Going back we start to see these all star lineups where everyone is an acting legend. It's fun to watch these guys work and create that legend status in almost real time.
1960 Best Actor
Burt Lancaster - Elmer Gantry
I have said over and over how much of a fan I am with Lancaster's acting style. I just love his delivery and presence and it just works for me. It also works for this character who is a traveling salesmen and is a loquacious, wild man who catches a revival act with a pretty woman and decides he wants in on that grift. He weasels his way into Sister Sharon Falconer's (a great Jean Simmons) entourage and lies his way into delivering some testimony. This kind of role is right in Lancaster's wheelhouse because the guy he plays is so over the top and loud and he laughs at everything with a big toothy smile and it doesn't feel weird. It just fits him to a tee. This is a smooth talking, womanizing, manipulating guy who looks for his next play. He has an answer for everything and when called out by a skeptical journalist, he essentially defeats him with scripture and clever lines. Lancaster excels so much in this role because he can just let loose with this character and be so gregarious and charming while being serious at the same time. And it's like the film stands back and lets the viewer judge Gantry because he seems to get away with being a piece of shit to those around him. Lancaster is a force both verbally and physically as he just has that preacher energy and you kinda start feeling his energy. Just a great synergy of Lancaster's talents that resulted in him winning a well deserved Oscar. Definitely a must see for both him and Shirley Jones and Jean Simmons who should have been nominated.
Trevor Howard - Sons and Lovers
You will watch this film and observe this performance and then wonder why was Trevor Howard nominated for what is clearly a barely supporting performance. I may have the answers to that, though it is hard to understand why the Academy does what it does sometimes. This was Howard's only Oscar nomination in his long and illustrious career. You can go look at his filmography and see he is in quite a lot of great films (Brief Encounter, The Third Man, Ryan's Daughter, Superman, Gandhi, to name a few) and kind of realize what is going on. This was a chance to nominate someone the Academy respected and whose previous works they probably loved and wished they had nominated. But also, Howard was top billed in this film and the actual lead of the film, Dean Stockwell (who was pretty good) gets nothing despite doing all the heavy lifting. It just kinda feels like his billing and stature in the film community is what got him nominated and not anything he did onscreen. He plays the drunken, sometimes violent father of Stockwell, who is an artistic young man who wants a better future than just being a coal miner like his dad. Howard really doesn't do all that much in the film. We see him as this rough man who stumbles home drunk at times and assaults his wife and locks her out and then apologizes the next morning by making breakfast. He doesn't approve of Stockwell's artistic desires and is really just the one tie to the old, hard working lifestyle that the film has. Howard also doesn't really do anything amazing in this role. He does what is needed, but you're not looking at this like it's some great piece of acting. You are scratching your head wondering how it got nominated and in this category to boot. The film is worth watching but not for this performance. Go watch his other works to get a better appreciation for his talents.
Jack Lemmon - The Apartment
I feel like I should just change this to a Jack Lemmon fanboy blog because show me a Lemmon performance and I'll never hate it. He's just so fucking good at his craft and I love what he is able to do in every film I see him in. I love that he is equally great at both the comedic side and the dramatic side and when he puts them both together, just look out. This film sees both of those sides coming together. I thought going in that this was a mostly comedic film and it is equally comedic and dramatic. Lemmon seems to relish these dual roles because he knocks them out of the park each time. His comedic timing is impeccable and I have always loved his energy, but his dramatic sense of timing is also so great. He knows when to let a scene breathe and when to reel it in and defer to whoever he is working with. And it never feels insincere. You never feel like some funny man is trying out drama for the first time or some thespian is trying to crack a forced joke. He makes both sides work so well and it makes this film work especially great. He has great chemistry with Shirley MacLaine and it's a delight when both are riffing off each other. It's also nice to see that Lemmon never gives up what he does with his apartment and takes all the blame for MacLaine's issue as his own. It speaks to his character and is just one of those nice acting flourishes from Lemmon. He's got this sweetness and pathos about him that makes you root for him. I feel like I could give every win to my guy here, but there is stiff competition here that I am excited to see play out and figure who is best.
Laurence Olivier - The Entertainer
I went into this one completely blind. My guess was Olivier would be playing some entertainer (shocking!) and have issues making it big. Almost correct, but Olivier is playing a third-rate vaudevillian actor whose audience is dwindling. His actual future wife, Joan Plowright (with beautiful, expressive eyes by the way), is his daughter (lol) and our guide to see him struggle to find backing and be relevant. Olivier's character is a scumbag. He cheats on his current wife, doesn't care about his kids, and will do anything for money. When he is found out as a scam artist, the funding is withdrawn and he has to enlist his father to help him who is a vaudeville legend. His dad dies before things can go off and he entertains a paltry audience. Olivier is fantastic in the role, though. Read the previous bit and see me praising him, you're like whaaaat? Not the greatest character, but Olivier does a lot with it. The role was written for him by a progressive playwright who hated the old guard and Olivier challenged him to write something progressive for him. Genius by Olivier to stay relevant as the theater world underwent a revolution and then capitalized on it with this play and then film. Nominated for a Tony and obviously nominated for the Oscar. I love Olivier here because he acts old and has lived in this performance for awhile. Every response and movement is thought through. And his vaudeville persona is put to good use because we can see him as this washed up artist. He is trying to maintain it and keep it going, but that is obviously not succeeding. His character is fun but washed, and we only get the true glorious moments when we see when his funding is dried up or when speaking to his daughter privately. The character has so many dimensions that it can be hard to know what is the true Archie. It's an incredibly interesting character and performance that only Olivier could pull off and make into something digestible. Recommend this to see who Olivier is outside of the Shakespeare stuff.
Spencer Tracy - Inherit the Wind
This was Tracy's seventh of his nine nominations throughout the years, so I've got a lot more of him to come including his back to back wins. This film is about the Scopes monkey trial, which was about a guy being prosecuted for teaching evolution in early 1920s Tennessee where it was against the law. Tracy plays the Clarence Darrow character with a different name in the film and is the defense attorney for Scopes. It's a classic trial film and I love these types of films. Tracy is his usual solid self. It's very similar to his Judgment at Nuremberg work and the rest of his later work. It all looks so easy and natural for him where it doesn't look like he's acting at all and just playing himself. Some would call that a problem, but I have enjoyed all of these later performances I have seen. Put this up against Fredric March's heavily put upon and overacted William Jennings Bryan film counterpart and you can easily see the difference in style and tone with the characters. It kinda works, though, as the two butt heads in court and March is the more radical and fervently religious type, so his bombastic performance fits as much as Tracy's measured, pinpoint performance. Unfortunately, the film doesn't really go too in depth with Tracy's character. He's actually religious himself and not an atheist, but this isn't explored at all besides some mention at the end of the film in talking with Gene Kelly's character (who is excellent in this, by the way). This film felt more like two forces or ideas going against each other rather than any kind of character study or an accurate look into a notable historical trial. Still worth watching for Tracy and for being an entertaining trial film, though.
As usual, an excellent group of nominees. The lone head scratcher is Howard, who definitely should not have been nominated. I could see Kirk Douglas getting nominated instead for Spartacus. And if that was the case, I'd be hard pressed to even rank this group. I'll let Lancaster's win stay because I think that was probably some of his best work and just felt like a Burt Lancaster performance. Lemmon just doing what Lemmon always does which is give a performance that in a weak year would win hands down. Just great work from Lemmon, it's unbelievable. Olivier gives us a really interesting character that has all these different dimensions to him and it's fun to watch him work. Tracy is good and this film would make a great double feature with Judgment at Nuremberg. It's also a bit of the same flavor as that performance, so not really ever going to win, but still good. Just another solid year for this category with just a minor slip up. Looking forward to a new decade for sure, though.
Oscar Winner: Burt Lancaster - Elmer Gantry
My Winner: Burt Lancaster - Elmer Gantry
Jack Lemmon
Laurence Olivier
Spencer Tracy
Trevor Howard
No comments:
Post a Comment