I always wonder how many of these films I'll ever watch again. I feel like this journey is going to end up taking so long and I have tons of other films I want to finally see also. Lots of classic foreign films and cult classics and like all of Nicolas Cage's films. I just wonder if I'll ever actually decide to revisit say Absence of Malice like 10 years from now. Seems we watch films once rate it as great or not great and hold to that opinion forever and debate furiously about one way or the other. Anyway, every name on this list should be known, maybe not Dudley Moore, but you'll recognize him at least. Given the names, I'm expecting this to be a great category again.
1981 Best Actor
Henry Fonda - On Golden Pond
I have had my issues with this film and its performances but Henry Fonda is not part of that. I feel like I'd be called out for not mentioning the fact that this was Fonda's last nomination because he died soon after, but also because he holds the record of most years between nominations with 41 years. That's insane because this is Henry Fonda. He's done great work. I mean 1940 was a stacked year for Best Actor but The Grapes of Wrath was/is a classic. Anyway, I was concerned as to how this performance would be. Was this just a bullshit veteran win or was this a legit win? Well, Fonda is absolutely hilarious in the role of Norman. He is basically the grumpy old man and he spouts off these super funny lines one after the other. He's just got this dry humor that is from an old man and I laughed so much when watching him and this film. I didn't expect to actually laugh or feel much of anything from this old people Hallmark film. But Fonda was a hoot and he brought a personality to the role. I feel like he actually makes the film a success just because of his humor and grumpy old man persona. Other older actors may have faltered in the role so Fonda really added a dimension to the role that was necessary. I still don't know if Henry is the winner this year. I like the fact that he has an Oscar but I hope that it isn't at the expense of another, more worthy performance. I haven't seen the others yet because this was the first film I watched for the year but Fonda is good. My concern is that we denigrate a legend for a softball role that he knocked out of the park even though it was the Academy who voted him for the win. Fonda is good in the role but I need to see the rest of this group to figure out who my winner is.
Warren Beatty - Reds
I am beginning to see more and more with Warren Beatty roles that Warren Beatty is really great at playing Warren Beatty. There is no doubt that he is a super talented man. Hell, he wrote, directed, produced, and starred in this film. It is his magnum opus. But I have always seen Beatty as more of a movie star (at least in his roles going back in time to this point) who wants to look good even if the film or role or circumstance calls for him to be real or gritty or flawed. Beatty is the star of Reds. He looks good throughout, even while dying, and his character seems to move through the story with relative ease. There's not much to challenge Beatty. He stays pretty righteous and glorious and untouched throughout the film. Adversity is nothing to him. Yeah he might yell and run and fight and do heroic things but it all feels geared to make Beatty look like a movie star. That's my take on his acting. I want to know who John Reed is because apparently he is this very influential man who helped shape communism in America and tried to help shape it in Russia and was a leader and an acclaimed writer. We are shown a lot of this as an audience by way of Beatty going through the motions but do we ever really know who Reed is? Not really because Beatty only barely scratches the surface of the man, being more concerned with the love story with Louise Bryant and projecting an air of authority and good guy everyman. Reds is an epic that gets too romantic with it's subject and we are left trying to figure out who exactly John Reed is. His relationship with Keaton (Bryant) is odd thing of twists and turns and tumultuous love. There's times where I can't even tell if they are together because the two lack chemistry and are so blase with each other. Other times the passion is there, but I felt like if Beatty became Reed, he'd be more invested in that relationship and it would make those twists and turns feel more real and harrowing. Beatty is a good actor but he needed to actually become John Reed and not the Hollywood glamorized paper thin version of John Reed. I think I've hammered home the point that Beatty needs to be more believable in his roles hard enough. The film could have been so much better and a true classic if he'd have invested more in the character. The performance is far from awful but it could have been great.
Burt Lancaster - Atlantic City
I went into this film not knowing a thing about it or how it was generally received by people. It was this sort of blank spot in 1981 where no one mentioned Atlantic City when looking online. What you can find is a mixed reaction of reviewers loving it or hating it. So I was intrigued to finally watch it and to see Lancaster's final Oscar nomination. I had enjoyed his performance in Field of Dreams and some felt he should have been nominated for that one. Would this just be a veteran nomination in keeping with the theme of this year or would this be a legit, well earned nomination for Lancaster? It's definitely the latter and Lancaster really does blow me away with his performance in this film. I wasn't expecting to like it so much but I'm glad he delivered something I look forward to watching again. Lancaster plays an old, two bit gangster who runs numbers and lives with a reclusive old woman. He is neighbors with Susan Sarandon and becomes involved with her issues after he estranged husband pops back in and is murdered for stealing drugs from the mafia. Lancaster's performance is one of those from a veteran who still has that old acting style but also gives it a modern update. He isn't stuck acting like he is back in the 50s or 60s and sticking out like a sore thumb in the film. It makes me think that Lancaster could have been great even if his career had started in the 80s because his acting is timeless, he fits easily into an 80s story and aesthetic. I also love how Lancaster plays Lou as both a confident man and man afraid of failing. Lancaster mixes the two personalities well and wraps them up in his character so that he's experiencing these emotions separately and at once. Towards the end of the film when Lou shoots a man after having spent a lot of the film describing himself as an important gangster in Vegas in his past, he busts out into child like glee and spastically celebrates that he actually killed a man. That tough gangster facade comes down and we see the reality that is Lou: a wannabe that can't actually handle what the gangster life truly means. It's great acting from Lancaster and really cements how much he has to do with portraying his character. Timeless is definitely the word I would use to describe the performance because it would still work if played in 1965 and that is all because of Lancaster. This very well could end up being my winner.
Dudley Moore - Arthur
This is actually a pretty inspired nomination from the Academy. I've marveled at it being chosen especially given the makeup of this group as a whole. There are four veteran actors and Oscar darlings in this group, three of which get their first nominations in quite a long time, and then there's Dudley Moore. In a comedy. Where he's a drunk rich guy who goes out getting prostitutes before meeting Liza Minnelli. And his family wants him to marry a woman he's not into. The character is so damn hysterical at times. But you have to get through his annoying, drunken laugh which seems to occur after every joke. After a while I didn't mind it, but I imagine there are some people that hate it. Awful laugh aside, I can't reiterate how funny Moore is in this performance. Both he and John Gielgud are pitch perfect with their comebacks and one liners and quips and whatever else you want to call them. I was laughing pretty good through most of the film and Moore was a big reason for that. He also probably gives one of the better, okay - one of the best, drunk performances you'll ever see. The drunkenness was hilarious and authentic feeling and never felt out of place or exaggerated. He also is still very charming in the role of Arthur. A rich, drunk guy could easily become an asshole you can't stand yet Moore does it in an affable and lovable way. The film has him sort of grow up into a realization that he'd rather have true love than money and Moore sells that in a believable way. And Arthur still seems likable and genuine even when he's sober. The love Arthur shows for Gielgud's character never feels hokey or contrived. Arthur just seems like a nice person who is also a massive alcoholic. I'm sure lots could be written on that subject but it's a comedy so I'm not going to get too deep into it. I just know that this kind of comedy performance getting nominated is a rare thing, at least in the last 35 plus years of Oscar. It's nice to see comedy rewarded even though Moore stood no chance at winning this year.
Paul Newman - Absence of Malice
I feel like this was in a time period where the Academy started to try and get Newman an Oscar which he had not won yet. So you get a performance like this that gets nominated though I'm not sure it should be and certainly isn't one of Newman's top performances in his career. That seems harsh since Newman has had so many iconic and great performances that this looks dull by comparison. Newman plays a man who is the son of a mafioso who gets a story run in the paper written by Sally Field that says he's being investigated for a murder. This is to put the squeeze on him by the cops to try and get information for them. He was actually off with Melinda Dillon for a sensitive issue so he didn't do it and he wants to clear his name. Sounds way more exciting than it really is, trust me. I don't want to say that Newman sleepwalks through the performance because there are scenes where he really does shine but most of his performance is just him being Paul Newman. There is one scene where Newman gets very angry with Field when she talks to him after his friend Dillon died but then none of that anger really carries over into the rest of the performance which you think it would. Sure, he gets his revenge but it doesn't seem to fit his character. He is like a man that wants to be left alone that gets dragged into something that he has to fix, which I can see somewhat in the performance, but it just feels like lesser Newman work. There's no charisma with Field at all and I don't think that's an acting choice, either. And really Newman just spends a lot of time reacting to things going on around him as others do more of the work. The film is okay but it certainly doesn't thrill you or provide any tension. It's saved at the end by a wonderful Wilford Brimley but other than that it just kinda skates on by just like Newman's performance.
I guess I'd call this a somewhat underwhelming group. The names alone should mean it was a great group but not everyone lives up to their billing. I'm disappointed in Newman who seems to just float through his film and doesn't really try. Feels like the Academy was trying to get him an award, which in this year was a theme for the whole group. Beatty gives us his magnum opus but gets by acting wise with sheer movie star quality which doesn't actually make for a great performance. I think he gets in because he did everything for the film. He won Best Director so he wasn't winning Best Actor on top of that. Now the next two is kinda hard to place. Both Moore and Fonda are really funny in their roles in different ways. Moore is the drunk millionaire who is a laugh a second. Fonda plays the grumpy old man role almost to perfection. I think Moore's performance will grow on me more as the years go by even though he can be a tad annoying. I'm fine with Fonda in second for now and I'm okay with his win because he finally gets one. But I did like Lancaster way more in his role. Those two guys were being nominated for the first time in decades so there was a little battle there going on with Fonda being the sentimental favorite. I just felt Lancaster did more with his role which was tougher and more layered than Fonda's grumpy old man warms up to a boy role. And like I said in his review, Lancaster's performance has a timeless quality to it. I can see it doing well in the 50s or 60s just like it did well in 1981. I'm cool with Fonda's win but I'll vote for Lancaster here.
Oscar Winner: Henry Fonda - On Golden Pond
My Winner: Burt Lancaster - Atlantic City
Henry Fonda
Dudley Moore
Warren Beatty
Paul Newman
No comments:
Post a Comment