|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label 1956. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1956. Show all posts
Best Actor 1956: Results
Best Actor 1956: Kirk Douglas in Lust For Life
Kirk Douglas received his third Oscar nomination for portraying troubled artist Vincent Van Gogh in Lust For Life.
Lust for Life is an effective and interesting biography of the troubled artist, I particularly liked the look of the film which reflected the art of Van Gogh quite well.
Kirk Douglas seemed to be the perfect cast for Van Gogh as soon as you see him in this film. He simply looks like him in this movie. He has the right face, and body type that fits Van Gogh perfectly. Douglas from the opening scene though also shows Van Gogh's strange form of constant depression at all times no matter what in his life. Douglas rightly shows a constant pain in his face even if he is not saying anything, there is clearly always something harming him from the inside, even if outwardly he does attempt to hide it at times.
His constant struggle with pain though is quite interesting though because as the title says he does have a Lust for Life. The Lust is shown through his devotion to his painting, but also his need and want to understand the common man. His passion for the people is incredibly well shown by Douglas who shows a certain in happiness in being able to watch and paint these particular people, even if he always shows a pain behind that happiness that never goes away. His most principal pain being his lack of friends and his inability to be comfortable with his surrounding.
Douglas is so painfully forceful in his performance as Gogh that it is sometimes hard to watch. He desires certain things so much, his intensity is so extreme that it cannot be ignored. Douglas makes Gogh pain so real that it is hard to take, because Douglas strikes the right emotional note. He especially does this in his scenes where he lusts after his cousin. His intensity, and raw that makes the scenes in a very interesting way painful to watch. Douglas is downright chilling especially when he puts his hand over a candle flame. Douglas makes Gogh's pain, and frustrations all too real all the time.
Douglas' performance is sad complicated work that makes Van Gogh a very vivid man. He combines all of Van Gogh's complex emotions brilliantly. His want for some companionship, but also his anger when challenged about anything about himself. He never makes Van Gogh as simple man in anyway. He is always a man in a sad state, even with his brilliance well shown even if he is not fully even aware of his own talent. It is a complex complicated performance, one in which he fully utilizes his whole body to suggest Van Gogh lusts, pains, and hopes. A challenging character Van Gogh is and Douglas is more than equal to the task.
Kirk Douglas seemed to be the perfect cast for Van Gogh as soon as you see him in this film. He simply looks like him in this movie. He has the right face, and body type that fits Van Gogh perfectly. Douglas from the opening scene though also shows Van Gogh's strange form of constant depression at all times no matter what in his life. Douglas rightly shows a constant pain in his face even if he is not saying anything, there is clearly always something harming him from the inside, even if outwardly he does attempt to hide it at times.
His constant struggle with pain though is quite interesting though because as the title says he does have a Lust for Life. The Lust is shown through his devotion to his painting, but also his need and want to understand the common man. His passion for the people is incredibly well shown by Douglas who shows a certain in happiness in being able to watch and paint these particular people, even if he always shows a pain behind that happiness that never goes away. His most principal pain being his lack of friends and his inability to be comfortable with his surrounding.
Douglas is so painfully forceful in his performance as Gogh that it is sometimes hard to watch. He desires certain things so much, his intensity is so extreme that it cannot be ignored. Douglas makes Gogh pain so real that it is hard to take, because Douglas strikes the right emotional note. He especially does this in his scenes where he lusts after his cousin. His intensity, and raw that makes the scenes in a very interesting way painful to watch. Douglas is downright chilling especially when he puts his hand over a candle flame. Douglas makes Gogh's pain, and frustrations all too real all the time.
Douglas' performance is sad complicated work that makes Van Gogh a very vivid man. He combines all of Van Gogh's complex emotions brilliantly. His want for some companionship, but also his anger when challenged about anything about himself. He never makes Van Gogh as simple man in anyway. He is always a man in a sad state, even with his brilliance well shown even if he is not fully even aware of his own talent. It is a complex complicated performance, one in which he fully utilizes his whole body to suggest Van Gogh lusts, pains, and hopes. A challenging character Van Gogh is and Douglas is more than equal to the task.
Best Actor 1956: Laurence Olivier in Richard III
Laurence Olivier received his fifth acting nomination for portraying the titular character in Richard III.
I think is a terrific Shakespearean film by Laurence Olivier, possibly even better than his also terrific Henry V.
Laurence Olivier is simply one of the best Shakespearean actors, and he proves it once again in this performance of a rather different Shakespearean character. I first of all love what he looks like in this film. His elongated nose, his hump, that bizarre hair, I think it all adds to the oddness of Richard III as a character. A challenge of all performances of Shakespeare is the ability to properly handle and the ability to properly convey the language. As I said in Henry V's performance Olivier perfectly excels with the language. He makes it completely natural and native to be said by him, and he never at all seems for a second uncomfortable with any single speech he makes.
Laurence Olivier does not only speak the language impeccably but he also always does his best to help the non Shakespearean trained audience understand it in both his direction, and his means of conveying this in his speech. Olivier never just reads the lines but is always certain to convey all the emotions along with what the long passages of speech or dialogue. I was quite interested in his performance because Richard III is so incredibly different than Henry V. They are both Kings but become Kings in different ways, and almost everything else is different about them too. Olivier though is just as believable as the deformed Richard as he was as the normal Henry V.
Olivier is an actor I like best when he relaxes a little bit which he does in the devious role as Richard. Richard could be portrayed as an overly serious villain, but Olivier does something that prevents this and that is how he talks directly to the audience during his scheming speeches. He makes Richard interestingly playful, and I thought actually a fun villain to watch despite how severe his crimes can be. Laurence Olivier I found to be especially entertaining and effective throughout the film with his sly manner of moving around, and his constant scheming with his knowing face at all times.
Olivier creates a fascinating character with Richard who is always interesting to watch in any scene even when he is not the focus, or the man speaking in the scene. Olivier always keeps his presence known and always stays fascinating. He also is incredibly believable as Richard despite the complete bizarre nature of the character. I bought not only the characters evil and intent but also the ability of the character to perform his schemes in both in terms of the killing of his relatives, and his schemes involving the bed of women he desires even women who he has severely hurt. I completely believed the seduction of Lady Anne, which may be hard to take, but Olivier has a very strange charm as Richard.
Olivier's whole performance is brilliant but a few small moments I think truly showed his exceptional ability as Richard. One being his scene with his two nephews. He fakes the nice uncle for a point that is properly creepy but equally convincing at being able to have a facade. Olivier though is equally chilling when the true Richard is revealed when one of Richard's nephews unfortunately mentions his shoulder. His look he gives he gives the nephew is perfectly chilling. Olivier best scene may be Richard's final ones before his fateful battle. First being confronted by those he had killed or caused to die in a dream. Olivier brilliantly shows a pain showing the slightest concise, but he sheds guilt quickly with his odd speech before the battle almost an evil parody of Henry V's big speech. Finally his final moments on the field are simply perfect, as Richard loses everything quickly, and finally his brilliantly directed and acted death scene. Another great Shakespearean performance from Lord Olivier.
Laurence Olivier is simply one of the best Shakespearean actors, and he proves it once again in this performance of a rather different Shakespearean character. I first of all love what he looks like in this film. His elongated nose, his hump, that bizarre hair, I think it all adds to the oddness of Richard III as a character. A challenge of all performances of Shakespeare is the ability to properly handle and the ability to properly convey the language. As I said in Henry V's performance Olivier perfectly excels with the language. He makes it completely natural and native to be said by him, and he never at all seems for a second uncomfortable with any single speech he makes.
Laurence Olivier does not only speak the language impeccably but he also always does his best to help the non Shakespearean trained audience understand it in both his direction, and his means of conveying this in his speech. Olivier never just reads the lines but is always certain to convey all the emotions along with what the long passages of speech or dialogue. I was quite interested in his performance because Richard III is so incredibly different than Henry V. They are both Kings but become Kings in different ways, and almost everything else is different about them too. Olivier though is just as believable as the deformed Richard as he was as the normal Henry V.
Olivier is an actor I like best when he relaxes a little bit which he does in the devious role as Richard. Richard could be portrayed as an overly serious villain, but Olivier does something that prevents this and that is how he talks directly to the audience during his scheming speeches. He makes Richard interestingly playful, and I thought actually a fun villain to watch despite how severe his crimes can be. Laurence Olivier I found to be especially entertaining and effective throughout the film with his sly manner of moving around, and his constant scheming with his knowing face at all times.
Olivier creates a fascinating character with Richard who is always interesting to watch in any scene even when he is not the focus, or the man speaking in the scene. Olivier always keeps his presence known and always stays fascinating. He also is incredibly believable as Richard despite the complete bizarre nature of the character. I bought not only the characters evil and intent but also the ability of the character to perform his schemes in both in terms of the killing of his relatives, and his schemes involving the bed of women he desires even women who he has severely hurt. I completely believed the seduction of Lady Anne, which may be hard to take, but Olivier has a very strange charm as Richard.
Olivier's whole performance is brilliant but a few small moments I think truly showed his exceptional ability as Richard. One being his scene with his two nephews. He fakes the nice uncle for a point that is properly creepy but equally convincing at being able to have a facade. Olivier though is equally chilling when the true Richard is revealed when one of Richard's nephews unfortunately mentions his shoulder. His look he gives he gives the nephew is perfectly chilling. Olivier best scene may be Richard's final ones before his fateful battle. First being confronted by those he had killed or caused to die in a dream. Olivier brilliantly shows a pain showing the slightest concise, but he sheds guilt quickly with his odd speech before the battle almost an evil parody of Henry V's big speech. Finally his final moments on the field are simply perfect, as Richard loses everything quickly, and finally his brilliantly directed and acted death scene. Another great Shakespearean performance from Lord Olivier.
Best Actor 1956: James Dean in Giant
James Dean received his second and final posthumous Oscar nomination for portraying Jett Rink in Giant.
James Dean's is always a phenomenon considering he has only three films, and his acting style is so bizarre, yet he is a icon and his style is adored by many. Dean in Giant actually is a supporting player, and is not the lead. There are long passages where he is completely absent, and much of the time he is just the man slinking around in the background. Dean has his trademark mannerisms and looking at the ground constantly. He though has less I think than in East of Eden, and I do think he did utilize his mannerisms to create a character.
In East of Eden his mannerisms suggested a young man uncomfortable with just about everything. Here I feel he does properly use his mannerisms this time to convey himself as a loner in the early moments most assuredly well. He is uncomfortable with his surroundings and employer. He shows a hidden sense of hatred of his character, and his hidden motives quite well. I think he is actually interesting early on, and not distracting with his little slinking in the background always. He does convey everything and more for his character of Rink, and I think his intensity and style of his performance works perfectly early on.
Later though after he becomes rich his performance changes. I do like his one scene where he announces his soon to be riches in his fantastic style. His performance though becomes very limited in terms of screen time, occasionally popping in and out very quickly. I never really believed him at all as the older rich oil man. Dean's aging was not at all convincing even though Elizabeth Taylor's and Rock Hudson's were. I thought he was slimey enough but that was about it. He was suppose to have some sort of charm I think but he doesn't and I really did not believe Dean at all as the oil man. He was perfect for Rink at the beginning but by the end he seemed to become miscast. I do not know if any other actor could have been as interesting at the beginning but I do think many could have been better than the second half of his performance.
In East of Eden his mannerisms suggested a young man uncomfortable with just about everything. Here I feel he does properly use his mannerisms this time to convey himself as a loner in the early moments most assuredly well. He is uncomfortable with his surroundings and employer. He shows a hidden sense of hatred of his character, and his hidden motives quite well. I think he is actually interesting early on, and not distracting with his little slinking in the background always. He does convey everything and more for his character of Rink, and I think his intensity and style of his performance works perfectly early on.
Later though after he becomes rich his performance changes. I do like his one scene where he announces his soon to be riches in his fantastic style. His performance though becomes very limited in terms of screen time, occasionally popping in and out very quickly. I never really believed him at all as the older rich oil man. Dean's aging was not at all convincing even though Elizabeth Taylor's and Rock Hudson's were. I thought he was slimey enough but that was about it. He was suppose to have some sort of charm I think but he doesn't and I really did not believe Dean at all as the oil man. He was perfect for Rink at the beginning but by the end he seemed to become miscast. I do not know if any other actor could have been as interesting at the beginning but I do think many could have been better than the second half of his performance.
Best Actor 1956: Rock Hudson in Giant
Rock Hudson received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Bick Benedict in Giant.
Giant is actually a very interesting film. I did not care for it too much the first time I saw it but I will say that I was not really paying enough attention to really appreciate it.
Rock Hudson's performance here is not anything special but it is not at all bad. I think this is due to the character of Bick Benedict. Bick is not all that complicated of a character. He is in many ways the typical rancher man. He wants to keep his family business well, and wants to live his life. I felt Hudson was actually entirely believable as the rancher, I though his accent was fine, and I had no problem with what he did with the character.
Bick as a character though really requires little from the actor, and his whole character seems to be reactionary in many ways to those around him. He stays steadfast with most of his beliefs and thoughts and is reacted upon by his sister, his wife, his children, and his rival of sort Jett (James Dean). He reacts mostly in constrained anger when the others do what disappoints him and angers him. I think Hudson's reactions are fine, and make sense for the character. He is always believable I think in the role, his performance is not really flawed I think at all. Bick just is a reactive character most of the time, and never very complex.
I think he handles the aging of the character well, and shows his frustrations well enough. I think he works well with Elizabeth Taylor well, and I think they have a the right naturalism in their scenes together. I thought they worked together like a real married couple, and I though he was equally naturally with all the children as well. He even works well with Dean, and I find his steadfast method of acting works along fairly well with Dean eccentric method. Bick I do not think is a lacking character, he does not need to be that complicated to serve his purpose. Bick serves his purpose as does Hudson. Not amazing by anything means but I though he was perfectly fine in the role.
Rock Hudson's performance here is not anything special but it is not at all bad. I think this is due to the character of Bick Benedict. Bick is not all that complicated of a character. He is in many ways the typical rancher man. He wants to keep his family business well, and wants to live his life. I felt Hudson was actually entirely believable as the rancher, I though his accent was fine, and I had no problem with what he did with the character.
Bick as a character though really requires little from the actor, and his whole character seems to be reactionary in many ways to those around him. He stays steadfast with most of his beliefs and thoughts and is reacted upon by his sister, his wife, his children, and his rival of sort Jett (James Dean). He reacts mostly in constrained anger when the others do what disappoints him and angers him. I think Hudson's reactions are fine, and make sense for the character. He is always believable I think in the role, his performance is not really flawed I think at all. Bick just is a reactive character most of the time, and never very complex.
I think he handles the aging of the character well, and shows his frustrations well enough. I think he works well with Elizabeth Taylor well, and I think they have a the right naturalism in their scenes together. I thought they worked together like a real married couple, and I though he was equally naturally with all the children as well. He even works well with Dean, and I find his steadfast method of acting works along fairly well with Dean eccentric method. Bick I do not think is a lacking character, he does not need to be that complicated to serve his purpose. Bick serves his purpose as does Hudson. Not amazing by anything means but I though he was perfectly fine in the role.
Best Actor 1956: Yul Brynner in The King and I
Yul Brynner won his Oscar from his only nomination for portraying the King Mongkut of Siam in The King and I.
The King and I is a weird musical to say the least, in both its story, and its odd pacing and tonal shifts. Especially involving the subplot about the King and one of his brides that gets rather dark at the end.
Brynner's performance as the King is an odd story of extreme success. He won this Oscar and a Tony for his performance, and he portrayed the King over 4000 times on stage. I guess there must be something about his performance here that struck many people incredibly well even if in terms of normal acting it seems rather odd to me anyways. His performance is strange in his semi comic way of acting throughout the film. He tells people what to do with his snap, and his strange way of speaking in this movie, no I do not mean his accent. His whole style of speaking is strange, and I never say anything all that interesting about his performance it was just simply odd.
His chemistry with Deborah Kerr is odd, the way the King carries himself around his court is very odd. The way he talks with his children, his wives, or when he talks to Kerr is bizarre. I have no idea what he was doing in the performance, all I know is it does not work. He does not really have presence, or all that much charisma in his performance, nor does he make the King either interesting or entertaining. His singing is also very odd too, I suppose his dancing is not really odd but that is about it. I actually do like Brynner as an actor in other films besides this, but this film his performance oddly theatrical. I suppose he knew what he was doing though since he won an Oscar for it, but I think he was in fact much better in both Anastasia, and especially the Ten Commandments both from the same year.
Brynner's performance as the King is an odd story of extreme success. He won this Oscar and a Tony for his performance, and he portrayed the King over 4000 times on stage. I guess there must be something about his performance here that struck many people incredibly well even if in terms of normal acting it seems rather odd to me anyways. His performance is strange in his semi comic way of acting throughout the film. He tells people what to do with his snap, and his strange way of speaking in this movie, no I do not mean his accent. His whole style of speaking is strange, and I never say anything all that interesting about his performance it was just simply odd.
His chemistry with Deborah Kerr is odd, the way the King carries himself around his court is very odd. The way he talks with his children, his wives, or when he talks to Kerr is bizarre. I have no idea what he was doing in the performance, all I know is it does not work. He does not really have presence, or all that much charisma in his performance, nor does he make the King either interesting or entertaining. His singing is also very odd too, I suppose his dancing is not really odd but that is about it. I actually do like Brynner as an actor in other films besides this, but this film his performance oddly theatrical. I suppose he knew what he was doing though since he won an Oscar for it, but I think he was in fact much better in both Anastasia, and especially the Ten Commandments both from the same year.
Best Actor 1956
Rock Hudson in Giant
James Dean in Giant
Yul Brynner in The King and I
Kirk Douglas in Lust For Life
Laurence Olivier in Richard III
So who do you pick, and predict? The ranch owner turned oil man, the ranch hand turned oil man, the king who sings, the artist who screams, or the king who schemes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
