Some big names and some unknown names, which is what I love about this project. Because I hope that the unknown's will beat out the known names every time. I think that's a natural thing, rooting for the underdog. Let's see what happens here.
1961 Best Actor
Maximilian Schell - Judgment at Nuremberg
The main thing I have heard about this performance is that a lot of folks argue that this is more of a Supporting role than Leading. Having watched it finally, nah, this is right where it belongs. Schell actually originated this role in a TV movie two years prior and you can see why he's so comfortable in the role. His passion is palpable throughout the whole film and his delivery at times is so powerful and enthralling that you almost forget to breathe so as to not miss a single word or moment. I was riveted by Schell every time he was onscreen. He is serious the entire way through and has this demeanor that tells you he also wants justice along with a fair trial. He may be defending Nazis, but he makes us respect his handling of the trial on his end. Some people have criticized this as big acting, a pejorative for a bit too much or over the top. I think it's simply a powerhouse performance that is up there with the greats in this category. I really loved Schell's introduction in the beginning of the film as he starts out talking in German with translators speaking for him and then transitions to him speaking English, though they still use the translator ear pieces as if he's still speaking German. It was a pretty clever way to drop the cumbersome translating and let us understand him. Schell is the driving force of the film, and though he doesn't have much of an arc and we don't get to really know him much as a person, it is still very much a leading role to me. You could throw Richard Widmark into that as well, as he is the prosecution attorney and has a great performance in his own right. It just shows that maybe a film focuses a lot more on one actor or character, but another can also be co-lead. I just love the way Schell speaks and his accent and I think he makes a lot of deliberate choices in how he delivers his lines that really help elevate the film. It's a true joy to watch so much better than his other two nominations from the 70s.
Charles Boyer - Fanny
I kinda feel like this isn't really the proper lead of this film. You can say it shares the lead with Maurice Chevalier's character, but he seems to have much more of an impact on the story than Boyer. I would try to say oh, well Boyer was a previous multiple nominee in the 30s (and one in the 40s), but so was Chevalier. Chevalier campaigned hard for this nomination given it was one of his first English speaking roles where he didn't sing, so in other words, actually acted. Boyer somehow got the nomination though and I'm not really sure why other than he had a lot of friends in the Academy. Both men had actually been given Honorary Oscars in the 50s, so both had wide support and were well liked but I guess Boyer was more well liked. Boyer plays the father of Mariusz, a young man who gets Leslie Caron pregnant but goes away to see for adventure before that is discovered. She marries a rich old man in Chevalier and family issues then pop up. Really all Boyer does is play an amiable and father like character. There is no real intensity to the character or much to do with the role. It's rather simple and doesn't really stand out. If you watch this film and try to pick who was nominated in this category, you're going to pick Chevalier. Boyer advises his son against disrupting the marriage and accepting the way thing are which just seems so wrong and hollow to me. You'd think he'd fight for his son, but seems more interested in his grandson being brought up rich. Nothing about the performance sticks out to me besides him favoring his grandson and it doesn't seem like it will even stick in my memory more than Chevalier. And I don't even think Chevalier should be nominated! He is the better performance, but the film is boring and I feel like this was the Academy dipping into it's old timer's well and picking a name. Not worth a nomination, unfortunately.
Paul Newman - The Hustler
I am unfortunately coming quickly to an end of reviewing Newman nominations with only one more to go. But as I have gone back in time, the performances have just gotten better and better and am excited to finally have watched this one. His work in The Color of Money is perfect and I wish I could have seen the natural progression of the character instead of going in reverse, but it does offer a unique perspective. This role is obviously like Tom Cruise's in the sequel and is a lot of fun to watch. Newman is cocky and arrogant and determined to face off against Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason) who is considered the best pool hustler going. The film essentially bookends the story with two head to head match ups between the two. The film shows Newman's growth and goes from him losing control to finally finding it in the end. Newman is great and I love that he plays a lot of the pool scenes himself, which really lends weight and authenticity to the role. Because I honestly feel like Newman could be some masterful pool player in real life. That's what he brings to the film besides his normal charisma and stellar acting chops. Their is a romantic side story that intertwines with the pool playing that helps add some intensity to Newman's role and the film itself. Piper Laurie plays an alcoholic woman who catches Newman's eye and the two have a very depressing, tragic relationship that fuels the ending of the film. What more can I say about Newman, really? Think about every Newman film you have watched and you'll see the same steady, strong acting in every one of them. This one is no different, yet Newman somehow makes it so he isn't just playing himself over and over. It's why his roles resonate even decades later because they transcend time and easy to get lost in. Just more great work from one of the best to ever do it.
Spencer Tracy - Judgment at Nuremberg
I feel like I have seen a bunch of Tracy nominations already, but this is only his second I have seen so far. He has been in a bunch of other films from this project, so I guess he's getting more familiar to me and I know he has a ton more coming up, films and nominated roles. This film focuses on Tracy and we follow him as he sits as the head judge of the Nuremberg trial. Obviously he does the judge thing, but he gets a full story outside of the courtroom. He stays at an old Nazi general's house (who was executed after an earlier trial) and eventually meets that guy's wife, played by Marlene Dietrich. It feels like these outside moments are to see what life is like in postwar Germany and to see how the people react. The thing with Dietrich's character doesn't really go anywhere, but we get to see Tracy interact with folks and help with his final judgment. Tracy has a character arc and is the conduit for the typical American watching the film. He is the focus of the film, but he is more like the camera who comes along and then focuses on the more important parts. He does have this iconic like 10 minute monologue at the end of the film that secures his Oscar nomination. It's highly talked about and is one of those things where people may not even know the context or the film but know it's usage. It was a one take shot from multiple angles and is a thing of beauty. Tracy is the definite lead in the film, but Maximilian Schell is also flexing that he is doing all the heavy lifting and I believe him. Tracy's acting is so nonchalant and natural that I enjoy his style for this character. He is soft spoken and jovial until he has to command his courtroom. He is earnest in his pursuit of justice and noble in that regard. He is this quietly strong character in contrast to Schell's emphatic and loud defense attorney. I like Tracy in this role, but it definitely gets overshadowed, and rightfully so, by Schell's incredible performance. Tracy himself felt the same way on set remarking something along the lines of well, looks like the Oscar is Schell's. He knew it early and still gave a very good performance in his own right.
Stuart Whitman - The Mark
This is probably the name most won't recognize for a film they have never heard of before. This was Whitman's only nomination and his career sort of turned into TV and B films, sadly. But he had a full life, only just dying back in 2020 at 92. This was actually a tough film to track down, but it felt worth the payoff as it is definitely a forgotten gem of the early 60s. It's actually probably for the best if you go in completely blind, as I think that makes the film's impact feel much stronger. So spoilers now, but it's a film about a guy who has sexual inclinations towards young girls but is now paroled from prison as his psychiatrist (wonderfully played by Rod Steiger) champions his release and feels he's over his disease so to speak. This is a tough subject to do a film about but Whitman gives a delicately balanced performance of a man who is conflicted and tormented by his past as he tries to move forward in a positive way. It is also a good thing that Whitman plays the main character because Richard Burton was originally slated to star and Whitman brings more of an everyman quality to the role. He's not a movie star, he's not an ugly creep. He is a normal looking guy who stopped himself from acting on his impulse and essentially turned himself in. It's a very complex role that Whitman gives equal measure to all the various states of mind someone like that would have. He's wary when he is released that he can assimilate back into society and then hopeful when things start looking up, We see the frustration and self doubt that creeps in at various times, and the relief that his therapy sessions has helped him break away from his past issues with his mother to finally love an adult woman. All of these emotions are swirling around throughout the film as we go back and forth from flashbacks to present day and as his past is slowly revealed and how poorly the local reception is. Whitman gets us to sympathize with his character because even though the subject is reprehensible, we can kind of connect it to our own issues like drugs or alcohol or gambling or whatever terrible thing from our past. We would never want to be defined by that especially if we have taken strides to fix it and overcome it in a real way. I like that Whitman never gets too high or too low in an acting kind of way, he just trudges on to get past all of this even with some slight setbacks and hesitations. Honestly, a really refreshing performance that surprisingly comes from the early 60s on such a taboo subject. A shame that Whitman did not have sustained success in roles like this. It will be interesting to see how he stacks up against the others for me.
Great category, Boyer is the worst of the bunch. Not awful, just one of those nominees who should be represented by someone else. Tracy is great and is a big part of his film, but Schell just transcends and reminds me of DDL. Whitman is so fucking good. That is absolutely a hidden gem. Such a good performance, everyone needs to see it. Newman does such great work and if not for Schell, he gets his billiards Oscar. A very good category that is just solid all around. Love this one and need to move on to get out of this decade.
Oscar Winner: Maximilian Schell - Judgment at Nuremberg
My Winner: Maximilian Schell - Judgment at Nuremberg
Paul Newman
Stuart Whitman
Spencer Tracy
Charles Boyer
No comments:
Post a Comment