John Lone in The Last Emperor
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label 1987. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1987. Show all posts
Best Actor 1987
John Lone in The Last Emperor
Best Actor 1987: Marcello Mastroianni in Dark Eyes
Marcello Mastroianni received his third and final Oscar nomination for portraying Romano in Dark Eyes.
Dark Eyes is a romantic, tragic, comedy, that has its moments I suppose.
Dark Eyes concerns Mastroianni's character Romano who is married to a wealthy Italian woman who he does not love, but instantly falls in love with a Russian woman he meets, and than later seeks in Russian to love. This means basically that Mastroianni whole performance is going to be a big romantic performance in his scenes of the past, as well as a tragic performance in his scenes in the present where he reflects on his past relationship.
If there is one thing I have noticed in all of his past nominated performances, Mastroianni always plays at least in some way a rather romantic character, as well as I notice Mastroianni is always a very physical performance. He always tends to act out in his performances in some way, and usually infuses at least some sort of playful quality in his performances.
Here Romano is always a rather playful fellow in the past scenes anyways, always doing some sort of special walk or dance that certianly is colorful. Mastroianni is very good at this because he is quite effective in displaying all of this playful parts of his performance as simply the flamboyant way Romano is, and makes even his walking like a bird chirping, seem natural to the character.
One of the most important aspects of Mastroianni performance is how charming he is in this film, and he is extremely charming. His face just simply glows in this film, and that work perfectly for the story. Due to the fact that he is exceedingly likable, it makes it far easier to follow him and enjoy with him through his romantic adventures.
Mastroianni is always constantly being charming as Romano, on this journey, which results in a large amount of scenes devoted to either his romantic gestures, or his actions needed to get his romantic ends. Not all of these scenes work completely, but Mastroianni is always trying hard to make each scene work anyway.
Some of the scenes most certainly do though like when he attempts to convince various rich Russians to sign his pass, to get to the woman he desires. He has to do it by showing his glass, off, which he does in various theatrical fashions, and each Mastroianni, is very entertaining, and most of all incredibly charming.
Well Mastroianni certainly makes us care for his romance, and romantic intentions, but he as well creates the right amount of sadness in his scenes during the present as well. Mastroianni shows his sad history in his face, where he was never able to finalize his love really. Mastroianni shows a distinct loss in Romano at the end, which is quite saddening due to the difference in that sad face, and the glowing face of before. I think this whole performance depends on if you find Mastroianni charming, I do so I therefore like this performance, it is not his best (I prefer when he is trying to murder for his romances) but it is most certainly a good performance of his.
Dark Eyes concerns Mastroianni's character Romano who is married to a wealthy Italian woman who he does not love, but instantly falls in love with a Russian woman he meets, and than later seeks in Russian to love. This means basically that Mastroianni whole performance is going to be a big romantic performance in his scenes of the past, as well as a tragic performance in his scenes in the present where he reflects on his past relationship.
If there is one thing I have noticed in all of his past nominated performances, Mastroianni always plays at least in some way a rather romantic character, as well as I notice Mastroianni is always a very physical performance. He always tends to act out in his performances in some way, and usually infuses at least some sort of playful quality in his performances.
Here Romano is always a rather playful fellow in the past scenes anyways, always doing some sort of special walk or dance that certianly is colorful. Mastroianni is very good at this because he is quite effective in displaying all of this playful parts of his performance as simply the flamboyant way Romano is, and makes even his walking like a bird chirping, seem natural to the character.
One of the most important aspects of Mastroianni performance is how charming he is in this film, and he is extremely charming. His face just simply glows in this film, and that work perfectly for the story. Due to the fact that he is exceedingly likable, it makes it far easier to follow him and enjoy with him through his romantic adventures.
Mastroianni is always constantly being charming as Romano, on this journey, which results in a large amount of scenes devoted to either his romantic gestures, or his actions needed to get his romantic ends. Not all of these scenes work completely, but Mastroianni is always trying hard to make each scene work anyway.
Some of the scenes most certainly do though like when he attempts to convince various rich Russians to sign his pass, to get to the woman he desires. He has to do it by showing his glass, off, which he does in various theatrical fashions, and each Mastroianni, is very entertaining, and most of all incredibly charming.
Well Mastroianni certainly makes us care for his romance, and romantic intentions, but he as well creates the right amount of sadness in his scenes during the present as well. Mastroianni shows his sad history in his face, where he was never able to finalize his love really. Mastroianni shows a distinct loss in Romano at the end, which is quite saddening due to the difference in that sad face, and the glowing face of before. I think this whole performance depends on if you find Mastroianni charming, I do so I therefore like this performance, it is not his best (I prefer when he is trying to murder for his romances) but it is most certainly a good performance of his.
Best Actor 1987: Robin Williams in Good Morning Vietnam
Robin Williams received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Adrian Cronauer in Good Morning Vietnam.
Good Morning Vietnam tells the story of a anti-establishment army radio show host, who annoys many of the authorities, well being liked by basically everyone else.
Robin Williams has not had the best Oscar record with me, having been under 3 for every single of his nominations so far. Well what do I criticize, well his breaking of character to do his comic routine every so often in his other performance. I also criticize as well just a lack of dramatically convincing portrayal of a character.
What about this time though, well firstly the breaking out of character to do his comic routine is not a problem this time, since the character is a comedian who does a comedy routine just like Williams' own routine. Williams is constantly making his jokes, with his various voices he does, and well as mannerisms, but they are all in that of the character of Adrian Cronauer.
I think how much one enjoys this performance than all depends on how much one likes Williams' comedy routine on a whole, and in particular his material in this film. Well I have never been a huge fan of Robin Williams' comedy, I find some of his work his more enjoyable than others. In this film I would say all his routines are enjoyable, but I never really laughed out loud about them either.
The whole comedy of the character is shown to be a bit of a defense mechanism for Cronauer, as instead of every facing anything completely he tries to change the subject, or defuse a situation with a joke. Now this is displayed, but I did not think the film presented or Williams as some sort of deep pathological problem of Cronauer, but I guess it was still shown. It could have been far more interesting though if Williams had presented his constant use of comedy as something deeper.
The film attempts to become deeper, in the relationship between Williams' character and a young Vietnam man, as well a young Vietnam woman. Williams though still is not really required to show all that much dramatic weight, except for two key scenes. One after a bar he was in was bombed, and Williams is good in showing his struggle to keep up with his good humor on the radio, well clearly thinking of what happened. The other scene concerns him finding out that his Vietnamese friend was the one who bombed the bar. Williams is again good in the confrontation scene but not amazing.
This is not a great performance, but it is well attuned for Williams. Williams mostly uses his comedy, which is his forte, making it so his performance is actually effective enough. His whole character though technically is not a giant challenge for Williams, but at the same Williams is probably the only actor who could have really portrayed the part with his particular amount of energy, and constant comedic attempts. This is not an amazing performance, but it is technically a good displays of Williams' abilities.
Robin Williams has not had the best Oscar record with me, having been under 3 for every single of his nominations so far. Well what do I criticize, well his breaking of character to do his comic routine every so often in his other performance. I also criticize as well just a lack of dramatically convincing portrayal of a character.
What about this time though, well firstly the breaking out of character to do his comic routine is not a problem this time, since the character is a comedian who does a comedy routine just like Williams' own routine. Williams is constantly making his jokes, with his various voices he does, and well as mannerisms, but they are all in that of the character of Adrian Cronauer.
I think how much one enjoys this performance than all depends on how much one likes Williams' comedy routine on a whole, and in particular his material in this film. Well I have never been a huge fan of Robin Williams' comedy, I find some of his work his more enjoyable than others. In this film I would say all his routines are enjoyable, but I never really laughed out loud about them either.
The whole comedy of the character is shown to be a bit of a defense mechanism for Cronauer, as instead of every facing anything completely he tries to change the subject, or defuse a situation with a joke. Now this is displayed, but I did not think the film presented or Williams as some sort of deep pathological problem of Cronauer, but I guess it was still shown. It could have been far more interesting though if Williams had presented his constant use of comedy as something deeper.
The film attempts to become deeper, in the relationship between Williams' character and a young Vietnam man, as well a young Vietnam woman. Williams though still is not really required to show all that much dramatic weight, except for two key scenes. One after a bar he was in was bombed, and Williams is good in showing his struggle to keep up with his good humor on the radio, well clearly thinking of what happened. The other scene concerns him finding out that his Vietnamese friend was the one who bombed the bar. Williams is again good in the confrontation scene but not amazing.
This is not a great performance, but it is well attuned for Williams. Williams mostly uses his comedy, which is his forte, making it so his performance is actually effective enough. His whole character though technically is not a giant challenge for Williams, but at the same Williams is probably the only actor who could have really portrayed the part with his particular amount of energy, and constant comedic attempts. This is not an amazing performance, but it is technically a good displays of Williams' abilities.
Best Actor 1987: Michael Douglas in Wall Street
Michael Douglas won his only acting Oscar from his only acting nomination at the moment for portraying Gordon Gekko in Wall Street.
Like Broadcast News Wall Street is a pure 80's film, about an ambitious stock broker Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) who tries to make it big through working with the rich corporate raider Gordon Gekko, and finds that he has to compromise a few morals trying to make it to the top.
Michael Douglas is not the true lead in this film, Charlie Sheen is, but he is the most dominating presence of the film, and I would still consider him lead because of that reason. Douglas' performance is a rather influential to his own career, in that he would afterward be cast in many similar how powered business man roles, despite apparently being suggested as being wrong for the part, by some before he was cast.
This performance's influence creates an interesting effect I think because for one I think on viewing this performance after seeing some of his later similar performance, unfortunately takes away the fact that this was an actual a leap of sorts for Douglas in portraying Gekko, and that he does succeed incredibly well in the role, and he is in fact instantly believable as the very powerful businessman Gekko.
Michael Douglas from his first scene he appears as completely in control of his whole business, and Douglas shows that there never is a question of Gekko's sway and power because of Douglas. He personifies the fast moving, quick acting, never stopping corporate manipulator without fault. Douglas simply is the part, Douglas simply is Gekko.
Douglas has the perfect sway in the role, and his basic seduction of Bud into performing illegal deeds for him is convincing, because Douglas has the right charisma, even if a slimy charisma, a perfectly used slimy charisma. Douglas shows his charisma best though in his big "Greed is good" speech, which Douglas has that perfect confidence and dominance, that makes his speech so completely effective.
Stone is not a particularly subtle director or writer, and tends to make his points very obvious, and well to the point, therefore Gekko is pretty simply just evil, doing anything possible to get more money, and make every corporate deal go just his way. Douglas therefore is not allowed all that more development from Gekko besides his evil ways and methods.
Douglas nonetheless gives an effective villainous performance. He makes Gekko's abilities clear, and makes him someone easy to hate. Gekko's eventual defeat near end of the film, is made all the more satisfying because of this though. Douglas portrays Gekko fall well enough, and shows his loss of his control and confidence just as well as he showed it. This is technically a good portrayal of the character, although a performance I more of admit that it is good, than one I really love.
Michael Douglas is not the true lead in this film, Charlie Sheen is, but he is the most dominating presence of the film, and I would still consider him lead because of that reason. Douglas' performance is a rather influential to his own career, in that he would afterward be cast in many similar how powered business man roles, despite apparently being suggested as being wrong for the part, by some before he was cast.
This performance's influence creates an interesting effect I think because for one I think on viewing this performance after seeing some of his later similar performance, unfortunately takes away the fact that this was an actual a leap of sorts for Douglas in portraying Gekko, and that he does succeed incredibly well in the role, and he is in fact instantly believable as the very powerful businessman Gekko.
Michael Douglas from his first scene he appears as completely in control of his whole business, and Douglas shows that there never is a question of Gekko's sway and power because of Douglas. He personifies the fast moving, quick acting, never stopping corporate manipulator without fault. Douglas simply is the part, Douglas simply is Gekko.
Douglas has the perfect sway in the role, and his basic seduction of Bud into performing illegal deeds for him is convincing, because Douglas has the right charisma, even if a slimy charisma, a perfectly used slimy charisma. Douglas shows his charisma best though in his big "Greed is good" speech, which Douglas has that perfect confidence and dominance, that makes his speech so completely effective.
Stone is not a particularly subtle director or writer, and tends to make his points very obvious, and well to the point, therefore Gekko is pretty simply just evil, doing anything possible to get more money, and make every corporate deal go just his way. Douglas therefore is not allowed all that more development from Gekko besides his evil ways and methods.
Douglas nonetheless gives an effective villainous performance. He makes Gekko's abilities clear, and makes him someone easy to hate. Gekko's eventual defeat near end of the film, is made all the more satisfying because of this though. Douglas portrays Gekko fall well enough, and shows his loss of his control and confidence just as well as he showed it. This is technically a good portrayal of the character, although a performance I more of admit that it is good, than one I really love.
Best Actor 1987: William Hurt in Broadcast News
William Hurt received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Tom Grunick in Broadcast News.
Broadcast News is a rather 80's film about hard working news producers Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), and two television reporters who are also her potential suitors the good reporter, but lacking in charisma Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks), and the less able reporter but charismatic Tom.
William Hurt does a surprisingly little amount as Tom actually, since Tom is an exceedingly non too bright man, who gets by almost solely on his charisma. The biggest aspect of Tom, beyond this that Hurt explores is his lack of self-respect, which he lacks at the beginning of the film due to his lacking ability as a reporter. Hurt does present Tom's lack of respect well enough, and displays his yearn to learn how to actually report well enough. Hurt has the proper earnestness, in his portrayal, linked with his lacking confidence. This aspect of Tom goes away rather quickly once he gains the confidence though.
After that Hurt performance almost is entirely based on presenting Tom's charisma. Hurt is actually good at this, and he certainly is believable as the slick anchorman. Hurt has the right manner, and way that certainly is just like that of an actual news anchor. He is also equally believable in his relationship with Holly Hunter, as she falls for him rather easily, but Hurt is properly believable to make their relationship to be realistic. Their relationship is rather simple, but Hurt knows how to play it, showing how his charisma is simply just a dominating factor.
After his charisma there is not all that much to Hurt's character, or Hurt's portrayal becuase of that. Hurt takes what there is and gives a proper portrayal, but that just never amounts to all that much. I think his performance is also harmed a little by the end of the film, where they makes his character basically become a sort of a bad guy, who completely rejects any notion of reporting. I really think his turnaround as a character at the end, to becoming a completely shallow person, really went against a bit, by some of his earnestness he showed beforehand, but I really blame this on the script more than Hurt's performance. Hurt's performance though is still fine, but never all that interesting.
William Hurt does a surprisingly little amount as Tom actually, since Tom is an exceedingly non too bright man, who gets by almost solely on his charisma. The biggest aspect of Tom, beyond this that Hurt explores is his lack of self-respect, which he lacks at the beginning of the film due to his lacking ability as a reporter. Hurt does present Tom's lack of respect well enough, and displays his yearn to learn how to actually report well enough. Hurt has the proper earnestness, in his portrayal, linked with his lacking confidence. This aspect of Tom goes away rather quickly once he gains the confidence though.
After that Hurt performance almost is entirely based on presenting Tom's charisma. Hurt is actually good at this, and he certainly is believable as the slick anchorman. Hurt has the right manner, and way that certainly is just like that of an actual news anchor. He is also equally believable in his relationship with Holly Hunter, as she falls for him rather easily, but Hurt is properly believable to make their relationship to be realistic. Their relationship is rather simple, but Hurt knows how to play it, showing how his charisma is simply just a dominating factor.
After his charisma there is not all that much to Hurt's character, or Hurt's portrayal becuase of that. Hurt takes what there is and gives a proper portrayal, but that just never amounts to all that much. I think his performance is also harmed a little by the end of the film, where they makes his character basically become a sort of a bad guy, who completely rejects any notion of reporting. I really think his turnaround as a character at the end, to becoming a completely shallow person, really went against a bit, by some of his earnestness he showed beforehand, but I really blame this on the script more than Hurt's performance. Hurt's performance though is still fine, but never all that interesting.
Best Actor 1987: Jack Nicholson in Ironweed
Jack Nicholson received his ninth Oscar nomination for portraying Francis Phelan in Ironweed.
Ironweed is an effective haunting film about an alcoholic homeless man during the depression drifting through life, as well as remembering his past.
Jack Nicholson's performance in the film, is one of his quietest performances really. He never has uses any of his Nicholson trademarks in this film, instead portrays Francis as a truly downtrodden character, who Nicholson always shows to really have the good life taken out him completely from his hardships he has faced in his life as a homeless man.
Francis though was not always a homeless man, and only became one due to his incredible guilt he faced after accidentally dropping his infant son, causing his son to die. This is all learned in a single scene where Francis visits his sons grave, and Nicholson makes this scene one of the best scenes in his entire career. As Francis talks to his son, he shows all his guilt, he has had over his son, and his complete sense of loss, Nicholson in this one scene is heartbreaking, with his entirely honest portrayal of Francis' grief.
Francis spends much of the film simply drifting from place to place, doing small jobs to get money, and get another drink. Nicholson is extremely good in showing just how long Francis has been in this state, of going from meal to meal, drink to drink, from shabby place to sleep to shabby place to sleep. Nicholson shows the complete truthful history of the man, in just the way he walks, and acts that clearly shows the weight on Francis' shoulders brought on by the past.
Nicholson portrays Francis' alcoholism brilliantly, in that he does not show it that he merely has to drink, but rather he has to drink to hide the real emotions, and reality of his life. Nicholson is very good because he never tries for a moment to show off with this aspect of Francis, instead he shows it as a distinct facet of what Francis who he is currently, but not the only aspect of Francis. Nicholson who portrays the alcoholism any manner of its effect on Francis, is so incredibly subtle, it simply is outstanding the way Nicholson presents it.
Francis is forced to face his past even more completely when ghosts from his past are walking and talking on the streets to him just like the normal people. The ghosts work surprisingly well in the film, and feel completely natural to the entire tone of the film, and I think part of the reason why they work so well, is because of Nicholson's performance. Nicholson makes them believable because he shows that they are deeply part of his mind. Nicholson presents them as a deep pain within Francis, that he cannot forget.
His relationship with Meryl Streep's character Helen is rather interesting, because it is not much of a love relationship, although there is perhaps a little of that, but more of a mutual partnership due to their mutual desperation. It most certianly is not a loving relationship, but the little tenderness infused by both actors makes that all the special. It is fascinating though because Nicholson shows the right anger in Francis toward her for trying to cling to her high class background, but still shows compassion of sorts with her, as it is his duty. Nicholson finds the perfect tone in the relationship to make true to life.
His real love relationship though is shown when he goes and sees his wife Annie (Carroll Baker), and family after so many years. Their relationship is one that is just incredible to watch, because Annie does not blame Francis, nor is she better towards him, instead she is incredibly warm to him. Nicholson contrasts her forgiving nature by showing that Francis just is unable to get over his own past, to even be able to except her forgiveness, although he still clearly loves her, as she loves him, but Nicholson shows that Francis is much to haunted to be able to stay with her for a happy life.
The manner in which he reaches his final moments though, where perhaps Francis finally is able to truly face his past, is flawlessly portrayed by Nicholson. This is simply one of Jack Nicholson's best performance his journey as Francis is an incredible one to follow because of Nicholson pitch perfect manner. Nicholson never visibly seeks to gain empathy, yet he gains a enormous amount in his portrayal. It is an incredible heartbreaking performance, a true honest portrait of a broken down man that is very hard to forget.
Jack Nicholson's performance in the film, is one of his quietest performances really. He never has uses any of his Nicholson trademarks in this film, instead portrays Francis as a truly downtrodden character, who Nicholson always shows to really have the good life taken out him completely from his hardships he has faced in his life as a homeless man.
Francis though was not always a homeless man, and only became one due to his incredible guilt he faced after accidentally dropping his infant son, causing his son to die. This is all learned in a single scene where Francis visits his sons grave, and Nicholson makes this scene one of the best scenes in his entire career. As Francis talks to his son, he shows all his guilt, he has had over his son, and his complete sense of loss, Nicholson in this one scene is heartbreaking, with his entirely honest portrayal of Francis' grief.
Francis spends much of the film simply drifting from place to place, doing small jobs to get money, and get another drink. Nicholson is extremely good in showing just how long Francis has been in this state, of going from meal to meal, drink to drink, from shabby place to sleep to shabby place to sleep. Nicholson shows the complete truthful history of the man, in just the way he walks, and acts that clearly shows the weight on Francis' shoulders brought on by the past.
Nicholson portrays Francis' alcoholism brilliantly, in that he does not show it that he merely has to drink, but rather he has to drink to hide the real emotions, and reality of his life. Nicholson is very good because he never tries for a moment to show off with this aspect of Francis, instead he shows it as a distinct facet of what Francis who he is currently, but not the only aspect of Francis. Nicholson who portrays the alcoholism any manner of its effect on Francis, is so incredibly subtle, it simply is outstanding the way Nicholson presents it.
Francis is forced to face his past even more completely when ghosts from his past are walking and talking on the streets to him just like the normal people. The ghosts work surprisingly well in the film, and feel completely natural to the entire tone of the film, and I think part of the reason why they work so well, is because of Nicholson's performance. Nicholson makes them believable because he shows that they are deeply part of his mind. Nicholson presents them as a deep pain within Francis, that he cannot forget.
His relationship with Meryl Streep's character Helen is rather interesting, because it is not much of a love relationship, although there is perhaps a little of that, but more of a mutual partnership due to their mutual desperation. It most certianly is not a loving relationship, but the little tenderness infused by both actors makes that all the special. It is fascinating though because Nicholson shows the right anger in Francis toward her for trying to cling to her high class background, but still shows compassion of sorts with her, as it is his duty. Nicholson finds the perfect tone in the relationship to make true to life.
His real love relationship though is shown when he goes and sees his wife Annie (Carroll Baker), and family after so many years. Their relationship is one that is just incredible to watch, because Annie does not blame Francis, nor is she better towards him, instead she is incredibly warm to him. Nicholson contrasts her forgiving nature by showing that Francis just is unable to get over his own past, to even be able to except her forgiveness, although he still clearly loves her, as she loves him, but Nicholson shows that Francis is much to haunted to be able to stay with her for a happy life.
The manner in which he reaches his final moments though, where perhaps Francis finally is able to truly face his past, is flawlessly portrayed by Nicholson. This is simply one of Jack Nicholson's best performance his journey as Francis is an incredible one to follow because of Nicholson pitch perfect manner. Nicholson never visibly seeks to gain empathy, yet he gains a enormous amount in his portrayal. It is an incredible heartbreaking performance, a true honest portrait of a broken down man that is very hard to forget.
Best Actor 1987
William Hurt in Broadcast News
Marcello Mastroianni in Dark Eyes
Michael Douglas in Wall Street
Robin Williams in Good Morning Vietnam
Jack Nicholson in Ironweed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
