Christopher Walken in The Dead Zone
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label 1983. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1983. Show all posts
Best Actor 1983: Results
Christopher Walken in The Dead Zone
Best Actor 1983: Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay in The Dresser
Albert Finney received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Shakespearean actor Sir, and Tom Courtenay received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Norman the titular character in The Dresser.
The Dresser tells the story of a troubled actor and his cast and crew including his faithful dresser during WWII, as they put on King Lear.
The reason I put both of these performance together is because I find it difficult to talk about either of the two performances completely separately, as well as avoiding the especially important relationship between the two. I did not do this for Sleuth, Network, or Amadeus, because in Sleuth and Amadeus the two leads their relationship was divided very much by the concrete conflict of the characters, and Network the leads just do not interact really at all.
In the Dresser though the two men's relationship is a pivotal aspect of both characters. Neither of the two men could go on without the other. The two are deeply connected through their professional relationship which certianly is also very personal between the two as well. The Dresser finds his life through his work for Sir, and Sir basically could not function if it was not for the restless effort of his Dresser.
Both of these performance by these actors certianly, are most certianly and visibly acting. They are in fact the complete opposite style of Robert Duvall's performance from this year, but that does not make them bad, just a different style. Courtenay portrays Norman as a flamboyant man, but also in his own way withdrawn from others, well Finney portrays Sir as a loud, overwhelming man, who refuses not to be known.
Courtenay firstly is mostly good in his creation of the dresser Norman, as his mannerisms do not seem false to the character, but from time to time his physical mannerisms seem he perhaps did them one two many times since he also played the part on stage. Finney as Sir is also quite good, and portrays the outward command and theatricality of him well, and I did feel he did seem to channel, quite well, Donald Wolfit in a rather interesting fashion.
Their dynamic together is quite fascinating because their relationship. It is interesting in how Courtenay displays Norman method of keeping the show on its way as energetically as possible, always moving and urging, this is interestingly offset by the way Finney shows Sir's distinct commanding actions that keep the show on, I think this is best shown in an early scene where Courtenay shows Norman constant pleading at a train to wait for the actors to get on the train, but Finney displays instead instant command by making the train stop through only saying stop.
Both characters are rather troubled in their own particular ways which intersect, Finney's Sir is distraught and quite ill about his life, where Norman worries of his own purpose with the deterioration of Sir. Finney half is almost thankless in how much the part requires just for him to put the whole damaged nature of Sir on display. The film almost puts too much of Sir's pain in the film, but still Finney is quite effective, in his display of it, showing with it that Sir almost can never stop acting. Courtenay on the other hand more briefly shows Norman's pain, since he shows that Norman can't spend too long on his own problems since they are intertwined with those of Sir.
It is fascinating to see there relationship as they prepare once again for making King Lear. Finney displaying Sir's constant fear and pain, as he depends for any comfort he has with his dresser. Finney though also shows of Sir's ability to hide the pain and control it just enough by hiding through his acting, as well as through his domineering such as when he deals with the other actors. Courtenay though energetically moves, and support Sir, as Norman. He frankly never stops, always prodding and pushing, Courtenay puts the right push and energy, as well as always briefly showing his own pain whenever he has a chance.
Together they do display a fascinating relationship of co-dependence on one another, that leads to their final scene together. This scene is interesting because rather than coming together after their technical success, they instead drift different. Finney interestingly displays Sir's contentment with his ability and success in service of Shakespeare, but at the same time showing Sir has created his own world really almost ignoring Norman. Norman on the other hand seeks a little recognition trying to come closer, Courtenay shows an incredible earnestness in Norman for just to be noticed, than transitions perfectly from happiness when he thinks he has been to sadness when he quickly finds he has not been.
Both of their performances are connected but they both have a few scenes where they do stand out without the other. Finney displays it when talking to a young woman who wishes to act, Finney does well in showing Sir's odd interrogation, seduction almost, and than more of just finding out how easy she was to pick up is well and believably handled and is a standout. Courtenay though has a few more though such as when he himself goes on stage briefly, and Courtenay is incredibly good in displaying Norman difficulty to stand out in front of the crowd, than his his need of wanting to know if he was able at something he feared to do, showing his complete naivety of on stage, despite being a virtuoso back stage.
Both these performances overall are quite good and effective, but Courtenay's performance is perhaps helped by the fact that his character gets the final statement on the relationship of the two. His final speech is fascinating, and brilliantly portrayed by Courtenay, as he finally shows Norman's compete vulnerability, and how much Sir really did mean to him. This is not to slight Finney's performance at all since he does have perhaps the greater challenge, its hard to say whose performance is better, but I will say both are certianly achievements in their own right, and together quite special.
The rating is the same for both of them.
The reason I put both of these performance together is because I find it difficult to talk about either of the two performances completely separately, as well as avoiding the especially important relationship between the two. I did not do this for Sleuth, Network, or Amadeus, because in Sleuth and Amadeus the two leads their relationship was divided very much by the concrete conflict of the characters, and Network the leads just do not interact really at all.
In the Dresser though the two men's relationship is a pivotal aspect of both characters. Neither of the two men could go on without the other. The two are deeply connected through their professional relationship which certianly is also very personal between the two as well. The Dresser finds his life through his work for Sir, and Sir basically could not function if it was not for the restless effort of his Dresser.
Both of these performance by these actors certianly, are most certianly and visibly acting. They are in fact the complete opposite style of Robert Duvall's performance from this year, but that does not make them bad, just a different style. Courtenay portrays Norman as a flamboyant man, but also in his own way withdrawn from others, well Finney portrays Sir as a loud, overwhelming man, who refuses not to be known.
Courtenay firstly is mostly good in his creation of the dresser Norman, as his mannerisms do not seem false to the character, but from time to time his physical mannerisms seem he perhaps did them one two many times since he also played the part on stage. Finney as Sir is also quite good, and portrays the outward command and theatricality of him well, and I did feel he did seem to channel, quite well, Donald Wolfit in a rather interesting fashion.
Their dynamic together is quite fascinating because their relationship. It is interesting in how Courtenay displays Norman method of keeping the show on its way as energetically as possible, always moving and urging, this is interestingly offset by the way Finney shows Sir's distinct commanding actions that keep the show on, I think this is best shown in an early scene where Courtenay shows Norman constant pleading at a train to wait for the actors to get on the train, but Finney displays instead instant command by making the train stop through only saying stop.
Both characters are rather troubled in their own particular ways which intersect, Finney's Sir is distraught and quite ill about his life, where Norman worries of his own purpose with the deterioration of Sir. Finney half is almost thankless in how much the part requires just for him to put the whole damaged nature of Sir on display. The film almost puts too much of Sir's pain in the film, but still Finney is quite effective, in his display of it, showing with it that Sir almost can never stop acting. Courtenay on the other hand more briefly shows Norman's pain, since he shows that Norman can't spend too long on his own problems since they are intertwined with those of Sir.
It is fascinating to see there relationship as they prepare once again for making King Lear. Finney displaying Sir's constant fear and pain, as he depends for any comfort he has with his dresser. Finney though also shows of Sir's ability to hide the pain and control it just enough by hiding through his acting, as well as through his domineering such as when he deals with the other actors. Courtenay though energetically moves, and support Sir, as Norman. He frankly never stops, always prodding and pushing, Courtenay puts the right push and energy, as well as always briefly showing his own pain whenever he has a chance.
Together they do display a fascinating relationship of co-dependence on one another, that leads to their final scene together. This scene is interesting because rather than coming together after their technical success, they instead drift different. Finney interestingly displays Sir's contentment with his ability and success in service of Shakespeare, but at the same time showing Sir has created his own world really almost ignoring Norman. Norman on the other hand seeks a little recognition trying to come closer, Courtenay shows an incredible earnestness in Norman for just to be noticed, than transitions perfectly from happiness when he thinks he has been to sadness when he quickly finds he has not been.
Both of their performances are connected but they both have a few scenes where they do stand out without the other. Finney displays it when talking to a young woman who wishes to act, Finney does well in showing Sir's odd interrogation, seduction almost, and than more of just finding out how easy she was to pick up is well and believably handled and is a standout. Courtenay though has a few more though such as when he himself goes on stage briefly, and Courtenay is incredibly good in displaying Norman difficulty to stand out in front of the crowd, than his his need of wanting to know if he was able at something he feared to do, showing his complete naivety of on stage, despite being a virtuoso back stage.
Both these performances overall are quite good and effective, but Courtenay's performance is perhaps helped by the fact that his character gets the final statement on the relationship of the two. His final speech is fascinating, and brilliantly portrayed by Courtenay, as he finally shows Norman's compete vulnerability, and how much Sir really did mean to him. This is not to slight Finney's performance at all since he does have perhaps the greater challenge, its hard to say whose performance is better, but I will say both are certianly achievements in their own right, and together quite special.
Best Actor 1983: Robert Duvall in Tender Mercies
Robert Duvall won his Oscar from his fourth nomination for portraying Mac Sledge in Tender Mercies.
Tender Mercies is an incredibly quiet story about a has been country singer, and his finding of a new life in a rural town.
Mac Sledge makes this the third character so far that is a drunkard. Luckily he is only a drunkard for basically the first scene of the film, something that is sometimes forgotten by modern descriptions of this film. He only has one scene, off camera, where he is actually being an alcoholic, with his fighting for a bottle, but that is all just noise which does give an indication to what Mac Sledge has being doing for many years before his arrival to a rural gas station and motel run by a young widow and woman Rosa Lee (Tess Harper).
After this initial scene we finally see Duvall as Sledge, and he creates a just about perfect characterization of this ex-country star. It really is fascinating because this is a the type of performance where I really never felt I saw Robert Duvall, only ever Mac Sledge. He does not do this with any makeup or overt mannerisms, but rather with a quiet incredibly subtle performance.
The voice Robert Duvall uses for Mac Sledge is perfect, because it is so incredibly natural. He does not all ever seem to force his accent, but rather this is how Mac Sledge talks, simple as that. The same is also true for his whole manner, and demeanor for Mac. It certainly is quite different from many of Duvall's other performances, particularly The Great Santini, it certainly is a distinct manner but one which is created with the utmost authenticity by Duvall, that does not feel like acting, but rather that it is just a real person.
Something that I find absolutely fascinating about this performance is the deep emotional range Robert Duvall displays as Mac. It is particularly fascinating because only raises his voice at the very beginning of the film, and briefly again later in the film. Duvall shows absolute emotional honesty through his entire performance, but through always going for a quiet subtle performance. This is one performance that is almost entirely through his eyes of Sledge, since his actual emotional outbursts are rare and short when they do occur.
It is not that his character is at all a repressed man, Duvall rather shows that Mac's way is naturally of quietness. It is outstanding though how emotionally effective some of the slightest, smallest facial expressions, and eye movements Duvall makes can be. A moment of anger and frustration Duvall internalizes brilliantly when he is told his song he has written is no good, Duvall channels Sledge's frustrations without fault, and always with pure realism.
More powerful than his moments of anger though are Mac's moments of happiness, or reflection of his life. Duvall creates the history of Mac Sledge through his eyes, his face, and manner, which I think are best shown in particular moments such as when he finally sees his daughter again in a long time. Duvall does not over express Sledge's happiness, but he makes it clear showing it in a deeper more true to life fashion.
This minimalistic approach is amazing, because of how incredibly effective it is, and it makes even some of the film that seems almost impossible on the page work. I think in particular Mac's love relationship with Rosa Lee, they marry basically instantly even off screen, yet it seems entirely natural to the flow of the film, because Duvall shows Sledge's love for the moment not in broad strokes but in an understated and entirely truthful fashion.
One aspect of his performance that should be noted is his singing in the film. Duvall is indeed entirely believable as a singer, and makes Mac's past believable as well, but more importantly is his performance of the songs in the film. Duvall makes each of his songs powerful and honest not because of his fine singing, but because he shows the way Mac puts his heart and soul into his songs infuses his feelings with the songs turning them into one.
Duvall performance punctuations every single moment of this effective film, with emotional honesty. He never strikes a single false note with Sledge, he is always completely on the mark, without every seeming to act, which is an outstanding achievement. This is a brilliant performance by Duvall, that never comprises for a cheap trick, but always stays true and honest to his character, creating one of the best performances of this kind or any kind.
Mac Sledge makes this the third character so far that is a drunkard. Luckily he is only a drunkard for basically the first scene of the film, something that is sometimes forgotten by modern descriptions of this film. He only has one scene, off camera, where he is actually being an alcoholic, with his fighting for a bottle, but that is all just noise which does give an indication to what Mac Sledge has being doing for many years before his arrival to a rural gas station and motel run by a young widow and woman Rosa Lee (Tess Harper).
After this initial scene we finally see Duvall as Sledge, and he creates a just about perfect characterization of this ex-country star. It really is fascinating because this is a the type of performance where I really never felt I saw Robert Duvall, only ever Mac Sledge. He does not do this with any makeup or overt mannerisms, but rather with a quiet incredibly subtle performance.
The voice Robert Duvall uses for Mac Sledge is perfect, because it is so incredibly natural. He does not all ever seem to force his accent, but rather this is how Mac Sledge talks, simple as that. The same is also true for his whole manner, and demeanor for Mac. It certainly is quite different from many of Duvall's other performances, particularly The Great Santini, it certainly is a distinct manner but one which is created with the utmost authenticity by Duvall, that does not feel like acting, but rather that it is just a real person.
Something that I find absolutely fascinating about this performance is the deep emotional range Robert Duvall displays as Mac. It is particularly fascinating because only raises his voice at the very beginning of the film, and briefly again later in the film. Duvall shows absolute emotional honesty through his entire performance, but through always going for a quiet subtle performance. This is one performance that is almost entirely through his eyes of Sledge, since his actual emotional outbursts are rare and short when they do occur.
It is not that his character is at all a repressed man, Duvall rather shows that Mac's way is naturally of quietness. It is outstanding though how emotionally effective some of the slightest, smallest facial expressions, and eye movements Duvall makes can be. A moment of anger and frustration Duvall internalizes brilliantly when he is told his song he has written is no good, Duvall channels Sledge's frustrations without fault, and always with pure realism.
More powerful than his moments of anger though are Mac's moments of happiness, or reflection of his life. Duvall creates the history of Mac Sledge through his eyes, his face, and manner, which I think are best shown in particular moments such as when he finally sees his daughter again in a long time. Duvall does not over express Sledge's happiness, but he makes it clear showing it in a deeper more true to life fashion.
This minimalistic approach is amazing, because of how incredibly effective it is, and it makes even some of the film that seems almost impossible on the page work. I think in particular Mac's love relationship with Rosa Lee, they marry basically instantly even off screen, yet it seems entirely natural to the flow of the film, because Duvall shows Sledge's love for the moment not in broad strokes but in an understated and entirely truthful fashion.
One aspect of his performance that should be noted is his singing in the film. Duvall is indeed entirely believable as a singer, and makes Mac's past believable as well, but more importantly is his performance of the songs in the film. Duvall makes each of his songs powerful and honest not because of his fine singing, but because he shows the way Mac puts his heart and soul into his songs infuses his feelings with the songs turning them into one.
Duvall performance punctuations every single moment of this effective film, with emotional honesty. He never strikes a single false note with Sledge, he is always completely on the mark, without every seeming to act, which is an outstanding achievement. This is a brilliant performance by Duvall, that never comprises for a cheap trick, but always stays true and honest to his character, creating one of the best performances of this kind or any kind.
Best Actor 1983: Michael Caine in Educating Rita
Michael Caine received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Dr. Frank Bryant in Educating Rita.
Educating Rita is a somewhat enjoyable film about a working class woman Rita (Julie Walters) who tries to learn about literature with a tutor.
The tutor is Dr. Frank Bryant who is a tired drunkard of a professor, and former poet, the second drunkard poet this year after Tom Conti's Gowan McGland. The difference between Caine's and Conti's performance is that Frank Bryant does not hide his sadness behind a facade of joviality. Caine portrays Bryant's sadness and tiredness always completely at the forefront of his performance.
For about the first half of the entire performance Caine just is a completely tired, and uncaring mess basically. This is completely correct to the character of Bryant though, and does show the whole long past of his character in his face. At the same time though it does not make for a particularly entertaining or interesting character, since for the first half I really found myself caring little about what Caine was doing but entirely what Walters was doing as Rita.
Caine though is allowed more to do although not that much more as his relationship grows with Rita. He slowly shows happiness grow in his face over the success of Rita, and Caine is quite good at doing this in a subtle fashion, but still Caine is not given that much to do to really make his performance into something really interesting unfortuantely.
Caine is allowed more when he shows Bryant sadness over losing his time with Rita, as she basically grows past what he can do for her. Caine is again very good in showing his sadness overwhelm him completely. Caine is good all the way through with his drunk scene as well as his final two talks with Rita showing his feelings. Caine is completely authentic, and these are his most effective scenes without seeming ever to visably "act".
Caine is an actor I will admit that I generally always like, he is the type of actor for me that has to really try to be bad, as I find he is good just normally. He is good all the way though with this performance, and I though he always stayed realistic and honest, I just wish really his character was subjected to mostly be an entirely reactive character. Still this is a good job, and I doubt anyone could have done better with how little he is given at times.
The tutor is Dr. Frank Bryant who is a tired drunkard of a professor, and former poet, the second drunkard poet this year after Tom Conti's Gowan McGland. The difference between Caine's and Conti's performance is that Frank Bryant does not hide his sadness behind a facade of joviality. Caine portrays Bryant's sadness and tiredness always completely at the forefront of his performance.
For about the first half of the entire performance Caine just is a completely tired, and uncaring mess basically. This is completely correct to the character of Bryant though, and does show the whole long past of his character in his face. At the same time though it does not make for a particularly entertaining or interesting character, since for the first half I really found myself caring little about what Caine was doing but entirely what Walters was doing as Rita.
Caine though is allowed more to do although not that much more as his relationship grows with Rita. He slowly shows happiness grow in his face over the success of Rita, and Caine is quite good at doing this in a subtle fashion, but still Caine is not given that much to do to really make his performance into something really interesting unfortuantely.
Caine is allowed more when he shows Bryant sadness over losing his time with Rita, as she basically grows past what he can do for her. Caine is again very good in showing his sadness overwhelm him completely. Caine is good all the way through with his drunk scene as well as his final two talks with Rita showing his feelings. Caine is completely authentic, and these are his most effective scenes without seeming ever to visably "act".
Caine is an actor I will admit that I generally always like, he is the type of actor for me that has to really try to be bad, as I find he is good just normally. He is good all the way though with this performance, and I though he always stayed realistic and honest, I just wish really his character was subjected to mostly be an entirely reactive character. Still this is a good job, and I doubt anyone could have done better with how little he is given at times.
Best Actor 1983: Tom Conti in Reuben, Reuben
Tom Conti received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Gowan McGland in Reuben, Reuben.
Reuben, Reuben is not a particularly good, but not really an overly bad film about a famous drinking Scottish poet.
Tom Conti's performance is positioned a bit strangely to begin with. Firstly he is made up with his rather unique hair, as well as his unique, and than he is made up to look like a walking corpse. In his opening scene, which unfortunately for the film and his performance is his best scene where he is reading some of his poetry at a women's literary gathering. Conti makes his very unique look and manner work very well in this one scene, showing a slick charm of the poet, and his incredible ease in talking about his work and other literature as well as life.
Tom Conti's whole performance goes very much downhill from here, along with the film itself. He stops seeming like an actual poet and becomes much too much of a movie character poet. He starts living in a rural town and interacting with the various characters there, not quite colorful characters since it is a mostly dramatic film with small comedic elements, so they are not funny characters, but perhaps underwritten characters, played in an overdone manner.
The downturn of the film, and his performance create scene after seem of him being a colorful poet fellow who walks around the town, stealing tips from waiters, seducing women, and either befriending or making enemies with the local men of the town. Although I do think Conti is at all bad with being the always at least half drunk poet, but I do feel the film overuses or wrongly uses his performance putting too much always in the forefront leading to his constant semi-comedic banter to become extremely tiresome fairly quickly.
Gowan though mostly uses his joking exterior to hide a deeply sad man on the inside. Well I know this anyways because well he does look like a corpse most of the time, and of course there is the cliched scene where after joking in public he goes into private and starts crying. Although Conti cries realistically technically his whole portrayal of the sadness of Gowan never really gets deep enough to be anything all that special. That is until his final scene where he thinks over his life quite effectively well that is until just before the end of the scene where he goes and becomes far too theatrical.
Overall this is a performance that shows some very strong moments, particularly in the opening scene and closing scene. Unfortunately in between is tiresome and repetitive. I did not say he was bad in the middle, but he most certainly could have been much better. His performance, besides the first scene, lacks the right charm, as well as the right power, except for in the last scene, to make an honestly compelling or effective performance.
Tom Conti's performance is positioned a bit strangely to begin with. Firstly he is made up with his rather unique hair, as well as his unique, and than he is made up to look like a walking corpse. In his opening scene, which unfortunately for the film and his performance is his best scene where he is reading some of his poetry at a women's literary gathering. Conti makes his very unique look and manner work very well in this one scene, showing a slick charm of the poet, and his incredible ease in talking about his work and other literature as well as life.
Tom Conti's whole performance goes very much downhill from here, along with the film itself. He stops seeming like an actual poet and becomes much too much of a movie character poet. He starts living in a rural town and interacting with the various characters there, not quite colorful characters since it is a mostly dramatic film with small comedic elements, so they are not funny characters, but perhaps underwritten characters, played in an overdone manner.
The downturn of the film, and his performance create scene after seem of him being a colorful poet fellow who walks around the town, stealing tips from waiters, seducing women, and either befriending or making enemies with the local men of the town. Although I do think Conti is at all bad with being the always at least half drunk poet, but I do feel the film overuses or wrongly uses his performance putting too much always in the forefront leading to his constant semi-comedic banter to become extremely tiresome fairly quickly.
Gowan though mostly uses his joking exterior to hide a deeply sad man on the inside. Well I know this anyways because well he does look like a corpse most of the time, and of course there is the cliched scene where after joking in public he goes into private and starts crying. Although Conti cries realistically technically his whole portrayal of the sadness of Gowan never really gets deep enough to be anything all that special. That is until his final scene where he thinks over his life quite effectively well that is until just before the end of the scene where he goes and becomes far too theatrical.
Overall this is a performance that shows some very strong moments, particularly in the opening scene and closing scene. Unfortunately in between is tiresome and repetitive. I did not say he was bad in the middle, but he most certainly could have been much better. His performance, besides the first scene, lacks the right charm, as well as the right power, except for in the last scene, to make an honestly compelling or effective performance.
Best Actor 1983
Michael Caine in Educating Rita
Tom Conti in Reuben, Reuben
Robert Duvall in Tender Mercies
Albert Finney in The Dresser
Tom Courtenay in The Dresser
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
