Open to Suggestions.
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label 1961. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1961. Show all posts
Best Actor 1961: Results
Open to Suggestions.
Best Actor 1961: Paul Newman in The Hustler
Paul Newman received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Fast Eddie Felson in The Hustler.
The Hustler is a very interesting film that shows the underworld of sorts that the pool hustler lives in.
Fast Eddie first begins in the film with his mentor Charlie (Myron McCormick) in a quick hustle at a small bar. In this short early scene, Newman is good at putting the act of the hustle, and shows instantly that Fast Eddie is a pretty slick costumer who knows his trade. I really like this early scene. I like how he at first shows Eddie as the over reactive kid as he creates the condition for the hustle, than leads up to just his smile before he pulls the trick is perfect. That smile shows Eddie knows exactly what he is doing and Newman uses his trademark charisma to amplify Eddie joy of the hustle to perfect effect.
Eddie though goes to play pool with the ultimate pool player Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason), for a prolonged night of gambling and playing. Newman's performance in this scene is excellent, because he starts out as the fully charismatic Newman who is eager to play against the great Fats. Newman perfectly displays his eagerness and passion he puts into this ultimate game and hustle. What is truly great about this scene though is his slow degradation over the night, and day of playing. Newman carefully drains himself of his charisma, and slowly loses his control over the game and himself into he basically becomes an emotional and physical mess until he loses the final game.
After he loses the hustle in the end Fast Eddie really falls flat, and Newman shows a loss in charisma which properly connects with Eddie's complete loss in confidence. Eddie down on his luck meets also a woman Sarah (Piper Laurie) who never has really had any luck. This relationship is pivotal to the film, and it is an interesting complex one. It is interesting because it is not a big lover affair, but rather a meeting of two troubled souls that is not actually always warm. Newman though and Laurie find the right charisma not of a loving relationship, but one that does have connection even if very cold at times.
Newman is strong in these scenes because he really shows that Eddie is not at all a perfect guy, in fact a very much troubled man. He is properly cold with Laurie, and his anger is well founded suggesting that Eddie really is not a stable man, and that Hustling attempts to bring himself a respect of sorts. Now equally fantastic though is the love he does show to Laurie's Sarah. Newman projects this love, in the right the right almost cold and a somewhat resistant fashion that is always completely natural.
Eddie has a rough path to being himself up again, that is tortured. It is interesting because Newman shows Eddie's attempts than failures not as something that just happens but weaknesses in his personality. Eddie though learns from each of his failures, but Newman carefully displays that he does not learn everything or enough each time. For example his quiet talk with Laurie after being beaten for hustling, is a quiet poignant moment by Newman, but astutely portrayed because he still shows Eddie to not be entirely aware of himself.
Eddie's final tragic failure leads himself back to play Minnesota Fats once again. This is a spectacular scene. It is a quick change but an effective and believable one that Eddie has found his ground and confidence, not of true understanding himself, but brought about by passionate hatred and sadness. Now this is not really said, but I feel Newman does without fault show this change in Eddie. His final scene is outstanding as he finally does have control over himself, and over the pool table. This top he wins the hustle, and this was what the film was leading to, and Newman came to this conclusion brilliantly. Overall a very strong performance from Newman that creates a very interesting and incredibly memorable character.
Fast Eddie first begins in the film with his mentor Charlie (Myron McCormick) in a quick hustle at a small bar. In this short early scene, Newman is good at putting the act of the hustle, and shows instantly that Fast Eddie is a pretty slick costumer who knows his trade. I really like this early scene. I like how he at first shows Eddie as the over reactive kid as he creates the condition for the hustle, than leads up to just his smile before he pulls the trick is perfect. That smile shows Eddie knows exactly what he is doing and Newman uses his trademark charisma to amplify Eddie joy of the hustle to perfect effect.
Eddie though goes to play pool with the ultimate pool player Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason), for a prolonged night of gambling and playing. Newman's performance in this scene is excellent, because he starts out as the fully charismatic Newman who is eager to play against the great Fats. Newman perfectly displays his eagerness and passion he puts into this ultimate game and hustle. What is truly great about this scene though is his slow degradation over the night, and day of playing. Newman carefully drains himself of his charisma, and slowly loses his control over the game and himself into he basically becomes an emotional and physical mess until he loses the final game.
After he loses the hustle in the end Fast Eddie really falls flat, and Newman shows a loss in charisma which properly connects with Eddie's complete loss in confidence. Eddie down on his luck meets also a woman Sarah (Piper Laurie) who never has really had any luck. This relationship is pivotal to the film, and it is an interesting complex one. It is interesting because it is not a big lover affair, but rather a meeting of two troubled souls that is not actually always warm. Newman though and Laurie find the right charisma not of a loving relationship, but one that does have connection even if very cold at times.
Newman is strong in these scenes because he really shows that Eddie is not at all a perfect guy, in fact a very much troubled man. He is properly cold with Laurie, and his anger is well founded suggesting that Eddie really is not a stable man, and that Hustling attempts to bring himself a respect of sorts. Now equally fantastic though is the love he does show to Laurie's Sarah. Newman projects this love, in the right the right almost cold and a somewhat resistant fashion that is always completely natural.
Eddie has a rough path to being himself up again, that is tortured. It is interesting because Newman shows Eddie's attempts than failures not as something that just happens but weaknesses in his personality. Eddie though learns from each of his failures, but Newman carefully displays that he does not learn everything or enough each time. For example his quiet talk with Laurie after being beaten for hustling, is a quiet poignant moment by Newman, but astutely portrayed because he still shows Eddie to not be entirely aware of himself.
Eddie's final tragic failure leads himself back to play Minnesota Fats once again. This is a spectacular scene. It is a quick change but an effective and believable one that Eddie has found his ground and confidence, not of true understanding himself, but brought about by passionate hatred and sadness. Now this is not really said, but I feel Newman does without fault show this change in Eddie. His final scene is outstanding as he finally does have control over himself, and over the pool table. This top he wins the hustle, and this was what the film was leading to, and Newman came to this conclusion brilliantly. Overall a very strong performance from Newman that creates a very interesting and incredibly memorable character.
Best Actor 1961: Charles Boyer in Fanny
Charles Boyer received his fourth and final Oscar nomination for portraying Cesar in Fanny.
Fanny is an odd one, because it seems like it should be a musical but it isn't. I mean colorful locale, a rather simple story with various colorful characters, and Maurice Chevalier, one would think that would equal to a musical, but it is not, even though apparently it was on stage.
I guess the Academy did not value many lead performances from this year since Maximilian Schell was really supporting, as is Charles Boyer in Fanny, especially in the first half of the film. Cesar is the father of the young man Marius (Horst Buchholz) who impregnates Fanny (Leslie Caron), but hops on a ship to get adventure in his life. Fanny to not be disgraced marries another older man Panisse (Maurice Chevalier).
Boyer's Cesar is one of the colorful characters, a nice bar owner, who loves his son, even though he does get very much disappointed by some of his decisions. Boyer is nice and colorful, enough, and is good at portraying an over the top character without being too over the top. Boyer early on is likable enough, but I really do not think he would stick out all that well, if not for the fact that I was always looking for him.
Boyer really does not do all that much, but show love for his son I guess, and and act happy or surprised I guess, and occasionally saddened as the situation involving his son changes. Cesar always wants to do the right thing, always even if that means stopping his son from breaking up the marriage between Panisse and Fanny. I suppose he is properly strict, and saddened by his son, but still it never is anything all that special, or anything that really needs to be noted.
Overall Boyer's performance really fulfills his role as well as it probably could be filled, but the role just demands far too little from him. He needs to be nice, somewhat charming, and also a good figure in the film, and he does all of these well enough, but the film gives him no time to do anything more than this. Boyer is perfectly fine throughout his performance I do believe that, but even for a supporting performance it is a very limited character.
I guess the Academy did not value many lead performances from this year since Maximilian Schell was really supporting, as is Charles Boyer in Fanny, especially in the first half of the film. Cesar is the father of the young man Marius (Horst Buchholz) who impregnates Fanny (Leslie Caron), but hops on a ship to get adventure in his life. Fanny to not be disgraced marries another older man Panisse (Maurice Chevalier).
Boyer's Cesar is one of the colorful characters, a nice bar owner, who loves his son, even though he does get very much disappointed by some of his decisions. Boyer is nice and colorful, enough, and is good at portraying an over the top character without being too over the top. Boyer early on is likable enough, but I really do not think he would stick out all that well, if not for the fact that I was always looking for him.
Boyer really does not do all that much, but show love for his son I guess, and and act happy or surprised I guess, and occasionally saddened as the situation involving his son changes. Cesar always wants to do the right thing, always even if that means stopping his son from breaking up the marriage between Panisse and Fanny. I suppose he is properly strict, and saddened by his son, but still it never is anything all that special, or anything that really needs to be noted.
Overall Boyer's performance really fulfills his role as well as it probably could be filled, but the role just demands far too little from him. He needs to be nice, somewhat charming, and also a good figure in the film, and he does all of these well enough, but the film gives him no time to do anything more than this. Boyer is perfectly fine throughout his performance I do believe that, but even for a supporting performance it is a very limited character.
Best Actor 1961: Spencer Tracy in Judgment At Nuremberg
Spencer Tracy received his eighth nomination for portraying Judge Dan Haywood in Judgment at Nuremberg.
Judge Dan Haywood is an American Judge who is set as the chief justice of the tribunal who sits to judge the Judges of the Nazi regime. Tracy is the actual lead of the film, although he does not get to do all that pointing and yelling that co-nominee Schell gets to do (you can watch Inherit the Wind if you want to see Tracy do that) instead Tracy gives a quieter performance as the presiding Judge.
The film follows him through his time in the trial, and his path reaching basically to his verdict. It is rather interesting because most of the performances have the biggest moments inside the courtroom but Tracy is almost entirely reactive in the court room sequences. He really does very little sequences and mostly gives the same slightly tired expression throughout these moments. He has to also stop the trial here and there, reestablish order on occasion with raising his voice, but not all more than this up until his final verdict. In regards to being the judge at the trial Tracy is wholly functional but nothing more.
Most of Tracy's actual moments come from his time outside of the courtroom. He still though is very reactive even then. I would think, and maybe the films wants Dan Haywood to slowly change and finally bring himself to his conclusion in the court through moments outside of it, but Tracy shows little change in the character in any of these scenes. He walks around the destroyed city, and again keeps mostly his slightly tired expression. Now the only thing about showing change, is he also really does not give very much insight into who Haywood is exactly. Tracy nor the film really describe his feelings well before he gets there, or during the trial so much so when asked about it he says he doesn't know what to think.
Politically the character lacks proper change, or even definition, and this is basically true for his character's personality. All I learned from Tracy's performance, and even more so the script was that he was a nice enough old fellow, does not like anything too fancy, but believes in justice. Although even the justice part is only really gotten to in the final moments of the film.
So what does his character come to, well he comes to that the men are guilty of their horrible crimes. He says it in a verdict strongly depicted by Tracy, and then reassured once again by Tracy directly to the reptetant of the Judge Ernest Janning (Burt Lancaster). Tracy does have the right forcefulness in showing the character's belief in justice, but this really just is what occurs at the end, and it really is not lead to in any special fashion. Also it really does not make perfect sense as Haywood's plan the entire time, since he let the defense attorney for the Nazis Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell) almost free reign of the courtroom so much that he allowed victims of the Nazi's to persecuted all over again.
Overall his performance really is only really functional, and actually I do think that it really is mostly the fault of the film which severely underwrites Haywood as a character. His character should have had some sort of transformation and really should have been the moral center of the film, but Tracy and the film barely even realism the personality of the character. Tracy is never bad, and does have a charm but never adds anything to his already underwritten role.
The film follows him through his time in the trial, and his path reaching basically to his verdict. It is rather interesting because most of the performances have the biggest moments inside the courtroom but Tracy is almost entirely reactive in the court room sequences. He really does very little sequences and mostly gives the same slightly tired expression throughout these moments. He has to also stop the trial here and there, reestablish order on occasion with raising his voice, but not all more than this up until his final verdict. In regards to being the judge at the trial Tracy is wholly functional but nothing more.
Most of Tracy's actual moments come from his time outside of the courtroom. He still though is very reactive even then. I would think, and maybe the films wants Dan Haywood to slowly change and finally bring himself to his conclusion in the court through moments outside of it, but Tracy shows little change in the character in any of these scenes. He walks around the destroyed city, and again keeps mostly his slightly tired expression. Now the only thing about showing change, is he also really does not give very much insight into who Haywood is exactly. Tracy nor the film really describe his feelings well before he gets there, or during the trial so much so when asked about it he says he doesn't know what to think.
Politically the character lacks proper change, or even definition, and this is basically true for his character's personality. All I learned from Tracy's performance, and even more so the script was that he was a nice enough old fellow, does not like anything too fancy, but believes in justice. Although even the justice part is only really gotten to in the final moments of the film.
So what does his character come to, well he comes to that the men are guilty of their horrible crimes. He says it in a verdict strongly depicted by Tracy, and then reassured once again by Tracy directly to the reptetant of the Judge Ernest Janning (Burt Lancaster). Tracy does have the right forcefulness in showing the character's belief in justice, but this really just is what occurs at the end, and it really is not lead to in any special fashion. Also it really does not make perfect sense as Haywood's plan the entire time, since he let the defense attorney for the Nazis Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell) almost free reign of the courtroom so much that he allowed victims of the Nazi's to persecuted all over again.
Overall his performance really is only really functional, and actually I do think that it really is mostly the fault of the film which severely underwrites Haywood as a character. His character should have had some sort of transformation and really should have been the moral center of the film, but Tracy and the film barely even realism the personality of the character. Tracy is never bad, and does have a charm but never adds anything to his already underwritten role.
Best Actor 1961: Maximilian Schell in Judgment At Nuremberg
Maximilian Schell won an Oscar from his first nomination for portraying defense lawyer Hans Rolfe in Judgment At Nuremberg.
This seems a bit of a strange win in that Schell was only in a few films before his win here, and was hardly really a well known actor at the time. It seems even odder that he defeated his veteran actor co-star Spencer Tracy. Also his role of Hans Rolfe is a firmly supporting one, and not the actual lead which is Spencer Tracy. Now perhaps his win is not that odd though just look at the acting winners, the academy that year had no interest in rewarding veterans even long overdue ones like Montgomery Clift for this film in the Supporting Actor category for this same film, and they really just wanted to award newcomers, since all winners were first time nominees.
Another reason though that helped him win is although his role is supporting, it is a very showy performance with still a good amount of screen time. Hans Rolfe is a very passionate lawyer who fights to find the accused judge Ernest Janning (Burt Lancaster) innocent on the charges of crimes committed against humanity due his work for the Nazis. Rolfe basis his case that they were just acting within the law of their country, therefore did not do something technically wrong.
Rolfe to illustrate his points make many passionate speeches before the court. Schell excels in all these moments and does realize the want for German respect for Rolfe very well. His speeches are thrilling because Schell infuses them with great command and energy. Schell is very charismatic in his performance and does control the screen whenever he is speaking. It could be easy for the viewer to shrug off all of his points that make excuses for horrendous crimes of the Nazis, but Schell does avoid this because he just simply states Rolfe's views exceedingly well.
Now does that mean I was convinced by his points, no, but Schell performance allows for a thoughtful discussion because of his earnest portrayal as Rolfe. Now Rolfe has many scenes where he must show how someone was "justly" convicted because they did fit into guilt of Nazi laws. If these scenes he breaks apart the witnesses of the Nazis, or victims of them. Schell is exceptional again , in his cold demeanor, and it is realistic in his calculative method of finding what he wants. Now although Schell is terrific in these moments, I must say they are a bit of plot contrivance because frankly do not believe the Tribunal would let them go on, especially in the scene where Rolfe verbally attack the victim played by Judy Garland, badgering the witness anyone? I mention this though because if Schell was not nearly as strong they could have been terrible frankly, but I still will say even with Schell they are not entirely believable.
Schell performance has a lot of yelling, which I will say does fit for Rolfe, because he has to get his point across, but it is mostly an external performance. The viewer actually only finds out a little of who Hans Rolfe really is. Now much what is written about this character today calls him a Nazi lawyer. That could be correct by the way he treats Montgomery Clift's and Garland's characters but from the other little mentioned about him is that he just is young German lawyer who wants to savor a little respect for his people.
It is hard to say Schell is given few scenes that show the true nature of his character. He is given total three scenes outside the courtroom. Two he speaks to Lancaster's character and shows his respect for him, and claims he did not like doing what he had to do in the courtroom. Schell is given little dialogue, and I really find he more of suggests with this for the German respect side of this character's interpretation. I think one other scene actually in court further supports this side, and that is his face when he must react to the concentration camp footage. Schell does show quite well show that Rolfe really was very emotionally effected by the footage. I think does more of support him as just the young lawyer seeking for some respect. This should be mentioned because Schell is able to suggest this aspect of his character with little to no material.
Overall Schell gives a good strong performance, that effectively makes the courtroom scenes interesting and far more effective than they probably would have been without him. Still though his role is a little too limited, and much of his performance is repetitive, articulate effective repetition, but repetition nonetheless. That is fine though since it is a supporting performance, and his character does not need to be anything more than it is. As is his performance is a strong supporting performance, probably the second strongest in the film, but still his performance always remains for me quite good instead of quite great.
Another reason though that helped him win is although his role is supporting, it is a very showy performance with still a good amount of screen time. Hans Rolfe is a very passionate lawyer who fights to find the accused judge Ernest Janning (Burt Lancaster) innocent on the charges of crimes committed against humanity due his work for the Nazis. Rolfe basis his case that they were just acting within the law of their country, therefore did not do something technically wrong.
Rolfe to illustrate his points make many passionate speeches before the court. Schell excels in all these moments and does realize the want for German respect for Rolfe very well. His speeches are thrilling because Schell infuses them with great command and energy. Schell is very charismatic in his performance and does control the screen whenever he is speaking. It could be easy for the viewer to shrug off all of his points that make excuses for horrendous crimes of the Nazis, but Schell does avoid this because he just simply states Rolfe's views exceedingly well.
Now does that mean I was convinced by his points, no, but Schell performance allows for a thoughtful discussion because of his earnest portrayal as Rolfe. Now Rolfe has many scenes where he must show how someone was "justly" convicted because they did fit into guilt of Nazi laws. If these scenes he breaks apart the witnesses of the Nazis, or victims of them. Schell is exceptional again , in his cold demeanor, and it is realistic in his calculative method of finding what he wants. Now although Schell is terrific in these moments, I must say they are a bit of plot contrivance because frankly do not believe the Tribunal would let them go on, especially in the scene where Rolfe verbally attack the victim played by Judy Garland, badgering the witness anyone? I mention this though because if Schell was not nearly as strong they could have been terrible frankly, but I still will say even with Schell they are not entirely believable.
Schell performance has a lot of yelling, which I will say does fit for Rolfe, because he has to get his point across, but it is mostly an external performance. The viewer actually only finds out a little of who Hans Rolfe really is. Now much what is written about this character today calls him a Nazi lawyer. That could be correct by the way he treats Montgomery Clift's and Garland's characters but from the other little mentioned about him is that he just is young German lawyer who wants to savor a little respect for his people.
It is hard to say Schell is given few scenes that show the true nature of his character. He is given total three scenes outside the courtroom. Two he speaks to Lancaster's character and shows his respect for him, and claims he did not like doing what he had to do in the courtroom. Schell is given little dialogue, and I really find he more of suggests with this for the German respect side of this character's interpretation. I think one other scene actually in court further supports this side, and that is his face when he must react to the concentration camp footage. Schell does show quite well show that Rolfe really was very emotionally effected by the footage. I think does more of support him as just the young lawyer seeking for some respect. This should be mentioned because Schell is able to suggest this aspect of his character with little to no material.
Overall Schell gives a good strong performance, that effectively makes the courtroom scenes interesting and far more effective than they probably would have been without him. Still though his role is a little too limited, and much of his performance is repetitive, articulate effective repetition, but repetition nonetheless. That is fine though since it is a supporting performance, and his character does not need to be anything more than it is. As is his performance is a strong supporting performance, probably the second strongest in the film, but still his performance always remains for me quite good instead of quite great.
Best Actor 1961: Stuart Whitman in The Mark
Stuart Whitman received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Jim Fontaine/Fuller in The Mark.
The Mark is a rather difficult film to track down, so I was actually glad when I found out it is a fairly good film. It must not be well seen film since many quick mentions of the film I have found misidentify the main character as a pedophile. It is true he comes very close to being one, but he stops himself. The film is frank and effective discussion of this topic through a character study. Having watched this and A Patch of Blue I am starting see Guy Green as a talented and very sensitive filmmaker that is quite under appreciated.
The Mark is rather strange in that it is rather obscure despite taking on a very controversial and unusual subject matter for its time which usually gain films a notoriety of some sort. Perhaps it would have been with the original casting Richard Burton in the lead role, but I must say it is perhaps better for the quality of the film itself that Whitman was the one eventually cast. I say this is that Burton is perhaps to individualistic looking, whereas Stuart Whitman could be just about anyone which works very well for the role. He does not look like a sexual deviant, and it really works because of this.
Whitman is an actor I will admit, I have actually seen films with him in it, like the Longest Day, but I never noticed him in these films. I do not think this was really his fault he just really did not have any parts that would or could create any notoriety, well here he has a very complex and interesting role. Jim Fontaine at the beginning of the film has just been released from prison, with a new name of Jim Fuller and another chance at life. Whitman is really effective early on, as he is clearly off kilter, and very nervous to re-enter society. He shows that he is always trying to be calm, but is a little naturally awkward, as well as it hiding a secret about himself.
Whitman does what is perfect and needed is that he creates sympathy for Fuller here. He shows him to be basically a normal guy who has a sad past, which we don't know yet, but Whitman is able to really create the right sympathy for his character to stop the audience from outright rejecting him later on as more of who he is revealed. Whitman does not overplay his character at all to gain sympathy, and does have an outburst here and there, when people ask too much about his past. Whitman though shows these outbursts as a natural reaction that the character must hide his past, and is just as natural, in his apologies quickly afterward.
The truth of the character is slowly revealed in that he had a troubled sexual past triggered by his relationship with his parents. He is unable to connect with older women, and goes to exceedingly younger women, and eventually girls. These scenes of his are revealed through sessions with his Psychiatrist effectively portrayed by Rod Steiger, in both in the present and flashbacks with the not all recovered Jim. Whitman effectively shows the differences between Fontaine and Fulller though as he is angry, very confused, overly frustrated in the past, but just as effective showing a very much changed Fuller, even if still strained he shows him to be a now quieter calmer man, with a greater understanding of himself.
Whitman has an incredible challenge to really show this as a serious problem that has developed in his character's psyche over his childhood, but he manages showing that it really was a complex problem for this man. A particular challenge for Whitman is the pivotal scene where his character does almost commit the horrendous act. A challenge for any actor, but Whitman is superb in presenting the sheer unsuitability of the character in this scene, as the thoughts of his character are rushing through his head. It is a scene that could have been completely unwatchable, if Jim was at all portrayed wrongly, but Whitman utterly delivers.
Whitman is just as effective as he works naturally with developing the character's actual growth in understanding other women, and properly develops Jim's romantic relationship with Maria Schell's character and the daughter of her character. The relationship with the daughter is key, because yes there is awkwardness, but Whitman has worked this out not to show Jim as a man who fully understands how to behave, but is doing with earnest his best to create a proper honest relationship with this little girl.
The whole concept of this film and this character really could have been just evil, just disgusting, or just bad, but thanks to Whitman and Guy Green's delicate direction it works. Whitman did make me care for this man throughout his journey, especially when everyone takes him for a complete pedophile at the end and his life falls apart. Whitman performance works because he never portrayed him as just a creep, but actually an honestly disturbed man, who has now changed after much needed help. Whitman's work his subtle, and very effective work that creates an effective honest, complex portrait of this man.
The Mark is rather strange in that it is rather obscure despite taking on a very controversial and unusual subject matter for its time which usually gain films a notoriety of some sort. Perhaps it would have been with the original casting Richard Burton in the lead role, but I must say it is perhaps better for the quality of the film itself that Whitman was the one eventually cast. I say this is that Burton is perhaps to individualistic looking, whereas Stuart Whitman could be just about anyone which works very well for the role. He does not look like a sexual deviant, and it really works because of this.
Whitman is an actor I will admit, I have actually seen films with him in it, like the Longest Day, but I never noticed him in these films. I do not think this was really his fault he just really did not have any parts that would or could create any notoriety, well here he has a very complex and interesting role. Jim Fontaine at the beginning of the film has just been released from prison, with a new name of Jim Fuller and another chance at life. Whitman is really effective early on, as he is clearly off kilter, and very nervous to re-enter society. He shows that he is always trying to be calm, but is a little naturally awkward, as well as it hiding a secret about himself.
Whitman does what is perfect and needed is that he creates sympathy for Fuller here. He shows him to be basically a normal guy who has a sad past, which we don't know yet, but Whitman is able to really create the right sympathy for his character to stop the audience from outright rejecting him later on as more of who he is revealed. Whitman does not overplay his character at all to gain sympathy, and does have an outburst here and there, when people ask too much about his past. Whitman though shows these outbursts as a natural reaction that the character must hide his past, and is just as natural, in his apologies quickly afterward.
The truth of the character is slowly revealed in that he had a troubled sexual past triggered by his relationship with his parents. He is unable to connect with older women, and goes to exceedingly younger women, and eventually girls. These scenes of his are revealed through sessions with his Psychiatrist effectively portrayed by Rod Steiger, in both in the present and flashbacks with the not all recovered Jim. Whitman effectively shows the differences between Fontaine and Fulller though as he is angry, very confused, overly frustrated in the past, but just as effective showing a very much changed Fuller, even if still strained he shows him to be a now quieter calmer man, with a greater understanding of himself.
Whitman has an incredible challenge to really show this as a serious problem that has developed in his character's psyche over his childhood, but he manages showing that it really was a complex problem for this man. A particular challenge for Whitman is the pivotal scene where his character does almost commit the horrendous act. A challenge for any actor, but Whitman is superb in presenting the sheer unsuitability of the character in this scene, as the thoughts of his character are rushing through his head. It is a scene that could have been completely unwatchable, if Jim was at all portrayed wrongly, but Whitman utterly delivers.
Whitman is just as effective as he works naturally with developing the character's actual growth in understanding other women, and properly develops Jim's romantic relationship with Maria Schell's character and the daughter of her character. The relationship with the daughter is key, because yes there is awkwardness, but Whitman has worked this out not to show Jim as a man who fully understands how to behave, but is doing with earnest his best to create a proper honest relationship with this little girl.
The whole concept of this film and this character really could have been just evil, just disgusting, or just bad, but thanks to Whitman and Guy Green's delicate direction it works. Whitman did make me care for this man throughout his journey, especially when everyone takes him for a complete pedophile at the end and his life falls apart. Whitman performance works because he never portrayed him as just a creep, but actually an honestly disturbed man, who has now changed after much needed help. Whitman's work his subtle, and very effective work that creates an effective honest, complex portrait of this man.
Best Actor 1961
Paul Newman in The Hustler
Stuart Whitman in The Mark
Maximilian Schell in Judgment At Nuremberg
Spencer Tracy in Judgment At Nuremberg
Charles Boyer in Fanny
Well here it is the most requested year. I frankly do not know how almost everyone was so interested in this year exactly, but I guess I'll see how it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
