Ian Charleson in Chariots of Fire
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label 1981. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1981. Show all posts
Best Actor 1981: Results
Ian Charleson in Chariots of Fire
Best Actor 1981: Henry Fonda in On Golden Pond
Henry Fonda won his only Oscar from his second and final acting nomination for portraying Norman Thayer in On Golden Pond.
On Golden Pond is a film that can be either liked or disliked by the amount one can eat of corn, or the variety of corn they like. I myself like the Capra variety most of the time, this corn I felt was perhaps too corny for me, but not too corny that it was really bad at all just a little corny, just a little too corny for me, but I can understand why certain corn lovers really like this corn.
Anyways enough about corn, now on to Fonda's performance. This was Henry Fonda's final film role, and it has a certain quality about it that only exists in the final roles for great actors. Fonda is just about perfect in the role of Norman Thayer. He finds the perfect precise way to have him a likable old man despite being a bit grumpy at times. He is simply great with Katharine Hepburn as Norman's wife Ethel, their chemistry is simply amazing together. They play off each other wonderfully, and show a history of the Thayer's that actually works quite well. They show that they love each other, but do this in the right amount. Their little comic squabbles is well handled by both of them in a way that does actually seem fairly authentic even if the exact language is not always the same way.
Fonda also is terrific in his moments where he shows the purposefully abrasive side of Norman, especially in his scene where he talks with his Daughter's (Jane Fonda) current fiancee. Fonda is great and incredibly effortless as he purposely tries to push his buttons. Fonda gets the right amount of humor, in the scene well showing a different slightly less gentle side of Norman. Fonda is incredibly strong because he plays it so wonderfully in traditional Henry Fonda style. The way he does the whole scene but simply sitting in the chair as he tears at the guy, and keeps his gentle old man way the whole time anyways.
I think if Fonda was not Norman this film might of completely failed, but his Norman keeps the film interesting, because he himself never really becomes corny in his portrayal even if he might have to say a corny thing or two. Fonda finds the right tone for the film for his character to work. He mixes the humor of the character, but also finds the right amount of poignancy in the character's aging, and growing health problems. He is of course also great with his actual daughter. There is even an extra layer that is derived from his major scene with her since supposedly their real relationship was similar. This does not matter exactly, but Henry Fonda makes a real emotionally true final moment together in the film, that is simply outstanding. Overall Fonda gives a interesting memorable portrayal, that is truly worthy to be his final film performance.
Anyways enough about corn, now on to Fonda's performance. This was Henry Fonda's final film role, and it has a certain quality about it that only exists in the final roles for great actors. Fonda is just about perfect in the role of Norman Thayer. He finds the perfect precise way to have him a likable old man despite being a bit grumpy at times. He is simply great with Katharine Hepburn as Norman's wife Ethel, their chemistry is simply amazing together. They play off each other wonderfully, and show a history of the Thayer's that actually works quite well. They show that they love each other, but do this in the right amount. Their little comic squabbles is well handled by both of them in a way that does actually seem fairly authentic even if the exact language is not always the same way.
Fonda also is terrific in his moments where he shows the purposefully abrasive side of Norman, especially in his scene where he talks with his Daughter's (Jane Fonda) current fiancee. Fonda is great and incredibly effortless as he purposely tries to push his buttons. Fonda gets the right amount of humor, in the scene well showing a different slightly less gentle side of Norman. Fonda is incredibly strong because he plays it so wonderfully in traditional Henry Fonda style. The way he does the whole scene but simply sitting in the chair as he tears at the guy, and keeps his gentle old man way the whole time anyways.
I think if Fonda was not Norman this film might of completely failed, but his Norman keeps the film interesting, because he himself never really becomes corny in his portrayal even if he might have to say a corny thing or two. Fonda finds the right tone for the film for his character to work. He mixes the humor of the character, but also finds the right amount of poignancy in the character's aging, and growing health problems. He is of course also great with his actual daughter. There is even an extra layer that is derived from his major scene with her since supposedly their real relationship was similar. This does not matter exactly, but Henry Fonda makes a real emotionally true final moment together in the film, that is simply outstanding. Overall Fonda gives a interesting memorable portrayal, that is truly worthy to be his final film performance.
Best Actor 1981: Burt Lancaster in Atlantic City
Burt Lancaster received his fourth and final Oscar nomination for portraying small time crook Lou Pascal in Atlantic City.
Atlantic City is not much of a film in my view, it is poorly written poorly directed, and even poorly acted by some of the actors, although not all.
Burt Lancaster as Lou is in the more manic pool of Lancaster performances. I find he generally has too very distinct styles to roles, either the at least slightly wacky crazy man like in this film, and Elmer Gantry, or his more stiff spined style as in Birdman of Alcatraz and From Here Eternity. The wacky characterization is perhaps the trickier of the the two, because it can perhaps be gold, or absolute obnoxiousness as he is in some of his performances. Here I feel it turns out to be neither of these two extremes, but rather in the middle although leaning pretty far away from obnoxiousness.
Lancaster does have the right about of energy in his performance, and lightens up the movie a little bit when he can, but he simply can not get past the script. The script leaves Lou, fairly simplistic in nature. A old always small time criminal, who would like to be remembered as a big timer. I felt there was very little to him more than that. Lancaster gives the part a nice dignity to it, but he does not make more out of the character because I do not really think he could due to the script itself. He works well enough with Susan Sarandon, and their affair is not unbelievable because Lancaster certainly is charming in the role, but unfortunately there is nothing special about the relationship besides the age difference once again due to the script.
Lancaster never becomes completely boring in this movie that to me was rather boring. I found he could still be followed through the pointless plot of the drug story, and like a true star does remain watchable. I think his highlight too is his joyful reaction to sort of making it in the big time. After killing the two thugs which is widely reported his constant bragging is made interesting and entertaining as Lou finally has his dream sort of come true. Still though the character arc basically only consists of making it big so to speak, and nothing much else. The character is simply too underdeveloped for Lancaster to really excel in the role. I will say he is good though, the second best thing in the film behind Sarandon's performance, and if the film itself had been better Lancaster could very well could have given a great performance rather just a good one.
Burt Lancaster as Lou is in the more manic pool of Lancaster performances. I find he generally has too very distinct styles to roles, either the at least slightly wacky crazy man like in this film, and Elmer Gantry, or his more stiff spined style as in Birdman of Alcatraz and From Here Eternity. The wacky characterization is perhaps the trickier of the the two, because it can perhaps be gold, or absolute obnoxiousness as he is in some of his performances. Here I feel it turns out to be neither of these two extremes, but rather in the middle although leaning pretty far away from obnoxiousness.
Lancaster does have the right about of energy in his performance, and lightens up the movie a little bit when he can, but he simply can not get past the script. The script leaves Lou, fairly simplistic in nature. A old always small time criminal, who would like to be remembered as a big timer. I felt there was very little to him more than that. Lancaster gives the part a nice dignity to it, but he does not make more out of the character because I do not really think he could due to the script itself. He works well enough with Susan Sarandon, and their affair is not unbelievable because Lancaster certainly is charming in the role, but unfortunately there is nothing special about the relationship besides the age difference once again due to the script.
Lancaster never becomes completely boring in this movie that to me was rather boring. I found he could still be followed through the pointless plot of the drug story, and like a true star does remain watchable. I think his highlight too is his joyful reaction to sort of making it in the big time. After killing the two thugs which is widely reported his constant bragging is made interesting and entertaining as Lou finally has his dream sort of come true. Still though the character arc basically only consists of making it big so to speak, and nothing much else. The character is simply too underdeveloped for Lancaster to really excel in the role. I will say he is good though, the second best thing in the film behind Sarandon's performance, and if the film itself had been better Lancaster could very well could have given a great performance rather just a good one.
Best Actor 1981: Dudley Moore in Arthur
Dudley Moore received his only Oscar nomination for portraying millionaire playboy Arthur Bach in Arthur.
Arthur is a comedy that has grown on me considerably since the first time I watched it, and now I find is a very enjoyable comedy.
Arthur is a character that Moore seems perfectly suited for and he is perfectly suited for. He instantly finds the right manner in which to play Arthur, and never once seems to be trying in this performance despite some of what he has to do in it, which is to play drunk very often. Now playing drunk can be tricky since it can be over the top or not funny. Moore is neither of these things amazingly, and gives a truly memorable and brilliant drunk performance. He finds exactly the right motions and slurred speech that simply makes Arthur's drunkenness incredibly endearing. Arthur is simply one of the most memorable movie drunks and this is absolutely because of Dudley Moore.
Moore when his is not drunk is just as good though. He is always consistently entertaining, funny, and charming throughout the film. He is always fun to watch in this performance, and every chance he gets Moore extracts the right amount of humor from his scenes. He never has a single dull moment and he is simply completely charming in this film every moment. His performance is just a comedic and romantic performance. He excels romantically well with Liza Minelli, and the two play off of each other exceedingly well. They show that these two are completely right for each other, and together they make Arthur's willing to lose his bachelor status completely believable.
His funniest and most effective scenes though may come from his scenes with John Gielgud as Hobson. These two are terrific as they trade sly comment, and they again make perfect moments together. Their best moment though might be their final moments, in which Hobson and Arthur show how much they mean to won another in their father and son like relationship. Moore here gives an incredibly tender performance here with a lot of heart, that perfectly goes with the comedy of all his other scenes. A simply great leading romantic comedy performance from Dudley Moore, and he does not make it nearly as simple as a performance like this could have been. Instead Moore makes Arthur and incredibly funny, and simply memorable character.
Arthur is a character that Moore seems perfectly suited for and he is perfectly suited for. He instantly finds the right manner in which to play Arthur, and never once seems to be trying in this performance despite some of what he has to do in it, which is to play drunk very often. Now playing drunk can be tricky since it can be over the top or not funny. Moore is neither of these things amazingly, and gives a truly memorable and brilliant drunk performance. He finds exactly the right motions and slurred speech that simply makes Arthur's drunkenness incredibly endearing. Arthur is simply one of the most memorable movie drunks and this is absolutely because of Dudley Moore.
Moore when his is not drunk is just as good though. He is always consistently entertaining, funny, and charming throughout the film. He is always fun to watch in this performance, and every chance he gets Moore extracts the right amount of humor from his scenes. He never has a single dull moment and he is simply completely charming in this film every moment. His performance is just a comedic and romantic performance. He excels romantically well with Liza Minelli, and the two play off of each other exceedingly well. They show that these two are completely right for each other, and together they make Arthur's willing to lose his bachelor status completely believable.
His funniest and most effective scenes though may come from his scenes with John Gielgud as Hobson. These two are terrific as they trade sly comment, and they again make perfect moments together. Their best moment though might be their final moments, in which Hobson and Arthur show how much they mean to won another in their father and son like relationship. Moore here gives an incredibly tender performance here with a lot of heart, that perfectly goes with the comedy of all his other scenes. A simply great leading romantic comedy performance from Dudley Moore, and he does not make it nearly as simple as a performance like this could have been. Instead Moore makes Arthur and incredibly funny, and simply memorable character.
Best Actor 1981: Warren Beatty in Reds
Warren Beatty received his third acting Oscar nomination for portraying John Reed in Reds.
Reds is an extremely overrated film in my book. It is overly long prodding, and since it chooses to take it rather romantic view of its subject, it fails to get into the actual depth of it which would probably be a more interesting film for me anyways.
Warren Beatty is an actor I never find myself able to believe. He always seems to want to play himself rather than character he is playing. That seems to be no different here as John Reed, a troubled writer who is devoted to the communist cause. This is particularly troublesome for this role because it really seems that he needed to be the driving force of the film. The man you could really identify with and follow throughout all his trials and troubles, or he could have been a man who is completely fascinating and really gets under the skin of John Reed. Unfortunately Beatty does not do either of these.
It is not that his emotions are exactly wrong, he has technically the correct emotional reactions in scenes. All the emotions though in this performance seem to be solely on the surface. Beatty never really shows anything past Beatty himself. He never seems to shed his own image to take on the image of John Reed. This on the surface is not exactly an incorrect performance, but it fails in anyway beyond that.There is certainly nothing special about it, his chemistry with Keaton is nothing astounding, nor is his passion for Reed's cause. Beatty always seems to be acting the part for me, and simply is never that convincing because of this. Beatty is an actor who can be good very good in fact but he has to willing to really get inside the character which he does not do in this performance.
Warren Beatty is an actor I never find myself able to believe. He always seems to want to play himself rather than character he is playing. That seems to be no different here as John Reed, a troubled writer who is devoted to the communist cause. This is particularly troublesome for this role because it really seems that he needed to be the driving force of the film. The man you could really identify with and follow throughout all his trials and troubles, or he could have been a man who is completely fascinating and really gets under the skin of John Reed. Unfortunately Beatty does not do either of these.
It is not that his emotions are exactly wrong, he has technically the correct emotional reactions in scenes. All the emotions though in this performance seem to be solely on the surface. Beatty never really shows anything past Beatty himself. He never seems to shed his own image to take on the image of John Reed. This on the surface is not exactly an incorrect performance, but it fails in anyway beyond that.There is certainly nothing special about it, his chemistry with Keaton is nothing astounding, nor is his passion for Reed's cause. Beatty always seems to be acting the part for me, and simply is never that convincing because of this. Beatty is an actor who can be good very good in fact but he has to willing to really get inside the character which he does not do in this performance.
Best Actor 1981: Paul Newman in Abscene of Malice
Paul Newman received his fifth acting Oscar nomination for portraying Michael Colin Gallagher in Absence of Malice.
Absence of Malice is annoying movie for me because it covers some interesting subject matter, and it has a few good scenes, but most of the time it is rather boring. It does have one especially good scene at the end but I would say that is mostly because of Wilford Brimley who is terrific in a single scene performance.
When I originally did this year I was very much looking forward to watching Newman's performance. I thought I almost always like a Newman performance, unfortunately this is not one of Newman's best performances. I was very surprised by how much Newman seems to be just going through the motions throughout his performance. For most of the film he keeps a pretty dreary eyed expression and dull delivery for almost every scene. Newman who usually can do wonders with his character does almost nothing with Gallagher. I understand his character, very quickly, of a man bothered by new reports about him because his father was a criminal. Newman is only that sort of though, it is surprising how dull Newman is in this performance. Newman is usually a lively presence but here he is just boring most of the time.
There is nothing special about his many scenes with Sally Field's reporter, romantic or otherwise. I will say though that this is Newman's fault because he is so painfully dull, that nothing can come from his scenes. I will say that Newman has one good, very good scene actually, but it is odd because it is the only scene like it in the movie. You know a scene where he is not dull. His one scene involves him being very upset over the death of his friend inadvertently caused by Field's character. Newman is very good in this one scene he shows the right anger and sadness incredibly well in this scene. He has incredibly intensity, and really is interesting in this scene. Unfortunately as I said it is the only good scene before and after it is the same dullness. Save that one scene this is the by the books definition of a phoned in performance. I would give him just a 2 but I thought he deserved a .5 just for the one scene.
When I originally did this year I was very much looking forward to watching Newman's performance. I thought I almost always like a Newman performance, unfortunately this is not one of Newman's best performances. I was very surprised by how much Newman seems to be just going through the motions throughout his performance. For most of the film he keeps a pretty dreary eyed expression and dull delivery for almost every scene. Newman who usually can do wonders with his character does almost nothing with Gallagher. I understand his character, very quickly, of a man bothered by new reports about him because his father was a criminal. Newman is only that sort of though, it is surprising how dull Newman is in this performance. Newman is usually a lively presence but here he is just boring most of the time.
There is nothing special about his many scenes with Sally Field's reporter, romantic or otherwise. I will say though that this is Newman's fault because he is so painfully dull, that nothing can come from his scenes. I will say that Newman has one good, very good scene actually, but it is odd because it is the only scene like it in the movie. You know a scene where he is not dull. His one scene involves him being very upset over the death of his friend inadvertently caused by Field's character. Newman is very good in this one scene he shows the right anger and sadness incredibly well in this scene. He has incredibly intensity, and really is interesting in this scene. Unfortunately as I said it is the only good scene before and after it is the same dullness. Save that one scene this is the by the books definition of a phoned in performance. I would give him just a 2 but I thought he deserved a .5 just for the one scene.
Best Actor 1981
Dudley Moore in Arthur
Warren Beatty in Reds
Henry Fonda in On Golden Pond
Paul Newman in Absence of Malice
Burt Lancaster in Atlantic City
Who do you pick and predict?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
