Sean Connery in The Hill
Omar Sharif in Doctor Zhivago
Sidney Poitier in A Patch of Blue
Lee Van Cleef in For A Few Dollars More
Terrence Stamp in The Collector
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label 1965. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1965. Show all posts
Best Actor 1965: Results
Sean Connery in The Hill
Omar Sharif in Doctor Zhivago
Sidney Poitier in A Patch of Blue
Lee Van Cleef in For A Few Dollars More
Terrence Stamp in The Collector
Best Actor 1965: Rod Steiger in The Pawnbroker
Rod Steiger received his second Oscar nomination for portraying concentration camp survivor Sol Nazerman in The Pawnbroker.
The Pawnbroker is a dark sometimes haunting film about a Jewish man who's lost any positive feelings towards life due to loss of his family by the Nazis.
Sol Nazerman is a rather interesting character because he does not really act like the sorrowful victim in the film, at least in the way Rod Steiger portrays him. Steiger portrays him indeed as a victim of a terrible crime, not a sorrowful one, but rather a man that it has more of corrupted his world view. He shows sorrow at times, but not for most of the time which is what makes Nazerman such an interesting character. I really came into thought it was at first going to be about a very sad man, dealing with his sadness, but that is not the case.
Sol Nazerman instead became an incredibly pessimistic soul from experience. I think the brief sequences showing Sol before and during his time in the concentration camp. I think especially the opening scene where Steiger shows a happy family man who is happy in his life in his family, a wordless scene but a powerful one because of the difference between Steiger happiness here, and his behavior as the old Sol Nazerman. There also a few brief flashbacks to his time as in the concentration camp itself. These scenes are indeed brief but Steiger completely honest reaction is what makes these scenes so incredibly heartbreaking, since he makes Sol's loss very personal.
Later though Sol has become a pessimistic man who runs a pawn shop in New York City, showing no happiness in his job or his, and more of going through the motions. He is an associated of a crime boss overacted by Brock Peters, who uses his pawn shop as a front for criminal activities. He shows a distaste for a man at the beginning of the film, but still deals with him nonetheless. He greets everyone though with a distaste viewing all as scum to him, and not worth anything. Steiger makes his pessimism again extremely authentic, which makes his loss of care for man all the more harrowing.
Sol has the thoughts of his past, of what he lost, and what he witnesses. He remembers these events but he does not precisely react initially. He is reminded when he sees current events in the slums he lives that remind of concentration camp events, or also when he barraged by a junkie with Anti-Semitic slurs. Steiger reactions here are interesting because although the film shows him technically think through flashback about the past, Sol's reaction is lacking in emotion. This is not to say that Steiger does not act with these reactions, his performance is extraordinary because Steiger shows that Sol does not really react only because of the lifelessness of the character which Steiger conveys perfectly.
The extreme pessimism and hatred deep inside the character is brilliantly shown by Steiger especially in two key scenes. One is his uncaring, reaction to a friendly woman who only wishes to friendly greet. His darkly stark reaction is uncaring, and cold, a perfect coldness that shows the inner dread and loss in his character. Another scene though where he more loudly, but just as realistically, shows his pessimism to the entire world is when his local employee asks him about how Jewish people are successful. His long speech about his feelings that money is the only thing that matters is hauntingly told by Rod Steiger again due to the matter of fact realistic emotion he brings to Nazerman.
Nazerman though slowly begins to show more profound emotions that not even his world view have completely gotten rid of. The development of these actual emotions come from his slow realization of similarities of his experience and of some individuals in the slums where he works. Steiger slow portrayal of these growing is well handled, since he does not force them or over play them in the least. He displays them quietly but incredibly effectively in two moments, where he cannot shed his feelings of the past any longer. The key scene where he admits to these feelings is when a prostitute tries to offer herself to him, and all he can think of is his wife being raped by the Nazis. A tragic and powerful moment that a truly authentic feeling and heartbreaking because of Steiger. I think even the flash backs get forced after awhile but Steiger himself is always true, and creates a sad meaningful portrayal of a man who has become lost in this film.
Sol Nazerman is a rather interesting character because he does not really act like the sorrowful victim in the film, at least in the way Rod Steiger portrays him. Steiger portrays him indeed as a victim of a terrible crime, not a sorrowful one, but rather a man that it has more of corrupted his world view. He shows sorrow at times, but not for most of the time which is what makes Nazerman such an interesting character. I really came into thought it was at first going to be about a very sad man, dealing with his sadness, but that is not the case.
Sol Nazerman instead became an incredibly pessimistic soul from experience. I think the brief sequences showing Sol before and during his time in the concentration camp. I think especially the opening scene where Steiger shows a happy family man who is happy in his life in his family, a wordless scene but a powerful one because of the difference between Steiger happiness here, and his behavior as the old Sol Nazerman. There also a few brief flashbacks to his time as in the concentration camp itself. These scenes are indeed brief but Steiger completely honest reaction is what makes these scenes so incredibly heartbreaking, since he makes Sol's loss very personal.
Later though Sol has become a pessimistic man who runs a pawn shop in New York City, showing no happiness in his job or his, and more of going through the motions. He is an associated of a crime boss overacted by Brock Peters, who uses his pawn shop as a front for criminal activities. He shows a distaste for a man at the beginning of the film, but still deals with him nonetheless. He greets everyone though with a distaste viewing all as scum to him, and not worth anything. Steiger makes his pessimism again extremely authentic, which makes his loss of care for man all the more harrowing.
Sol has the thoughts of his past, of what he lost, and what he witnesses. He remembers these events but he does not precisely react initially. He is reminded when he sees current events in the slums he lives that remind of concentration camp events, or also when he barraged by a junkie with Anti-Semitic slurs. Steiger reactions here are interesting because although the film shows him technically think through flashback about the past, Sol's reaction is lacking in emotion. This is not to say that Steiger does not act with these reactions, his performance is extraordinary because Steiger shows that Sol does not really react only because of the lifelessness of the character which Steiger conveys perfectly.
The extreme pessimism and hatred deep inside the character is brilliantly shown by Steiger especially in two key scenes. One is his uncaring, reaction to a friendly woman who only wishes to friendly greet. His darkly stark reaction is uncaring, and cold, a perfect coldness that shows the inner dread and loss in his character. Another scene though where he more loudly, but just as realistically, shows his pessimism to the entire world is when his local employee asks him about how Jewish people are successful. His long speech about his feelings that money is the only thing that matters is hauntingly told by Rod Steiger again due to the matter of fact realistic emotion he brings to Nazerman.
Nazerman though slowly begins to show more profound emotions that not even his world view have completely gotten rid of. The development of these actual emotions come from his slow realization of similarities of his experience and of some individuals in the slums where he works. Steiger slow portrayal of these growing is well handled, since he does not force them or over play them in the least. He displays them quietly but incredibly effectively in two moments, where he cannot shed his feelings of the past any longer. The key scene where he admits to these feelings is when a prostitute tries to offer herself to him, and all he can think of is his wife being raped by the Nazis. A tragic and powerful moment that a truly authentic feeling and heartbreaking because of Steiger. I think even the flash backs get forced after awhile but Steiger himself is always true, and creates a sad meaningful portrayal of a man who has become lost in this film.
Best Actor 1965: Oskar Werner in Ship of Fools
Oskar Werner received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Dr. Schumann in Ship of Fools.
Ship of Fools is a very flawed ensemble piece. I think the stories are spliced together very poorly with many being absolutely meaningless, some being unimpressive, and one being quite effective. The performances are the same way. There are performances like Jose Ferrer's which is astonishingly terrible, Lee Marvin who has a pointless character and there is no surprise that he was nominated for Cat Ballou and not this film, but luckily there is also Oskar Werner.
Oskar Werner easily could have been a dual nominee this year and in my opinion he should have been, since he also gave a very strong supporting performance in The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, for which he won the Golden Globe, and he should have been nominated for the Oscar. Ship of Fools is an ensemble film, but if there is a lead than it most certainly is Werner. I found him to be the central figure of the film, and actually interacts a little with the other stories and not only his own.
Oskar Werner is the ships doctor, the ship filled with all sorts of characters but as the film says filled with fools. Werner's story on the ship is his relationship with another passenger La Condesa (Simone Signoret) who joins when they stop off at Cuba. This is really the only good part of the film, and this is because of Signoret and Werner. There part of there story is a romantic, but also tragic one, a story of love found between these two travelers but the love cannot really be fulfilled.
Werner and Signoret are perfect together from their first scene where Schumann medically helps Condesa in her cabin. There chemistry is so perfect and natural together that is simply wonderful. Together both of them are just spot on in creating the relationship between these two characters. They create a relationship that is not perfect, but it is incredibly charming one between them, despite also being a tragic one. This sort of relationship is incredibly complicated and difficult to be natural, but Werner and Signoret do this together without fault creating the only truly honest scenes in the film, and basically the only good scenes in the film.
Werner suggests so much about the doctors in the scenes with Signoret, and together they really tell about a lot about their characters even with the shortness of the screen time together. Werner has a few brief moments outside of his ones with Signoret. They mostly are showing the good nature of Schumann as he helps those on the ships, and also his anger at certain people on their ship for their narrow mind views. His major scene for him without Signoret is his final one. His final moments are made incredibly heartbreaking by Werner, and it is a tragic but a proper end to Schumann's, and La Cadesa's relationship. Werner's performance is not long, but it a strong effective piece of acting, that works wonderfully well with Signoret's equally strong work.
Oskar Werner easily could have been a dual nominee this year and in my opinion he should have been, since he also gave a very strong supporting performance in The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, for which he won the Golden Globe, and he should have been nominated for the Oscar. Ship of Fools is an ensemble film, but if there is a lead than it most certainly is Werner. I found him to be the central figure of the film, and actually interacts a little with the other stories and not only his own.
Oskar Werner is the ships doctor, the ship filled with all sorts of characters but as the film says filled with fools. Werner's story on the ship is his relationship with another passenger La Condesa (Simone Signoret) who joins when they stop off at Cuba. This is really the only good part of the film, and this is because of Signoret and Werner. There part of there story is a romantic, but also tragic one, a story of love found between these two travelers but the love cannot really be fulfilled.
Werner and Signoret are perfect together from their first scene where Schumann medically helps Condesa in her cabin. There chemistry is so perfect and natural together that is simply wonderful. Together both of them are just spot on in creating the relationship between these two characters. They create a relationship that is not perfect, but it is incredibly charming one between them, despite also being a tragic one. This sort of relationship is incredibly complicated and difficult to be natural, but Werner and Signoret do this together without fault creating the only truly honest scenes in the film, and basically the only good scenes in the film.
Werner suggests so much about the doctors in the scenes with Signoret, and together they really tell about a lot about their characters even with the shortness of the screen time together. Werner has a few brief moments outside of his ones with Signoret. They mostly are showing the good nature of Schumann as he helps those on the ships, and also his anger at certain people on their ship for their narrow mind views. His major scene for him without Signoret is his final one. His final moments are made incredibly heartbreaking by Werner, and it is a tragic but a proper end to Schumann's, and La Cadesa's relationship. Werner's performance is not long, but it a strong effective piece of acting, that works wonderfully well with Signoret's equally strong work.
Best Actor 1965: Laurence Olivier in Othello
Laurence Olivier received his seventh acting Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character of Shakespeare's Othello.
Othello is not really all that much of a Shakespearean film, but rather a filmed Shakespearean play. There is no music, and everything takes place on what are basically enlarged stage sets. It does not really utilize the art of film making itself, but it remains interesting because the play Othello itself is interesting. It is clearly not filmed with film really in mind though which makes it lesser than Olivier's own directorial efforts of Henry V and especially Richard III.
Olivier's portrayal of Othello is one rather controversial because Olivier wears heavy black makeup in the role. He is so black in the role that one light reflects off of him in the right way he does in fact look a little blue. I say black makeup not Black Face because Black Face was really the term for someone doing that in a minstrel show, Olivier's performance most certainly is not a minstrel show, and I do not think his performance was trying to be derogatory at all, and was simply his method of trying to find the character for himself.
As Shakespeare performances go this is not Olivier's greatest. I will say one reason I think is the nature of the Othello film. This film was not directed by Olivier himself, and that is certainly noticeable. Olivier clearly knew how to present his acting, on film. He always seemed to pick the right close up, and angle to view him. I feel this film much of the time merely just shows him rather working with his performance. Also another noticeable difference is Olivier is not focused on as well as in his own films, which again does not allow as strong of a performance from him alone, although that is what probably gave Joyce Redman, Maggie Smith, and Frank Finlay (who could be considered lead as well) better chances to be nominated.
Olivier's performance I will say is more theatrical than his previous efforts. I think one reason for this is because the film is really just a play being filmed, and Olivier seemed to play the part just as he would onstage, where in his own films he probably made more fine adjustments to his performance that more thoroughly utilized the abilities of film. He reacts in his scenes that are very theatrical in his movements, and reactions using the stage for his performance rather than film itself. Another reason though could be that Othello is an extremely theatrical character, with his jealousy, and his epileptic fits. Olivier due to these aspects of Othello is most certainly theatrical but that does not make his performance a weak one.
Olivier as I said in his other Shakespearean performances Olivier is a master of the Shakespearean language. He again makes it very natural sounding, and fairly understandable. Olivier does use a low voice rather than his natural tenor for Othello which I thought was effective enough without really seeming too forced. I mean I always knew Olivier was doing these mannerisms as an act, and his mannerisms he employs as Othello simply are not as effective as the ones when he portrayed Richard III. Also what he has to do as Othello is not nearly as interesting for a whole long while in the film. For about the first half of the film Othello is very stoic and mostly gives very stern orders, Olivier handles doing this well enough but the role is fairly simple at this point.
Othello becomes very challenging character though in the second half though when he is told by Iago (Finlay) that Othello's wife Desdemona (Maggie Smith) has been unfaithful. Olivier must make Othello big jealous reactions along with his epileptic fit. Olivier I will say is a little mixed in this part, but remains interesting. He does seem too theatrical at times, but still remains effective as Othello nonetheless. It is a strange mix that does work I think despite the acting being somewhat obvious, it still remains effective in terms of showing the right emotions in the film and creating the right effect for the film. I think in particular his final scenes, although Olivier still is very theatrical, the scenes are still rather effective because of Olivier's energetic performance. This is not his best performance nowhere near it, and it certainly is a mixed, and in many ways a strange performance. Olivier though is an actor who can still give an effective good performance, even when it is a strange and weird performance.
Olivier's portrayal of Othello is one rather controversial because Olivier wears heavy black makeup in the role. He is so black in the role that one light reflects off of him in the right way he does in fact look a little blue. I say black makeup not Black Face because Black Face was really the term for someone doing that in a minstrel show, Olivier's performance most certainly is not a minstrel show, and I do not think his performance was trying to be derogatory at all, and was simply his method of trying to find the character for himself.
As Shakespeare performances go this is not Olivier's greatest. I will say one reason I think is the nature of the Othello film. This film was not directed by Olivier himself, and that is certainly noticeable. Olivier clearly knew how to present his acting, on film. He always seemed to pick the right close up, and angle to view him. I feel this film much of the time merely just shows him rather working with his performance. Also another noticeable difference is Olivier is not focused on as well as in his own films, which again does not allow as strong of a performance from him alone, although that is what probably gave Joyce Redman, Maggie Smith, and Frank Finlay (who could be considered lead as well) better chances to be nominated.
Olivier's performance I will say is more theatrical than his previous efforts. I think one reason for this is because the film is really just a play being filmed, and Olivier seemed to play the part just as he would onstage, where in his own films he probably made more fine adjustments to his performance that more thoroughly utilized the abilities of film. He reacts in his scenes that are very theatrical in his movements, and reactions using the stage for his performance rather than film itself. Another reason though could be that Othello is an extremely theatrical character, with his jealousy, and his epileptic fits. Olivier due to these aspects of Othello is most certainly theatrical but that does not make his performance a weak one.
Olivier as I said in his other Shakespearean performances Olivier is a master of the Shakespearean language. He again makes it very natural sounding, and fairly understandable. Olivier does use a low voice rather than his natural tenor for Othello which I thought was effective enough without really seeming too forced. I mean I always knew Olivier was doing these mannerisms as an act, and his mannerisms he employs as Othello simply are not as effective as the ones when he portrayed Richard III. Also what he has to do as Othello is not nearly as interesting for a whole long while in the film. For about the first half of the film Othello is very stoic and mostly gives very stern orders, Olivier handles doing this well enough but the role is fairly simple at this point.
Othello becomes very challenging character though in the second half though when he is told by Iago (Finlay) that Othello's wife Desdemona (Maggie Smith) has been unfaithful. Olivier must make Othello big jealous reactions along with his epileptic fit. Olivier I will say is a little mixed in this part, but remains interesting. He does seem too theatrical at times, but still remains effective as Othello nonetheless. It is a strange mix that does work I think despite the acting being somewhat obvious, it still remains effective in terms of showing the right emotions in the film and creating the right effect for the film. I think in particular his final scenes, although Olivier still is very theatrical, the scenes are still rather effective because of Olivier's energetic performance. This is not his best performance nowhere near it, and it certainly is a mixed, and in many ways a strange performance. Olivier though is an actor who can still give an effective good performance, even when it is a strange and weird performance.
Best Actor 1965: Richard Burton in The Spy Who Came in From the Cold
Richard Burton received his fourth Oscar nomination for portraying spy Alec Leamas in The Spy Who Came in from the Cold.
The Spy Who Came in From the Cold is a terrific very unglamorous look at the life of a spy and the Cold War itself. This is as filmed with deathly locals as a Bond film is filled with wondrous ones. It is an outstanding somber piece of work but do not aspect a fun spy thriller going into this one.
Richard Burton portrays Alec Leamas exactly as the film, a somber, dark spy. Leamas from the beginning in the film is shown rather quiet man. A man who performs his duties as a British agent with absolutely no charm, or a bit of energy. In the opening scenes one of his agents are killed well trying to cross over check point Charlie. Burton reaction is perfect for Leamas because he does not really show a precise reaction at all, he has clearly seen it before. He reaction is very very little in terms of actual reaction. Now this is not to say that Burton is not doing anything with his performance. No in fact he is doing something rather subtle which is showing that this really is a standard moment for Leamas. He notices it for sure, but does not find it to be something surprising, rather something expected.
After being demoted, but in actuality reassigned to a very complex and covert operation. To set up his situation Leamas must act as a disillusioned depressed man, who is discontent, which gives the idea that he is a spy who is ready to defect. Burton shows Leamas is somewhat putting on a show, but it also authentic and believable at being tired of his situation. Burton intersperses these two odd very different emotions into his performance. Leamas must be convincing in his performance yet it is still a performance, which is quite the challenge. Burton though is more than up to the challenge of this, makes the Leamas' performance work along with his performance.
He continues along with his performance as a defect, that makes it so the Russian would in fact believe him as a defect, but still giving the slight hint of the true nature of Leamas. Burton does show the difference between the real and the fake Leamas because he shows the fake with the Russians but the real Leamas when with a woman Nan (Claire Bloom) he becomes involved with. He in his scenes with Nan shows that Leamas is actually tired, and discontent with the way of espionage in the Cold War. The reason this is so interesting is Burton does give a different reaction with his real discontent and his fake. There is a difference that is fascinating when he real shows his hatred for his job in a purely chilling fashion, and the other times with Burton shows an energy that still feels authentic but perhaps slightly forced which is perfect for Leamas, and an amazing achievement by Burton.
Burton's entire performance is an excellent piece of understated work for almost the entire film. Burton is decried sometimes as an overactor. None of that will be found in this performance though. He reacts as I said at the beginning of the review, to everything in the film with a knowing understanding, and distaste, but rarely said. This is for every moment every fake out, and betrayal he is involved with, and tricked with it. Burton performance simply shows Leamas' history without fault, and absolute brilliance. He really acts out very much without orders from his superiors except at the very end of the film. His final speech about spies, and his final reaction at the end are truly powerful moments, it is the only really big loud and true moment of Burton's performance, and it is made all the more powerful because of this. Burton's performance is perfectly attuned, without a hint of overacting or underacting, creating a great performance.
Richard Burton portrays Alec Leamas exactly as the film, a somber, dark spy. Leamas from the beginning in the film is shown rather quiet man. A man who performs his duties as a British agent with absolutely no charm, or a bit of energy. In the opening scenes one of his agents are killed well trying to cross over check point Charlie. Burton reaction is perfect for Leamas because he does not really show a precise reaction at all, he has clearly seen it before. He reaction is very very little in terms of actual reaction. Now this is not to say that Burton is not doing anything with his performance. No in fact he is doing something rather subtle which is showing that this really is a standard moment for Leamas. He notices it for sure, but does not find it to be something surprising, rather something expected.
After being demoted, but in actuality reassigned to a very complex and covert operation. To set up his situation Leamas must act as a disillusioned depressed man, who is discontent, which gives the idea that he is a spy who is ready to defect. Burton shows Leamas is somewhat putting on a show, but it also authentic and believable at being tired of his situation. Burton intersperses these two odd very different emotions into his performance. Leamas must be convincing in his performance yet it is still a performance, which is quite the challenge. Burton though is more than up to the challenge of this, makes the Leamas' performance work along with his performance.
He continues along with his performance as a defect, that makes it so the Russian would in fact believe him as a defect, but still giving the slight hint of the true nature of Leamas. Burton does show the difference between the real and the fake Leamas because he shows the fake with the Russians but the real Leamas when with a woman Nan (Claire Bloom) he becomes involved with. He in his scenes with Nan shows that Leamas is actually tired, and discontent with the way of espionage in the Cold War. The reason this is so interesting is Burton does give a different reaction with his real discontent and his fake. There is a difference that is fascinating when he real shows his hatred for his job in a purely chilling fashion, and the other times with Burton shows an energy that still feels authentic but perhaps slightly forced which is perfect for Leamas, and an amazing achievement by Burton.
Burton's entire performance is an excellent piece of understated work for almost the entire film. Burton is decried sometimes as an overactor. None of that will be found in this performance though. He reacts as I said at the beginning of the review, to everything in the film with a knowing understanding, and distaste, but rarely said. This is for every moment every fake out, and betrayal he is involved with, and tricked with it. Burton performance simply shows Leamas' history without fault, and absolute brilliance. He really acts out very much without orders from his superiors except at the very end of the film. His final speech about spies, and his final reaction at the end are truly powerful moments, it is the only really big loud and true moment of Burton's performance, and it is made all the more powerful because of this. Burton's performance is perfectly attuned, without a hint of overacting or underacting, creating a great performance.
Best Actor 1965: Lee Marvin in Cat Ballou
Lee Marvin won his Oscar from his only nomination for portraying Kid Shelleen and Tim Strawn in Cat Ballou.
Cat Ballou is a western comedy that I enjoyed quite a bit the first time I watched it, I will admit I lost a little the second time around but I still enjoyed it.
Lee Marvin's win here certainly goes against the Oscar grain. This is because he won for a just about completely comedic performance which is rarely rewarded, he also played two characters, and he was up against pretty heavy dramatic contenders. Marvin's two roles though are not equal though. Tim Strawn is the villainous twin who has far less screen time. I will say Marvin is perfect technically as Strawn. He looks properly evil and act properly threatening, even though maybe it is the great music queue when he is seen or mentioned. Either way Strawn is made a dangerous and threatening villain by Marvin quite well despite the shortness of this part of the performance. Strawn as written is not much of a character really, but Marvin does a good job with him.
I did not enjoy the film as much as the first time but one part of the film I still enjoyed whole heartily was Marvin as Kid Shelleen. About a performance like this all I really can say is Marvin is very enjoyable to watch and simply is funny. His portrayal of Kid Shelleen is enjoyable throughout his performance. His drunken movements, and swaggering, are funny, everything he does basically in this performance is funny. I really especially enjoy his reaction when he hears the enemy gun fighter is Tim Strawn, that is just great. Marvin steals the film absolutely in every scene he is in he is the best part. He even did this in a scene where everyone else is talking and he is not, just by the amusement created by the faces he makes, and the reactions he makes. Marvin's performance is not one of complication but it is certainly one of enjoyment.
Well I am glad I got to review a good performance for the first of the year, and for my first anniversary of this blog.
Lee Marvin's win here certainly goes against the Oscar grain. This is because he won for a just about completely comedic performance which is rarely rewarded, he also played two characters, and he was up against pretty heavy dramatic contenders. Marvin's two roles though are not equal though. Tim Strawn is the villainous twin who has far less screen time. I will say Marvin is perfect technically as Strawn. He looks properly evil and act properly threatening, even though maybe it is the great music queue when he is seen or mentioned. Either way Strawn is made a dangerous and threatening villain by Marvin quite well despite the shortness of this part of the performance. Strawn as written is not much of a character really, but Marvin does a good job with him.
I did not enjoy the film as much as the first time but one part of the film I still enjoyed whole heartily was Marvin as Kid Shelleen. About a performance like this all I really can say is Marvin is very enjoyable to watch and simply is funny. His portrayal of Kid Shelleen is enjoyable throughout his performance. His drunken movements, and swaggering, are funny, everything he does basically in this performance is funny. I really especially enjoy his reaction when he hears the enemy gun fighter is Tim Strawn, that is just great. Marvin steals the film absolutely in every scene he is in he is the best part. He even did this in a scene where everyone else is talking and he is not, just by the amusement created by the faces he makes, and the reactions he makes. Marvin's performance is not one of complication but it is certainly one of enjoyment.
Best Actor 1965
Richard Burton in The Spy Who Came in From The Cold
Oskar Werner in Ship of Fools
Lee Marvin in Cat Ballou
Rod Steiger in The Pawnbroker
Laurence Olivier in Othello
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
