Quite a diverse group when you really look at it. I've wanted to see Hoffman's performance for so long. Then you get a foreign nomination in von Sydow, a hispanic Best Actor nominee which are few and far between, Tom Hanks in what is kind of a kids movie, and Hackman who is always great. Lots to look forward to in this group so I can't wait!
1988 Best Actor
Dustin Hoffman - Rain Man
Sometimes it's really hard to come up with things to say about a performance. Usually that's because I just wasn't moved by it or didn't find it all that interesting. That applies here which is probably shocking because this is such a famous character and winner that everyone knows about even if they only tangentially like movies. I feel this is a performance/character that people can easily identify with having won Best Actor even if they've never seen it. I will concede that this is good acting, that's plainly obvious. My issue with the performance is that once we see the tics and mannerisms of Raymond, what else is left? It's not like he has a character arc. Raymond stays the same consistent autistic way throughout the film. There's no big scene where he becomes normal for a short period of time or something, he just does the same thing over and over. I'd like to say Hoffman imbues Raymond with a real sense of humanity and a warmth and blah blah blah but he doesn't, which I actually think is a pretty good choice by Hoffman. Raymond is an autistic savant and he can't really change into being more personable or less awkward socially. I think you can understand what I'm trying to say. It's the same performance for the whole film. Hoffman is technically great with the looks, mannerisms, and tics. It's believable in that sense. But I don't feel there is much beneath the exterior. It's why I don't really like the disabled/retarded/whatever type of roles. I need something more than just a quirk. The Academy seems to love these types of roles as they continually get nominated through the years, but I just don't get it. The novelty wears off too quickly and what you get left with is an annoying character. I'm just talking in circles now but this performance didn't do a whole lot for me and I'll have to look for an alternative.
Gene Hackman - Mississippi Burning
Man, I really dig Gene Hackman. Most everything I've seen him in he's been great in. No exception here as he plays an FBI agent who is investigating the deaths of three young men in rural Mississippi. What I love most about the performance is how natural it is. Compare it to Willem Dafoe who is another FBI agent and you can see him acting. He dresses up for his part as a nerdy, Northern, by the book agent while Hackman is a grizzled, Mississippi native, older agent. The two are opposites but Hackman feels more real and authentic. It feels like Hackman is just improvising in every scene and that he has actually lived the life of his character. It's effortless acting and I love when an actor can pull that off. Hackman is tough and callous almost, definitely cynical and realistic. I feel he shines when he goes off on his stories of his youth in order to establish himself as being a Mississippi native. It shows that he has a good grasp on the climate in the South and understands what all is at stake. Also, the way he plays Frances McDormand's character is superb. I can't tell if he realizes she is a weak link and attacks that weakness or recognizes that she's actually quite smart and doesn't belong and exploits her compassion. I understand it's done for the convenience of the story but it's still pretty fascinating how they build a rapport and relationship. Hackman's character is pretty fearless, as well, going into the "social club" and antagonizing the KKK members in order to tell them a story and let them know he's on to them. It's strong acting and really speaks to his character's mindset of doing anything to get his guys. It is also such an assured piece of acting that it makes me like Hackman even more. I'm excited that I get 4 more chances to watch his performances for this blog.
Tom Hanks - Big
I remember the first time I watched this film and was blown away by how good Hanks was in what is seemingly a kids fantasy film. It was a comedic performance, sure, but brought a lot of nuance that I didn't expect. He also brought his Tom Hanks charm and made it into such a warm, feel good performance. The film is hilarious at times, where I legit laughed out loud because Hanks is so funny. He nails the comedy and does it in a way that makes it seem like he is channeling his inner 12 year old and not just reciting the jokes from the script. He also did his patented Tom Hanks acting thing where he models his performance after the kid he portrays instead of coming up with something on his own. He did the same thing in Forrest Gump with imitating the kid's accent among other things and that tactic made that performance, and this performance, stand out even more as very authentic and real. The film is much better for that choice. It helps that Hanks is so relatable and has such an every man quality to him. You can watch him in this role and imagine yourself in the same situations. It's this gentle naivete that makes you feel good which is obviously the point of the film but Hanks has to make it believable and he certainly does. Even when he starts to become more adult-like, focusing on his job and enjoying his relationship with the woman and forgetting about his best friend, it drives home the point of the film even more. We should never lose our sense of self and remember where we came from and not forget about what it means to enjoy life. Hanks is so terrific in what could have easily been a simple performance, something like his work in Splash or Dragnet or Turner and Hooch. He elevates it with a performance that goes beyond comedy and beyond a kids film, imbuing it with such heart and soul that I genuinely love watching this film because of Hanks.
Edward James Olmos - Stand and Deliver
Yes, this is one of those inspirational teacher films. Yes, he teaches in an unorthodox style that gets results for his students. Yes, he reaches minority students who everyone else has given up on and realizes if someone would just try to connect with them that they'd be great students. Yes, you've seen all of this before, probably even parodied, and know exactly how it's going to play out before you even watch it. Yes, you're going to enjoy Olmos' performance. Really, you have to sort of separate the performance from the story and decide whether it's good and whether you like it. Olmos in this instance plays a math teacher who teaches Spanish kids in East Los Angeles and guides them from basic math to passing the AP Calculus exam. It's standard, feel good inspirational stuff but Olmos makes it worth watching. He's really funny in a sly way, saying all kinds of weird things, insulting the students in a nice way. He's also a bit of a hard ass, making the students want to please him and not let him down, in a teacherly sort of way. It's entertaining and you grow to like Olmos as the teacher. My main issue is that we never really know anything about Olmos. Why does he quit a good job to teach? Why does he work the students so hard to pass the exam and learn? Why does he care about these students at all? We barely even know about his home life other than his wife seems to support him but is also fed up that he works with the kids so much. I would have loved to understand why Olmos was drawn to teaching. He's good at it and can certainly connect with the kids but what motivates him? That's what holds this back from being seriously considered for a win. It's a good performance, but there is something deeper that we are missing out on.
Max von Sydow - Pelle the Conqueror
Bonus points if you know what this film is about without looking it up. No, it's not a Conan the Barbarian type film much to my chagrin. I wish it was! Instead, it's about a Swedish man who goes to Denmark with his young son in hopes of a better life. I had no idea that Swedes were treated so poorly by the Danes way back when but I guess it proves that every country has people they don't like because of nationality, race, or language. It's kind of interesting because of that. The film won the Best Foreign Language Film for 1988 and I can see why. It tells the story of Lasse (von Sydow) and his son, Pelle, who come to Denmark and find work on a farm. It's not glamorous and not the most friendly. They are treated lower than the animals by the Danish people and have to put up with the elements, the abuse, and the bleakness of life. The story is really about Pelle as he drives the narrative. Von Sydow is the father and he is pretty good in the role. He must be a father to the boy, stand up reluctantly to the bosses, and try to find love. When he addresses authority, von Sydow crumbles into stutters and platitudes, this after usually talking up a big game of confronting the farmer or whoever in some grand way. Von Sydow cares for his son and makes that obvious and only, truly wants for him to have food, clothing, and care. It's a good fatherly performance, nothing is lost in the translation. He might be the elder but he is really not the focus of the film. I can agree this is Lead but only to a certain degree. I feel that this was a way to reward a respected actor who was in a lot of foreign films, as well Hollywood films, with an Oscar nomination. It's a solid performance, one that will stay with you because of the gruff nature of the Swedish/Danish language which fits Lasse's tough life. I'm actually really glad I got to watch this film because I need this kind of foreign film education. It was interesting and I watched 2 hours straight of it before I got bored. Von Sydow does a lot to make you pay attention to his performance and it definitely should be watched.
This is a pretty good group and I'm always thankful that Best Actor has some good films to watch. I like that we are thrown a couple curveballs here with Hanks nominated for a fantasy/comedy film and von Sydow getting his first nomination for a little scene foreign film. I seriously debated putting Hoffman in 5th because his performance is so one note. He nails that one note but I just don't find the repetition all that interesting. Once you see 20 minutes of it, that's all you need to see because nothing changes. I pushed him just above von Sydow, who I like in this performance, because he's not a true lead and because of the foreign factor. I could easily make von Sydow 4th, though. Olmos really surprised me with his cool nerdy teacher shtick and I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. Hanks is absolutely wonderful in Big. I could watch that film and performance over and over and not get sick of it. But Hackman tops my list because he's so natural and creates such an interesting character. He and Dafoe make a great team and make a great film, too. This is a strong group with a winner that was unnecessary. Wish they would have made a better choice.
Oscar Winner: Dustin Hoffman - Rain Man
My Winner: Gene Hackman - Mississippi Burning
Tom Hanks
Edwards James Olmos
Dustin Hoffman
Max von Sydow
No comments:
Post a Comment