Best Actor 1986: Dexter Gordon in 'Round Midnight

Dexter Gordon received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Dale Turner in 'Round Midnight.

'Round Midnight depicts an American Tenor Sax player in the Paris Jazz scene who befriends a local Frenchman who tries to help the Jazz musician with his alcohol problem.

Dexter Gordon was not really an actor when he was cast in this film, and is best remembered for being a Jazz Tenor Saxophonist. Now one could think that this is perfect casting, a talented saxophonist as a talented saxophonist. Well this is unfortunately not entirely true. There are many instances of non actors being cast in the right role and they succeed magnificently, or people who are primarily musicians that do the same. Dexter Gordon unfortuantely is not one of these people.

Dexter Gordon almost does not seem to act in this performance, and no I do not mean the does not seem to act in the Robert Duvall in Tender Mercies, or Richard Farnsworth in The Straight Story sense. I mean he does not seem to act in that he does not seem to be playing a character half the time rather just reading lines. He is so understated in the role, and in the fashion in what he says some of his lines that frankly he seems bored by his lines sometimes. 

Another problem of Gordon's is that he has basically no screen presence. I really mean that. If it were not for his screen-time you could easily think the film was about someone else. Gordon holds so little attention with his completely lacking in charisma performance. Everything he does just is there sitting on screen, never coming off it for a moment, and the problem is Gordon seems far too content with it to be this way as well.

It would not be as bad if Gordon was required to do very little but he is required to espouse about his love of jazz or talk about his struggles with his alcoholism. Gordon though seems so uninterested in basically everything anything he does holds no power whatsoever. I imagine his scenes really wanted deep meaning, or poignancy but Gordon never invests enough in any scene to really create anything out of his lines.

Due to his performance, I wonder why he was really cast, well by the structure of the film it does become very obvious. The film spends a great deal of time, a very great deal of time just having Jazz be played, therefore the filmmakers probably wanted someone who could deliver since he obviously could really deliver Gordon does make sense in that regard.

Gordon certianly can indeed play the saxophone but what he does in these scenes might be something in terms of Jazz, but in terms of acting they are nothing. There really is never an emphasis to show an extra drive in his playing, to further develop the character. Gordon instead plays the sax as you would expect him to do it no more, no less.

I find it really hard to believe after watching this performance that Gordon was nominated, or even stayed in the part due to how lacking he is in the role. I really do believe that had he not already been a famous jazz musician he would not have been given the part first of all, and I also believe that a professional actor would not have been likely to be allowed to get away with giving this performance, let alone be given an Oscar nomination for it.

Best Actor 1986: William Hurt in Children of a Lesser God

William Hurt received his second consecutive Oscar nomination for portraying James Leeds in Children of a Lesser God.

Children of the Lesser God depicts the relationship between a teacher for the deaf, and a troubled deaf woman.

William Hurt portrays the teacher for blind students. Hurt has exceedingly large amount of energy in the role that works perfectly for the earnest character of James Leeds.William Hurt is just great in his early moments and his first time in class with the deaf students. It is actually quite enjoyable to see William Hurt teach in these scenes because of all the energy he throws into them.

Hurt really shows that Leeds loves to teach the students, as well as desperately wants to help them get along in life the best that he can. It could have been easy to either have been underwhelming or overwhelming in theses scenes and seemed disingenuous but Hurt never seems that way for a moment. Hurt shows that everything does come from an honest want to help the kids nothing else. 

James Leeds finds more to do than just teach the kids when he comes across the school cleaner Sarah Norman (Marlee Matlin) who was former student of the school. Their relationship together pretty much makes up for most of the film, as well as most of the film. It is a good thing than that Hurt and Matlin have terrific chemistry together.

Both actors form a fascinating dynamic with one another with Hurt being enthusiastically hopeful most of the time as James, where Matlin holds it back and is very defensive. Hurt though shows that Leeds honestly does care about her, and slowly shows that she means even more to James than just being a case of a troubled deaf woman, but perhaps he loves her as well. Hurt is excellent in portraying this transition and does not make it seem at all forced.

The eventual eagerness on Sarah's side though actually is made understandable, and natural by Hurt as well. The reason for this is Hurt is incredibly charming as James. Hurt here always conveys a  great deal of likability throughout his performance. Hurt is charismatic throughout his performance, and he convincingly portrays James' absolute conviction to the relationship through some rather simple honesty. 

There relationship as it grows is rather troubled because of her troubled past, and her belief that James wants deaf people to be more like hearing people. Hurt shines in there more troubled moments as well becuase he does show that James is not a perfect man, a good one sure, but not a perfect one. His scenes of anger, and argument with Sarah are again realistically portrayed by Hurt because he shows them as part of James' character.

Hurt shows James is not quite perfect through these scenes, but not bad. He rather just shows that James does not know everything, and the troubles slowly exasperate him as they would any man. these scenes work extraordinarily well because Hurt is able to bring out these these natural reactions, and natural transitions out of his characterization without fault. 

This really is not the most complex of characters, certainly not as complex as say Luis Molina, but  that does not deter at all the power of Hurt's work. Hurt gives an effective, charismatic performance. He is the perfect romantic lead in this film, because he acts appropriately appealing throughout as well as stays natural throughout. Most of all he succeeds in having terrific chemistry with his leading lady making their relationship one that is moving and memorable.

Best Actor 1986: Paul Newman in The Color of Money

Paul Newman won his Oscar from his seventh acting nomination for once again portraying Fast Eddie Felson this time in The Color of Money.

The Color of Money is the  sequel to the excellent film The Hustler. It once again depicts Fast Eddie Felson, now as a older man, now trying to use others to perform hustles rather than himself.

This is the type of win that is quite obnoxious because Newman would have been deserving winner for any of his acting previous acting nominations besides Absence of Malice. Newman instead won for this film which is unfortunate, since so many of his other nominations were superior to this one. Does this make this a bad performance though, well no.

I would say I feel sorry though for Paul Newman and Fast Eddie throughout this whole film. The first being for Fast Eddie for having to deal with Tom Cruise's character. I frankly wanted Fast Eddie to sock Vincent in the nose almost every time he opened his mouth, Cruise is simply that grating in his performance. Also really this is missed opportunity since Newman could possibly have had an interesting dynamic with Cruise, but anything they could have had is ruined by Cruise, and the character of Vincent.

The biggest grievous makes me feel sorry for both Newman and Fast Eddie together. Fast Eddie is simply mistreated as a character. He was an amazing character as played and as written in the Hustler, but this time the writing falls very short of the writing of the Hustler. The script never really is find out all to well who Felson really is now. There are many indications that he is now like Burt Gordon who was played by George C. Scott in the first film.

Burt Gordon was a player, who manipulated Eddie through Hustles, as well as attempted to manipulate Eddie through life as well. Fast Eddie attempts this a little in the film against Cruise's character, but than he basically stops doing it rather randomly stops, without it only being briefly mentioned later in a non negative fashion.

It would have been fascinating to see maybe Eddie see himself as Gordon, and fight against that, or something like that but it does not even recognize it which is a real problem. There also is no explanation or struggle involving this at all, which is a real problem, since I find it very hard to believe that Fast Eddie would be so casual when replicating Burt Gordon, in fact I highly doubt after the events of the first film he would ever, and I mean ever quote him.

This is just a completely missed opportunity to further explore the great character of Fast Eddie. The amazing character of Fast Eddie is basically wasted in this trivial mess of a film. Barring all that I still don't think Newman is bad as Fast Eddie this time. He still has some charisma most certainly much less than in Hustler, but that does make sense since Eddie has been out of the game for some time. Also Newman does his best to make Eddie suave, and clearly commanding in the right way over manners of the Hustle.

Eddie is inconsistent as a character in this film, but that is not Newman's fault it is the script's fault. Newman at first is effective enough as the extremely manipulative Eddie at the beginning of the film, there is no transition to him stopping his heavy manipulations in Newman's performance but there is not one in the script of the film either, he just basically stops doing it so severely.

After the instant transition Newman's performance is better when Fast Eddie's story suddenly becomes about him trying to get back into being the number one hustler, and pool player again. Newman is effective enough in showing the restrained desire behind Fast Eddie's attempts. Newman also has one great scene where he lets himself be hustled. It is a strong scene for Newman, and actually the only one in the film really since Cruise, and Mastrantonio are basically silent. Newman in this one history really suggests the history of loss in Felson, and a little bit of that old Felson despair that was so well portrayed in the original film.

That single scene though is the only great scene for Newman. The rest of the film Newman though is always natural enough, even when his co-stars are not. He has an ease in the role, and he certainly knows how to play the various aspects of Felson, even though the script doesn't give him enough opportunities. This is a good performance, it does its best with what it has, its just a shame because I think from that single scene of Newman's after Felson is hustled suggest that with a script with at least half of the brilliance of the Hustler, Newman could have given a truly great reprise as Fast Eddie rather than just a good one. 

Best Actor 1986

And the Nominees Were:

William Hurt in Children of A Lesser God

Bob Hoskins in Mona Lisa

Paul Newman in The Color of Money

Dexter Gordon in Round Midnight

James Woods in Salvador

Best Actor 2002: Results

5. Michael Caine in The Quiet American- Michael Caine gives an effective performance portraying a good mix of cynicism with care. It never is amazing work, but it is consistently good.

4. Nicolas Cage in Adaptation- Nicolas Cage as the twin brothers in this film gives an extremely enjoyable, as well as effective performance. Having the right joy, and entertaining quality with one brother, well finding the right pathos with the other. It is a great mix.

3.Jack Nicholson in About Schmidt- Nicholson channels a completely different side of himself here, more than any other performance, it a rather humorous, as well powerfully heartbreaking performance as well.

2. Adrien Brody in The Pianist- A simple yet brilliant performance by Adrien Brody, that stressed naturalism over everything else. He makes the troubled journey of the man, a real one, as well as a heartbreaking, and very powerful one.

1. Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York- Day-Lewis gives a brilliant portrayal of an idiosyncratic man of the past in the way only he honestly could.

Best Actor 2002: Jack Nicholson in About Schmidt

Jack Nicholson received his twelfth nomination for portraying Warren R. Schmidt in About Schmidt.

About Schmidt depicts the life of Warren Schmidt after he has retired, his wife has died, and how he deals with his daughter who is soon to be wed to a somewhat crude dunce.

Jack Nicholson's performance here differs from many of his performance in that here he portrays a rather withdrawn character. Warren Schmidt is a far cry from characters like Jake Gittes, or Randall McMurphy. Those character were very expressive men, who always made their presence known in any situation, but Schmidt is a far less expressive man, yet Nicholson is just as effective with Schmidt as he was with his earlier roles. ' Warren Schmidt is a recently retired man, who really never made the stamp on the world he had hoped. Nicholson although certainly states this as Schmidt, also always reflects it thoroughly through his at least slightly sad and depressed demeanor which Nicholson carefully but effectively expresses. Nicholson underplays the emotion, yet always shows it underlying behind any other emotion of Schmidt's.

This is an interesting very different kind of performance by Nicholson. Although Nicholson does not have his classic moments that he had in his performances during the 70's he instead he has a different type of scenes, since this is a very different type of style of performance by Nicholson. Nicholson here has smaller scenes, but very honest and effective ones, that perfectly express the state of Schmidt. Nicholson is incredibly effective here because he always portrays Schmidt with the utmost realism, never acting out in anyway, but always staying true to the character of Schmidt and his situation. For example Nicholson makes entirely true to Schmidt, that Schmidt can as a normal  man, disliking his wife one second, Nicholson showing Schmidt being basically tired and annoyed by her, but still never not saying he completely hates her making his grief just as true and realistic when she dies.

Nicholson simply creates an interesting  character here, that I found extremely easy to follow as he went through his emotional journey, as well his physical journey in the film. Nicholson does this through making Schmidt, although not an overly special still special in his own way. Nicholson makes him fascinating in his own fellow, by always expressing what makes Schmidt unique about himself in a consistently effective fashion. Nicholson through his consistent effective performance makes a subtle transition through the film, as Schmidt slowly in a way because both  more depressed, but also more self aware of who he is at the same time. It is difficult to express both these changes but Nicholson does with a great deal of ease.

Nicholson makes it a powerful, heartbreaking transition, that is summed up by his final scenes depressed over his daughter's wedding and his gloomy outlook in life, but with a glint of light from the picture from the Tanzania boy he is sponsoring, Nicholson breakout in this final scene is completely earned and simply an incredible moment in Nicholson's performance. This is a very different type of performance by Nicholson, but nonetheless it also is one of his best. He never for a moment overacts the part, instead he keeps a consistently realistic, and honest portrait of this particular restrained man. This a performance by Nicholson, where he finds the power in every underlying facet of the man he expresses so well.

Best Actor 2002: Nicolas Cage in Adaptation

Nicolas Cage received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Charlie, and Donald Kaufman in Adaptation.

Adaptation depicts Charlie Kaufman's attempt to adapt the Orchid Thief.

The twin brothers are quite the opposite in terms of personality, and ability. Although they look the same and eventually are both screen writers, Charlie is far less confidant of a person, and far more withdrawn. Donald is far more outgoing, easygoing, and just a far more relaxed person. As screenwriters they again differ with Charlie trying his best to be original, whereas Donald is quite content writing a contrived multiple personality serial killer thriller. Cage of course plays both of the brothers, and easily separates them in his portrayal. Both of his portrayals are entirely their own characters. Cage also finds room to explore two very different types of performances through the film. One that is lead, the other supporting, one that is happy the other sad, one that changes over the time, but the stays basically the same.

Cage as Donald, the supporting brother, is quite entertaining in portraying the sort of naive glee that Donald has in life. Cage is consistently funny in portraying Donald's constant joy that he has at all times, as well as his external happiness that is always quite clear. Cage always finds the right amount of humor in Donald's way whether it is his dumb smile, or his rather crude way at times. Cage's best scenes as Donald though, are amazingly enough his scenes with Cage as Charlie. Cage has a terrific chemistry with himself. His scenes with himself are extremely fun to watch, and not because of the novelty of Cage playing against himself, but because they have an extremely amusing dynamic between the two with Charlie's depressed manner that is perfectly contrasted by Donald's joyful one.

In the leading role of Charlie Cage is equally effective. He has the perfect depressed manner that is consistent. Cage has the right withdrawn quality at all times as Charlie, which he always shows making Charlie always a little bit awkward around other people. Cage makes it a struggle to really talk to anyone easily, besides his brother anyways. Cage appropriately displays this as a real pain that Charlie suffers from. Cage turns Charlie into an effective character to follow through in his Adaptation through each of his troubles. Cage is excellent in showing Charlie's constant suffering over his attempts to make something out of the Orchid Thief, and it is appropriately underlined with a certain passion, although a very restrained passion that only comes out on certain breakthroughs of his script.

Charlie actually does indeed go under a change through the film, in which he gains more confidence, and learns a life lesson and all that. Cage is effective in this transition. It is the slowest of transitions, but it is one that is purposefully, a little contrived, but a realistically one as portrayed by Cage nonetheless, giving  rather powerful performance in the end. Cage's performance in this film certainly is a unique one because it is one of the few examples of an actor being nominated for a duel role, as well as being the only time an actor was nominated for portraying the screen writer, who is writing the film during the film. Cage takes the odd and make the most of it. Cage with the two brothers together gives a funny, entertaining, as well as interesting, and effective.