Leading Actor 1990

Only seen Costner before so this will be an interesting group to watch, I'm sure.

1990 Best Actor

Jeremy Irons - Reversal of Fortune

This was a performance I was super interested in checking out because mainly I didn't know anything about it. I just knew that Irons had an Oscar and seemed like the type of actor that should have an Oscar, which is definitely a compliment. And I'll say that this performance made me really appreciate Irons a lot more than I did previously. The character is such an interesting guy. Irons plays Claus von Bulow, a wealthy socialite convicted of attempted murder of his wife, Glenn Close, and he hires a lawyer to overturn it. Really engaging story but Irons makes it so much more interesting. His character is purposefully ambiguous, which is really difficult to pull off. While watching, Irons' character is very matter of fact about recounting all the evidence and situations that led up to him being convicted. Yet we never really know if he's guilty or not because the character doesn't try and sway us either way, or at least doesn't convincingly sway us since he reiterates that he's innocent. It's like he just casually strolls around the scenes while the other characters frantically race around trying to prove his innocence. It's fascinating to watch because it doesn't feel hokey or out of place. Irons makes the character and his choices work for the performance and the film. The character has a lot of affectations put on that add to the interesting element of the character like his stilted speech, his proper demeanor, and his idiosyncrasies. He is darkly funny, very macabre with his jokes where you can't tell if he's serious or not. I think that's part of why I like it so much is that Irons is so dry in this performance and it is extremely entertaining to me. It's all done without a wink and a nod, too, making for a very subtle performance. It's not too on the nose or anything like that, just an affectingly odd character. And then is Irons just a cold, calculated, unloving person? Is it all just a front so he can be exonerated and move on or what? The fact that Irons gives the character so many layers is what makes it a great performance to watch and try and figure out.

Kevin Costner - Dances with Wolves

I feel like this is a nomination in conjunction with his Director and Picture nominations. This is the Academy just doubling down on their love of a first time director and Hollywood leading man and rewarding his efforts in bringing the film to life. I'm not a huge Costner fan because his acting is so blank and his voice is so emotionless and monotone. And when you narrate a three plus hour film, you need to put some effort into your narration so as not to bore the audience or make us tune you out. Like I understand he has a near death experience in the very beginning of the film, but for much of the story he's a blah, boring, and just plain dull. I'd actually rather he not speak at all and this be a minimalist piece of acting. That might be better than whatever Costner is trying to pull off here. And another thing I was thinking about while watching this performance was how much better any number of actors would be. You just know certain actors would have punched this up and given us something truly great. This kind of performance feels like a movie star who is in over his head with the material and struggles to find a connection with the audience. The character is too perfect almost. He escapes death in the beginning then goes out West and befriends the Sioux, falls in love, marries, escapes arrest, and becomes the white hero for the Sioux people. There's no conflict for Costner's character, he just lucks his way into being the hero always. The main thing lacking in the performance is any sense of charisma or gravitas. There's nothing to hold our attention over three (or four hours if you watch the extended edition like I did) and that's sorely needed when he's the main star of the film. It's a listless performance that gets in solely because of his involvement in the film. Ray Liotta would have been a much better inclusion instead of Costner.

Robert De Niro - Awakenings

De Niro is nominated here not just because of this film, but also because of his work in Goodfellas. The Academy couldn't quite nominate him for that one because Ray Liotta was the star and lead of that one, so De Niro gets in with another Best Picture nominated film performance here. That may be simplifying what actually happened but it's not too far from the truth. You have to take both performances into account when looking into why De Niro was nominated to begin with. In this film, De Niro plays a catatonic patient who has been that way since a teenager and is now old. Robin Williams finds a temporary cure to allow De Niro to regain awareness and experience life after being imprisoned for so long. It's a really interesting premise based on a true story and De Niro is fine in the role. He doesn't do anything for about the first 50 minutes of this 2 hour film that Robin Williams is clearly the lead in, which is why you take into account the Goodfellas performance, also. De Niro is technically really great in this. He nails all the tics and body movements and poses associated with his character and you can't really dispute it as bad or anything. That part is great, but it's another disabled guy performance and I need more than just the physical aspect to impress me. Sure, De Niro does a good enough job with displaying the hurt and pain and longing in his character but it's all glossed over a bit too easily. The performance seems to be more about mannerisms than depth and I think the film relies on that to convey it's message. I'm not a huge fan of obvious acting. I prefer when a performance and character feels lived in and I have to remind myself that so and so is only acting and not hey, this is totally obvious acting instead. This is not one of De Niro's stronger nominations.

Gerard Depardieu - Cyrano de Bergenac

As I've stated before for some of the foreign performances that make it on these lists, it becomes difficult to tell if I'm seeing good acting or not because I don't know the intricacies of the language. Sure, I can watch the actual performance and the body language and facial movements and gleam my opinion from that but it's tough going. The copy of this film that I watched didn't seem to have the complete English subtitles, as if some dialogue was excluded for whatever reason. While watching I can understand what's going on and get the gist of what people are saying with no problem but it was still lacking. So in saying all that, Gerard Depardieu really needed to wow me with his basic performance and he did not at all. Lots of things going against him besides it being a foreign nomination. Cyrano has already been done by Oscar before back in 1950 when Jose Ferrer won for playing Cyrano de Bergenac. Now I haven't seen that performance yet but Depardieu would need to be on top of his game and stand out highly to notch a win because why would you reward someone for a character you already rewarded decades ago? Vito Corleone makes sense, two different versions of Cyrano de Bergenac for the American Oscars does not. Also, Depardieu was hot at this time for whatever reason. He won a Golden Globe the same year for a different comedy so it seems like it was his time to be rewarded here in America. The performance is alright, I guess. He plays the part admirably but it does nothing for me. I always felt like Cyrano was a lot more entertaining as a character and this version felt a bit dulled down. I feel like Depardieu needed a lot more charisma to really keep the film from being a bore but maybe something was lost in the translation. Just really something I didn't find all that much entertaining.

Richard Harris - The Field

Another one of these films/performances I was eager to watch once I learned what the heck it was about. This is a Jim Sheridan film about a man named Bull McCabe who rents a plot of land that he made into a livable/arable farm and it's getting put up for public auction. This all takes place in Ireland and of course an American comes and puts a bid in setting off events. The scenery is gorgeous as to be expected. But the film belongs to Bull (or who you might know him as The Original Dumbledore) hands down. Harris is every bit intense as his gruff Irish farmer is supposed to be. He owns the film as the other characters are dwarfed by his gravitas, his presence. Doesn't hurt that the other characters are kind of stock characters while Bull is the most fully fleshed out character. Harris contributes to that with his powerhouse acting and we watch in awe as he does his thing. My only beef with the performance is that at the end where his character becomes unhinged, Harris doesn't seem as convincing and looks out of place. But Harris is solid in the rest of the film even with his more tender moments which are still gruff, he makes them fit into the role instead of stepping outside of it to find the right bit of sadness. And when Harris talks about the field like it's his own son, you really feel as if it's Bull talking about the field. Harris is best in the individual moments of the performance. When it's just him on screen delivering a monologue, he absolutely sizzles and is what makes the performance so intriguing to watch. No doubt he belongs in this group and I'll have to see just where he ends up.


Well, some unexpected stuff in this group, not all positive. Depardieu just simply wasn't entertaining to me when I know the story of Cyrano de Bergenac is supposed to be wildly entertaining. That one really felt like a waste of my time. Then we get one of De Niro's least worthy nominated performances. I didn't like the mannerisms because I felt like they didn't have any heart behind them. Costner directs himself to third simply by virtue of two others being worse. Costner is mostly blah, almost a blank slate of an actor especially in this performance. He gets in because of the love for his film. Then we have the surprising Richard Harris who gives an intense, powerful performance that loses itself at the very end but is still pretty good. A surprising second, for sure. My winner is again the same as the Academy's because Irons is so damn intriguing. And his performance here really made me respect him as an actor because I certainly am not his biggest fan. I wasn't sure what to expect but I'm pretty glad that I thoroughly enjoyed his performance. All in all, a real letdown of a category especially given the names. Here's to hoping my first dip into the 80s is better!

Oscar Winner: Jeremy Irons - Reversal of Fortune
My Winner:  Jeremy Irons - Reversal of Fortune
Richard Harris
Kevin Costner
Robert De Niro
Gerard Depardieu