Wow. Look at the names on this list. Each one is a powerhouse actor and all have multiple nominations and at least one win (with O' Toole getting an Honorary Oscar because the Academy foolishly never rewarded him for acting). By name alone this is a heavy hitting group so I fully expect every single performance to be amazing. Anything less and I'll be let down.
1982 Best Actor
Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
Has there been another role that married so perfectly with its actor? Kingsley is the spitting image of Gandhi and it was said that even the Indian people thought they were seeing his ghost. It's a perfect casting choice that might disturb you to learn that there were a bunch of old white men who were considered for the part like Alec Guinness, Albert Finney, Anthony Hopkins, Peter Finch, even Dustin Hoffman! That blows my mind that a non-Indian would even be considered so I'm glad that they found Kingsley. I think what I like a lot about his performance is that Kingsley grows into it. I know that these aren't filmed in sequence but I'm impressed with how Kingsley gains confidence and calmness as the film goes on. It's the mark of a great actor that he can do that while shooting this out of sequence. I shouldn't have to really say anything besides pointing to a portrait of Kingsley as Gandhi because that's more than enough. Kingsley is Gandhi. It stretches over three hours and might not be the most exciting thing, but Kingsley is beyond phenomenal as the world icon. When Kingsley starts talking, you pay attention and every scene carries an authenticity that seems wholly earned. I think my only real issue with the performance has to do with the film/story. It labors hard in the last hour when Gandhi is old and sometimes on a hunger strike. Kingley is fine acting old and decrepit but the story doesn't give him all that much to do as the story swirls around him. But the rest of the performance is tremendous and this was an easy no-brainer for the Academy to choose as the winner and I wholeheartedly agree with their choice.
Dustin Hoffman - Tootsie
I was eager to see this performance again (watched it a long time ago) since I didn't remember too much about Hoffman's female performance. Would I enjoy it now as an adult? Would I find it sexist or demeaning? Yes and no. Hoffman is actually really strong in this performance. This role is an actor's wet dream personified because not only is it a dual role where one of the roles is a man playing a woman, but the other role is Hoffman playing a struggling actor who also teaches acting and is surrounding by beautiful women. Any actor would kill for that kind of role. Hoffman's male role is basically a douchebag who thinks he's more important and better than others in the profession and is difficult to work with. It's a very New York acting role that allows for Hoffman to ham it up at times and act very loudly and broadly. If we had to spend all of the film with this Michael role, we'd hate the character and probably the film by association. It's not a very likable character and Hoffman does a good job in showing how disconnected he is from being in tune with other people, especially women. All of that makes Hoffman's Dorothy almost a revelation. Just the way Hoffman moves and the Southern accent he uses helps completely transform Michael into a believable woman (if you don't worry about the looks part so much). Hoffman dove headfirst into the female role and it shows with how convincing he is and how empathetic and warm Dorothy is even though she can be very forthright and feisty, as well. The film succeeds because Hoffman succeeds as Dorothy. If it was a sexist caricature or an awful mess of a "woman" performance, Tootsie would be a failure. Instead, Hoffman is hilarious at times and has great comedic timing both verbal and physical. When Dorothy has to deal with Charles Durning hitting on her, Hoffman is a hoot and the scenes even have a bit of poignancy to them. Hoffman's dedication to being female really elevates the performance and makes it a memorable one. I also think Hoffman's Michael being so self centered and awful at times really helps Dorothy by being such a stark contrast to the goodness and joy that is Dorothy. I was surprised that I liked Hoffman in this so much probably because I was still annoyed at his Rain Man performance. But also probably because his Dorothy is so real and authentic that he makes it easy to root for her and laugh at her all the same. I'm unsure if this will be my winner but I'm glad that Hoffman gave a performance that I genuinely enjoyed even though it could have easily devolved into blatant shtick.
Jack Lemmon - Missing
Hey, my first Jack Lemmon write up! I was absolutely blown away by him in Glengarry Glen Ross and was eagerly anticipating actually watching one of his performances for the project (which makes it seem like I didn't know who he was and hadn't seen anything by him before - I have). This was his 8th and final nomination so I guess his last one maybe not being a powerhouse makes sense. Missing is about Lemmon who goes down to Chile after their coup to search for his son who is, get this, missing. The film itself is kind of conventional even though it's a political film. Lemmon goes down and searches for his son with his daughter-in-law and gets stonewalled at every turn before finally getting the info that his son is dead. But at least Lemmon does his best to make the film worth something by giving a very sincere and polished performance. I know polished can be a bad thing but I use it here to mean that Lemmon knows what is necessary for his character and efficiently gets the emotions of frustration, concern, anger, sadness across for the viewer. It's interesting to see Lemmon go from the man who believes his government can help and doesn't believe a thing about coverups and denials and the murkier political machinations going on to being the guy who has seen first hand his government and Chile's lie to his face and string him along and straight up tell him that his son deserved it because he poked his nose where it didn't belong. That gradual realization from Lemmon is great acting and why I'm excited to watch the rest of his nominations. It's too much of a plodding film yet Lemmon makes you pay attention. I love how he adds in these little, what feel like unscripted, tics and accidents and words that enhance the realism in his performance. I just really like his acting style, honestly. He tries to do his best for the film but it's a tepid political thriller. His chemistry with Sissy Spacek is lacking but they are unfamiliar father/daughter-in-law relatives and the two eventually warm up by the end. I wouldn't say this is Lemmon's strongest effort but he certainly gives it a good try. A good introduction to the man if you're going backwards through the Oscar history like a crazy person.
Paul Newman - The Verdict
There are a lot of people who felt that this was the year and the performance that Paul Newman would finally win his Oscar. But then he ran into the Gandhi buzzsaw and was a forgotten participant by the end of awards season. Obviously, Newman got a well deserved Oscar win a couple years later and it's kinda crazy that it took so long for one of the greatest actors of all time to even get a win, period. But then ask Peter O' Toole about deserving an Oscar, right? Anyway, Newman plays an alcoholic, ambulance chasing lawyer who hasn't won a case in like three years. He used to be a top lawyer before his life fell apart. He agrees to take on what he thinks is any easy settlement case of malpractice after a couple doctors give the wrong anesthetic to a woman in delivery and turn her into a vegetable. The Catholic Archdiocese who run the hospital want to settle, too, but Newman is offended by the amount and after digging into the case a bit, decides to go to trial. Newman goes through all kinds of trials and tribulations (bad pun fully intended) in the lead up to trial whether it's a missing star witness, new bombshell evidence, self doubt, and lots of other things. The story is richly compelling and a lot of that is because of Newman's performance (and Lumet's direction and Mamet's writing). Newman portrays his lawyer with a ton of self doubt on whether he can be a good enough lawyer again and win. He doesn't rely on the alcoholic thing, either, which is too easy to use as a crutch. This is a man who is tormented inside because of his past failings and is unsure if he's doing the right thing and can do a good enough job. That's where the appeal for the performances comes from for me, watching Newman wrangle with himself internally. We know he's going to give a solid performance no matter what but he doesn't just go through the court room drama motions so to speak. We have seen a million of those types of films and performances and it's something Newman could do in his sleep. Here, he actually brings a little more to the cliche role. He doesn't just stand up in trial and deliver some eloquent speech that changes everyone's mind. He doesn't just whip out some obscure law ruling that helps his client win. He doesn't know everything in a convenient manner for the plot. He actually fails in getting his bombshell evidence heard because it gets stricken from the record after the fact. One of his expert witnesses isn't very good on the stand. He faces challenges that are more interesting than him being a hotshot, perfect lawyer. And Newman makes his flawed character into a believably flawed character. That's why I like the performance and understand why people thought he'd win his Oscar for it.
Peter O' Toole - My Favorite Year
I was trying to figure out how to start this review off but all I could think was that this was a very expected performance and not in a good way. Granted, Peter (because I hate having to type O' Toole so much) is decent and charming and mostly funny, but it's a performance that is exactly what you think it would be. If you read the description of the role, it's an Errol Flynn like actor who is set to appear on a comedy variety show kinda like SNL in 1954 but is an alcoholic, womanizing, and unreliable actor. I feel like you can picture this performance in your mind before you even see it and after you do actually see it, it matches up almost note for note. I expected a proper British actor who says dry, funny things with an accent that makes them seem more charming. He fucks things up with his drinking but all is forgiven because he's a charming actor and then it throws in the more serious, dramatic aspect of whatever - in this case it's a daughter he doesn't see and being afraid of failing on live TV. The focus is on the comedy part because this is a Mel Brooks produced film that's based loosely on something from his early career/life. So O' Toole (okay I'll stick with that because writing just Peter seems weird) does a fine enough job with the character and role and material but it's just nothing that seems ground breaking or revelatory or out of his comfort zone. This is what you think of when you think of O' Toole in the later years. It's not a big stretch and the film isn't all that great or interesting and is entirely forgettable. This feels more like the Academy trying to reward him because he was overdue and because he is essentially acting royalty without an Oscar and this was a good chance to fix that. O' Toole is clearly having fun with the role but sometimes that's not enough to warrant a Best Actor nomination which I hate to say about such a renowned actor.
What should have been a very impressive Best Actor group actually lives up to my expectation - how about that! When Peter O' Toole is bringing up the rear, you know it's a good year. His was the only performance I really felt let down by because it was so expected and by the numbers that I wish he'd have done something different with it. He was good but he was also obvious. You know the role you're getting before you even see it. Lemmon is next because his film is kinda boring though he does his best to make it not so. He's very earnest and compelling but he can't overcome such a blase film that should actually be super riveting. Here is where I'm unsure of how to rank Hoffman and Newman. Newman is great as a lawyer seeking redemption and really does a lot more with what could have been just a cliche role. He also makes me want to watch his film again because he's so great and because the film is so compelling and fun to watch. Hoffman has the added bonus of playing two roles, one of which is a woman. It's because he knocks that woman role out of the park that I feel he's a good runner up this year. His Dorothy is so funny and fun to watch that it makes the film so much better, too. Kingsley is the obvious winner because he IS Gandhi. Simple as that. It's the perfect role for him and he was great. A very strong group even if I didn't like a couple of the films. Hopefully 81 is even better.
Oscar Winner: Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
My Winner: Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
Dustin Hoffman
Paul Newman
Jack Lemmon
Peter O' Toole
No comments:
Post a Comment