One thing about the Leading categories is that there's a whole lot of biopic performances. Sometimes that's awesome because you get some memorable characters and films. Other times you've got to sit through an overly long, bloated mess that is more of an actor showcase instead of a bonafide in depth look at an interesting person. I know we've got 2 here, one of which I've already seen, but it's something I've noted as I've gone through the years. I will say I enjoy completely new characters a lot more than biopic ones. I'm very interested to see which side Downey's performance falls on though.
1992 Best Actor
Al Pacino - Scent of a Woman
Al Pacino's Oscar win. Nope, it's not for The Godfather Part II or Serpico or Dog Day Afternoon or Scarface or a couple of his later big films. No, it's for Scent of a Woman, the performance and role that everyone says was an Oscar grab and a make up for all his years of great work that went unrewarded. That's what everyone always first says about this win, that it's a make up and not really worthy. How would you like to be Al Pacino and have your win somewhat tarnished by the fact that most people don't think it's very legit? I mean, I doubt he cares very much but the fact that his win is seen as being for an inferior performance is telling. How exactly is his performance in this film? Well, it's loud and it's brash and it's pervy and it's unapologetic. Pacino plays a blind, retired Army LTC (Lieutenant Colonel for you non-Army folk) who wants a big, glorious weekend before he goes out with a bang. Pacino's character is quite funny at times with his comebacks and non-sequiturs, but the man never shuts the hell up and his shtick becomes quite grating. There's times where you might agree with his win and other times where you curse whoever decided to nominate him. That's how polarizing his character can be in the same scene, even. Most everyone who encounters him feels the same way until we are made to think he's this great, misunderstood guy because he defends Chris O'Donnell in a big ending scene and teaches him how to be a man throughout. It's just one big display for Pacino who gets to yell and say Hooah! a lot and talk about pussy (which take another look at the title of the film) and be a general creep and asshole. He knows it and wants to kill himself though O'Donnell persuades him not to do so. It's a mostly one note performance that doesn't have much subtlety. He drops his accent at random times, the yelling scenes channel too much of his previous characters, he just goes over the top for a lot of the performance. There are a couple times where Pacino tones it down and comes off charming or at least offers more depth to the character like the tango scene. All of that is overshadowed by his overall loud performance and is why this is seen as just a make up Oscar and not a truly deserved Oscar. His Supporting Actor role is much more deserving to me of getting an Oscar than this one, honestly. I think this really does hold to the notion that it's a make up Oscar which is kinda sad because it's a good performance in its own way! It takes a Pacino to pull off this character and not make him completely insufferable. It's just also not what I would consider the best of this year.
Robert Downey Jr. - Chaplin
I honestly didn't know what to expect going into this film because absolutely no one ever talks about Chaplin or Downey's performance. I've heard he's good and the film is only okay but that's really about it for what should be a very big biopic about a Hollywood icon. Nowadays, not a peep. So I guess you could say my expectations were a bit tempered which might be a good thing for the film overall, but Downey's performance doesn't need tempered expectations to be qualified as really flipping good. He is spot on as Chaplin the entertainer, I mean spot on. He's got the moves down like he's the one who created them. He's effortless in this part even though I'm sure it took a great deal of effort to perfect. Put Downey and Chaplin up against each other in black and white and you may have trouble figuring out which is the real Chaplin. Yeah, that's a bit of overstuffed praise but he's that good in those acrobatic, vaudevillian moments. It's also a lot of fun to watch and made me want to go watch some Chaplin films myself. Downey is tremendous in this part and it's very hard to argue that he's not worthy of a possible win here. It's not imitation, it's pure respect. I'd say where the film lets Downey down at is in getting to know the real Charles Chaplin, getting into his mind. Downey plays these serious moments just fine but they don't quite delve into who Chaplin is and so Downey doesn't get to work that side of his Chaplin much. We breeze through all the women in Chaplin's life but never feel connected to them or feel their importance in Chaplin's life. I would have been more interested in seeing how his feelings about his mother transformed his work and life and relationships but we didn't get that. So Downey flits around being charming and then serious and then charming again without much deep introspection or explanation for his motives. Downey also portrays Chaplin in his much older years and this is actually some very good acting, as well. I think Downey gets a lot out of being dressed up in old age make up than just looking the part. He brings some genuine feeling to the role and a bit of the introspection I wish was in the younger parts. This could have also been done more in depth, too, but it's a step in the right direction. Downey shows off his ability to do many different things with this complicated role and I'm very glad he was nominated here. Now if only people could remember he existed as an actor before Iron Man.
Clint Eastwood - Unforgiven
I feel like this nomination came along for the ride because the Academy was so enamored with the film itself. They loved it as evidenced by its Best Picture win and loved Eastwood as evidenced by his Best Director win and nomination here. He was the darling of the moment and finally delivered a film that he directed that connected with a wide audience after a smattering of kudos for some smaller films he directed previously. I think the Academy was just itching to nominate him for acting and were finally able to do so and this is the result. I don't think Eastwood stands out all that much here. He's good and competent and very Western, as he should be with his history. But his arc, character, and role are all pretty basic. He plays a retired bandit and killer who wants to live out his days on a pig farm with his kids and no trouble. He is convinced to take out some cowboys who roughed up some whores for some money and the film grows from their to become more than just a simple retaliation/revenge tale. Eastwood is still seen as the hero even if he's an antihero for much of the film and has a lot of the meatier parts. He gets his butt kicked and is injured yet heals up quick and then gets revenge for his partner who is killed but quite easily killing a room full of guys without a scratch and returning to his old ways but not really coming off as bad to the viewer. The film's theme is really about the brutality and reality of life in the West and how the killing isn't noble or romantic, yet Eastwood's character comes across as being just that. I don't know if Eastwood couldn't keep himself from not being the big, sympathetic hero even under complicated circumstances but it's a bad look for the film. Luckily, the film is strong enough to not really be affected by Eastwood's choices but imagine if we didn't really endear ourselves to his William Munny. The film would have been even stronger. The other characters get the lamentation of age and reputation and their own history right in a way that Eastwood doesn't. I just wish Eastwood would have played it a little more realistically and not like one of his previous action movies. Having Munny really struggle with returning to being a bad guy would have made the film even stronger. Thankfully, Unforgiven is good enough to not suffer from Eastwood's acting choices.
Stephen Rea - The Crying Game
Again I will say you should probably go watch this film before reading anything about it, whether here or anywhere else, because it will be spoiled for you and it will lessen the impact of the spoiling scene in question. I'll also say again that I'm not a big fan of this film and don't understand it's inclusion for Best Picture. I understand that it has a big moment that probably shocked viewers back then as it still does today, but it's just one moment. With all that said, I was completely underwhelmed with Stephen Rea's performance as a whole. I'd describe it as tepid, honestly. It doesn't motivate or interest me all that much and I feel like a Best Actor nominee should bring something to the table for me to point to and say aha! that's why it's an Oscar nominated performance. There's nothing I can point to in Rea's performance that does that. Rea plays an IRA member who helps kidnap Forest Whitaker, a British soldier and becomes a bit chummy with him while guarding him. There's an escape attempt that doesn't end up well for Whitaker and the IRA members and Rea eventually flees to England to hide out and meet up with a girl Whitaker liked/loved/whatever. Rea wants to tell her what happened but falls for her before that happens and then we get the big twist that Dil, the woman, is actually a man. Rea is revolted but still kinda likes her and they continue to hang out until the IRA finds him again and force him to help kill a judge. That all sounds very exciting but Rea's character never really has the heart for being an IRA extremist, seemingly just along for the ride - much like Rea is only along for the ride while his character does all the work if that makes sense. By that I mean, instead of Rea owning the character, the character owns him and he ends up reacting to various things and not standing out very much. He's chummy but boring with Whitaker, then shy and feeble with Dil, then ordered around by the IRA members and Dil even to some extent. And while that may be the way the character is and Rea is just portraying him as he should, it never excites me or moves me as a viewer. I was left thinking why this unenthusiastic performance was nominated. Strip away the big shocking moments and does the performance and film still feel Oscar worthy? The answer to me is no. Rea's performance just simply isn't good enough for me.
Denzel Washington - Malcolm X
This was the last thing I watched and reviewed for this year. I wasn't too excited about watching a three and a half hour Spike Lee film that I've already seen twice before but I powered through. It was actually a bit quicker paced than I remembered but it's still a bloated mess of a film. That's all due to Spike Lee wanting to create an epic about a pivotal figure in Black History but Denzel is fine at the titular character. But that's the thing about his performance for me. It's good, it's solid, it's fine - it just doesn't resonate with me on any emotional level. It's not something that really wowed me yet I know is a proficient performance. Denzel has the tough job of being on screen for pretty much all of the three and a half hours but never wears out his welcome. Yes, there are times where it feels we are moving in circles when it comes to the story and not exactly gleaming anything new from Malcolm but that's mostly the problem of Spike Lee. Better editing may have made Denzel's performance hit harder and resonate more for me. His performance also gets better as the film progresses through Malcolm's life, which seems only natural. In the beginning he plays a two bit, though charismatic, criminal doing drugs and sleeping with white women. You might call it a loud portrayal in the early goings but the character and the story calls for it. Denzel is fine, though I don't feel the film does him any favors here. As we go through Malcolm's life in prison and his radicalization after getting out, Denzel shines. It's a very serious role and Denzel gives it the depth and nuance it deserves. It's great acting and I wish Lee would have focused more on the later aspects of Malcolm's life instead of giving himself screen time as Denzel's early buddy and spending too much time setting it all up. The end of the film where Malcolm walks around almost in a daze, seemingly at peace with what's inevitably going to happen to him is why I like Denzel as an actor. Sure, his over the top gangster stuff is fun to watch, but the subtle, quieter moments feel more rewarding. So overall, this is a performance that ramps up in intensity and quality as the film goes on. Hard for me to get too excited about this performance based on the early parts that are underwhelming but it's a decent take on Malcolm X by Denzel.
This is kind of a blah Best Actor group, honestly. And it starts with the winner at the top with Pacino. It's a career award that the Academy was itching to give him. I guess it's fine that it was this year where there really isn't any runaway winner. Everyone has their issues and faults. Rea is just kinda there in a film that's mostly about a twist. Eastwood is okay but definitely not the best actor in his own film, too much of the Eastwood style. Pacino is just too much of the same over exaggerated mannerisms that wears thin in a film that's not all that great. Then it becomes a toss up of two actors whose films never let them realize their characters' full potential. They are half baked but still pretty tasty, maybe you can call it cookie dough performances. Denzal is solid but not amazing. Just a typical Denzel performance. Downey Jr is great in the physical aspects of Chaplin and is equally solid as Denzel, his film just doesn't allow him to dive deep into the man himself. With all that said, I think I'd give it to Downey Jr out of all of these because it's the one I liked the most. Simple as that.
Oscar Winner: Al Pacino - Scent of a Woman
My Winner: Robert Downey Jr. - Chaplin
Denzel Washington
Al Pacino
Clint Eastwood
Stephen Rea
No comments:
Post a Comment