Some heavy hitters in this category along with a hugely controversial winner. For as long as I've been reading up on the Oscars, this has always been one big topic for everyone to chime in on - even if they have seen the winner or not. So I'm looking forward to finally judging for myself if he deserves the win or not. Which makes it seem like I'm the only who can say for sure, but you get what I mean! Anyway, let's get to what should be a good group.
1974 Best Actor
Art Carney - Harry and Tonto
I feel like this is a loaded Best Actor winner in the sense that it won over a more well known and impressive field in classic films. There is a lot of talk from people online that this is a terrible winner because just look at who Carney beat! And more often than not, those people haven't even bothered to watch the actual performance to judge it. I've seen it described as one of the worst winners ever and one of the biggest mistakes by the Academy. So this win always comes with these caveats that it sucks because of who he beat. One of those Academy anomalies that are hard to explain. Well, I have wanted to see for myself why exactly Art Carney, well known for his TV work (The Honeymooners) more so than his film work, won Best Actor over a couple iconic performances in films that rank up there as classics. Carney plays an old man who lives with his cat, Tonto, who is forced to move out of his apartment because they are razing it and ends up traveling around the country with Tonto in tow. They meet a bunch of people and it's a sweet little film. A meditation on old age and mortality, Carney is a one man show. He's a widower who spends the whole film talking to his cat or the random people he meets along the way and we see these touching little scenes where Harry is faced with what happens when we get old. He's forced to move from a home he knew for years, a good friend dies, he meets the first woman he fell in love with at a retirement home but she doesn't really remember him. Sad little things that Harry takes in stride. Like I said, it's a charming, funny little film that while not amazing filmmaking, is easy to like. So it's even more easy to see why an Academy made up of old white men would connect with a film aimed right at them. It helps that Carney gives an earnestly sweet performance, too. I can understand why it won and don't agree that it's one of the worst choices by the Academy ever. But! When you watch all the rest of this group and the phenomenal performances they gave and then watch this one, you start to understand why people get upset that Carney won. I like the performance. Carney keeps the film from being too schmaltzy and mawkish, which this performance and film could easily devolve into. I don't think it's enough for a win, though, as likable as the performance is. You should judge it for yourself, though, and not just look at the other actors in this group for a decision.
Albert Finney - Murder on the Orient Express
I'll be honest, going into this film, I forgot Finney was nominated and that I needed to pay attention to him. I saw he was nominated right before I started watching and felt like this may just be one of those ones you just enjoy but it won't be amazing. It's just a Hercule Poirot performance. But it's also an Albert Finney performance, which is the part I should have been paying attention to instead. He is such an underrated actor that never got his due from the Academy. And Finney is terrific as our favorite little Belgian detective. It probably is the quintessential portrayal of Poirot in any medium and he's such a delight to watch do his thing. He is hilarious with his sarcastic, biting comebacks when perturbed and it's fun to watch him shuffle around and get so wildly animated when explaining things. He honestly reminded me of Bruno Ganz as Hitler in Downfall at times (and yeah, that's a hell of a weird comparison to make!). I don't think you really need to get too in depth about the performance to explain that he's really entertaining but that he does it in such an earnest way that isn't just a character. Finney inhabits Poirot and makes it his own creation. It's so easy for Poirot to be this big goofy manneristic caricature that we laugh at and not with. But Finney finds a way for us to relate to Poirot on a human level and see him as more than just the perfect detective. I don't know given the other names in this group if Finney did enough for a win, but he certainly gave us a great interpretation of Hercule Poirot that has become the standard to which all other versions of the character are compared to and that's pretty impressive in itself. He definitely is worthy of a nomination and I'm looking forward to my final nomination of his in the 60s.
Dustin Hoffman - Lenny
This seems to be the one Hoffman nomination that no one has seen or heard about and that's a damn shame. I wasn't sure what to expect going into this one because Hoffman more often than not just plays Hoffman to me with some variations here and there. But this is a truly committed and great performance from Hoffman that I wasn't expecting to get. The film itself is incredibly well made and offers a different take on a biopic which was truly refreshing to watch. Hoffman is the eponymous Lenny Bruce, a comic who was way ahead of his time and paved the way for the likes of George Carlin and Bill Hicks and your Louis CK's and the like. He was continuously harassed and arrested by police for what they deemed obscene content in his shows which today would be pretty mild stuff. Hoffman is the star and even if you have no idea who Lenny Bruce is and have never heard his shtick, you know that Hoffman somehow channeled Bruce from the other side and gave a fully involved performance like he really was the Lenny Bruce. It's mesmerizing to watch because Hoffman does Lenny's stand up routines which lean somewhat raunchy to a whole lot socially aware and enlightening. But Hoffman gets the beats of a comic down and if you told me this was legit filmed in front of an audience at a club while Hoffman did his thing, I'd believe it. He has to make these scenes work for the film to succeed like it does. To me, its the most important part of the film and Hoffman nails it. There are other scenes from Lenny's life where Hoffman is in acting mode and it's good, but the stand up scenes are breathable, lived in moments of time. Hoffman just had the bad fortune of going up against two other iconic performances and two veterans in a juggernaut of a year. Hoffman's intensity in the role is palpable and really gets you jazzed up and pissed off that stuff like this was considered obscene and worthy of extended jail time. It's a hell of a sincere performance from Hoffman and easily becomes one of my favorites of his.
Jack Nicholson - Chinatown
It seems like every Nicholson nomination is another iconic performance and I guess that just shows what a fantastic actor he was and why he ended up winning three Oscars in his career. I'm glad I finally got to watch this performance because I really love noir films and wanted to see his take on a private detective. Nicholson later in his career tended to rely on his own personal mannerisms in his roles and Jack always shined through the roles, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. As I go back in time, I see less and less of that classic Jack style. It's almost absent here though Jack has always been able to deliver one liners and quips that land effectively. So that works well as a smart ass private eye who has to be a smooth talker at times. I really like this quiet intensity that he has in this role instead of hamming it up at times like he maybe would have later. It really serves the story and the character well because it tells us a lot about a guy we don't really know any backstory to. Was a cop and now isn't and loves making money and the thrill of the investigation. We also sense that he's got this noble quality to him that makes it so easy to like him, even though he's not oozing charisma. More like Nicholson is projecting this dogged determinism that just strikes a chord in me. Nicholson is in every scene of the film and really drives the film with his acting. I think with a lesser actor the film fails to have the same tone and quality, even with the great script and wonderful directing. Simply a performance that is nearly flawless in a stacked year that will be hard to figure out a winner. Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown.
Al Pacino - The Godfather Part II
Pacino again reprises his role as Michael Corleone, this time the
undisputed head of the family and the eponymous Godfather. A lot of
people consider this to be a masterclass in acting and really strong
performance overall, one of the best ever. I personally prefer Pacino's
performance in the first film because his character arc is so rewarding
and satisfying to watch. We see him grow and change and transition into a
powerful man whereas his character in this film stays mostly the same
throughout. He's not really gaining any power or changing much, he just
has to deal with power struggles from outside and within. His character
becomes increasingly cold and calculated, more so than in the previous
film, so it can be hard to relate to Michael and ultimately care about
what's happening. Pacino is terrific in the role and completely owns the
character but this just comes down to preference for me again and I
side with the first performance. I like that Michael can see the Cuban
revolution thing coming and plays Frank Pentangeli by bringing in his
brother and finally gets Hyman Roth after baiting him. He's a master
manipulator behind the scenes and I like how Pacino can portray that
with looks and not saying much. It just continues Michael's path to
being as powerful as his father but in a different kind of way. Vito was
all about connections and Michael is all about manipulating people in a
subtle way. Pacino is great but this is a pretty tough year so it will
be interesting to see if I go with him or someone else.
Probably one of the better groups as a whole in some time. And a repeat of 1975, although 75 would be the repeat of this year, but eh you get it. Again, we have great performances from Nicholson and Pacino, both iconic, and both lose. Hoffman gives a really great performance in an underrated film that I loved. Finney gives the quintessential Hercule Poirot performance and it's entertaining and I'd say worthy of the 5th spot. The crux of the whole category has always been Carney and what you think of him. He gives a delightfully charming performance that many people hate only because it beat Michael Corleone and Jake Gittes. And they have probably never even seen it! It's good but I don't see it as being a winner. Maybe in a down year, but not when there's 3 legit performances that could win and maybe 1 you can argue could win but probably not. That doesn't make Carney's performance bad or one of the worst ever. It's just one of those weird, disappointing wins that most likely set in motion other wins that impacted history. Pacino doesn't win here and gets a makeup Oscar in the 90s. Nicholson wins the next year so not much impact but maybe Pacino wins there. Hoffman doesn't win here but gets probably a well deserved win for Kramer vs. Kramer, that maybe Pacino could have won or Roy Scheider. Finney was a long shot but you never know. I imagine the three young guys split the vote and the older Academy contingent went for Carney who they knew from TV. I dunno, just trying to figure out how he could have won. Regardless, it's a win that sticks out. I'd give the win to Pacino just to hopefully avoid his make up win in the early 90s. A very good group of actors.
Oscar Winner: Art Carney - Harry and Tonto
My Winner: Al Pacino - The Godfather Part II
Dustin Hoffman
Jack Nicholson
Art Carney
Albert Finney
No comments:
Post a Comment