the film proceeds. I wish the film really let Warner do anything with the part, but it is content in thinking a generalized off-beat weirdness will carry itself. This leaving a film that isn't funny enough to be so surface thin in its satire. Warner is good in showing a different side of his talent as a performer. Although even this is troubled as the film doesn't even filter his performance properly, as Redgrave is in a way underused, and the film fails to create a proper straight man dynamic against Warner. He's just kind of there to try to make scenes work, notable then that he doesn't entirely fail. I just wish the film had either given him better comic setups throughout or actually progressed its story in some insightful way.
David Warner takes on his first leading role here as the titular character. This being a different performance for him in many ways, as Warner is typically best known for his rather controlled individuals, even when playing evil men, they are more often of the calm and collected sort. David Warner though plays a man who is a suitable case for treatment after all, so it is fair to say that mentally he isn't all there. Warner's performance is pure madness here, that isn't helped by Morgan's situation where his wife is sleeping with his former best friend. What doesn't help matters though is she seems as bonkers as he is, just a little more low key about it, but in turn entirely encourages the madness of Morgan as he attempts to win her back. This is not some traditional endeavor though because Morgan isn't a normal man. Warner's performance is remarkable just in the overall setup of this as he has a ferocity in his energy, as he brings his typical intensity here but externalizes it more. This as he succeeds in creating a less controlled individual where there is a manic quality in his manner, particularly that of the physical. At the same time though he does have that Warner sort of power within his performance that does create the best moments in the film. This being in the manner in which he tries to kill his former best friend, and in these moments Warner is hilarious. This with what is best described as casual intensity Warner brings as he threatens the man while also maintaining a certain courtesy about it.
There are some enjoyable bits just through Warner's off-beat delivering that combines his typical presence though in a more unwieldy sense. Warner though also does offer a touch of depth within his moments with Redgrave. This as much as he still makes Morgan a raving lunatic who seems both pent up with lust and range, there is a minor sense within his expressions a more earnest need or concern for his wife. This though is randomly interspersed with the eccentricities of the character, that frankly feels a bit over written and under written in the same measure. This as we get that he has some strange ideas of communism, not as a believer of the views but just that he holds himself attached to the figures therein. This really doesn't add up to much other than acting as a fodder for in which Morgan can rave about. Enjoyable ravings in Warner's performance, but not much more than that. We also have his animal obsession than naturally, or maybe not so naturally, eventually leads Morgan to wear a gorilla suit while trying to foil his wife's remarriage. Again Warner is more than up to the task in terms of granting the idea something in his own performance. His physical manner, which often takes upon a simian like manner, is well drawn, and again creates the madness of Morgan in at least an entertaining way through his own work. Here is the problem with this film, which I guess I probably had a bit less patience for after watching a similarly styled Lord Love a Duck, as it like that film it introduces general ideas but really lets itself be just a chaotic mess with thinking that the mere introduction of an idea is enough. It isn't enough this as the film gets repetitive quickly because it doesn't grow or examine its ideas as bits, and the bits themselves end up losing their oomph after awhile because they don't change. We really don't get to explore Morgan beyond a comic idea, those eccentricities really don't have any real depth to them, and seem almost created as an illusion of depth. This as the film seems to suggest one can satirizes a communist radical by merely having the words, but it doesn't do anything with it of note. This leaves the talented David Warner to effectively create the setup for the character, and even thrive enough within the repetitious nature of the film. It sadly though loses its momentum by never reinventing itself and only getting more indulgent as the film proceeds. I wish the film really let Warner do anything with the part, but it is content in thinking a generalized off-beat weirdness will carry itself. This leaving a film that isn't funny enough to be so surface thin in its satire. Warner is good in showing a different side of his talent as a performer. Although even this is troubled as the film doesn't even filter his performance properly, as Redgrave is in a way underused, and the film fails to create a proper straight man dynamic against Warner. He's just kind of there to try to make scenes work, notable then that he doesn't entirely fail. I just wish the film had either given him better comic setups throughout or actually progressed its story in some insightful way.
Thursday, 16 July 2020
Alternate Best Actor 1966: Per Oscarsson in Hunger
Per Oscarsson did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning Cannes and NSFC, for portraying Pontus in Hunger
Hunger depicts a penniless writer wandering the streets of a city.
The nature of the story from the cursory glance suggests that Per Oscarsson's work could be one of that of quiet soul bearing, of a poor man. Well that's not at all the case, in fact if there was a performance I'd compare this to most swiftly would be Charlie Chaplin as the tramp. This is not just as both characters often wander streets in their existence, but rather the entirety of Oscarsson's work carries with it a similar energy. Now this isn't a silent film, nor is this a comedy, Oscarsson's performance though is one where he carries himself in a unique manner that crafts that idea of his Pontus, more than the average homeless man. This is rather Oscarsson's work crafts him as an eccentric within this situation, and in doing so makes this likely a far more captivating experience. This is strongly within Oscarsson's physicality within the role, which is simply wonderful. The way he even walks is with this near directionless. This as though even when he's walking in a straight line, it isn't quite assured fitting for a man who in many ways is aimless, or at least looking for the right path. This is brilliantly built within though his overall demeanor that attempts this type of erudite, as though he is a philosopher within this situation of his. Oscarsson keeping this not quite proper, yet very specifically measured manner. This with his frequent courteous removal of his hat that he uses as essentially a running gag through the frequency, and often questionable use. Oscarsson though presenting within that, even as it is enjoyable, also shows Pontus as in a sort of, well note quite denial, though in part an avoidance of his situation.
Oscarsson's performance I think is essential within the success of the film as without it I think it would be inescapable dourness, however Oscarsson portraying Pontus's methods of trying to exist in the state, adds the right degree of levity, while also informing the audience of his character. This as Oscarsson more than anything, in that energy within his work, presents the fortitude or at the very least the persistence of the man. This as he saunters around the street Oscarsson grants technically the aimlessness of the man at times, but also his desire to try to work things out. This with frequent stops at a pawn shop to try to make a minor bit of money for survival while also attempting to make it as a writer, or perhaps anything else. Oscarsson's movement really does two things. One is he is engaging if not entirely entertaining to watch within these movements. He though does this in a way that succeeds in the second part, which is successfully portray the state of the man as seemingly a fruitless endeavor. Another aspect with this duality is within the way Oscarsson speaks within his performance. Oscarsson is again fantastic in the off-beat yet still genuine way in which he realizes his manner. We are granted the sense of a writer's eccentricity in his moments of pondering to himself, where again he is actively enjoyable in the way he speaks these rambling, while also in these ramblings shows a mind moving towards shambles. Oscarsson making Pontus someone who is enjoyable to be with, while also conveying with it the honest reality of his situation.
Oscarsson carefully plays the moments interacting with others though, again with a sort spry manner in portraying a man as though he is acting as though he is in an entirely fine within his situation. He brings though, even within the kindness, as the film goes on a more hurried delivering, even still with a sense of optimism that crafts the sort of decay of his state. We see this as well in, what again feels a bit Tramp like, is when Pontus romances a wealthier woman in the city, although not all may be as it seems in terms of reality. Oscarsson delivers a charm within his awkwardness. This being in his sly smile, and again a demeanor that is unorthodox in a most engaging way. Again though Oscarsson creates the sense of the presentation against also the struggle the man is going through. There are changes in his expression that alludes to other thoughts as related to his difficulty even as he he speaks the sweet nothings of a proper poet. He never loses the sense of his state, even when he is out of it seemingly within the relationship, even if for a moment. I love that Oscarsson doesn't show this to be a facade as much as coping mechanism. This in portraying that his eagerness isn't false even if technically not entirely true due to the man's struggle.
Even when that potential romantic affair loses itself, due to the limits of the mind, Oscarsson delivers in the moment of a certain rejection the man dealing with it in his particular way, though with a greater sense of his vulnerability. Oscarsson finds honesty within the eccentricity, and manages to grant that levity, while also wholly revealing the soul of the situation. I think what are essential moments within this though are in the titular word of the film. This in Hunger, hunger after all is not something one can really place over on a facade, it is a real, and painful experience. Oscarsson in the moments of his character's struggle, powerfully, and bluntly shows this an aspect in which he cannot talk himself out of the pain essentially. This in a moment where he throws up from eating bad meat, Oscarsson is heartbreaking the moment of just blunt desperation that he portrays in the moment of strict suffering. His words only painted by pain of dealing with yet another hardship. We see the same when he is enjoying a meal again, this in the rush to indulge in the food, we are granted an honesty of his situation. Oscarsson showing in the moments of hunger, that really there's nothing man can do other than accept his situation in the moment. His near final moment of raging at the world, albeit briefly, is so well performed as again the man losing himself into the desperation in this mania, however again Oscarsson presents within a man who is trying so hard to keep it together. This is a brilliant performance by Per Oscarsson. This is as he carries the film in terms of its momentum, but also in crafting such genuine portrait of the man's state. This state of existing both in the present, and while also being lost in his own mind.
The nature of the story from the cursory glance suggests that Per Oscarsson's work could be one of that of quiet soul bearing, of a poor man. Well that's not at all the case, in fact if there was a performance I'd compare this to most swiftly would be Charlie Chaplin as the tramp. This is not just as both characters often wander streets in their existence, but rather the entirety of Oscarsson's work carries with it a similar energy. Now this isn't a silent film, nor is this a comedy, Oscarsson's performance though is one where he carries himself in a unique manner that crafts that idea of his Pontus, more than the average homeless man. This is rather Oscarsson's work crafts him as an eccentric within this situation, and in doing so makes this likely a far more captivating experience. This is strongly within Oscarsson's physicality within the role, which is simply wonderful. The way he even walks is with this near directionless. This as though even when he's walking in a straight line, it isn't quite assured fitting for a man who in many ways is aimless, or at least looking for the right path. This is brilliantly built within though his overall demeanor that attempts this type of erudite, as though he is a philosopher within this situation of his. Oscarsson keeping this not quite proper, yet very specifically measured manner. This with his frequent courteous removal of his hat that he uses as essentially a running gag through the frequency, and often questionable use. Oscarsson though presenting within that, even as it is enjoyable, also shows Pontus as in a sort of, well note quite denial, though in part an avoidance of his situation.
Oscarsson's performance I think is essential within the success of the film as without it I think it would be inescapable dourness, however Oscarsson portraying Pontus's methods of trying to exist in the state, adds the right degree of levity, while also informing the audience of his character. This as Oscarsson more than anything, in that energy within his work, presents the fortitude or at the very least the persistence of the man. This as he saunters around the street Oscarsson grants technically the aimlessness of the man at times, but also his desire to try to work things out. This with frequent stops at a pawn shop to try to make a minor bit of money for survival while also attempting to make it as a writer, or perhaps anything else. Oscarsson's movement really does two things. One is he is engaging if not entirely entertaining to watch within these movements. He though does this in a way that succeeds in the second part, which is successfully portray the state of the man as seemingly a fruitless endeavor. Another aspect with this duality is within the way Oscarsson speaks within his performance. Oscarsson is again fantastic in the off-beat yet still genuine way in which he realizes his manner. We are granted the sense of a writer's eccentricity in his moments of pondering to himself, where again he is actively enjoyable in the way he speaks these rambling, while also in these ramblings shows a mind moving towards shambles. Oscarsson making Pontus someone who is enjoyable to be with, while also conveying with it the honest reality of his situation.
Oscarsson carefully plays the moments interacting with others though, again with a sort spry manner in portraying a man as though he is acting as though he is in an entirely fine within his situation. He brings though, even within the kindness, as the film goes on a more hurried delivering, even still with a sense of optimism that crafts the sort of decay of his state. We see this as well in, what again feels a bit Tramp like, is when Pontus romances a wealthier woman in the city, although not all may be as it seems in terms of reality. Oscarsson delivers a charm within his awkwardness. This being in his sly smile, and again a demeanor that is unorthodox in a most engaging way. Again though Oscarsson creates the sense of the presentation against also the struggle the man is going through. There are changes in his expression that alludes to other thoughts as related to his difficulty even as he he speaks the sweet nothings of a proper poet. He never loses the sense of his state, even when he is out of it seemingly within the relationship, even if for a moment. I love that Oscarsson doesn't show this to be a facade as much as coping mechanism. This in portraying that his eagerness isn't false even if technically not entirely true due to the man's struggle.
Even when that potential romantic affair loses itself, due to the limits of the mind, Oscarsson delivers in the moment of a certain rejection the man dealing with it in his particular way, though with a greater sense of his vulnerability. Oscarsson finds honesty within the eccentricity, and manages to grant that levity, while also wholly revealing the soul of the situation. I think what are essential moments within this though are in the titular word of the film. This in Hunger, hunger after all is not something one can really place over on a facade, it is a real, and painful experience. Oscarsson in the moments of his character's struggle, powerfully, and bluntly shows this an aspect in which he cannot talk himself out of the pain essentially. This in a moment where he throws up from eating bad meat, Oscarsson is heartbreaking the moment of just blunt desperation that he portrays in the moment of strict suffering. His words only painted by pain of dealing with yet another hardship. We see the same when he is enjoying a meal again, this in the rush to indulge in the food, we are granted an honesty of his situation. Oscarsson showing in the moments of hunger, that really there's nothing man can do other than accept his situation in the moment. His near final moment of raging at the world, albeit briefly, is so well performed as again the man losing himself into the desperation in this mania, however again Oscarsson presents within a man who is trying so hard to keep it together. This is a brilliant performance by Per Oscarsson. This is as he carries the film in terms of its momentum, but also in crafting such genuine portrait of the man's state. This state of existing both in the present, and while also being lost in his own mind.
Monday, 13 July 2020
Alternate Best Actor 1966: Donald Pleasence in Cul-de-Sac
Donald Pleasence did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying George in Cul-de-Sac.
Cul-de-sac is a somewhat intriguing riff on the somewhat tried plot of a criminal creating a hostage situation by seeking refuge with some normal people, the normal people here not being all that normal.
After all the man, whom criminal Dickey (Lionel Strander), chooses to hide out at is played by Donald Pleasence. That already suggests this isn't exactly going to be a Desperate Hours situation of an average family man dealing with a violent criminal. We instead have Pleasence, known for the more we'll say extreme individuals, who we first meet as he is frolicking in his bedroom with his young wife Teresa (Françoise Dorléac). Pleasence is brilliantly mad in this sequence as he gets dressed up as a woman with makeup as well as they interact. This as Pleasence captures a rather unique tone within the scene that is a combination of something that while being technically intense towards the idea the character's lust, yet also spells doubt within his sort state within this relationship. This as Pleasence plays both active and passive within the interactions. This as his eyes capture the mania of going along with the act, and at the same time that certain mania alludes to the way he also has a neurotic quality combined within that. Pleasence showing a man in a state of relationship that obviously has some sort of intimacy there, but it is also a detachment all the same within the near insanity of the interaction. This marital "bliss" is short lived within the film though as the two's dalliance is broken up by Strander's Dickey who demands to use their house to hideout with the two being held as basically assumed gun point.
Pleasence's performance then in many ways here is the factor within the film that differentiates itself from most stories of the ilk. This as there is nothing about George that is a man in this situation traditionally as the secret hero or event he obvious coward. Pleasence is terrific in portraying basically this nervous breakdown the man is having in presence over the criminal, although his breakdown isn't seemingly in wholly relation to the criminal. Donald Pleasence granting his performance this near constant unease in the physicality of his work. This as even just in the way Pleasence breaths has a hurried quality, his head constantly taut, and his movements with a messy quality within them. Pleasence granting the sense of George on the verge of this breakdown and his performance portraying a man seemingly filled with worry, far beyond dealing with a violent criminal. In his interactions with the violent criminal Pleasence's portrayal of the so called fear of it is with a broken intensity of a man tip toeing on the edge of some cliff. Pleasence speaking with this near mess of words together his his deliveries this particularly when speaking of his relationship with his wife. Although he doesn't quite state it directly, Pleasence speaks each word regarding her with this straining anxiety. Pleasence's portrayal is that of a worn mind that seems unable to comprehend his current situation almost given how caught up he is within his own mind.
The only switch though is when guests briefly come over to the house, where they must act as though nothing is out of the ordinary. This though technically is where Pleasence heavily changes his performance towards creating the idea of likely how George usually presents himself to most people. Pleasence's changes though are in the presentation of this George. This as he changes his physical performance to careful movements that are so careful they're a touch stilted. He speaks in ways with a quieter quality, though incisive though as he grants even in this quiet delivery that intensity if more carefully wound. Pleasence showing a man who even here is just barely keeping together within the normal society. After the guests leave it essentially only leave a final violent confrontation with George to take action against Dickey. It is a remarkable portrayal of a complete mental breakdown in Pleasence's performance. This in the very act of the killing by George is with a demented neurosis. This as he barely even looks upon his target and he presents this act as a moment of sheer insanity. This though is not the end of it as Pleasence's whole performance reveals the mess of George's mind that remains after it all. His work showing the way the neurosis that was ever present fully take over as his he speaks as a man with a most limited grasp on reality. His whole manner becoming detached from all things except the randomness of the ramblings that Pleasence grants the right sense to, the sense being that George has entirely lost his mind in the moment. Although in the end I wish overall the film had maybe a bit more complexity within the scenario itself, there is still much to be found within Pleasence's portrait of man on an edge being pushed off.
After all the man, whom criminal Dickey (Lionel Strander), chooses to hide out at is played by Donald Pleasence. That already suggests this isn't exactly going to be a Desperate Hours situation of an average family man dealing with a violent criminal. We instead have Pleasence, known for the more we'll say extreme individuals, who we first meet as he is frolicking in his bedroom with his young wife Teresa (Françoise Dorléac). Pleasence is brilliantly mad in this sequence as he gets dressed up as a woman with makeup as well as they interact. This as Pleasence captures a rather unique tone within the scene that is a combination of something that while being technically intense towards the idea the character's lust, yet also spells doubt within his sort state within this relationship. This as Pleasence plays both active and passive within the interactions. This as his eyes capture the mania of going along with the act, and at the same time that certain mania alludes to the way he also has a neurotic quality combined within that. Pleasence showing a man in a state of relationship that obviously has some sort of intimacy there, but it is also a detachment all the same within the near insanity of the interaction. This marital "bliss" is short lived within the film though as the two's dalliance is broken up by Strander's Dickey who demands to use their house to hideout with the two being held as basically assumed gun point.
Pleasence's performance then in many ways here is the factor within the film that differentiates itself from most stories of the ilk. This as there is nothing about George that is a man in this situation traditionally as the secret hero or event he obvious coward. Pleasence is terrific in portraying basically this nervous breakdown the man is having in presence over the criminal, although his breakdown isn't seemingly in wholly relation to the criminal. Donald Pleasence granting his performance this near constant unease in the physicality of his work. This as even just in the way Pleasence breaths has a hurried quality, his head constantly taut, and his movements with a messy quality within them. Pleasence granting the sense of George on the verge of this breakdown and his performance portraying a man seemingly filled with worry, far beyond dealing with a violent criminal. In his interactions with the violent criminal Pleasence's portrayal of the so called fear of it is with a broken intensity of a man tip toeing on the edge of some cliff. Pleasence speaking with this near mess of words together his his deliveries this particularly when speaking of his relationship with his wife. Although he doesn't quite state it directly, Pleasence speaks each word regarding her with this straining anxiety. Pleasence's portrayal is that of a worn mind that seems unable to comprehend his current situation almost given how caught up he is within his own mind.
The only switch though is when guests briefly come over to the house, where they must act as though nothing is out of the ordinary. This though technically is where Pleasence heavily changes his performance towards creating the idea of likely how George usually presents himself to most people. Pleasence's changes though are in the presentation of this George. This as he changes his physical performance to careful movements that are so careful they're a touch stilted. He speaks in ways with a quieter quality, though incisive though as he grants even in this quiet delivery that intensity if more carefully wound. Pleasence showing a man who even here is just barely keeping together within the normal society. After the guests leave it essentially only leave a final violent confrontation with George to take action against Dickey. It is a remarkable portrayal of a complete mental breakdown in Pleasence's performance. This in the very act of the killing by George is with a demented neurosis. This as he barely even looks upon his target and he presents this act as a moment of sheer insanity. This though is not the end of it as Pleasence's whole performance reveals the mess of George's mind that remains after it all. His work showing the way the neurosis that was ever present fully take over as his he speaks as a man with a most limited grasp on reality. His whole manner becoming detached from all things except the randomness of the ramblings that Pleasence grants the right sense to, the sense being that George has entirely lost his mind in the moment. Although in the end I wish overall the film had maybe a bit more complexity within the scenario itself, there is still much to be found within Pleasence's portrait of man on an edge being pushed off.
Friday, 10 July 2020
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.
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.
Wednesday, 8 July 2020
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)