Best Actor 1956: Results

5. Yul Brynner in The King and I- Brynner gives a odd performance that is strange in almost every aspect, his acting, his chemistry with Deborah Kerr, his singing, the only thing that is not strange is his dancing I guess.

4. Rock Hudson in Giant- Hudson gives a good performance throughout Giant. His character is a steadfast character, but Hudson is interesting to watch and makes himself interesting despite the simple nature of his  character sometimes.

3. James Dean in Giant- Dean is incredibly good in the first moment making the most out of his character, in a compelling performance that only Dean could give. His second shorter half as the rich oil man, does not quite work for me. He was slimy I suppose but I was not convinced at all by the character later. Hudson and Taylor aged properly but I actually think Dean was incapable of really aging.

2. 1. Laurence Olivier in Richard III, and Kirk Douglas in Lust For Life- Good prediction Dinastzie These top two performers are both absolutely brilliant. They both take incredibly complicated and challenging characters and bring them to life brilliantly. They excel in everything facet of their performance, both use their whole physical presence to fully realize their character. Douglas's Van Gogh, and Olivier's Richard III are both perfect performance the two could not swap roles both are perfect for the roles and in the roles. I think both are equal roles, and performances, neither tops the other in any aspect they both brilliant, how could these two performances lose to Brynner is beyond me. If I was forced to vote for one I would go with Douglas because I have already voted for Olivier twice. But by strange Oscar logic I should get one best actor tie since there was one tie in the field.

Deserving Performances:John Wayne in The Searchers

Best Actor 1956: Yul Brynner in The King and I

Yul Brynner won his Oscar from his only nomination for portraying the King Mongkut of Siam in The King and I.

The King and I is a weird musical to say the least, in both its story, and its odd pacing and tonal shifts. Especially involving the subplot about the King and one of his brides that gets rather dark at the end.

Brynner's performance as the King is an odd story of extreme success.  He won this Oscar and a Tony for his performance, and he portrayed the King over 4000 times on stage. I guess there must be something about his performance here that struck many people incredibly well even if in terms of normal acting it seems rather odd to me anyways. His performance is strange in his semi comic way of acting throughout the film. He tells people what to do with his snap, and his strange way of speaking in this movie, no I do not mean his accent. His whole style of speaking is strange, and I never say anything all that interesting about his performance it was just simply odd.

His chemistry with Deborah Kerr is odd, the way the King carries himself around his court is very odd. The way he talks with his children, his wives, or when he talks to Kerr is bizarre. I have no idea what he was doing in the performance, all I know is it does not work. He does not really have presence, or all that much charisma in his performance, nor does he make the King either interesting or entertaining. His singing is also very odd too, I suppose his dancing is not really odd but that is about it. I actually do like Brynner as an actor in other films besides this, but this film his performance oddly theatrical. I suppose he knew what he was doing though since he won an Oscar for it, but I think he was in fact much better in both Anastasia, and especially the Ten Commandments both from the same year.

Best Actor 1956

And The Nominees Were:

Rock Hudson in Giant

James Dean in Giant

Yul Brynner in The King and I

Kirk Douglas in Lust For Life

Laurence Olivier in Richard III

So who do you pick, and predict? The ranch owner turned oil man, the ranch hand turned oil man, the king who sings, the artist who screams, or the king who schemes.