Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1964

And the Nominees Were Not:

James Mason in The Fall of the Roman Empire

 

Christopher Plummer in The Fall of the Roman Empire

 

David Tomlinson in Mary Poppins

 

Shailen Mukherjee in Charulata

Hume Cronyn in Hamlet

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Results

5. Vincent Price - The Masque of the Red Death - Although in the end the performance is largely just an entertaining diabolical turn from Price, what complexities inherent in the character he does exploit.

Best Scene: Describing his views.

4. Ivan Dixon in Nothing But a Man - Dixon gives a powerful low key depiction of a man just trying to get back and live his life.

Best Scene: Ending

3. Eiji Okada in Woman in the Dunes - Okada properly humanizes the allegorical scenario his character is in. A powerful portrayal of a man going down a strange but oddly tangible path. 

Best Scene: "performing" for the crowd.

2. Saro Urzì in Seduced and Abandoned - Urzì gives a hilarious and compelling portrayal of the intense pressure of a father trying to maintain his family's "dignity" at any cost.

Best Scene: Pregnancy test.

1. Innokenty Smoktunovsky in Hamlet - Good predictions Calvin, Tahmeed, Lucas Stephen, Matt, Glenn, Thomas, David, Omar, Matthew, and Luke  Smoktunovsky gives one of the greatest cinematic Hamlets, granting a compelling portrayal of a particularly cunning and internalized version of the vengeful prince.

Best Scene: The Ghost.

Updated Overall

Next: 1964 Supporting, though probably won't be a lineup.

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Vincent Price in The Masque of the Red Death

Vincent Price did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Prince Prospero in The Masque of the Red Death. 

The Masque of the Red Death follows a diabolical Prince as he holds a party in his castle while a plague ravages the countryside. 

Villain extraordinaire Vincent Price obviously plays the evil prince and fittingly you get Price playing the role with an expected great aplomb. From his first scene where his chariot seems to almost purposefully run over peasants, before sentencing a few men to immediate death, then taking a local peasant girl Francesca (Jane Asher), all in a few minutes, this guy is evil and that is what you really need to know about him. Price therefore then seems ideal as the glee of a Price performance is unique in that sense. There is the requisite phony regal manner but the real truth of the man is in Price's grin denoting the bliss in the man as he engages in his debauchery. There is indeed more than a certain entertainment value in just seeing Price be evil as Prince Prospero goes around his castle pushing those inside to entertain him as thrives within a world he wholly controls. However as much as that is expected, and delivered, this performance actually isn't just Price having a good time, though it is that as well, as early on it becomes clear that there is a bit more within Prospero's character than just evil...though once again he certainly is that as well. 

We granted an idea of this relatively early on where he speaks with Francesca of his views that are laden with a dark cynicism. Price's delivery though where Prospero speaks towards his lack of belief in God has this kind of pained hollowness about it. Price speaks as a man who shows a great deal of conviction within this belief, or lack thereof, but there is a certain sense of a internalized pain of it. It isn't an idea he actually enjoys and Price brings a greater depth within the dastardly fiend than you might initially expect. There is also something in his relationship with Francesca where Price brings a different approach in many of his interactions with her. This as Price brings this sort manner as though Prospero is educating her in his philosophy and particular kind of knowledge. This when speaking towards a wannabe guest with dismissive tone for a so called morality of any kind. Price emphasizes a certain sleaze and definite evil in the man still, but the tone he brings is as though Prospero is trying to convince Francesca of the truth in the way in which he perceives the world. 

Unfortunately this thought isn't entirely pursued. Although I liked the film, it drags a bit, particularly as it focuses on the more heroic characters and sadly at a certain point Prospero stops consistently appearing for a good chunk before the climax. Now to Price's credit when he does pop up we get some properly delicious delivery from him when conferring a twisted judgment on Francesca's rebellious friends or when he callously speaks horrible suggests to the remaining peasants seeking help. Sadly though the more complex ideas introduced early on are largely abandoned. Even with that the memorable climax of the film still grants us some equally memorable work from Price as he faces down the personified red death. This as Price's expression grants both a certain jubilation and an undercurrent of fear in his initial discovery. This seguing to a sinister joy as he thinks his Satan worship has worked out for him, before falling to a crippling fear when he discovers perhaps Satan worship isn't the best idea. It is most certainly an expectedly fun performance from Price though I do wish the writing had let him explore a bit more, as what complexity there is, Price finds it. Still a fun Price performance, is a fun Price performance.

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Innokenty Smoktunovsky & Christopher Plummer in Hamlet (at Elsinore)

Innokenty Smoktunovsky did not receive an Oscar nomination and Christopher Plummer received an Emmy nomination for portraying the titular prince of Denmark in Hamlet (at Elsinore). 

Hamlet is one of the all time coveted roles for an actor. Certainly for a Shakespearean actor, though Richard III contends, that King lets the actor let loose as a most dastardly sort, but usually within a general understanding of the role, though there are ambiguities. There are greater ambiguities though with Hamlet and perhaps why playing the role is always such a fascinating endeavor. This as in 1964 there were three different high profile portrayals of Hamlet that made it to film, or at least TV film. I actually considered keeping Richard Burton in this review as well, but I will agree with the man himself that the film itself is of poor quality. It is little more than a static shot on the Broadway production and makes other filmed stage productions (or filmed like stage productions) like Hamilton, Give Em Hell Harry and Othello starring Laurence Olivier as positively dynamic. This isn't to say I couldn't see some of what Richard Burton was doing, but any intimacy of his performance (where so much of what is essential to a Hamlet performance) is obscured by the clunky technique, or lack thereof. This leaving that filmed production as just a historical curiosity, well other than Hume Cronyn's Tony winning performance as Polonius where the brilliance of that performance still shines through. So instead I'll be looking at the Russian rendition starring Innokenty Smoktunovsky, in one of the most cinematic adaptations, and the version known as Hamlet At Elsinore, a straight forward though decently mounted version notably filmed in Elsinore itself. 

This in a way gives me the opportunity then to really examine what exactly is Hamlet's path, also will grant me the chance to look at one of the most renowned Shakespearean actors, who rarely got to perform Shakespeare in a true film. Speaking of let's get the obvious out of the way with Plummer, which was also true for Burton, their voices were made for Shakespeare it seems. The language sings from them essentially and never have their voices sounded better in a way. It is as glorious as to be expected, Plummer always had an amazing voice and in turn he shows an expected elegance with the Bard's words. Innokenty Smoktunovsky is dealing with something slightly different in that the words have been adapted to Russian though the intention is still to be Shakespearean just not technical the literal words. Although this isn't a criticism of any kind, rather just really a descriptor. Now the opening of the play is perhaps one of the great ambiguities with the character, as where is Hamlet exactly before learning about his father's true murderer? I think in a way this can specifically help to define how an actor will perform with the character, and how well they will grasp this tragic journey. Plummer speaking his opening monologue presents a man mourning in his state and in a way lost without purpose seemingly. A sadness within the man and striking sense of really lack of purpose. Smoktunovsky is quite a bit different more reserved, again befitting the superior approach overall of his film, which like Olivier literally internalizes the monologue into narration of thought. A great benefit though to Smoktunovsky's approach that in a way presents a man already with a suspicion. There is a coldness and cunning he emphasizes when speaking to his uncle and mo. there, of a man who already suspects something rotten. I love really both men's approach to Hamlet hearing news of the ghost and from his friend Horatio. With Plummer it is a fitting jubilation of a man who wishes to run from his melancholy. Smoktunovsky's reaction is more intimate yet as remarkable as someone who is perhaps already on a path following a hopeful lead.

The ghost sequence is as pivotal in conveying exactly how much Hamlet knows and what exactly he takes from the revelation that his father was murdered by his uncle. The ghost sequence in the Russian version is truly stunning to say the least and I love Smoktunovsky's performance in the scene. This as the horror of it is conveying but also the kind of fascination. This is truly a disturbing sight within Hamlet's eyes and  Smoktunovsky shows this as much as he pushes towards the truth his physical manner retires of a man in presence of something truly terrifying. Smoktunovsky's performance of the moment of hearing that it was his uncle is sheer brilliance this as this nearly maniacal laugh, of man almost in a kind of bliss at experiencing a truth he must've suspected for some time. Plummer's approach is a bit different and just a little bit goes into more than needed for the screen as opposed to the stage, something a slightly more deft director might've been able to purge out. That isn't to say that what Plummer is doing isn't still quite compelling, it certainly is. In fact the intensity of the fascination with the ghost he conveys alludes to a fascinating choice in his depiction. This as Plummer shows a man seeking purpose and the ghost basically being an avenue for it. This as he also shows a sort of cry for joy, but that of seemingly finding his purpose. A moment of jubilation as almost needing the murder plot as something to live for. This that he potently emphasizes all the more in the sudden sense of purpose and determination in his eyes as Hamlet listens to the ghost's instruction for the task of revenge.

 

As Hamlet goes about his task to avenge his father it is then where an even greater ambiguity comes, which is Hamlet pretending to be insane, insane, or a little bit both? This as no one in the court seems to know what to make of him, but what exactly that means is within the actor's purview. Here Smoktunovsky is quite amazing to be blunt. This as his performance just exudes charisma and is magnetic in presenting his Hamlet as a man carefully administering his conspiracy. When he speaks early on to Polonius and his old "friends" of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Smoktunovsky practically conducts them within the speech of nonsense to Polonius as he tries to see where his mind is. Smoktunovsky effectively showing a man purposefully lost and obscuring his purpose. The same with his "friends" who he speaks some more congenially yet in his eyes there is straight cunning where he both seems to decipher exactly what they are doing while also playing on the part as though his Hamlet is wholly unknowing in his beliefs. Plummer is quite a bit different though effective in his own right as playing the part continuing the man of purpose, though now showing the man as having the time of his life in his deception with Polonius. Artfully playing the fool while loving every minute of it. Seemingly equally affable with the doomed "friendly" pair, as again a man whose lost his mind, yet Plummer denotes it as trick, just as he shows Hamlet very much loving his own performance. 

Now perhaps one of the trickiest elements is how Hamlet's once intended Ophelia factors into his plot, as for out technical hero he treats her abysmally so essentially creating the intention within Hamlet's behavior is always a bit of task for the actor's interpretation. Both Smoktunovsky and Plummer excel in this particular regard where Hamlet still seems to prod her along in her interest while also telling her to go off to a nunnery. Plummer's performance is very interesting in the way he presents it as almost that Hamlet has moved on from her. There is a sense of affection in his interest but almost as though he cannot burden himself with the relationship at this time that his devotion towards his purpose being revenge is what compels his crueler behaviors. Smoktunovsky actually is perhaps far more sympathetic I would say in presenting these moments. This as his interactions with her there is a sense of genuine love in moments before he basically thinks upon the interactions. He though shows this palatable distress and struggle in Hamlet's eyes in his moments of rejection towards her. Smoktunovsky emphasizing a real love for her however that love being compromised by the situation. This is different though as Smoktunovsky presents a degree of distrust in the relationship of a man who is paranoid both in the conspiracy that killed his father and his own conspiracy to kill his Uncle. Plummer making Ophelia more so a casualty of a blindness in his quest, while Smoktunovsky makes it more so a casualty of the unfortunate paranoia related to it. 

Now when the play's the thing to capture the conscience of the king we get two very different interpretations of Hamlet's endeavor to trap his uncle. Plummer's performance is defined by excitement for the task at hand and very much presents the fanboy for the players. Plummer emphasizing the way Hamlet is kind of living out a fantasy in the method as much as he is intentionally taking upon this approach. Smoktunovsky's work again in a way brings us more into the man's state of genuinely trying to carefully manipulate the situation. Smoktunovsky projects a low key nervousness fitting someone who is making a big gamble that could either fail or simply reveal himself too quickly. Smoktunovsky conveys that anxiety before making the big ploy through the play. Smoktunovsky is brilliant in again the magnetism he brings within the sequence of the actual performance. This as Smoktunovsky is magnetic in presenting a man wholly within his power within the situation. He basically is conducting every moment of it and shows the man quite effectively executing his plan. Conversely Plummer plays it almost as a court jester both hiding the idea of his intentions while also showing the sheer joy Hamlet is getting from the plot. Both are very different interpretations of the sequence however both incredibly effective in their mutually different interpretations of who exactly Hamlet is in this moment. Smoktunovsky presenting a man with a set plan and executing, Plummer going with the flow of the fun of the whole affair. 

From the success of the plot we have two very different depictions of Hamlet's sort reaction that leads him to confront his mother in her culpability to her now husband's actions that leave a hiding Polonius stabbed to death. Plummer presents more matter of factually a madness wholly taking Hamlet in this moment. This sort of just rush of all his thoughts going in every way now that he has the truth and is almost frothing at the mouth in his vengeance. Smoktunovsky portrays a strict and striking intensity within Hamlet in this moment. Not exactly the same kind of madness, rather a temporary one noted but a kind of narrow minded thought that overtakes him in the moment. A man gripped with wholly his revenge now almost empowered by the thought as he goes about the accidental killing. In the moment Smoktunovsky presenting a man so driven in his task that nothing really phases him from it. Smoktunovsky's portrayal of his confrontation with his mother being the most notable version of the scene that I have perhaps seen. This because he doesn't conduct himself with it as the intensity we see in Plummer's portrayal, which while effective on its own right, there is something all the more compelling in showing Hamlet with his wits about him in this scene. There is almost an angel of death quality within Smoktunovsky moments of accusations, as a man reeking justice for more than just himself. 

The story naturally hits the reprieve where Hamlet goes off to England while Ophelia dies, leading her brother and Polonius's son Laertes rather rightfully seeking revenge, and finding it through Claudius plotting to kill Hamlet via a duel. We open this climax through the comic yet also poignant of Hamlet with the grave digger. Both Plummer and Smoktunovsky acquitting themselves within Hamlet's reflective speech. Smoktunovsky in particular suggesting a certain guidance from his travels, wearing in fact catholic monk robes. This idea forced with the sudden appearance of Laertes and the funeral procession for Ophelia. They're performances perhaps being the most similar here in being Hamlet at his quietest as he just recognizes his mistakes seeking to genuinely apologize for his faults to the man he truly did wrong in Laertes. This following as Hamlet gets his chance for revenge in a duel with Laertes, even though he stays apologetic to his actual opponent. In both we get the man very much being the most romantic type of hero seemingly and both actors get to show off their Shakespearean skill at being the most charismatic. Both thrive in this aspect and they are just wonderful to watch. This is particularly important for Smoktunovsky as oddly the duel is the least inspired scene in the whole film, especially when compared to Olivier and Branagh's cinematic renditions. Where as in Plummer's film it is consistent with the rest of it. Nonetheless each delivers the command of the man as he should. The scene obviously goes through a lot with the random poisoning, killings and dying. A given Hamlet must respond to each point and here again I think Plummer occasionally goes a little bigger than he needs to though not a major detriment, still noticeable particularly in his reaction to the king's treachery. Smoktunovsky is on point in every respect of portraying the joy of the duel, the sudden burst of anger towards Claudius's deception and grief towards the death of the mother and of course his acceptance of his own upcoming demise. Plummer equates himself particularly strongly with the duel just expressing so well Hamlet living out his fantasy fully, and his final moment of poignant reflection. Both of these performances are very different yet wholly successful depictions of the complicated character. With Plummer, while you can see he was getting used to film to a degree, it still is a remarkable Shakespearean performance. Innokenty Smoktunovsky's performance though deserves to put up with the very best of the cinematic Hamlets, Olivier and Branagh. Not only is his interpretation particularly dynamic, his work always breaths life into the words of the Bard with that uniquely cinematic flavor that achieves true greatness within the adaptation.

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Saro Urzì in Seduced and Abandoned

Saro Urzì did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning CANNES, for portraying Don Vincenzo Ascalone in Seduced and Abandoned. 

Seduced and Abandoned is Pietro Germi's followup to his most famous film Divorce, Italian Style, which is a similar dark satire of Italian social norms. 

Where in "Divorce" we followed the conspirator of the man who planned on having an affair through murdering his wife through an "honor" killing about an affair, this film follows instead the kind of damage control of such affairs by frequently being from the perspective of an father trying to deal with the fact that one of his daughters has become impregnated by another one of his daughter's suitor. Urzì's performance is quite a bit different from Marcello Mastroianni's mix of sad sack and suave turn, though he's grappling with a similar challenge with the film's unique, though I think successful tone. This as the film is funny, but it is also very dark in how biting it is over showing essentially the cruelties of the society in so many ways. Urzì first enters just as we see him as the patriarch of his pseudo well to do family. Urzì delivers what I think is best described as kind of a blend between comedic and naturalism. Really quite well balanced actually in portraying just the state of the father whose feathers seem always a little ruffled while also seemingly trying to self assure everyone at the same time. Urzì has a great ease in portraying the unease of his character. This just as his slightly overcooked state in his expression just shows a man who seemingly puts all the weights of his family, mostly defined by society's views of it, as wrapped into his very core. 

Urzì's performance is rather funny though very much in the specific situational way, and while maintaining the film's tricky tone to the whole thing. Urzì is wonderful in crafting this kind of specific manic energy befitting his older father that he is playing as hearing about the "seduction" he rushes off to try to make things right and check to see how things are. In one scene alone you get really the hilarity of his work as the Don takes his daughter's urine to get tested to see if she's pregnant while pretending it is for his wife. Urzì is great in showing the stress of the lies really as he's putting it forth with his eyes beating with this unsustainable pressure as clearly much is riding on this test. Urzì though is great in the moment of convincing the doctor to do things faster than is the official way by whispering his covert connections. Urzì's instant manner switch is comic gold as he does his name drop that has this great mix of being completely shameless while speaking with this false kind of discreet quality. Urzì's performance is one of this constant kind of flux that perfectly exemplifies the Don's manner of trying to contain the situation and doing everything in his power to do so. So much of the comedy really coming from Urzì's portrayal of a man who really wants to control everything in his situation, but requires him to essentially sweat bullets every step of the way. 

Urzì's performance then becomes this tapestry of distress and emotion, that often has certain comical qualities to it, as he tries to make everything right...at least in the Don's mind. Urzì is terrific in creating this specific kind of rush that he embodies as the man's body also seemingly slowly collapsing itself. This as even when the man is putting on a front of some charm or genial quality to people he needs something from, like local authorities or a new potential suitor, Urzì creates in his eyes still a withering stress in the Don even as he speaks with an eagerness and affability towards those he's trying to get something from. He's great at showing that he's always hiding something even when he's doing his best to be as convincing as possible in his intentions. When less secretive Urzì's terrific in showing that constant wave of emotion and contemplation the man has to go through in each new development or attempted plan. This as Urzì so effectively punctuates every moment in this, whether that be his annoyance at learning he won't be able to get away with killing the seducer legally or his sort of calculating reaction towards coming up with a different way to kill the man in order to preserve his family. Urzì creates this state so remarkably that carries us through so admirably the satirical but also more genuine emotional qualities that are in there. Again the tone is extremely specific yet Urzì's work balances it so well by so tangibly showing what the Don is going through at every point of the situation. This in creating this deterioration of the stress, but also punctuating moments with an even greater distress or moments of reaction that denote a temporary reprieve. Although his character ends up getting somewhat sidelined near the end of the film, as it segues to focusing more so on the two lovers by the end of the film, Urzì's work stands as a highlight of the film. This in creating a believable, yet also still funny in its own dark way, portrait of a man trying to maintain what he sees as the dignity of his family by any means necessary. 

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Eiji Okada in Woman in the Dunes

Eiji Okada did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Niki Junpei in Woman in the Dunes.

 

Woman in the Dunes is a masterful film about a school teacher becoming trapped in a dwelling at the bottom of a sand dune where a widow lives. 

I'll admit that brief description doesn't really do the film justice in terms of its overall achievement which is particularly mesmerizing in its idiosyncratic vision of director Hiroshi Teshigahara. A vision that was notably nominated for best director, which say what you want on the academy overall, they deserve some kudos for recognizing this achievement. Now is this a director's film, I would say so, it is hard not to, however the nature of the film I think in terms of what makes it truly great, rather than just great, is the human factor is ever prevalent. This is found within Eiji Okada's central performance as the school teacher Niki Junpei. This as we discover him participating in his hobby, alone, as he walks sand dunes in a secluded area looking for insects. Okada's performance here is one defined by a general affability and most of all curiosity in these moments. He evokes a man just enjoying his little hobby with an innate fascination for these creatures and his environment. There's a low key charm he brings to his performance befitting just a likable man. This effectively establishing then really are any man that his Junpei will be during the film as local villagers come upon him and advise he takes shelter at the bottom of a sand dune where a widow (Kyōko Kishida), who lost her family, lives. 

Okada's performance initially carries the same curiosity as he had before in this new situation. There is no alarm as he interacts with the woman rather Okada shows a genuine interest in this strange state of hers and just a general cordiality in his rather light delivery towards her. At this point Okada naturally creating what most viewers state would be in this situation and naturally crafts this surrogate within the experience. This being an essential element when Junpei discovers he cannot freely leave the dune on his own and discovers the widow, and now he, are essentially slaves to the local village who want sand harvesters. Okada's work then is terrific by the way that it completely allows us to be within this situation. A situation certainly symbolic in itself, however the film is great by working both in that sense while still being effectively literal as strange as the situation seems. Okada's work is fundamental in this as he always portrays a real person going through this struggle. Making initially for a kind of hero for us as we see in him the desperation in his attempts to escape and even the dogged sense of hope that sustains itself initially. He brings us so effectively into this mindset by so bluntly creating reality within the situation as the man tries to find a way out, but one way after another he finds himself back where he has started without gaining much of anything for it. 

His form of respite only coming in his interactions with the widow which is one of the most fascinating aspects of this film. This as Okada's and Kishida's chemistry really isn't anything normal as befitting of the situation. There is warmth certainly in there at times, but this is not a traditional romance, or even necessarily a romance at all. Their moments of intimacy, the most intimacy, have almost a functional even desperate quality about them. Their solace is together, but their solace isn't as two people in love, but rather two people finding comfort within a mutually dependent situation. Their interactions are with understanding but also that certain detachment. This as the woman is seemingly comfortable within the state, to the extent she can be, while Okada shows still that combination of overt frustration and a waning hope. This when he speaks towards surely people from his city will be looking for him, Okada's delivery is as a man who both believes it and doesn't believe at the same time. This as he hopes this will be the case but in his eyes there is the constant nagging sense that he is truly stuck within this situation despite his continued attempts. Eventually as more time goes by Okada's work naturally creates the sense of the frustrated resignation but also this strange calm. This as we have clashing moments. One of trying to appease his captors through some strange pornographic display, where he plays basically he male animal of a zoo. Okada successfully realizing this moment by playing it as base hunger as much as possible, not for the sex but rather the hope of getting to see the ocean again. This against as we see the man's attempt for escape by trapping a crow to use a messenger that essentially leads him to experiments and a hobby. Here that Okada portrays the most contentment of a man with a distraction in life that he is most comfortable with and in no way lacking with conflict. A man who has found his peace within the situation. In Okada's performance he so honestly portrays this as a state of life that it is actually rather disturbing because of how natural of a choice it seems. The strength of this work is that it keeps an essential anchor within the story. As much as the story means more than it appears, it also means what it shows, and the striking nature of that is found within Okada's performance. His performance that is a constant reality of a man in this seemingly unbelievable situation. The unbelievable situation becoming startlingly believable because Okada only presents us a real person going through all this, not just a symbol of one.   

Alternate Best Actor 1964: Ivan Dixon in Nothing But a Man

Ivan Dixon did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Duff Anderson in Nothing But a Man. 

Nothing But a Man is a remarkable film, particularly due to the era in which it was made, following an African American railroad workers romance with a school teacher. 

 

The film is notable as a dramatic film with a dominantly African American cast, but also as an American film at the time with a Neo-realist style film-making. The brief synopsis above might give the wrong idea that it is a traditional romance, which is not the case. It rather is interested very much life as is, and in this sense following two people coming together in a very vivid and realistic portrayal of a couple in the south. Ivan Dixon's performance is emblematic of the film's intention and approach. Ivan Dixon delivers a very naturalistic turn here really fittingly as nothing but a man I suppose. This as what we get in his performance in an authenticity in place. When we see him working the job of the day and hanging with his friends. It just feels like you too are hanging out with the men just by the natural way they interact and the sense of the day's work. Dixon's portrayal isn't to distinguish Duff from beyond himself, he's indeed just one of the guys and you get a sense of the man, his calm demeanor and really his effort in work as his effort in life. Dixon does make Duff innately likable, but not trying to throw an aggressive charm, just a low key earnest manner in the man. 

We see this further with his romance with a school teacher, and preacher's daughter, Josie Dawson (Abbey Lincoln). Dixon doesn't suddenly become Cary Grant, but he effectively distinguishes the man among his co-workers and the woman he is trying to romance. This though just as a man seemingly all the more earnest in his sentiment towards her. The two really have a low key but moving chemistry with one another. It isn't earth shattering but rather just works in the sense of authentic affection in their interactions with one another. This even within the moments of the relationship being challenged both actively by racist intruders and Josie's own daughter who questions Duff's nature. Dixon in the intruder scene is great by avoiding melodrama and instead just bluntly delivering the man's defense as he asks the men to leave. He doesn't posture rather showing a strict and quiet intensity in the moment. With her father the man illuminates his views, which don't involve a lot of religion, which again Dixon delivers so well by not putting too much on it. He rather suggests a man convinced in his belief not as a firebrand but rather as a man sure of himself. 

Dixon's performance works in a way through the consistency of the authenticity in his work. The consistency not being that he doesn't have changes, but rather whatever Duff is going through it feels honest to the moment. The scene of him going to see his son from another relationship, Dixon again limits how much he puts on it, however in his eyes there is the degree of exasperation of a failed relationship of the past. When speaks towards his fellow workers about sticking together, not really as union rep rather just a man hoping a best for all, Dixon's delivery keeps to that sincerity. There is a passion in his performance, but quiet and reserved fitting to the man Duff is. Dixon's work never feels too much or too little. In the latter half of the film as Duff falls into troubles due to his basically accidental union talk, he struggles to find a decent job afterwards. Dixon's work again conveys the state of the man taking the struggle just in the subtle wear within his expression. His moment of speaking against his father-in-law's words, Dixon again speaks straight and to the point. We see the same when he is facing a group of racists in his eventual job. Dixon naturally showing the greater frustrations of the man, however still keeping it pent within the man's state of trying to just live his life. This boiling over in moments of lashing out at Josie. Difficult scenes really however Dixon pulls them off well in making these rather brutal moments these terrible side effect of man attacking the thing he loves the most mainly because its the only thing he can lash against without consequences. Dixon finds the truth in that moment just as he does consistently through this film. His work existing again as a man going through a normal, though not easy, life, and punctuating each of these moments with the need authenticity. It's not showy work, but it's good work.