Best Actor Back Log Volume 2 Results

5. Paul Newman in The Sting - Newman gives perhaps his most strictly entertaining performance. Having a proper blast in the role, while certainly carrying the proper warmth as the mentor type. 

Best Scene: Poker Game.

4. James Woods in Killer: A Journal of Murder - Although his film is severely misguided about his character, Woods fully understands him in his disturbing portrayal of depravity.

Best Scene: After the murder.

3. James Mason in Odd Man Out - Mason has limited screentime, however doesn't waste a moment in a heartbreaking portrait of a man coming to terms mentally while he decays physically. 

Best Scene: Psalm.

2. Bob Hoskins in Felicia's Journey - Hoskins delivers an absolutely fascinating depiction of a most unusual kind of psychosis.

 

Best Scene: Final scene with Felicia.  

1. Carl Anderson in Jesus Christ Superstar - Anderson delivers one incredible musical performance after another, but also delivers as striking of a silent turn.

Best Scene: "Last Supper"

Next: An extended waiting game (maybe a review or two if I find the motivation).

Alternate Best Actor 1996: James Woods in Killer: A Journal of Murder

James Woods did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Carl Panzram in Killer: A Journal of Murder. 

"Killer", which tells the story of an unlikely friendship between a prison guard and a real life serial killer, is bad in a lot ways. It is centrally flawed as it wants to examine the inhumanity of the prison system, however doing so through the examination of a man whose real life record simply suggests pure evil probably isn't the best way to go. That is only part of it. This as the film has such a crummy look about it. Almost every scene is shot flatly. The narration sounds more like it should be attached to a fairy tale. The musical stings are often overtly comical. The editing is clunky, and the majority of the performances sound like they come from the first rehearsal that didn't go particularly well and led to a few guys getting fired. There's a lack of general film making competence that is real quite notable for a film with, at the time, relatively name actors. 

Anyways James Woods is also in the movie as the serial killer Panzram. Woods is the only guy who didn't seem to attend those bad rehearsals, in fact it seems like he wasn't quite aware of dumpster fire he was in. This as Woods treats the part and the film as though it is a worthy endeavor. Now it helps that Woods in his prime was one of the most naturally compelling actors around. This as within that time he delivers a particular form of a charged onscreen charisma. He isn't traditionally charming, certainly not here, but he is magnetic, and that is the case here. Woods's performance brings something to explain why the prison guard, Henry (Robert Sean Leonard), would take a fascination in him, though strictly in a fanboy kind of way which makes one question his supposed humanitarian leanings. Woods though brings something captivating in the early scenes in portraying the brutal discontent in the man as he attempts to avoid conforming to the system. Woods presents a basic ferocity that isn't really so much of a man, but rather carries this certain caged animal sensibility in these moments. It's not just hatred, rather there is something Woods delivers that is deep within the man that creates this constant source of a tension. Woods, I suppose contrary to the film however probably more truthful to the man he's playing, makes Panzram something of nature not of nurture. 

There is actually a brilliant scene....for Woods, where Henry comes in to check the bars in Panzram's cell turning his back on the killer. Now this is after Henry gave Panzram a gift, after seeing Panzram beaten to a pulp by another guard. Woods is rather amazing in his portrayal of the scene as in his eyes there's a killer's viciousness that comes out. Woods portrays the scene though not as a guy who is thinking about killing the man for reason rather he presents it as instinct. There is almost a lust in his eyes that Woods depicts along with him also at the same time showing the man gritting his teeth, trying to hold back that instinct for a moment. His breaths as he manages to not kill the man, has this pressure that Woods brings as though the man just forced himself not to give into a insatiable urge. Woods again creating a reality towards the sense of Panzram, something perhaps the film itself should've taken more notice of. This as Woods very carefully never shows that Panzram is any normal criminal, he's far from it. There isn't the sense of a desperate man within the man, rather he is a kind of beast. This right to the point when we hear about Panzram's story, narrated with a reality more befitting to the nature of the story by Woods than we hear in the main narration by Harold Gould as an older Henry. 

Woods's narration again almost seems strangely devoted, at least comparison to the film, this as even when Panzram recalls an older prison and a reformer warden's tenure, there is a palatable sense of nostalgia in Woods's voice. We then see Panzram story where he is given certain allowances, including going into a nearby town. Although Woods portrays a certain enjoyment of the freedom, he maintains the intensity within the man. This within his eyes still the intention towards whatever animal lust should take him. This taking him quickly enough when almost immediately Panzram rapes a librarian in the town. Woods delivering the horrifying brutality of the moment. Although within the film, you do ponder what exactly is the point of including this, as it basically says "see reforms don't work for certain prisoners", despite the film seeming to advocate for reforms based around Panzram. Anyways, enough we continue with Panzram's life story, where he tells about every one of his killings. In Woods's voice though is a lack of a repentance towards a single word. Woods's delivery keeps everything as just the reality of Panzram simply telling of what he did, almost with a slight pride at times. Of course Henry doesn't see this tale as a rabid beast, who was a violent creature long before his time in prison, but rather a indictment of the system. 

Although there is surely many stories, even of actual convicts, that would be a great example of the brutality and potential reductive nature of the US prison system, the story of Karl Panzram is not it, especially not as the film presents it. Again though Woods's performance really doesn't seek to be anything but an actual reality for the man that if you even read further about him beyond what the film tells you, only exacerbates one's sense of the man. Woods likely did his own research, as his own performance is something rather terrifying, though the film tries to diminish everything he can by throwing in violin riffs as though he is Michael Myers or something. Woods still in these moments, whether it is a moment just calmly smoking in his cell planning the murder of a guard, or the murder itself, Woods doesn't hold back. The moment of calm having this strange determined satisfaction on his face. The moment of attack Woods almost portrays as this sexual act in every step of it. This portraying a strict enjoyment in every moment of the attack, and once the man is bleeding profusely from his head, Woods's face glows with an orgasmic exhilaration. Woods's performance isn't as some misunderstood man driven to violence by a hard life, no Woods makes Penzram the blackhearted psychopath he was. 

I think one of Woods's best scenes is after the killing and he is boasting about it to Henry. Woods displays a jubilation from the event. This as his face conveys a sheer enjoyment not only of what he did but is also exhilarated with the idea of being hanged for it. Woods's makes the deranged state of the man wholly tangible in the moment. This as in every words he seeds a irrational perspective of a man, who so believes in dog eat dog, that he is happy to be the one on the menu at some point. Woods even grants a reality to a contrived scene, which I suppose just shows how full of it Henry is, where the two seemingly just talk as men. Woods never loses the idea of the man, and is honest to the character even in this moment. Although he feigns a decency Woods still has that raw intensity within him at all times. There the killer's edge is never lost. This particularly, in the most correct moment in the entirety of the film, is when Penzram accuses Henry of really just being in it for the visceral excitement of being near a killer. Woods speaks with a lurid persuasion, and in the moment suggests the most overt truth in the piece. There isn't a point where Woods excuses the man within his performance, as much as the film wants us so badly to feel sympathy for the character. Woods is consistent, even in the moment of Panzram hearing his death sentence, the relief on his face, isn't of a victim waiting to die, but rather a twisted mind taking in some strange success. Watching the film again, which is a complete failure of intention and technique, I still found this to be a searing and captivating performance by James Woods. As much as the film doesn't understand the man its dealing with, Woods does and delivers a befitting portrait of depravity.

Alternate Best Actor 1947: James Mason in Odd Man Out

James Mason did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Johnny McQueen in Odd Man Out. 

Odd Man Out is Carol Reed's other masterpiece, that receives a bit less recognition in general, about an IRA operative on the run after a failed robbery.

Now that description in short doesn't speak the brilliance of the film. The brilliance being that it isn't *just* about the IRA soldier on the run, but rather the way this event seems to influence the entire city around him. Due to this complex perspective however James Mason here probably is one of the least leading leads around. By that alliteration I mean that James Mason doesn't have a great deal of screentime despite his Johnny McQueen most certainly being the core of the film. Now that is perhaps why I placed him originally too low in my original ranking for 47 (although it might've also been me taking less care to those past #1, since no one was every going to take Attenborough's place when he was in 47), but that is entirely unfair to Mason's performance. This as every minute Mason is onscreen, he makes it count. Now in the opening of the film we initially meet McQueen as he's hiding out in a home, preparing for the robbery with his men. McQueen having spent months within the home after having escape prison for previous IRA action. This seems a small scene, but it is essential for Mason's performance, and again he doesn't waste it. This as he creates the essentials of the man in a few ways. One as we see him initially prepping Mason delivers a calm and cool charisma to Johnny. Although Mason was better known for his cold villains at the time, Mason shows a definite range here in creating an innate likability within this moment. This as Johnny speaks to the man with a reserve, but also a sense of understanding as a once proper leader of the men. 

After prepping his men, he's left with his right hand man, and one of the women who had been hiding him, Kathleen (Kathleen Ryan), who clearly bares greater affection for Johnny. His talk with the right hand man, who asks for him to go on the job instead due to Johnny's time inside, Mason's reaction is effective in revealing less charisma and more exasperation in the moment. He speaks with a reserved false indifference to the statement, ensuring him he's fine just as Mason's face reflects the wear the man has received. Still Johnny chooses to go but before has a scene with Kathleen, who actually never state themselves as lovers or the like, but as they are together we are granted this sense. This speaks to the performances of both Ryan and Mason, this as there is just a strong sense of the attraction and warmth within the moment. They speak even not in a directly personal way, rather she just cautions Johnny on the plan, but within the interaction every still is said within their performances. There is a striking sense of the love between them. We won't see them again together until the end of the film, so this scene actually is more important than it might seem. Within it though you are granted in total a real sense of the connection between the two and it is through the natural strength of both Mason and Ryan's performances. Their eyes match and grant a sense of so much of a relationship constrained within circumstance, but still thriving within the two's hearts. 

The actual robbery we see as Johnny approaches and in that Mason's physical work, which is a primary virtue of this performance is even evident before his inevitable injury. This as they walk into the location, Mason carries himself with an uncertainty in his step and awkwardness in his manner as even go by bystanders seems a slightly odd thing to him. The robbery falling apart as Johnny tries to make his escape and becomes disoriented slowing him down enough for a clerk to attack him. This fight that leaves the other man dead, and Johnny shot, Mason portrays as just a broken moment of messy desperation near accident. This to the point when he is then making his escape in their getaway, Mason's distress is potent as he keeps asking if the man he shot is dead or not. This granting a sense of real concern and shame in Johnny, and really the beginning of the end for the man. This as Johnny falls from the car window in the escape, and runs off finding solace in some abandoned structure. While the city searches for him including cops, Johnny's men, Kathleen and some random opportunists, Johnny lays in the building just slowly suffering from his wound. Mason's performance of Johnny's physical decay is remarkable, as we see each step, here in the stinging pain as he lies alone. There is a wonderful moment as Johnny is barely conscious and imagines a local girl as a guard from his prison days. Mason's performance is amazing in his wistful delivery of the past day as some foggy dream. Mason's eyes expressing a man seemingly escaping, by returning to prison of all things, though crafting a state of brief contentment before finding reality again. 

Mason's performance then for a good chunk of the film is nearly silent, having brief moments of just trying to wave people from him or asking for help, however that doesn't at all dull the impact of his performance. This as Mason's face is so powerful in this film. Take a moment as Johnny is still stuck in the place as he watches two lovers hiding in his place seemingly for tryst though the woman relents. Mason's expression captures certainly the tension in Johnny as he expresses concern of being found out, but there is so much more. There is a sadness as he looks upon the couple that seems to suggest the man pitying his circumstances as his life and love is filled with so much more complication and anguish. As we see Johnny wandering around the city, finding random help here and there. Mason's performance captures such a potent growing desperation in every regard. This as his physical manner becomes all the more distressed and labored, and his eyes evoke a man going through more than just physical pain. This as he finds a brief solace in a bar, that doesn't want to come afoul of either the cops or the IRA, Johnny sees his life in beer stains. Mason's performance again finds such a potent sense of anxiety as he realizes the sense of the man seeing how everything has spiraled out for him, this before earning his visceral scream that is built out of more than the nearly festering wound within him. Mason showing a man burdened wholly through his life to this life, and creating this man who seemingly has never stopped being a prisoner despite having escaped from one kind of prison. 

 

Eventually a group of strange men, including a deranged artist and a quirky bird keeper, take him away to repair him slightly through the use of a doctor of sorts, however all the men aren't entirely motivated to help Johnny. Mason meanwhile shows Johnny barely conscious within the affair and nearly dying it seems as his performance becomes shows the life of the man growing ever fainter. This until he's spoken to about his old priest, who wants to see Johnny now to help him, and Johnny has a vision of the old pastor. Mason is downright amazing in this moment, and is one of the best of his illustrious career. This as we see in his eyes, despite staring at a hallucination, Johnny finding some clarity and sense rather than just pain. Mason's expression shows a man reaching some understanding suddenly of the moral betrayals in his life that have left him to this point. This culminating in Mason's awe inspiring delivery of Psalm 23 as recognition of the lessons of the priest he ignored. Mason's work here is outstanding as burdens each word with such potent emotion and meaning. Mason says it with such intensity of feeling and creates a moment of true revelation. Mason makes it this moment of true catharsis as the guilt and anxiety that seemed to weigh so heavily in the psalm, as almost this incredible act of repentance. Johnny is brought along supposedly to see the priest, as he is walked along by the bird keeper. Mason's physical work now is that of a basically a dead man walking. His expression like  a ghost somehow just barely maintaining a moral coil and his movements now of a man just forcing himself to move while his body is actively dying. This as he doesn't meet the priest, and instead finds Kathleen, who is adamant that Johnny not be taken in. We have an extraordinary moment, where we find that chemistry again, now so poignant as Mason shows with all the pain just the hint of true warmth and solace as Kathleen speaks of an escape that isn't far. This is a truly great performance by James Mason. He doesn't have a great deal screentime, however there isn't a moment where you forget his presence. He is a constant, in that he never wastes a moment, whether silent or speaking. This in granting us the sense of Johnny's journey both physically, mentally and emotionally. This in creating such a heartbreaking and tragic portrait of man slowly escaping his life.

Alternate Best Actor 1973: Carl Anderson in Jesus Christ Superstar

Carl Anderson did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a Golden Globe, for portraying Judas Iscariot in Jesus Christ Superstar.

I'll admit any Jesus Christ Superstar adaptation already has the favor of the music in its corner, as it is one of the few musicals where I pretty much like to love every song. I think also the rock opera format is ideal for this story, since you come in likely already knowing it well. This version even in its theoretical "low budget" styling, I actually I like a great deal, as it very much kind of recognizes the format, while in a way kind of directing us straight to the emotion of it. This neither getting caught in sort of the pageantry if it attempted a biblical epic approach, or getting caught too much in the idea of any subversion of the story if it went more towards overt style. I feel here it balances both notions to greater effect, this using the actual landscapes, but as a "troupe production". It recognizes that it is actually a pure realization of that story, just through a unique presentation of it. 

 

A masterstroke of the musical is that while Jesus (played here by Ted Neely) is a lead, he is not a sole lead. This as it grants about equal focus to Judas, his betrayer. Now this version loses no musical power from any other recording given it didn't cast movie stars, rather including Broadway performers, though not all specifically from the original production. Carl Anderson was the replacement Judas, and his vocal abilities for the stage are readily noticeable. To say Anderson delivers on every song is more than any understatement. His mastery of each every note is remarkable, and I can, and have, listened to his specific tracks again and again. His singing just is incredible. Although with that, I think is where we see a risk paid off within the notion of casting from the stage, as sometime stage presence doesn't carry over to screen presence. This as his singing doesn't just merely hit the notes, though he certainly does, but he importantly acts them. Acting them not just in the moment but crafting an entire portrayal of Judas which is immensely fascinating. This as he isn't at all a villain, rather in each song he slowly crafts with it this portrait of a very specific person in relation to Jesus. 

This as we open the film with "Heaven on their minds" we get a striking emotion within his work as Anderson reveals Judas's discontent. The discontent is not of hatred though rather frustration within his performance. A frustration that makes particularly powerful because he doesn't present it as coming from a place of hate rather a place of admiration if not love. This as the moments of expressing the past time with Jesus where the emphasis did not appear to be on his divinity, Anderson presents within his performance an anxiety and anguish around the anger of the state. Judas suggesting a man very much believed in the message but with this sense of discontent as though it has been obscured by other things. This sense of admiration making the rendition very much a warning, and not a threat. I love for example how he sings "we are occupied" which is brilliantly almost oxymoronic as he whispers while still singing it with might. In that moment Anderson creating the sense of the fear of the follower, who sees them on the wrong path and with a clear sense of the passion that once defined a loyalty to Jesus. This whole scene though, being I think testament to the strength of Anderson's performance, because it is never about just the singing. His movements express in every sort of weighted step, a man burdened by his perceived knowledge, and his expressions match every word with equal resonance. 

The two numbers where we are among Jesus and his followers "What's the Buzz", "Everything's Alright", both feature Anderson basically as the counterpart to each prevailing sentiment. The first time we see Judas decrying Mary Magdalen, a prostitute, being in Jesus's company. I think the way Anderson plays this scene is brilliant, because as much as it still is Judas being a jerk, his approach is less of an attack on Mary, and more so fierce counsel to Jesus. Every word he expresses it is within this sort of familiarity we see in his face, and again that distress as he warns "they need only a small excuse to put us all away". Again Anderson emphasizes so effectively Judas more so as a friend counseling someone he sees going down a wrong path, than a pompous villain, or even overly zealous fool. This is point expressed all the more potently in the second song, where Mary is attempting to comfort Jesus with fine ointment. Anderson's musical decrying of it, as he enters in again with such ferocity, is perhaps my favorite singular line as sung in the film. A reason for this though is in the moment, where Judas notes such extravagance could've been given to the poor, there is such passion and pain in Anderson's voice and eyes. He shows a man who genuinely is heartbroken that he can't do more to help others, and his lashing out is again from a place of technically deep virtue, not a vice. I love the silent followup moment where Jesus asks Judas to appreciate what he has, as in the moment of genuine understanding in both their faces, are we granted a sense of the friends they were at one time.

I think what is representative of the strength of the work of Anderson is in so many of the scenes where he actually doesn't sing a note and is merely among scenes. This as he stands apart and is distinct on his own. This in wonderful moments where his reactions take in the more zealous nature of the other followers or some of Jesus's actions, there is a sense of dread and concern he conveys so powerfully within his work. He doesn't sing a word, but you know exactly what is going on with him. This to the point that there is a build within his performance towards finally returning to a song with "Damned for all time". The song where Judas essentially agrees to betraying Jesus. Anderson is magnificent in the scene as his physical manner of a man barely able to stand, basically in a writing condition of emotional distress creating the sense of a man both unable to deal with betraying Jesus but also unable to feel he can stand behind him either. The moment of the betrayal is fantastic, as the high priests tempt not with the money, but rather the charity money can buy. Anderson's moment of taking it, and giving up Jesus are outstanding as he portrays this internalized kind of detachment, as though Judas himself is wholly living with himself as he makes this decision. Now during the "Last Supper" sequence one can say we get the best of both aspects of Anderson's performance. This as when Jesus starts making accusations of betrayal, Anderson's face of knowing while hiding is great, before finally snapping into direct confrontation with him. Anderson's portrayal of the anger is striking because while it is most directly that here, it still is encased with a sense of frustration, and even shame in the last moment as he runs off. His expression rather heartbreaking as a man seemingly damned by fate. Again Anderson's work doesn't stop as the film shifts closer towards Jesus's trials. The brief glimpses we are granted Anderson doesn't waste as his face carries the weight of a true palatable guilt and grief for the man he loves. This until he finally returns his silver before committing suicide. This sequence Anderson is outstanding in through how quiet and even sentimental he begins it. This as his moments of remembrance along with a sense of despair. This before running to hang himself, where Anderson's vocals echo with such tremendous impact, of a man screaming at seemingly being made to be the betrayer rather truly choosing to be one. Now he does actually have one more scene, in the pseudo four wall break, where Judas donned in white return so to sing the titular song as an MC basically. Although a less emotional scene for him, still amazing because he's still singing. Frankly I'm surprised that Anderson didn't really seemingly get any major opportunities in film after this, because this is a stellar debut. Anderson gives  a mesmerizing musical performance, but he also gives a deeply emotional portrayal of Judas both in sound and silence.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1973: Paul Newman in The Sting

Paul Newman did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Henry Gondorff in The Sting. 

I ought to open with a few complete asides and just re-state my enjoyment of this film. It's just a wonderfully entertaining and fun film. I always love when the same people who decry a best picture win like this, also decry the academy not recognizing comedy. The Sting is not a great serious drama, it's great entertainment. Anyways, one of the major reasons for this quality is in the star-pairing of Robert Redford as young up and comer con man Johnny Hooker, and Paul Newman as the old pro Henry Gondorff. Redford was the only actor recognized for the film, perhaps as the "hotter" commodity at the time, which given the academy's love for the film the lack of Robert Shaw as the chief villain Doyle Lonnegan and Paul Newman does feel a bit of an oversight strangely enough. Now it has to be said, despite Newman's star theoretically fading when compared to Redford at this point (though it wasn't really), Newman might as well be in his prime here. In fact while they make for a give and take duo in their previous collaboration Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Newman takes ownership of this film despite definitely not being lead, and...actually on this watch I had to admit something that I couldn't quite believe...Newman is supporting in the film. Now hear me out, Gondorff's role is specifically as the supporting mentor to Hooker, and though he has a few scenes to himself, so do Robert Shaw and Harold Gould as other con pro Kid Twist. Like those two, his scenes are almost exclusively in service to the creation or motivation of the con, that is technically all for Hooker's story. To kind of seal it I did a rough screentime count, where I was generous if anything, and from that I was surprised to learn Newman only has a few minutes more than 15 minutes of screentime, making him in a grand total of about 15% of the film, hard to call him a lead, particularly when Redford is an unquestionable lead standing right there with his over an hour of screentime. If the role wasn't played by Newman, I might've come to this conclusion a lot quicker.

 

That of course speaks to the strength of this performance and the star power of Newman in this role. This as we open with Newman's entrance into the film being a classic sort of anti-star entrance as we meet the "great Henry Gondorff" as he's sleeping off a hangover between a wall and his bed. This followed by being awoken through a cold shower, and we start with not the best introduction for this supposed ultimate con artist. Newman is of course great at being sloppy just as he is at being smooth. This as he instantly endears a bit to Henry in just showing his lack of pretense in his interactions with Hooker. Newman brings a nice bit of warmth just as he attempts to guides Hooker and even cautions him about revenge. Newman does it with really such a naturalistic way that makes Gondorff instantly endearing as this mentor to Hooker. Now as we follow Gondorff as he goes about recruiting his crew to set up Lonnegan, we get full movie star Newman in all his glory. This is just Newman at his most in that regard. Newman could be a great actor, but here he is a great movie star. This just in every one of his interactions, and nose flicks, there's a sheer sense of a joy of performance there. This as it is hard not to have the fun right along Newman every step of the way. Of course Newman does balance this in showing a sense of intelligence as he discusses the plan, pausing on moments to show regarding Lonnegan's potential wrath, but also just bringing so much energy to the build of the plan. He has such a wonderful zest within figuring out each bit of it. Newman making for a great leader for the plan that it is hard not to get wrapped up into the plan, and wish you could be part of his con in some way. 

Now the planning of the con leads to what is the best scene of the film, remember this is a film I adore, largely because it solely focuses on the two best performances in the film, that being Shaw and Newman going to toe to toe in a poker game. Before that though we do get a quick moment that kind of sums up Newman's performance a bit here, and what makes him just so likable. This as he shows off his card tricks to Hooker. This as he shows them off he is so impeccably smooth in his manner, but then when he fumbles a bit, Newman sort of "oops" reaction is perfection. This as Newman brings the right bits of subversion within the confidence to make him all the more likable actually. Now onto the poker game that is amazing in every regard and I love every minute of it. This as Newman is terrific in portraying Gondorff play the poker lout "Shaw". His whole manner being a mess, and being as abrasive and obnoxious as possible. He is hilarious in just how sloppy he is and particularly in stark contrast to Shaw who just is getting more and more angry in his reactions throughout. They make great foils for one another throughout the scene. I especially love one moment where Shaw finally verbally lashes out, and Newman's "aw crap" face (which apparently might've been genuine thinking Shaw was about to actually punch him) is the perfect moment of Gondorff losing his bearings just a bit. Newman's great though in showing in that sloppiness the casual confidence about the performance Gondorff is doing, making it seem all too easy. I especially love his rather comical way of glancing at his final hand, while also eyeing Lonnegan's henchman with a certain suspicion. Newman is hilarious throughout the scene, and against Shaw's reactions, you have a truly classic scene. 

That scene is Newman's highlight however Newman doesn't waste a moment from that point in portraying Gondorff trying to make it all work. This as there's actually a nice balance. This in moments of portraying his concern for Hooker's safety. Newman's actually fairly moving in portraying this low key concern wholly earnestly as he remains uncertain of the kid's life throughout the affair. This while also portraying a nice duality in the moments of the actual sting. This in capturing the degree of stress as Newman portrays a lack of confidence in the moment of running around trying to make it work and creating a good sense of the pressure of it. This against his moments of still playing Shaw as this cocky and mean employer of a corrupt race betting room. Newman though creates a good character in these moments with stiff and dismissive anger he brings in playing the part of the boss you'd believe Hooker's character supposedly hates. Of course this all being just part of the game and in the moments of success where you get that carry over chemistry of Redford and Newman from Butch and Sundance. This as when the two share joy it just seems all the brighter. The final sequence in particularly being all the more joyous just in their mutual jubilation being just so infectious. Even in his supporting screentime, Newman seems the lead just by his presence throughout once he appears. He makes for the proper con man of all con mans. I'll say though watching the film again, I must've had a little bit of a case of Oscar sickness in my evaluation of Robert Redford's work, that is being overly dismissive of it largely due to my love of the Oscar snubbed Newman and Shaw. I will correct that of course. Nonetheless though still, Newman and Shaw do steal the film, Shaw through his vicious and volatile presence and Newman through his charming one. This may not be the technically best acted performance by Paul Newman, but it is perhaps his most entertaining and the clearest example of his star power. 

Alternate Best Actor 1999: Bob Hoskins in Felicia's Journey

Bob Hoskins did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Joe Hilditch in Felicia's Journey. 

As with almost any of Atom Egoyan's films I'd categorize as good (though a bit drawn out and suffers from being a bit top heavy when it comes to interesting characters), Felicia's Journey is a strange, though intriguing, bird of film about a older man who tries to "help" a young desperate pregnant woman, Felicia. 

Always hate coming onto a performance late as I finalize a year, as I really should've just taken the time for Bob Hoskins here, as this performance is unlike anything else that I'd seen from Hoskins. Now I've always been a fan of Hoskins's as an actor, with his potent bottled up presence, that almost seemed to hide a great emotional range. This found in his great performances in Mona Lisa and The Long Good Friday, as different kinds of volatile men, and of course his low key hilarious yet still emotional work in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. This though is something quite different from Hoskins's as his very presence has no traits of a working class, or once working class, bruiser. This man is something else. This is found right off in Hoskins's instantly curious and fascinating work. This in his more affected accent. This with a sort of odd politeness innate within his voice. For a lack of a better shortcut, Hoskins kind of plays this part as though he was Ian Holm playing this part, and that is high praise. This as Hoskins erases your mind of those other turns, in his gentler voice he brings here, but also his manner that matches the same. We see him as this commercial chef and as so there is a fanciful manner to this man that Hoskins creates, that grants us some sense of who he is, and keeps us quite intrigued in what he might be. 

We follow many scenes of Joe just living through the day, and there is something even in this within Hoskins's performance. There is a levity to it, though not in the sort of comedic sense. Rather Hoskins is way of movement here is almost a way of floating through a given scene. He doesn't quite interact as is the normal way, marking Joe with this strange kind of very odd kind of grace. Hoskins is rather mesmerizing just to watch be here, as you can't instantly decipher the man, and part of the fascination is watching Hoskins give us hints. This as we see him preparing a meal, while watching a TV chef (who we will later learn is his long dead mother), Hoskins's performance has a kind of violence in the preparation. When eating the meal, and watching the woman still, Hoskins's performance is one of sheer brilliance. This sort of boyish curiosity he brings in examining the meal, and a comfort as he bites as though he is a baby being fed by his mother. There is something unquestionably off-putting about it, but what I love is how enigmatic it is just the same. Hoskins doesn't immediately tells us exactly who Joe is exactly. He creates a mystery about the man, and really is the facet of the film that reels you into it. This as there's just something about Hoskins's performance that makes you want to learn more about this man, even if you may be concerned with that might exactly go. 

Now we see Joe as he begins to offer some advice to Felicia, and there is just something about that accent that Hoskins uses here. It is a masterstroke, as it is this incredible combination of comfort and discomfort at the same time. This as he speaks so gently that at quick glance, particularly if someone was need of help of any kind, it is with that of just a good intention if off man, but spending more time with it, there's just something not quite right about it. Felicia eventually more directly takes Joe's help as he begins to give her rides. Hoskins's performance is everything as he asks her questions with that small voice of his, seemingly comforting. When she mentions she's pregnant though, there is a smile, and change of tone of his expression that is most unnerving. Hoskins portraying Joe's "charity" to perhaps not be some simple kindness of a lonely man. There is a strange game though we see when Felicia reveals any vulnerability as Joe puts forth the utmost empathy it would seem. Again it is with perhaps a quirk, or something worse, that he offers his words of wisdom, but Hoskins himself doesn't portray this as facade exactly even. There is something more demented going on than just that. This as see a progression of other young desperate women that Joe's "helped" in the past. 

Hoskins's work here is outstanding, and part of why he is so fascinating to watch, is he presents a man who is in a strange world of his own at all times. This developed from his equally strange relationship with mother we see in flashback. Hoskins even in a moment of Joe just watching a clip of Salome, there is a man starting on some alternate wavelength of experience. When we see him speak to Felicia of his fake wife, Hoskins speaks with overtures of the good nature of parenthood, but even in this, he's kind of outside of the conversation even as he's speaking directly to her. Hoskins portraying a man who is always thinking within some other realm even when within this process that one would assume would be more symbiotic. It is in this that Hoskins alludes to what Joe really is doing with all this. This as he develops the sense of the man's mind where his interaction is always with a strange kind of detachment and self-obsession. When speaking of his fake wife, even killing her technically by saying she has died in hospital, his words turned as though he is almost speaking to himself still. This as he tells himself this story just as he is telling her. This performance is quite terrifying as Hoskins reveals Joe's nature as more sinister in each successive scene. This as we slowly come to realize that Joe is in fact a serial killer of these young women, and Hoskins paints a most unnerving portrait of the way this man goes about his ways.

 

 This as he brings Felicia along, with a cherub's smile and a country priest's voice. This though in moments bringing forth the nature of the hate that is simmering within him, that Hoskins evokes in wholly chilling moments as Joe becomes more determined with his current "charity".  When Joe goes about finally planning to kill her, Hoskins is so matter of fact in the movements, which is particularly off-putting as we see a man who likely has gone through this kind murder again and again. When he describes putting the girls to "sleep" as he's in the process of killing Felicia, suddenly that gentle voice of becomes something truly disturbing. The only point in which the man's world seems to completely break, as he attempts to wrap up his crime, two Christian missionaries come calling. Hoskins's incredible as he shows the final break in the man as he watches their presentation to him. Hoskins's voice loses any of its grace, his manner is not longer lost in its state. There is desperation, a fear, a man suddenly blunted by a random reality that penetrates his typical deranged state. Hoskins brilliantly internalizing the breakdown within the man almost in sheer disbelief when confronted with something then than his own delusions. Hoskins's performance presenting the greater degradation of the man's mind as he seems tp hold less and less into the delusion and in turn his psychosis is shown more overtly in every respect. His eyes filled with tears, his body wavering, and his voice quacking as his crimes are discovered. A man with no delusions left to cling to, therefore also no life to cling to. This is a fantastic work by Bob Hoskins that shows an even greater range than I already knew he had. A daring, and dynamic portrait of a most unusual and unhinged man. 

Best Actor Backlog Volume 2

And the overlooked performances are:

James Mason in Odd Man Out

 

Paul Newman in The Sting

 

James Woods in Killer: A Journal Of Murder

 

Carl Anderson in Jesus Christ Superstar

 

Bob Hoskins in Felicia's Journey