Anthony Perkins in Psycho
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label 1960. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1960. Show all posts
Best Actor 1960: Results
Anthony Perkins in Psycho
Best Actor 1960: Jack Lemmon in The Apartment
Jack Lemmon received his third Oscar nomination for portraying C.C. "Bud" Baxter in The Apartment.
The Apartment is the enjoyable story of an office worker who lends out his apartment for his superiors extramarital affairs in the hope of promotions.
Jack Lemmon is an actor who I do believe can go over the top, and get quite obnoxious particularly in some of his comedic performance. In the Apartment Jack Lemmon though finds the right tone for his performance throughout, never taking it too far, but keeping at the right pitch.
I certainly liked his C.C. Baxter, and simply found him to be a nice fellow to follow through his rather unusual method of corporate success. Lemmon makes Baxter story a nice one we can follow and can empathize with. Lemmon does a good job of bringing us into his story, and simply enjoy what he does, and has done to him.
Lemmon has the right charm in this performance, and has the right comedic timing to be fully enjoyable. He never overstates a line, or emphasizes the wrong moment in his performance. He handles everything quite well and does his best to extract as the right amount of humor from each scene.
Lemmon also finds the right tone to bring the more dramatic aspects of the film in with the comedic ones, so they naturally coincide. Thinking about it, it would be rather difficult subject matter to have an attempted suicide in the film but Lemmon knows how to play the scene to put the right gravitas to it without making it become too serious throwing off the comedy.
His chemistry with Shirley Maclaine is good, but I think the romance really mostly works because of Lemmon. He never really becomes an overly romantic figure in the film, instead he just shows the right sweetness and charm that works far better. Baxter's own internal revelation of how much he likes Maclaine's Fran, is subtly handled by Lemmon leading to his rejection of his bosses offer natural and satisfying.
Lemmon could easily have gone too far with any part of his performance, but he always is enjoyable and charming. Lemmon just makes it a delight to be with him in this film, which in turn makes the film a delight to watch, it is a humorous very enjoyable performance, and possibly my favorite comedic performance from Lemmon.
Jack Lemmon is an actor who I do believe can go over the top, and get quite obnoxious particularly in some of his comedic performance. In the Apartment Jack Lemmon though finds the right tone for his performance throughout, never taking it too far, but keeping at the right pitch.
I certainly liked his C.C. Baxter, and simply found him to be a nice fellow to follow through his rather unusual method of corporate success. Lemmon makes Baxter story a nice one we can follow and can empathize with. Lemmon does a good job of bringing us into his story, and simply enjoy what he does, and has done to him.
Lemmon has the right charm in this performance, and has the right comedic timing to be fully enjoyable. He never overstates a line, or emphasizes the wrong moment in his performance. He handles everything quite well and does his best to extract as the right amount of humor from each scene.
Lemmon also finds the right tone to bring the more dramatic aspects of the film in with the comedic ones, so they naturally coincide. Thinking about it, it would be rather difficult subject matter to have an attempted suicide in the film but Lemmon knows how to play the scene to put the right gravitas to it without making it become too serious throwing off the comedy.
His chemistry with Shirley Maclaine is good, but I think the romance really mostly works because of Lemmon. He never really becomes an overly romantic figure in the film, instead he just shows the right sweetness and charm that works far better. Baxter's own internal revelation of how much he likes Maclaine's Fran, is subtly handled by Lemmon leading to his rejection of his bosses offer natural and satisfying.
Lemmon could easily have gone too far with any part of his performance, but he always is enjoyable and charming. Lemmon just makes it a delight to be with him in this film, which in turn makes the film a delight to watch, it is a humorous very enjoyable performance, and possibly my favorite comedic performance from Lemmon.
Best Actor 1960: Trevor Howard in Sons and Lovers
Trevor Howard received his first Oscar nomination for portraying coal miner Walter Morel in Sons and Lovers.
The films tells the story of a young man Paul Morel (Dean Stockwell) who is an aspiring artist who comes from a poor mining town.
It is quite strange that Trevor Howard was nominated for this film since Howard actually does not portray the lead role of the film, but is rather a supporting role as the father of Paul. It is not even a domineering supporting role, the father really on a whole is not given very much time at all, and scenes that he is in tend to focus away from him.
Howard though is an actor I tend to like almost whenever I see him, due to his unique strong screen presence. Howard though is given very little in terms of character since Walter is a typical cliched father who does not support his sons artistic aspirations. He drinks, and he yells with his wife (Wendy Hiller) about what he sees, believing it was her fault his sons turned out the way they did.
Howard though does try his best to make something out of his lacking character. He does not make his typical character one dimensional. In the little time he is given Howard shows that he really does care for his family, but shows a sadness which he covers with anger, that not only does his son not want to follow in his footsteps, but also that there is something wrong about his footsteps.
Howard is only really given one scene that focuses on him all that much which is very early in the film, when his only son who actually followed in his footsteps dies in the mines. Howard is good in showing the honest grief for his only son who wished to continue on his work.
Howard I think with Hiller are good in showing the long history of their characters' marriage despite barely given anytime to develop it. They properly showed that there fights are almost routine. This does allow Howard a brief good scene, near the end of the film where he does show his love for his wife once more, but Howard does not forget the character still showing their poor history at the same time.
He has one more good scene where he tells his son not to let his mother down, like he did. He again shows honest emotion, and a little more to his character. Overall Howard I did like when he was on screen, and I did like that he tried to show more to his simple character. Unfortunately the film refused to give him more of a character which possibly could have enabled a great performance.
It is quite strange that Trevor Howard was nominated for this film since Howard actually does not portray the lead role of the film, but is rather a supporting role as the father of Paul. It is not even a domineering supporting role, the father really on a whole is not given very much time at all, and scenes that he is in tend to focus away from him.
Howard though is an actor I tend to like almost whenever I see him, due to his unique strong screen presence. Howard though is given very little in terms of character since Walter is a typical cliched father who does not support his sons artistic aspirations. He drinks, and he yells with his wife (Wendy Hiller) about what he sees, believing it was her fault his sons turned out the way they did.
Howard though does try his best to make something out of his lacking character. He does not make his typical character one dimensional. In the little time he is given Howard shows that he really does care for his family, but shows a sadness which he covers with anger, that not only does his son not want to follow in his footsteps, but also that there is something wrong about his footsteps.
Howard is only really given one scene that focuses on him all that much which is very early in the film, when his only son who actually followed in his footsteps dies in the mines. Howard is good in showing the honest grief for his only son who wished to continue on his work.
Howard I think with Hiller are good in showing the long history of their characters' marriage despite barely given anytime to develop it. They properly showed that there fights are almost routine. This does allow Howard a brief good scene, near the end of the film where he does show his love for his wife once more, but Howard does not forget the character still showing their poor history at the same time.
He has one more good scene where he tells his son not to let his mother down, like he did. He again shows honest emotion, and a little more to his character. Overall Howard I did like when he was on screen, and I did like that he tried to show more to his simple character. Unfortunately the film refused to give him more of a character which possibly could have enabled a great performance.
Best Actor 1960: Burt Lancaster in Elmer Gantry
Burt Lancaster won his Oscar from his second nomination for portraying the titular role in Elmer Gantry.
Elmer Gantry has significantly grown on me on this viewing, and it certainly is interesting, and a much better film that Inherit the Wind which deals with some similar subject matter.
Lancaster has quite the challenge in this role, because the film, I believe, never portrays Gantry as either a good or a bad man entirely. Instead it more of simply portrays him, requiring what the audience thinks of him mostly to Lancaster himself. Lancaster as Gantry takes his wild man Lancaster approach rather than his straight man Lancaster approach, which works quite well for Elmer Gantry.
Gantry begins in the film as a complete rapscallion to say the least, a womanizing drinker, moving from town to town. Gantry wild man energetic performance works quite well for the fast moving Gantry, and he perfectly shows the unstable nature of Elmer. He shows the right amount of sheer fun in his performance that of course works as well as possibly for the joy seeking Gantry.
Gantry goes and joins up with a Evangelical religious group in an apparent lust after their leader Sister Sharon Falconer (Jean Simmons, who should have been nominated). Now what I do find fascinating is the film says very little about Gantry motives early on in these moments, but Lancaster is completely able to fully show without words what is going on in Elmer's head.
To get deeper in, and closer to Sharon, Gantry starts preaching as well right alongside here, bringing the fire and brimstone to the sermons. All of the sermon scenes really are incredible moments for Lancaster as Gantry. He is simply incredible and believable in his forceful preachings. Lancaster is terrific because he completely throws himself into the sermons both mentally, and physically. Each sermon by themselves are masterful moments by Lancaster.
The validity and truthfulness of Gantry and his organization is quickly questioned though, and he must defeat a critical journalist. Lancaster is terrific in this scene, as he slowly picks apart the writer, to bring him to Gantry's point. Lancaster makes Gantry ability to completely manipulate and control every problem that comes his way is completely convincing due to Lancaster quick concise manner.
What is most outstanding about Lancaster's performance though is his portrayal of the change or lack of change in Elmer Gantry. I would say he most definetly changes through how much is left a little to interpretation, which is so great about Lancaster's performance. He mostly internalizes this change through his performance, showing subtle changes throughout the film, which is truly incredible. Lancaster creates the perfect portrait of Elmer Gantry, of both earnestness, and sarcasm, and the way they interweave, and over take one another. Overall Lancaster's performance is simply great, and frankly his preaching scenes alone made his Oscar deserved.
Lancaster has quite the challenge in this role, because the film, I believe, never portrays Gantry as either a good or a bad man entirely. Instead it more of simply portrays him, requiring what the audience thinks of him mostly to Lancaster himself. Lancaster as Gantry takes his wild man Lancaster approach rather than his straight man Lancaster approach, which works quite well for Elmer Gantry.
Gantry begins in the film as a complete rapscallion to say the least, a womanizing drinker, moving from town to town. Gantry wild man energetic performance works quite well for the fast moving Gantry, and he perfectly shows the unstable nature of Elmer. He shows the right amount of sheer fun in his performance that of course works as well as possibly for the joy seeking Gantry.
Gantry goes and joins up with a Evangelical religious group in an apparent lust after their leader Sister Sharon Falconer (Jean Simmons, who should have been nominated). Now what I do find fascinating is the film says very little about Gantry motives early on in these moments, but Lancaster is completely able to fully show without words what is going on in Elmer's head.
To get deeper in, and closer to Sharon, Gantry starts preaching as well right alongside here, bringing the fire and brimstone to the sermons. All of the sermon scenes really are incredible moments for Lancaster as Gantry. He is simply incredible and believable in his forceful preachings. Lancaster is terrific because he completely throws himself into the sermons both mentally, and physically. Each sermon by themselves are masterful moments by Lancaster.
The validity and truthfulness of Gantry and his organization is quickly questioned though, and he must defeat a critical journalist. Lancaster is terrific in this scene, as he slowly picks apart the writer, to bring him to Gantry's point. Lancaster makes Gantry ability to completely manipulate and control every problem that comes his way is completely convincing due to Lancaster quick concise manner.
What is most outstanding about Lancaster's performance though is his portrayal of the change or lack of change in Elmer Gantry. I would say he most definetly changes through how much is left a little to interpretation, which is so great about Lancaster's performance. He mostly internalizes this change through his performance, showing subtle changes throughout the film, which is truly incredible. Lancaster creates the perfect portrait of Elmer Gantry, of both earnestness, and sarcasm, and the way they interweave, and over take one another. Overall Lancaster's performance is simply great, and frankly his preaching scenes alone made his Oscar deserved.
Best Actor 1960: Laurence Olivier in The Entertainer
Laurence Olivier received his sixth acting nomination for portraying Archie Rice in The Entertainer.
The Entertainer is an effective character study in the kitchen sink style British film, about the troubles of an aging third rate vaudevillian.
It is quite interesting to see Laurence Olivier in this role as the very much down on his luck washed up, Vaudevillian. Olivier after all commonly plays Princes, Kings, and rich fellows but not this time. The great part though is he is just as believable in this part than many of the Kings he portrayed.
As almost always with Olivier he very much creates a more unique character than even written. The first time one sees Archie Rice is when he performing on stage in a not particularly successful show. Olivier is completely believable as this vaudevillian fully creating a stage character as a fast moving comic performer. Olivier is particularly good here because not only is he believable, but he also makes Rice's performance lacking just enough to make him third rate.
I really loved his stage persona Olivier created for Rice though with his quick talking, and very specific almost stilted mannerisms on stage which fit perfectly for Rice. Olivier is excellent because he does not show Rice flubbing his performance, nor does he show him completely putting his complete an whole self into it. Instead Olivier properly suggests, a performer who knows his routine, knows how to do it, and does put effort into, but has been doing over and over again, probably far too many times.
His cheerful stage persona though hides Archie rather poor personal life with his family. Olivier is quite interesting here because he shows that Archie tends to just put on another facade again when dealing with his family. A slightly happy man, but not major problems going on in his mind, is what Olivier shows on the outside of Archie, but deep within there is far more to him. Olivier shows Archie to almost always being in denial, and for this moment trying to hide his deep sadness and concern over the capture of his son who is in the army, by acting like he barely even knows it happened.
The one thing Archie does care about though is his career, as he is trying to open an another show well his current one is unsuccessful. Olivier shows once again another the facade that he puts on in which he tries to convince people to invest with him. Olivier shows another different one that is a slight change from his stage persona, sorta realistic stage persona. Olivier shows in Archie, a charm he gets out from talking quickly, and again always smiling. Olivier though still shows beneath Archie a true sadness which resides within him.
Olivier shows that through these facades is the only way Archie at all gets through his life, and that he really cannot do without them. He shows that Archie is almost never truthful to anyone really, and when he is it is only for brief moments. He usually though goes right back to a facade. I think one moment in particular that is great is when Archie's wife freaks out over her son, and Archie does let on to himself a little bit, but only briefly quickly going back to being energetic, and charming, which he only does to hide himself from reality.
Only a few times does Archie really break off all his facades and absolutely shows who he is deep inside himself. One scene is when his financial backing falls out for his new show, and he completely finally is unable to put on any facade in a truly fascinating scene by Olivier showing completely honest angry emotions for once from Archie. The other scenes involve moments alone with hid daughter, where he breaks all his facades talking tenderly with her, as well as showing the deep sadness of the man behind all his acts, the man who he himself refers to as dead already.
Archie really is an awful person, who is certainly quite selfish, but Olivier finds humanity in Archie nonetheless. It is an amazing portrait of a man who refuses to face reality, and uses the one thing he knows to protect himself from it, which is performance. Olivier truly shows a complete portrait of a man, who refuses to live his life without his act, and I think his performance is best summed by his last scene on the vaudevillian stage. He once again hides his life problems with song and dance, but this time he cannot do it all the way, showing finally on the stage where his facade was the strongest, his bitterness, and sadness as he makes his final walk of stage in an outstanding final moment to this great performance.
It is quite interesting to see Laurence Olivier in this role as the very much down on his luck washed up, Vaudevillian. Olivier after all commonly plays Princes, Kings, and rich fellows but not this time. The great part though is he is just as believable in this part than many of the Kings he portrayed.
As almost always with Olivier he very much creates a more unique character than even written. The first time one sees Archie Rice is when he performing on stage in a not particularly successful show. Olivier is completely believable as this vaudevillian fully creating a stage character as a fast moving comic performer. Olivier is particularly good here because not only is he believable, but he also makes Rice's performance lacking just enough to make him third rate.
I really loved his stage persona Olivier created for Rice though with his quick talking, and very specific almost stilted mannerisms on stage which fit perfectly for Rice. Olivier is excellent because he does not show Rice flubbing his performance, nor does he show him completely putting his complete an whole self into it. Instead Olivier properly suggests, a performer who knows his routine, knows how to do it, and does put effort into, but has been doing over and over again, probably far too many times.
His cheerful stage persona though hides Archie rather poor personal life with his family. Olivier is quite interesting here because he shows that Archie tends to just put on another facade again when dealing with his family. A slightly happy man, but not major problems going on in his mind, is what Olivier shows on the outside of Archie, but deep within there is far more to him. Olivier shows Archie to almost always being in denial, and for this moment trying to hide his deep sadness and concern over the capture of his son who is in the army, by acting like he barely even knows it happened.
The one thing Archie does care about though is his career, as he is trying to open an another show well his current one is unsuccessful. Olivier shows once again another the facade that he puts on in which he tries to convince people to invest with him. Olivier shows another different one that is a slight change from his stage persona, sorta realistic stage persona. Olivier shows in Archie, a charm he gets out from talking quickly, and again always smiling. Olivier though still shows beneath Archie a true sadness which resides within him.
Olivier shows that through these facades is the only way Archie at all gets through his life, and that he really cannot do without them. He shows that Archie is almost never truthful to anyone really, and when he is it is only for brief moments. He usually though goes right back to a facade. I think one moment in particular that is great is when Archie's wife freaks out over her son, and Archie does let on to himself a little bit, but only briefly quickly going back to being energetic, and charming, which he only does to hide himself from reality.
Only a few times does Archie really break off all his facades and absolutely shows who he is deep inside himself. One scene is when his financial backing falls out for his new show, and he completely finally is unable to put on any facade in a truly fascinating scene by Olivier showing completely honest angry emotions for once from Archie. The other scenes involve moments alone with hid daughter, where he breaks all his facades talking tenderly with her, as well as showing the deep sadness of the man behind all his acts, the man who he himself refers to as dead already.
Archie really is an awful person, who is certainly quite selfish, but Olivier finds humanity in Archie nonetheless. It is an amazing portrait of a man who refuses to face reality, and uses the one thing he knows to protect himself from it, which is performance. Olivier truly shows a complete portrait of a man, who refuses to live his life without his act, and I think his performance is best summed by his last scene on the vaudevillian stage. He once again hides his life problems with song and dance, but this time he cannot do it all the way, showing finally on the stage where his facade was the strongest, his bitterness, and sadness as he makes his final walk of stage in an outstanding final moment to this great performance.
Best Actor 1960: Spencer Tracy in Inherit the Wind
Spencer Tracy received his seventh Oscar nomination for portraying Henry Drummond in Inherit the Wind.
The monkey scopes trial should make an interesting film, but the problem is they are made and based on Inherit the wind. It's historical inaccuracies would not be so bad I guess, if they did not create so many one dimensional characters, and obviously written scenes.
The problems of the characters of the film certainly carry on over to the performances. Fredric March I find overacts a bit by Brady especially with his mouth movements constantly, and is not able to create too much of character, because his character is written as a basically one dimensional religious dunderhead, as all religious people are portrayed in this film. On the other side though the scientific people are portrayed as almost perfect reasonable people (except Gene Kelly's overly cynical reporter), these are just as one dimensional though which include Tracy's Henry Drummond.
Spencer Tracy's character luckily for him is not required to do much more than espouse his belief in evolution, and attack the others beliefs. This allows plenty of scenes of Tracy giving loud speeches in the court room, and more quiet scenes of breaking apart particular witnesses. I will say that his performance is fine in showing his character's passion for his cause which is strong, and energetically portrayed by Tracy.
He is fine as well in breaking apart witnesses, as well as breaking up his opponents ideas as well, being properly quick, and adept in his manner. I think something quite lacking though is his lack of competition in the court room. I also think he was good in portraying Drummond with particular mannerisms with making them completely realistic, although I can't say that add that much to his performance on a whole. I think his performance could have been more interesting if the film allowed Drummond to really have to fight with a more intelligent Brady.
The film could have still portrayed Drummond as being in the right, but it could have allowed for far more interesting if the people Drummond was proving wrong weren't just portrayed as complete fools to begin with. This makes it so Tracy's passion, and persuasion in the role although good, it really did not really need Tracy to truly be persuasive or as powerful, which perhaps it could have if the film was written more intelligently.
Tracy is completely fine throughout his performance, and has some good moments, but I never felt it was much more than fine. He had his moments of big actory speeches which he handles well, but his performance is lacking because the film itself requires less of him than it might if it simply had been a better more fully written film. Overall his performance is good, but his character is lacking as are his scenes.
The problems of the characters of the film certainly carry on over to the performances. Fredric March I find overacts a bit by Brady especially with his mouth movements constantly, and is not able to create too much of character, because his character is written as a basically one dimensional religious dunderhead, as all religious people are portrayed in this film. On the other side though the scientific people are portrayed as almost perfect reasonable people (except Gene Kelly's overly cynical reporter), these are just as one dimensional though which include Tracy's Henry Drummond.
Spencer Tracy's character luckily for him is not required to do much more than espouse his belief in evolution, and attack the others beliefs. This allows plenty of scenes of Tracy giving loud speeches in the court room, and more quiet scenes of breaking apart particular witnesses. I will say that his performance is fine in showing his character's passion for his cause which is strong, and energetically portrayed by Tracy.
He is fine as well in breaking apart witnesses, as well as breaking up his opponents ideas as well, being properly quick, and adept in his manner. I think something quite lacking though is his lack of competition in the court room. I also think he was good in portraying Drummond with particular mannerisms with making them completely realistic, although I can't say that add that much to his performance on a whole. I think his performance could have been more interesting if the film allowed Drummond to really have to fight with a more intelligent Brady.
The film could have still portrayed Drummond as being in the right, but it could have allowed for far more interesting if the people Drummond was proving wrong weren't just portrayed as complete fools to begin with. This makes it so Tracy's passion, and persuasion in the role although good, it really did not really need Tracy to truly be persuasive or as powerful, which perhaps it could have if the film was written more intelligently.
Tracy is completely fine throughout his performance, and has some good moments, but I never felt it was much more than fine. He had his moments of big actory speeches which he handles well, but his performance is lacking because the film itself requires less of him than it might if it simply had been a better more fully written film. Overall his performance is good, but his character is lacking as are his scenes.
Best Actor 1960
Jack Lemmon in The Apartment
Laurence Olivier in The Entertainer
Burt Lancaster in Elmer Gantry
Trevor Howard in Sons and Lovers
Spencer Tracy in Inherit the Wind
Well it's Spencer Tracy's final chance, can he finally win, or is someone else the best?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
