Alternate Best Actor 1965: Results

5. Michael Caine in The Ipcress File- Caine uses his unique screen presence and on screen marvelously here to make Harry Palmer a down to earth, and very likable hero.

4. Omar Sharif in Doctor Zhivago-This really is not the usual performance for an epic, but Sharif makes the most of his character and successfully carries the film.

3. Lee Van Cleef in For A Few Dollars More-  It is a performance of quiet simplicity, and in this simplicity is where the incredible strength of this performance lies.

2. Sean Connery in The Hill- This is an excellent showcase of Connery's talent as he not only utilizes his more commonly found command of the screen, but as well effectively shows us that he is fully capable of creating an emotionally resonate character portrait.

1. Terence Stamp in The Collector-This is a great performance by Stamp as both a humane portrait of a lonely man, but at the same time a convincing portrayal of a man who seems to prefer the dead over the living. This is again an incredible year, and again Stamp wins for now but Connery, Steiger, and Burton are not far behind.

Overall Rank:

1. Terence Stamp in The Collector
2. Richard Burton in The Spy Who Came in From The Cold
3. Rod Steiger in The Pawnbroker
4. Sean Connery in The Hill
5. Lee Van Cleef in For A Few Dollars More
6. Omar Sharif in Doctor Zhivago
7. Oskar Werner in Ship of Fools
8. Michael Caine in The Ipcress File
9. Frank Sinatra in Von Ryan's Express
10. Laurence Olivier in Othello
11. James Stewart in The Flight of the Phoenix
12. Lee Marvin in Cat Ballou
13. Clint Eastwood in For A Few Dollars More
14. Sean Connery in Thunderball
15. Frank Finlay in Othello
16. Jason Robards in A Thousand Clowns

Next Year: 2011

Alternate Best Actor 1965: Terence Stamp in The Collector

Terence Stamp did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Freddie Clegg in The Collector.

The Collector is a brilliant film about a man who kidnaps a woman and brings her to his secluded and spacious home.

Terence Stamp did not receive an Oscar nomination despite the fact the film did receive a best director nomination as well as a nomination for Samantha Eggar as Miranda Grey the woman whom Stamp's character kidnaps. Stamp though found himself not nominated despite winning Cannes for Best actor. Stamp may have felled victim to the fact that he portrayed a villain although to be fair they were never completely opposed to all kinds of villains, but perhaps this was one of the kinds they did not feel like they could support. Also even though Stamp had been nominated before for Billy Budd he has been nominated in the supporting category for a lead performance, and the academy may have been reluctant to nominate the young Stamp for a leading performance.

Stamp portrays Freddie Clegg a young man who has won a great deal of money suddenly and chooses to use it to buy a secluded estate. He is a lonely man without friends who decided to use his estate that includes a underground living space to kidnap a woman. He decides to kidnap Miranda despite hesitations, but his intents are not the usual for a kidnapper. He has no desires for random, nor does he desire sexual favors, nor does he want to hurt her in anyway, all he wants her for really is company. Freddie is a very different sort of captor to be sure, as the holding her captive is the only thing Freddie does that is wrong. Stamp therefore does not portray Freddie as many may have portrayed him.

Firstly Stamp really never tries to be actively villainous in the role, and early on he tries to be likable. Stamp of course shows absolutely no real charm here, as Freddie has not idea how to be a charming man, but in his first scene with Eggar Stamp actually makes Freddie in a way sympathetic. It is a particularly difficult act of making such a man at all sympathetic but Stamp manages to meet the challenge. Freddie first tells Miranda of his purpose for bringing her to his place, and that he in fact loves her, and has loved her for quite some time. Stamp is amazing here because he shows that this obsession of Freddie's is entirely genuine, and that his claims of no ill will are entirely truthful.

Stamp actually is almost heart breaking in his portrayal of Freddie because he never tries to make him seem at all evil. He makes him a sad lonely person who is not a psychopath but rather he shows that his shyness has created this sort of mental disturbance in him that has brought him to kidnap this woman. Stamp is interesting because even in the presence of her he shows that Freddie's shyness is still overwhelming. His body language is always withdrawn, and he always conveys the difficultly that it takes just for Freddie to look at her in the eye and say something. When he says that he loves her, Stamp creates a struggle within Freddie just to get those words out.

Of course the most important aspect of the film is the relationship between the two and how their dynamic changes through time. While Eggar's Miranda at first shows excitement over Freddie's agreement to let her go after a limited amount of time in captivity, Stamp though portrays Freddie as very much reluctant to really try to connect with Miranda as his shyness really is overwhelming. Stamp shows that he desperately wants Miranda to be the one to connect with him, as he really is unable to connect with him. Stamp in fact makes Freddie so distant that at times he almost seems like a butler to her, even though he happens to be the hone holding her captive.

Now although Stamp does not portray Freddie ever in an obvious fashion, and because of that he is truly chilling when Freddie's refusal to let her leave does come out. There are moments early on in between when he is trying to be the most pleasant man he can be when he does show the mental disturbance of the man that is quite horrifying. Stamp does it so casually that it is especially disconcerting because it will come out right along with just a pleasantry. Stamp in these moments though is precise showing that Freddie has it all extremely well planned out, and as well shows a more frightening side to Freddie because Stamp makes Freddie's self assurance something to be feared.

Although certain in his abilities regarding keeping her in his home, what is equally off putting about him though is the uncertainty he portrays regarding his relationship with Eggar. Stamp is simply amazing in showing the jumble of emotions that Freddie feels in a completely coherent way, as he desperately attempts to connect with but he can't do so with more than words. Even when he asks her to marry her, Stamp portrays it as a desperate plea to find some sort of remedy for his loneliness. Stamp though is incredible because the statement of Freddie he actually ends with is that Freddie does not know what he wants.

In many scenes Miranda tries to persuade Freddie that he could get along with her even outside of this world that he has created for them, but he insists that he would never be able to. It is a sharp desperate self doubt that he holds as a constant, Stamp shows that Freddie himself is pained because he knows that he can never be normal. Freddie contradicts himself, but Stamp makes it work as Freddie never can interact with humans the way he really would like, and one scene in particular Stamp powerfully shows this strange dichotomy.

In one moment after rendering Miranda unconscious Freddie clutches Miranda in a joy of love, which Stamp portrays as Freddie at his happiest finally having what he wants. Soon afterward though Miranda in a desperate act to satiate Freddie offers herself to him. Stamp is chilling as he shows Freddie cruel rejection of her, as her living embrace can never meet the joy he felt in her unconscious one. Stamp is simply stunning in the role because of how perfectly he realizes the insanity behind Freddie's desires. He never has Freddie find what he is looking for leaving him in the state of an uncertain emotional need, but never an understanding. Miranda in the end is apparently not what he wanted after all, and Stamp leaves a exceedingly memorable impression with the simple revelation that Freddie learns nothing at all from his relationship with her. This is a great performance by Stamp as both a humane portrait of a lonely man, but at the same time a convincing portrayal of a man who seems to prefer the dead over the living.

Alternate Best Actor 1965: Lee Van Cleef in For A Few Dollars More

Lee Van Cleef did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Colonel Douglas Mortimer in For A Few Dollars More.

For A Few Dollars More is the second part to the excellent dollars trilogy by Sergio Leone. This one depicts Clint Eastwood this time called Manco who is a bounty hunter who teams up with another bounty hunter to take down the crazed bandit Indio (Gian Maria Volonté) and his gang after they have robbed a bank.

Lee Van Cleef portrays Colonel Mortimer the other bounty hunter who I consider lead with Eastwood as the film at first follows both their exploits separately but equally, and after they team up they both stay important to the story. Van Cleef's Mortimer perhaps is even more important due to the fact the film tells anything about the past of his character something that is left as a complete mystery in regards to Eastwood's Manco. Lee Van Cleef before appearing in this film was in a few westerns, notable ones even like High Noon and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, but in both of those films despite having a given name his characters were no more than thug number two. Here though Cleef honestly has a role, and is given the chance to shine as an actor.

Lee Van Cleef is actually the first of the two actors to appear, and for me makes an even greater impression than Eastwood does. Both are shown on a job as a bounty hunter basically just to show us how much of a badass each of the characters are. Lee Van Cleef is even better than Eastwood at being one here, and Eastwood might as well as the badass king. Van Cleef is cool and collected in the film, showing the ease of his character's ability to kill. In the first scene of him going after a man Van Cleef shows that Mortimer moves through to his job with an ease, and unquestionable confidence. It is an absolutely earned confidence by Van Cleef, there is not a moment where Mortimer seems pompous, Van Cleef makes it clear that Mortimer is just simply that good.

It simply is just enjoyable to watch Lee Van Cleef as Mortimer maneuver his way through eventually dealing with the group of bank robbers. Cleef makes a particular sort of hero here with his firm precise method of walking, his always squinting eyes that seems to see through anything, and ease he seems to show in any situation. Really when he is not talking to Manco Mortimer says very little, but Cleef again speaks only with precision and just the right degree of gentlemanly demeanor that suggests his past as a proper soldier. There is a bit humor, and always a quiet power in Van Cleef's portrayal that makes everything that the colonel does believable. Even when he does something that no sane man would do such as lighting a match on Klaus Kinski, I doubt even Werner Herzog would do that, is made convincing through Van Cleef's steadfast performance.

Now although Lee Van Cleef is very consistent with his performance as the strong willed Mortimer there are little indications throughout the film that show that Mortimer may be in the fight for more reasons that just the money. These are relatively small moments for most of the film, but Van Cleef portrays each of them marvelously. Lee Van Cleef of course does not really show that there is any sort of weakness in Mortimer, the strength and cunning of the character really are his primary trait. He does not show that there is more to the man that just being a professional killer. It is quite well hidden pain, but Van Cleef lets in just enough that there is something that haunts him over something that he has lost in his past.

The very best moment of his performance comes in the very best part of any Sergio Leone western which is the final duel which is in this film is between Mortimer and Indio. Before this moment Van Cleef subtly suggested through glances in Mortimer's earlier scenes with Indio that there was something more, but here it really comes out as a deadly want of vengeance. Van Cleef is amazing here because it is not just anger in his eyes as he looks at Indio as they prepare to kill one another, but there is a sadness in his eyes as well. This is not a sadness over the fact that he possibly could be killed, but rather Van Cleef effectively shows it to be the feelings over his past devastation over the death of his sister which Indio caused. He does not make it as a debilitating factor though, but instead makes it as the driving factor in his will to win the duel. Although this is not the type of performance usually associated with great acting, but it simply is nevertheless. It is a performance of quiet simplicity, and in this simplicity is where the incredible strength of this performance lies.

Alternate Best Actor 1965: Omar Sharif in Doctor Zhivago

Omar Sharif did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Dr. Yuri Andreyevich Zhivago the titular character of Doctor Zhivago.

Doctor Zhivago is the excellent follow up by David Lean to Lawrence of Arabia. This film certainly differs in many ways from that film the biggest being the lead character. In Lawrence of Arabia the main character of T.E. Lawrence absolutely controlled the film, and as made the world notice his extraordinary measures. Doctor Zhivago on the other hand though is not a particularly active individual being a man who is most acted upon. He does not change the course of Russia, he in fact can barely control his own existence and is forced to move along with the changes of Russia. Also I suppose I should note that unlike O'Toole Sharif was not nominated for his leading role despite winning the golden globe.

Omar Sharif has a difficult task which is to carry this over three hour long epic on his shoulders even with his character being only the most common man at times. Sharif really takes this fact in stride though, and does not try to be anything more than what Zhivago should be. Funny enough originally Peter O'Toole was the first choice to portray Zhivago, and the fact that O'Toole turned it down was certainly a good thing. One characteristic that seems clear in Zhivago is meekness, and if there is one thing that Peter O'Toole most certainly is not is meek. Sharif though never tries to be more than what Zhivago should be and makes the most of his character despite being such a meek man.

Omar Sharif gives a very understated performance in the lead role that stresses the fact that Zhivago is not an extraordinary man by any measure. Rather just a man trying to live his life particularly early on in the film as he goes through what is expected of him marrying the woman he was posed to marrying finding a properly supportive profession as a doctor, even though he desires to be remembered as a poet, and watching all the events around him only as an observer. Sharif is very good at being this average man because he so honestly portrays the part. He does not try to fancy up what does not need to be, there is a life in this man, but only really a life that desires to live not much more than that.

Sharif effectively reflects a successful, but in many ways, average man when it comes to viewing the changes in Russia that come from the revolution. Sharif shows his reactions, at least at first, to be mostly astonishment at what is going on around as Yuri's interest never really is the revolution at hand. He just is a bystander and he only reacts to the various occurrences taking place in Russia never once taking action to implement any sort of change. When he faced with losing most of his house to revolutionary changes he acts almost slight bemusement at the idea, Sharif showing that Yuri is quite good in taking it in stride at first. The changes do slowly wear on him such as when the state takes more and more of him.

Sharif is good in showing the way that even a man who tries to take things for the best even at the worst can't  deal with the suffering caused by all of the traumatic events in Russia. Sharif still does not show that Yuri changes his nature by any means he is still he same modest man, but there is a growing sadness is in performance. It is all very low key and mostly involves small quiet gestures by Sharif, but he is quite effective as showing the emotions of a sane man in an insane world. For example his scene with Tom Courtenay's Strelnikov, Courtenay of course is electrifying in the scene with his intense depiction of the dehumanization of a man, but Sharif is just as important in showing the completely human and heartbreaking reaction as he shows Yuri's sadness and disbelief over the change in the man.

Of course I should mention that a pivotal part of the film is the central love story between Yuri and Laura (Julie Christie). Now Sharif here is quite excellent as he builds up the love of Yuri, and again Sharif does not overplay this. Early in the film he is good as we see him notice her, and Sharif conveys an unshakable feeling for the woman who Yuri does not even know who she is. Of course they do meet, and Sharif is very good in showing the love that slowly grows with him. He never comes out with it obviously, and at first they do not act upon since they are both married. Even when they finally do have an affair Sharif still stays true to the character, and leaves much unsaid. Sharif and Christie make their relationship something special because both stay subtle and make it far more truthful than if they had conveyed the emotions in a broader fashion.

It would have been very easy for many actors to try and portray the character in a different more constantly active, and could frankly have been trying to steal scenes away from the likes of Rod Steiger and Tom Courtenay. That would have been the wrong approach though. In one scene in the film Zhivago states that he would rather just live life rather than try to be the surgeon for the world, and that is very much Sharif's portrayal. He does not try to control any scene of the film with his performance, but rather he stands firm in his realistic portrayal of an ordinary man in an extraordinary situation. This really is not the usual performance for an epic, but Sharif makes the most of his character and successfully carries the film.

Alternate Best Actor 1965: Sean Connery in The Hill

Sean Connery did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Joe Roberts in The Hill.

The Hill is an excellent film about the inner workings of a British Army Prison in the middle of the desert which has many internal disruptions after one of the prisoners recently brought in has died due to punishment.

The fact that Sean Connery received no awards interest for this film is no surprise. He was James Bond at the time simple as that, and it would take a long time for him to be separated from the character, and even longer for the academy to bother recognize him. Also he was not helped by the fact that The Hill, although recognized other places, was completely ignored by the academy. This is completely absurd of course because this is a great film, infinitely better than A Thousand Clowns, and for the academy not even to recognize Harry Andrews who won The NBR for Supporting actor, shows the Hill to be one of the biggest oversights by the academy.

Sean Connery portrays one of the prisoners of the camp Joe Roberts who was a former Sergeant Major. He is very different than the rest of the prisoners who are there for theft, going awol, or some other petty military crime, Roberts there is for punching an officer after refusing to send his men into a surely fatal mission. Roberts also was a successful career soldier and his fall from grace was sudden. Connery is perfect for the role of the once completely loyal soldier. Connery shows early on that he is not the same as the rest of the men, and his stance, and look shows us Roberts's history before coming to the prison.

Connery is great here because he still does keep much of what a career soldier who have from his very proper posture to his ability to carry out the orders, but there is something very different about him that shows how he fell out of favor. Roberts is in rebellion of what he has once served so faithfully, but it is not from laziness or cowardice but from his own sense of right and wrong. Connery does not portray this anger as some random notion that has just suddenly come from nowhere, but rather it was a slow realization of the all of the problems with the military that he has suffered from for far too long.

Something very interesting that Connery does with the role is show that the same conviction that he would have had as a soldier carries right over to his attacks against the system he was once part of. This is a very different role for Connery in that he is always a captive in the film, and Roberts does not fight his way out the situation rather he thinks his way out of it. Connery same power of his presence that he used in his roles as a action hero like James Bond is also quite presence here as he has the same if not greater conviction in his performance here as the hero who has to use his wits instead of his fists to win the day.

Now I almost considered putting Connery in supporting since so much time is given to so many characters in this film, which is part of what makes it such a strong film, but I still do believe Connery is lead even though he might not even have the most screen time in the film. The reason for this is Roberts still is the driving part of the film, and is the one who moves the story forward. Although technically speaking the problems begin due to the death of one the prisoners Stephens (Alfred Lynch) caused by the brutal treatment of the sadistic Staff Sergeant Williams (Ian Hendry), it is Roberts who makes sure that Stephens's death will not mean nothing.

Before the death though Connery is excellent in showing exactly how Roberts will not stand for the cowardly Williams. He makes it clear that here Roberts only has hatred for the utterly horrendous human being that is Williams. The strength is within Connery's eyes here showing that Roberts will not suffer the fool of Williams no matter what, and there is always a quiet rebellion going on. Connery is excellent in portraying the intelligence of Roberts. Roberts has easily surmised exactly who Williams is and what his plan of attack on the prisoners is, and Connery never leaves any question to Roberts's strength that continues in the prison.

Connery is particularly superb though in the moment in which he describes the details of Roberts's cowardice charge and the reasoning behind his attack on his superior. What is notable here is that there is no passion in his portrayal, but rather a very sad cynicism. He does not infuse his action with any pride, not because he thinks he was wrong, but rather Connery instead shows that Roberts has made the heartbreaking discovery that despite his fervent attempts to save his men from a suicide mission, that it meant absolutely nothing in the long wrong as they still all died after someone else lead them in anyway.

Connery conveys though that his earlier experience is what sparks his passion to see that justice is done over the death of his fellow prisoner. Roberts finds his own punishment for speaking out, and in his scenes of pushing for justice most of it is speaking retching in pain over a beating he has been given. Connery is excellent here particularly in his scene where he confronts the Regimental Sergeant Major Wilson (Harry Andrews the head of the guards over the death. What is special here is Connery does not convey only anger here like he does in his scenes with Hendry, since Williams is a sadist and Wilson genuinely thinks his helping the men through his harsh treatment.

In his scene where he goes head to head with Wilson though is amazing as Connery shows Roberts basically fall apart in his frustrations over the failures of the code. This is a very different side to Connery here, but he is completely convincing as he shows that really Roberts feels that his whole life has been a falsehood because of the failure of the code he spent most of his life going by. It is an incredible scene because he combines not only his pain he is constantly feeling over his severe beating, but as well his despairing feelings toward the only thing that he has known for his entire life.

The late scenes though are possibly his best as Roberts lies wounded on the floor, but still uses his considerable will to prod the few good men of the prison to do the right thing. Connery through his very quiet portrayal here is superb as he brings to life the fierce determination of Roberts. There is nothing but power in his portrayal as he shows that no matter what Roberts will see justice done. He makes the sheer force of will of Roberts in this scene absolutely come to life, and makes his ability to bring the best out of the men completely believable. This is an excellent showcase of Connery's talent as he not only utilizes his more commonly found command of the screen, but as well effectively shows us that he is fully capable of creating an emotionally resonate character portrait.

Alternate Best Actor 1965: Michael Caine in The Ipcress File

Michael Caine did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Harry Palmer for the first time in The Ipcress File.

The Ipcress File is an effective spy thriller about a spy trying to undercover a strange kidnapping and mind wiping plot.

The 60's was a popular time for spy films and 1965 had several of them three particularly notable ones though that show very different depiction of being a spy. There was of course the very romantic one found in Thunderball, and the extremely cynical and pessimistic depiction found in The Spy Who Came in From The Cold. The Ipcress File is somewhere in between the two. The Ipcress File stresses far less entertaining of spy life like routine surveillance as well as a mundane living, but there is still some humor found here unlike the insistent double crosses and dirty dealings found in The Spy Who Came in From Cold.

Caine portrayal of Palmer is also somewhere in between Sean Connery depiction of James Bond, and Richard Burton's depiction of Alec Leamas as well. Just like Connery's Bond there is an enthusiasm here that he puts into his job vigorously, and there are times where he does seem to enjoy his job. He though is not entirely different than Alex Leamas though either as Palmer still has many tedious duties to deal with lives a relatively humble life, and has a to deal with some of the back room conspiracy although it is not nearly as devious, and therefore does leave Palmer as nearly as much of a embittered man as Burton's Leamas.

Caine is quite good in the role by creating a balanced portrait of this spy. A key feature of Harry Palmer is his sense of humor which also factors into the fact that he tends to be insubordinate as well. Palmer is constantly cracking small jokes to his sometimes quite not amused superiors. Caine takes the right sort of low key approach here that realizes Palmer's sense of humor, but he does not over due it to become an overly comic performance either. Caine has just enough fun with his performance to lighten the mood a bit in the film, but still when more weight is needed for a scene Caine is completely up to the task.

In his performance as Palmer Caine effectively combines the excitement with the tedium that he encounters as a spy. Caine in the moments where Palmer is tracing someone or dealing with something very important he shows a clear conviction that shows Palmer's devotion to his work. Caine is appropriately keen in the role, conveying the intelligence of Palmer. Caine though does not make Harry completely domineering though. Palmer really is not an expert spy, just a good one, and really Caine does well in portraying his frustrations just well as skills. Of course a great deal of the time Palmer is not doing particularly interesting work, and Caine is good in showing that really Palmer uses his humor just to avoid boredom.

Caine stays consistent with his portrayal for most of the film until the very end when Palmer is captured by the enemy and put under mental torture. Naturally Caine loses that charm and poise he had earlier on as he suffers through the physical and psychological strain put upon him in captivity. Caine is strong here as well showing the extreme pain Palmer goes through in trying to resist the programming his captors are trying to embed in him. Although it is relatively fast in the film in showing the process Palmer undergoes, Caine is brings the horror of it to life. Caine is good here because although he shows a strong resolve in Palmer, he also makes it true that Palmer after all is only human.

This is a very good performance by Michael Caine and it is no surprise that this role helped him secure himself as a leading man. This is original and interesting depiction of this spy who is never derivative despite all of spies at the time. Caine uses his unique screen presence and on screen marvelously here to make Harry Palmer a down to earth, and very likable hero. He makes Palmer the relatively average spy who it is far likely we would be, than say James Bond who we would like to be. Although I would say this is not the greatest spy performance of the year, that still goes to Burton, it is an excellent one nevertheless.

Alternate Best Actor 1965

And the Nominees Were Not:

Omar Sharif in Doctor Zhivago

Lee Van Cleef in For A Few Dollars More

Terence Stamp in The Collector

Sean Connery in The Hill

Michael Caine in The Ipcress File