Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1970: Christopher Plummer in Waterloo

Christopher Plummer did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington in Waterloo. 

Waterloo gives a detailed overview of the battle that would be Napoleon Bonaparte's last attempt to maintain his power in France. 

A film that strictly falters because of the leading bombastic turn of Rod Steiger as Napoleon. The film is divided into two halves, of focusing on the French and English in the battle. It takes the focus of the French on a more strictly personal level, showing the particular investment Napoleon has in the battle, basically as it means his final end if he loses. Sadly Steiger creates no empathy for this cause, and leave a large hole in the story. Christopher Plummer though offers the counterpoint to this, as we initially meet his Duke of Wellington at some formal gathering with his family, as he just about to set out to battle. Against the extremely emotional state of Bonaparte, we instead we see Plummer who exudes just an extremely relaxed and even casual manner. This as even as his wife speaks of herself as some kind of Bonaparte fan, Plummer's reaction to this is with a genuine smile, if minor disinterest. Plummer's manner showing someone wholly comfortable within himself and even more so comfortable with what he will be facing next. Plummer's ease instantly establishes Wellington as the proper foe who isn't treating the battle as his last chance but rather seems to be looking upon it almost with a certain academic sense. In this Plummer creates the idea of a man who faces the battle with an ease and grace and the utmost preparedness. Even when remarking on Napoleon it is with commendation for the man's strategic skills,  which Plummer delivers with the utmost sincerity of one craftsman respecting another. 

Throughout the opening stages of the battle Plummer's performance gives the film some much needed comic relief by depicting Wellington's very confident and casual manner initially within the war. Plummer though makes this work in just showing it to be essentially the natural way in which to broach the fight. This in one particularly enjoyable moment where he is casually sitting underneath a tree with a newspaper as the enemy approaches. Plummer's blithe delivery of Wellington's response is funny, but in the right way as he makes it convincing within the Duke's calm approach to war. This even in within dealing with his troops where Plummer depicts as ease in his demeanor such as coming across an obviously thieving troop who tries to come up with an excuse to steal a pig. Plummer is great in this scene in his quiet and warm chuckle before promoting the man for defending an untenable position. Plummer makes it great by showing really the specific sort of camaraderie with his men in the moment, as his reaction, even towards the criminal soldier, is one of admiration for his men. This as he further speaks of them it is with this utmost pride that Plummer naturally reveals a genuine emotion even within the seemingly quite calculating commander. Plummer in particular creating this great contrast against what should be the emotionally draining portrayal of Napoleon, which sadly we don't really get but still Plummer does his part even if not properly reciprocated. Now as much as I think the film was designed for Bonaparte to be the emotion, the battle to be brutal action, and Wellington to be the balance by offering some natural humor to the proceedings, its off because of Steiger's contribution is so off. Having said that, Plummer basically picks up the slack for Steiger best he can in depicting Wellington's own arc towards the battle. This in slowly the weight of the losses and casualties get to the man. This is quite deftly realized in Plummer's work in every reaction as the battle wages granting a true sense of his personal investment in those who are dying. This slowly losing that casual manner to show a genuinely caring man beneath it all, which again was alluded by his pride in the man earlier. This until by the end Plummer earns the film's most potent emotion in depicting the sadness in the deaths within his expression, and wholly earning his final exasperation with the nature of war. Plummer creates a natural depiction of this loss of the lust for the battle, and creates the most poignant element in the film through his performance. I only wish his off-screen rival was up to Plummer's performance as the film would've been far better for it. Still completely on his own merits, Plummer delivers a terrific turn here, which doesn't make up for his co-star, but does fill in some of the dramatic void left by him.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1970: Charlton Heston in Julius Caesar

Charlton Heston did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Mark Antony in Julius Caesar. 

I decided to go elsewhere in the lineup mainly by virtue that I previously covered a powerhouse Shakespearean Heston turn built around a great speech. Then when starting to write my response to give thoughts on his work, it became quite long anyways, so might as well make it an official review. That being said, this is another powerhouse Shakespearean turn by Heston. Where in the 53 version it was a matter of dueling speeches between Mason and Brando rejecting Caesar and praising him. In this version there is no duel to be had, Heston simply owns the second speech, but also might as well be the entirety of the film. It is fascinating the way that Heston isn't usually an actor one thinks of as this deeply emotional performer, but when he's speaking Shakespeare it is hard to describe as anything but. Heston is brilliant here within the speech this as he essentially makes an entire event within itself in his single speech. This as he performs his Antony as true to his intention to remember Caesar, but also to seek revenge within the speech. This as he opens it with an initial sense of grief before falling back into himself, until leading the people into fascination of the will. Heston playing around with the will in part this intentional manipulation in his eyes, but also a vicious hate that is wholly genuine that reveals itself every time he speaks of the "honorable men" who killed his friend. Heston controlling the crowd one parts the greatest eulogy one can give, but also a conductor controlling the crowd to his will. Each moment Heston imbues with such potency. This particularly as he looks upon the body of the murdered Caesar. Heston is amazing as every word drifts off his tongue with such magnificence in Heston's delivery. This as the words themselves are not only magnetic in Heston's deliver, but there is such a sense of the emotional quality within the state still of Antony. This in being a man wishing to reek havoc on the conspirators. Again though I also love the moments where Heston tempers himself, and uses a calmer expression of his voice when specifically manipulating the crowd. This again his whole manner is simply conducting each man to his will, as he directs them with a calmer purpose. Heston artfully moves back and forth within the speech making the speech both truthful and a strategic manipulation. It is a shame Heston didn't perform Shakespeare more often as in both instances there is a ferocity and emotional intensity of his work that was rarely seen within him. Strangely enough, the words of the bard seemed to compel him to let loose more than ever as a performer. This being a striking example, that puts one of his co-stars in particular to shame, of Heston thriving beyond the expectations of himself his performer. Heston's typical strong presence is of course here, but there is far more than that. Although true the role is largely the speech, however it is the highlight of the film, particularly given how dull Robards is as Brutus. It deserves higher praise though as Heston's delivery is that of a brilliant version of Julius Caesar, even if the rest of the film doesn't meet that standard, Heston elevates every second he is onscreen to deliver this dynamic and quite mesmerizing portrayal of Caesar's most loyal man. 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1970

And the Nominees Were Not:

Bernard Cribbins in The Railway Children

 

Klaus Kinski in Count Dracula 

 

Christopher Plummer in Waterloo

 

Warren Oates in Barquero

 

David Warner in The Ballad of Cable Hogue

Alternate Best Actor 1970: Results

5. James Fox in Performance - Fox gives an effective against type turn portraying the right intense viciousness of a gangster, while also hitting the right notes in the film's messy psychedelic conclusion.

 

Best Scene: Acts of violence.  

4. Richard Harris in The Molly Maguires - Harris gives a strong understated leading turn, portraying both the technique and guilt as an undercover policeman in a outlaw group of miners.

Best Scene: Jail cell. 

3. Peter Sellers in Hoffman - Sellers gives one of his most raw, and also effective portrayals of a man trying to hide from his desperation.

 

Best Scene: False confrontation. 

2. Jason Robards in The Ballad of Cable Hogue - Robards gives a wonderful funny and just lively turn as a idiosyncratic western sort.

 

Best Scene: Cable's goodbye. 

1. Nicol Williamson in The Reckoning - Good predictions Mitchell, Razor and Bryan. Williamson takes this fairly easily for me in giving such a powerful and captivating portrayal of a man defined by his heritage both in his vulnerabilities and his cruelties. 

Best Scene: Getting revenge.

Updated Overall

Next: 1970 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 1970: Peter Sellers in Hoffman

Peter Sellers did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Mr. Benjamin Hoffman in Hoffman. 

Hoffman is strange, though not inert, film following a businessman who blackmails his secretary to spend the weekend with him.

 

Peter Sellers is known best, and continues to be known best, for his work as comedian and comic actor. Reasonably so as he had great talent for it, however each of his forays within dramatic, or even slightly dramatic work suggested a  remarkable knack for it. Sellers perhaps was somewhat before his time in that you were more pigeonholed in his period towards genre, as now a comedian turning dramatic is a bit more welcomed. Of course this perhaps speaks towards Sellers's own reaction to this film, where he tried to quash its release, the reason being supposedly his performance skewed most closely towards himself, notable given that Sellers typically went about disappearing within roles through one method or another. This though then is a particularly distinct performance because Sellers is wearing no large mustaches, no strange wigs, it is just him it would appear. Even his accent just appears to be his own here, this just presenting himself as this normal businessman, apparently, only obviously not only that. Sellers though just is acting purely outside of his comfort zone as he doesn't hide behind any of his considerable talent for accents and strange physical mannerisms. This is just Sellers straight up acting in a particularly direct and really quite raw sense. I suppose at this point I should not hide my feelings as I find this to be a remarkable work from Sellers, because it is Sellers kind of looking straight to the camera saying "here I am". 

Of course if this is Sellers, which based on personal stories of the man it isn't *too* far off, it isn't a surprise why he wanted to hide the film. This as we open the film as he's blackmailed this young woman, Janet (Sinead Cusack), into spending a weekend with him. His initial scenes making the film almost seeming like it is going to be a psychological thriller. This as Sellers portrays basically a man scarred from his whole existence with the other sex initial. This as his whole grin is that of a man hiding behind such a palatable bitterness. His way of referring to as "Miss Smith" Sellers delivers with a venomous callousness within his breath. His eyes baring not a personal hatred for the woman, but for any sense of experience with a woman. The eyes though are essential within Sellers's work as this is not a hollow hatred. There is a great sadness within the anger as well. A glint within the man broken more so by the idea of relationships, and his past ones, then actual say a potential serial killer as you might've missed guessed him to be initially. This is as their strange "date" begins Hoffman explains his mission of sorts towards Janet. Sellers bringing such a powerful vulnerability when he speaks towards the anxiety of having been previously turned down by her. The way he looks down, and seems to regress within himself is incredible work from Sellers in creating such a sense of the wound that defines the man. 

When Hoffman takes Janet out though, and just begins speaking with her, the nature of his plan becomes evident as less evil, though still quite immoral, of a sad man seeking companionship rather than a man planning some kind of sexual exploitation. This as we actual see them go to bed, Sellers presents Hoffman probably more so within his own state. This in explaining his late to sleep early to rise manner with just kind of a casual way of explaining it befitting a meek man. This while wholly ignoring the often half-dressed younger woman near him. Sellers important shows the moments where Hoffman is near her in this overtly sexual state, or even when she's trying to seduce him, seemingly to get it over with it, Sellers doesn't look upon with lust, rather a quiet penetrating sadness. Sellers suggesting a man seeking only the connection and pained by the lack of it. This as the story progresses, and Hoffman continually shows himself not to be as horrible of a man as his plan suggests he is, Sellers grants a sense to this character. This is when the man speaks towards his own "romantic" past, it is with a bitter anger, though as the story goes on it is no longer directed towards Janet, but just pointed towards almost inwardly. Sellers in turn brings as he is pressed by his own plan a greater vulnerability and really lack of explanation within Hoffman as he tries to reason a plan. Sellers supposedly spoke of himself as being some kind of husk of a man, without his personality within. Although that seems unlikely, the nature of this idea is found within his work here. This in presenting a man within this self-loathing depression who can only hold onto things like bitterness, and this foolish plan, to really confront life. Of course Sellers doesn't make Hoffman truly hollow, rather just very sad as a man missing something essential within his life. Although I'll say the film itself doesn't really earn where it ends up, it still offers such a striking opportunity due to Sellers's central portrayal. This is as he delivers something truly remarkable as presenting such potent emotions while doing so with such a reserved quality of a man hiding so much. At the very least it is again the testament to Sellers's ability as an actor, and that perhaps in a strange way we might have only skimmed the surface of his talents.

Another Year and Another...well delayed...Official Lineup

It would be a great irony if this year, of all years, where I'm making my predictions, before any precursors with voter overlap, was the most accurate in all the years I did this. Doubtful, but worth a thought. This lineup though seems right regarding just general buzz, and lack of alternatives. Outside of these five there just haven't been that many heralded leading turns that received their level of praise. These appear the top five on that notion. Ahmed for the young up and comer. Lindo for a vet finally getting recognition. Boseman being a story within himself, with "undeniable" mentions. Oldman seeming primed for a followup after a win, though I think he could be the one people think could miss out though perhaps will have always been safe, kind of like say a Benedict Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game type. Hopkins also received "undeniable" mentions, and seems primed to be recognized once again. Other than these five there is Tom Hanks, who was praised enough, but only enough for a film that seems like probably at best a best picture tech player. Kingsley Ben-Adir for One Night in Miami, received enough praise, but perhaps will not be able to crack against his competitors who aren't part of the same type of ensemble in terms of being overshadowed. Steven Yeun for Minari, needs to make a splash quickly if he's going to make any, and so far he hasn't made one. There could be a dark horse waiting in the wings, but doesn't seem like it at the moment. Maybe Mads Mikkelsen for Another Round? Seems unlikely, and most likely that film's biggest play will be International film only, unfortunately.

Where I had a great degree of false confidence in lead, I will say I have none in supporting. This as I think SAG, Globes and BAFTA could instantly throw all these right out the window. The "Trial" guys who seemed to have been far better bets a couple months ago, now seem in trouble mainly because the critics have not done the one thing they could've done, which would be to decide "who was the best" for voters. In general that film's buzz has faded a bit, however we'll see if that's just on the critics, and it could easily finds it resurgence with the industry awards, it does feel like that type of film. Still I no longer think it will be the first film since The Godfather Part II to get three nominations in BSA, in fact I'm not so sure it will be able to get two (however this could easily be the type of contender far more popular with the public/industry than with critics, so I should not overestimate what won so far by too much). Still if it at least gets one, I do think the most likely one is Sacha Baron Cohen for doing something slightly against type with some additional buzz for his successful return to Borat, then followed by Mark Rylance as the previous winner with the Oscar beloved crusading lawyer role (who I could see still cracking the lineup if the film resurges). Following that it seems Boseman could get double nodded. It isn't a huge role, but one could argue it resonates all the more now that he's gone. Boseman could easily become the first actor double nodded in the same year posthumously, and matching James Dean's record of two posthumous nominations. Following that is Leslie Odom Jr. who benefits from a substantial role plus Hamilton love, and from it seemingly decided that he's the one from the ensemble who should be recognized unlike "Trial". Another, at the moment, seems primed for Paul Raci, who is getting the needed critical love to get voters to take notice. The Sound of Metal honestly seems like a film that will do well as long as voters see it, which the critical mentions are essential for. Finally we have potential late breaker in Daniel Kaluuya for the seemingly juicy role in Judas and the Black Messiah. A role that from the trailer seems primed for a win, however we're still waiting on word for the film, although the fact that it is debuting within the academy's window is a good sign. Otherwise for the dark horses, there is David Strathairn for Nomadland, which sounds like the type of nomination that will only happen if there is an excessive amount of love for the film. Bill Murray which seems very unlikely by how low key that film and that role is. And Glynn Turman who won LA critics, however I can't help but feel his greater Fargo performance had something to do with that. I suppose he could happen though if Ma Rainey's does better than expected, however I think it will probably get a similar nomination pull as Fences did (picture, actor, adapted screenplay and just actress instead of supporting actress). 

Alternate Best Actor 1970: Alec Guinness in Cromwell

Alec Guinness did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying King Charles I in Cromwell. 

Cromwell is more than decent realization, of a great story, about the rebellion of Oliver Cromwell in England. 

Alec Guinness plays the secondary lead of the King of England Charles, who comes to clash with Richard Harris, a fitting firebrand, as Oliver Cromwell, featured here largely as a righteous freedom fighter. Guinness being an ideal actor for a quiet King, this as his presence is one that is striking even when silent as is the case here. Guinness's performance though is remarkable in creating Charles a complex figure within a story that could've potentially pressed him a simpler villain or even just a fool. Guinness's portrayal early on grants more than anything this weight of conflicted responsibilities. This as we see him speak towards those his Catholic wife views lowly, Guinness speaks with a tempering manner. An attempt to create a gracious quality of the man who wishes moderation. Guinness's voice though remarkably contrasting his eyes that speak towards the responsibility of a more personal level. This in the sort of recognition within his eyes a frustration with his wife, but also a resignation towards her wishes. Guinness does so much more than simply sit there, he creates a conflict within the man that is almost entirely unspoken yet wholly realized within his performance. Guinness showing Charles to not necessarily being a bad by nature but rather a leader compromised by his position. 

Charles takes his wife's choices towards trying to arrest Cromwell and his acolytes. A scene that again is such striking work just by looking purely upon Guinness's performance. This as he speaks with just a calm authority of the arrests to be made, notable most against Harris's fierce passionate performance. Guinness showing the state of the man sticking towards a certain script as he declares the arrests, but again his facial expressions say so much. This in the glints of unease as he sees Cromwell's rejection of the events, and again finding a greater complication within Charles than perhaps the overall film even means to present. Guinness finds nuance within the depiction creating even in the battle scenes a man of a certain inadequacy. This as Guinness presenting Charles as being almost lost within the whole thing, with a certain sense of a gentleman's indifference towards the affair though it be more a game than an actual battle. After he begins to lose, we have a moment of him trying to figure out how to continue the battle. This as Guinness brings such  sense of defeat as he speaks every attempted strategy. A sadness within the frustration of a man unaware of this kind of anxiety. A weakness of course is found in his work, but there is such a humanity he brings in this pathetic quality. This even in the way he so sadly holds his flag as he attempts, and fails to argue with his allies regarding his intentions to use whatever means necessary to win. Guinness wonderfully emphasizes the man, within the failure making Charles far more interesting than he would be otherwise. 

Guinness finds a complexity within the weakness of the poor leader, and even a certain sympathy. Take the scene where he is almost at a loss, where one of his commanders has abandoned his defeated army. Guinness leading a weak bluster against the man attempting to maintain the claim as the strong King. After the man leaves though, any sense of confidence drifts from his face. This with a somber depression as his eyes show a man whose whole world is falling apart before his eyes. His moments of moving his men's pieces from the map is a simple one, but powerful within Guinness's portrayal of it with such a sincere sense of loss. Even when Charles is seeing off his wife and son, as Cromwell's army is closing in, it is not that of the villain getting his righteous defeat. This rather Guinness expresses a true heartbreak both in the personal moment of saying goodbye to his wife and son, but also in the sense of failure towards leading Great Britain. After his fall, where he remains a captive of sorts. We see the split of the man well realized on both ends by Guinness. This being the sheer warmth he brings in playing with family and a loving man in that. This against a meeting with Cromwell, who offers Charles a way out that Charles does not accept, which Guinness presents with a quiet stubbornness, a learned stubbornness from years of following an accepted path. This shown even when denounced as a tyrant. 

 

Guinness presents a blithe indifference and questions the authority of the court. Guinness speaking with a privilege, mental privilege, of a man convinced by his very existence as a King that he must be beyond a normal judgement. The difference between the personal and the public though, Guinness finds a man who perhaps would've good as just a man, but as king, raised to be a king, is a terrible one. When he sentenced to be executed, Guinness's performance is essential and incredible in realizing Charles. This as it is not just a sense of fear, but a sheer emotional distress. This as Guinness's expression is of a man who cannot believe it simply could happen by way of his existence up until this point. Again Guinness so notably finding this moments to detail Charles more deeply. Guinness in doing this not only making Charles more interesting as a character, but also making his journey far more emotional than it would be. This in his final meeting with his family, Guinness is genuinely and powerfully heartbreaking. This as his face shows so sincerely the distress within the man awaiting his fate, while still speaking with a king's grace as he gives his son orders. Guinness showing though a loving family man in the moment, as his voice cracks as a man who genuinely loves his family. Guinness managing to make a moving portrait of the man, even while still realizing Charles as a bad leader. I love what Guinness does here as he offers such detail towards Charles as a man and as a King, I only wish the rest of the film brought the same level of attention to the more intimate elements of this potent tale.