Alternate Best Actor 1988: Results

5. Forest Whitaker in Bird- Whitaker gives a performance that combines the charm and pain of his character well.

4. William Hurt in The Accidental Tourist- Hurt is very strong here by realizing his character's depression while still giving a charming and sometimes humorous performance.

3. John Malkovich in Danger Liaisons- Malkovich takes an unorthodox but effective approach to his womanizer character by stressing the mechanics of the man's method.

2. Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit- Hoskins is terrific in the lead of this film interacting perfectly with the strange cartoon characters throughout the film as well giving an entertaining and sometimes powerful performance entirely on its own as well.

1. Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers- Good Prediction Michael Patison, Mark, and Maciej. Well it should be no surprise to anyone that Jeremy Irons wins this year. Although I liked all these performances Irons stands far and above as the best. He is simply incredible in his portrayal of the twins of his film and their interconnected world. Irons here not only gives one but two great characterizations here finding the subtitles that differentiate the two perfectly as well as creating a fascinating connection between them.  

Overall Rank:

1. Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers
2. Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit
3. Eric Bogosian in Talk Radio
4. John Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons
5. William Hurt in The Accidental Tourist
6. Gene Hackman in Mississippi Burning 
7. Bill Murray in Scrooged
8. Robert De Niro in Midnight Run 
9. Charles Grodin in Midnight Run
10. Forest Whitaker in Bird
11. John Cleese in A Fish Called Wanda 
12. Bruce Willis in Die Hard
13. Jeff Bridges in Tucker A Man and His Dream
14. River Phoenix in Running on Empty
15. Leslie Nielsen in Naked Gun 
16. Tom Cruise in Rain Man
17. Eddie Murphy in Coming to America
18. Derek Jacobi in Little Dorrit
19. Edward James Olmos in Stand and Deliver
20. Kevin Costner in Bull Durham
21. Tom Hanks in Big
22. Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man
23. Emilio Estevez in Young Guns
24. Richard Dreyfuss in Moon Over Parador 
25. Alec Baldwin in Beetle Juice
26. Warwick Davis in Willow
27. Matthew Modine in Married to the Mob
28. Roddy Piper in They Live
29. Clint Eastwood in The Dead Pool
30. Jim Varney in Ernest Saves Christmas

Next Year: 1988 Supporting

Alternate Best Actor 1988: Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Bob Hoskins did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a Golden Globe, for portraying Eddie Valiant in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Ah whatever happened to Robert Zemeckis in the 80's he made two of my favorite films of all time Back to the Future and this film, but now for my money he has not made a good film in over ten years. Anyway Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a great film about a private detective who lives in a world where cartoons are very much living and he finds he must try to prove the innocence of a toon Roger Rabbit who is accused of murder.

Bob Hoskins portrays the private detective Eddie Valiant, and although the film could be taken as largely a director's film with its flawless use of animation with live action, Hoskins's lead performance is essential to the success of the film. In all of the craziness involving evil judges, a cartoon suspect, and even a looney whole town of cartoons there is Hoskins in the middle. Despite the lunacy going on around him Hoskins never does jump into it himself with his performance instead he acts as hard rock center of sanity within the film as Eddie Valliant whom he portrays like he is playing Jake Gittes in Chinatown. Hoskins importantly takes this role very seriously when lesser actors may not have.

In the role of Eddie Valiant Hoskins plays the private detective as a gruff rather cynical man who is honestly a bit of drunk, and not very happy really about anything. Even though one may, wrongly, say Roger Rabbit is a children's film Hoskins treats the part in a wholly adult fashion. Hoskins does a great job of realizing this over the hill formerly great detective who seems in a bit of a path of nothingness after the death of his brother. Of course I should note that Hoskins does mediate the cynicism properly within Eddie, and he does leave the right amount of life into his character to still make Eddie someone we can easily follow through the film noir murder mystery that Eddie ends up getting involved with.

Hoskins is quite terrific here in that he is able to act as a guide for the audience through world well making Eddie a full fledged character in his own right. One way he does this is through the very important reaction shots through film involving the cartoon characters. On one hand Hoskins does well to ground it all a bit in that he shows properly that Valiant has been around the cartoons for quite some time, and in one way he takes the toons as something that has been there done that. He shows correctly always as Eddie Valiant reacting to the toons in the same way he would to a person the toons are always there because Hoskins certainly never second guesses the fact that they are there.

What works so well about this performance though is that Hoskins just as well interacts with the toons as he should in a more lively way when needed as well such as in Jessica Rabbit's musical number or when he finally ends up in toon town. In say the Jessica Rabbit scene Hoskins is just great in his perfect reactions in his surprise and awe in what Jessica Rabbit ends up being. In the toon town sequence Hoskins almost becomes toon himself yet he still in a odd way manages to stay grounded even when reacting towards the toons on their own terms by playing along with some of their acts such as not falling until realizing he is only standing on air. Hoskins has just the right amount of fun without forgetting the character of Eddie Valiant, and even when absurd he keeps his reactions somehow realistic.

One of the most important aspects of the film is Eddie's relationship with the accused toon Roger Rabbit. Hoskins's performance is especially important here because frankly Roger' antics could wear thin extremely quickly but they do not because of Hoskins being the hard rock of cynicism against him. Their chemistry is excellent becuase explicitly does not play Eddie for laughs in any obvious fashion as he keeps Eddie always very much in reality. Hoskins though through his more realistic portrayal though actually gets more laughs by finding just the right tone to reign in the craziness in Roger to make the two a rather endearing duo in the end.

Hoskins is terrific in the way though he does honestly establish the cynicism of Eddie as actually coming from his sadness from his brother's death. The few scenes when the sadness is shown directly such as when he is looking over photographs of his brother, or when he retells the story of the death of his brother Hoskins handles them very powerfully creating the appropriate sympathy and understanding for Eddie despite his gruffness. What is especially compelling about Hoskins portrayal here that he even manages to create the transformation within Eddie at the end when he lightens up frankly. It is fat as he never stops to really show this but Hoskins makes work in a delightful fashion by never being too harsh as Eddie earlier, and in just the right deliberate fashion lightening up throughout the film. This is really fantastic performance by Hoskins not only giving an entertaining performance all by himself, but as well making the world of the film come together through his down to earth portrayal in the middle of it all.

Alternate Best Actor 1988: Forest Whitaker in Bird

Forest Whitaker did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning Cannes and being nominated for a Golden Globe, for portraying Charlie Parker in Bird.

Bird is an okay film but not as compelling as one might want about Jazz saxophonist Charlie Parker's problems with addiction.

This particular film about a musician is rather different from say the newer ones like Ray or Walk the Line which both told the same story of a bizarrely unceremonious rise to fame, than fall into drug addiction followed by recovery by the woman he loves. Bird is different in that Charlie does not recover from his addiction as it does eventually lead to his death. This is very different film as well because we do not really see his fall into his addiction instead his addiction is more of a constant. There are moments where he steers from it partially but he never seems to entirely escape from his problems.

Due to the nature of Parker's story Whitaker does not so much have a character arc but more of a rubber band that goes back fourth. He goes from highs to lows suddenly without all that much notice. Whitaker therefore has to take bit of a scatter shot approach to his performance, which is helped even less since director Clint Eastwood even uses flashbacks giving Whitaker an even greater challenge to really portray Parker effectively. Whitaker does take on the role well actually despite the fact that Charlie Parker constantly jumps back and fourth in his way, and Whitaker actually does find the trouble within the man that causes this.

An important aspect of Whitaker performance is that he portrays Parker as never particularly happy even in the happier scenes of the film. Importantly he does not over do it and just have Parker as a man of depression. There is always a certain sadness in his portrayal though. Whitaker shows Parker as really a man who is unable to really achieve the sort of happiness that would really allow him to ever escape from his addictions. There is always a pain that Whitaker creates in Parker that only reinforces his self destructive behavior and he makes it believable that Parker even after seeming to drop an addiction he would only fall right back into it.

Whitaker despite showing the pain of Parker as a constant does still do well to portray Parker as a charismatic entertainer. He has quite a bit of charm in the role and is convincing in the way so many seem to like Parker so much. Whitaker makes all of it quite natural and creates the sort of presence that Charlie Parker really should have. Whitaker makes Parker a likable man who honestly in many situations can make himself seem like a man who has it entirely together simply through his charms. Whitaker properly shows that both his health and his charm seem to diminish in almost equal measure as the worse off he is the less he seems to want to please.

Whitaker is actually quite good in bringing together the different sides of Bird that come from his moments of terrible addiction to his reprieves of recovery. Whitaker does well in showing the emotional pulls in Parker that make him shift so randomly at times because the one thing that is constant is that underlying pain that Whitaker always properly conveys which propels him to his drugs and alcohol. Although Parker's jumps around in terms of emotional highs and lows Whitaker never makes them feel disconcerting as he does meet the needs of Bird whether he is charming a crowd or loathing himself in a drug addled haze.

Forest Whitaker here gives a good performance as Charlie Parker though it never becomes the powerful tour de force that one want from a depiction of a self destructive man. I do feel this is the fault of the film more that Whitaker which never quite strikes the right chords with the material to make the life of Parker come alive as well as it should. Whitaker realizes Parker as well as this version of the story probably would allow which is an interesting and effective depiction but never as striking as one would think could come from the man considering his life.

Alternate Best Actor 1988: John Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons

John Malkovich did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Vicomte de Valmont in Dangerous Liaisons.

Dangerous Liaisons is a well made film about two aristocrats who revel in horrible games of passion and deceit.

John Malkovich's casting here certainly was a point of contention when the film originally came out with his rather unorthodox appearance. The Valmont is a perpetual and successful womanizer, and it seems many would think Valmont would probably look a little less devious to begin with like perhaps Colin Firth in Valmont for example. The same could be said about his charms as well as Malkovich is not especially suave in the role of Valmont either, and one might think he would need to be to be believed in the amount of conquests he partakes in.

The question is though does Malkovich really need to be traditionally handsome and Clark Gable type charming for the role, and the simple answer is no. What Malkovich expresses most with Valmont here is the method in which Valmont goes upon his sexual expeditions. Malkovich instead of really trying to hide the sliminess that really does make up his character he instead portrays Valmont as a man who very much revels in exactly what he is. There is no shame in his performance and Malkovich very much accentuates the mechanics of his seductions more than anything else with his portrayal of Valmont. 

There are many liaisons we see Valmont having but we only see two seductions portrayed in the film a routine one, and more daring one of Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer) who is known for her virtue. In both Malkovich does not show Valmont as attempting really any charm in fact there is always far more of a strategy at play that utilizes both the gender roles of the time as well as the emotions of the woman in both cases. Malkovich is properly calculated as he shows the strategy of Valmont at all times to the audience well at the same time creating the proper ruse that he uses against the women.

Malkovich's makes Valmont's success with both women very convincing actually in the harsh brutality of his seductions. In the first he creates Valmont's method as making himself a bizarre teacher in a most brutal but believable fashion in his success with her through the uncompromising method that Malkovich portrays it all. In the other more difficult one though Malkovich again makes the strategy of Valmont something very clear as Valmont this time makes himself a haunted lost soul who would kill himself if Tourvel does not take his love.

As strange as his seduction method with Tourvel might sound Malkovich brings it to life through his depiction of Valmont who he portrays as throwing himself fully into his demented game. Malkovich makes the "depression" both fake and real enough that it would move Tourvel as it does. It is a difficult trick to pull but one that Malkovich is able to accomplish without any seeming effort. In doing this Malkovich carefully infuses just the slightest bit of moments that suggests that maybe Valmont is not entirely lying about his pledged love for Tourvel. It is in very subtle moments that are very well handled by Malkovich.

One of the most important aspects of Valmont is his relationship with Marquise de Merteuil (Glenn Close). Through most the film both actors portray theirs as a mutual love of their shared despicable nature and the havoc they cause with their games. This does not really change until the end of the film where Merteuil plays her own game against Valmont as she convinces him to brutally reject Tourvel since she sees that he truly loves her. Malkovich and Close are very effective in the scenes as the truly vile nature of both characters are perfectly created by the actors and we see the full extent of their damage that only hurts other but themselves as well.

Malkovich's final scene as Valmont is terrific as he shows him distraught after finally finding some sort of conscious in himself after all. In his final scene Valmont is fatally wounded by a man (Keanu Reeves) he has harmed and reflects on his behavior. The power of the scene is somewhat muted because Reeves might as well say "Uhh sorry dude I did not mean to stab you so hard" and it would have fit his performance. Forgetting about Reeves though Malkovich is quietly moving though as he shows this time finally an honest Valmont for once as he shows the full extent of his depression and self hatred he has created in himself due to his behavior.

This is a strong performance by John Malkovich in both his unique creation of Valmont as well as his execution of his character. He does well in bringing to life every facet of his manipulative character, and never fails to make his conquests believable. He takes a very different approach than many probably would have with the part as he never avoids the sliminess in character, and never really even tries to hide yet he still makes the story work entirely. It quite an achievement that he is able to do this through this method he makes Valmont a compelling as well as properly repulsive character. 

Alternate Best Actor 1988: William Hurt in The Accidental Tourist

William Hurt did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Macon Leary in The Accidental Tourist.

The Accidental Tourist is an enjoyable film about a writer of travel guides who deals with personal troubles after the sudden death of his son.

William Hurt had received three Oscar nominations in a row. He found himself nominated from 85 to 87, but he was not nominated this year despite the fact that his film was nominated for best picture. It seems the academy, as well as most everyone else just decided this was the drop off point for William Hurt as a leading man for whatever reason. After this none of his leading performances made a stamp in the awards season and he did not find himself Oscar nominated again until he was well embedded as a character actor instead. His snub here really did seem to mean more than just not being nominated for an Oscar honestly.

It is a real shame though that William Hurt was forgotten for his leading man work here as I have to say I really like Hurt as a leading man. Hurt is just has a certain screen presence that creates a great deal of likability which is most certainly true of this performance. He is very unassuming as the travel guide writer Macon Leary, and this really works very well for the part. Hurt is careful in his portrayal in he emotes just enough in his part, in that he is someone we can easily follow through his personal story as he pulls us into his character's troubles rather than pushing away with them as one easily could do.

The pressing element on Macon is the death of his son which Hurt portrays marvelously because it is something that he realizes in the subtleties of his performance. There is a depression in his performance, but Hurt is terrific becuase he shows the depression without this being left as a depressed performance. He is very moving in his rather short moments that are very underplayed by him.  These scenes are effective because he brings to life the sadness in Macon from the death of his son as something that has settled within to a certain point that it leaves him not a man of constant overwhelming grief, but instead an internalized grief that leaves him in his haunted state. 

One could argue this film is in a part a romantic comedy involving Macon's relationship with his recently divorced wife Sara (Kathleen Turner), and his relationship with a stalker like dog trainer Muriel (Geena Davis). Hurt though does not at all seem like the romantic leading man with his performance here. In his scenes with both Davis and Turner Hurt does not at all portray the romantic angle in really any scene with them. This actually works in favor to his character and the film as he portrays both relationships in a most unorthodox fashion. In both situations though Hurt portrays Macon as a haunted man attempting reaching to find some happiness, but is really unable to break the certain malaise that he cannot escape from.

In his relationship with Turner's Sara, Hurt is effective in portraying the distance that was caused by the death of their son as well as by her own decision to separate at the beginning of the film. When she tries to reconnect with Macon Hurt is quite good because he shows the appropriate familiarity with her that explains why he returns to her, but he is strong in his ability to create that distance that never does leave him when he is with her. The other relationship with Muriel the dog trainer is very different but Hurt handles it equally well. In the beginning Hurt is quietly amusing with how taken aback Macon is by her persistence. Even when he lives with her Hurt is consistent portraying Macon as looking for something but still not really finding it.

Hurt knows how to portray Macon's very slow change as in his scenes as he slowly opens up, Hurt portrays perhaps a happiness but not one that can ever overcome his sadness as well as in equal measure a certain confusion over what he really wants. The confusion and the sadness do not really subside in one moment but Hurt instead more powerfully shows it to be something that slowly wears away. His final moment of the film, in fact the very final shot, is just perfectly played by Hurt as he shows finally the persistence of Muriel allows him to break out of his sadness with a simple but powerful smile. This is a very strong performance by William Hurt that is a moving depiction of his character's plight, as well as more simply as a charming leading man.

Alternate Best Actor 1988: Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers

Jeremy Irons did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning the New York and Chicago critics awards, for portraying Beverly and Elliot Mantle in Dead Ringers.

Dead Ringers is a fascinating film about twin gynecologists who consistently exploit the fact that almost no one can tell them apart, until a woman causes their close relationship to quickly deteriorate.

Jeremy Irons found himself not nominated for this performance despite his critical wins, but it really should not be surprising as he was playing twin gynecologists in a film that surely man Oscar voters uncomfortable. Irons himself believed this to be his best work and even went so far as to thank director David Cronenberg in his Oscar speech when he won for Reversal of Fortune despite the fact that Cronenberg did not direct that film. Although Irons should no his performance in Reversal of Fortune was deserving entirely in its own right. Irons has a right to be so proud of his work here though, and the idea that he was forgotten in favor of several actors giving descent but unsubstantial work really makes the nominees that year a bit of a joke.

All I can say is there are performances than there are performances. The sheer ambition of this performance is stunning in itself as Irons takes on two roles of equal importance in the film. Playing two roles in the same film does occur but many times it is used more of just for a brief moment to cover a character, or is more of used for comedic reasons. Irons depiction of twins here is decidedly serious, and his performance is probably the deepest delve into the relationship of twins as characters. Both Beverly and Elliot are characters each in their own right, neither is a throwaway they are both equally important throughout the film. Irons always keeps each of them fully fledged characters in their own rights.

It is absolutely incredible how Irons creates each twin. A main part of the film is the idea that no one seems to be able to tell the differences between the two twins. Irons plays into that to just the right degree in that of course they look exactly the same, yet he still creates them as two separate men through subtle differences between the two. In Elliot is he shows a man filled with confidence who takes possibly a little too much pleasure in the games he plays with his brother based on mistaken identity. Beverly is a far less confidant individual who lacks the charisma found in his brother, and Irons shows hesitations regarding the games, but importantly still portrays a shy pleasure that Beverly gets from them as well.

Irons is outstanding in his individual scenes as they each take upon one of their patients an actress Claire (Genevieve Bujold). Irons with Elliot portrays him as almost a bit of wolf in the situation. He portrays the brother as in total charge of the situation taking control the relationship with a certain viciousness but as well as still with an undeniable charm that never leaves a question to Elliot's power of persuasion. Irons though is brilliant in his first scene when Beverly tries to take over from Elliot's start at the relationship. He is fantastic he plays Beverly as a man with a bit of awkwardness as he tries to take over from his brother, but in the same notion there seems to be a greater humanity. Where with Elliot it is a conquest, Irons shows within Elliot there is a far more honest emotional connection with Claire.

The relationship between the two brothers is of course the main focus of the film and here Irons transcends greatness with his performance. When the two are in the same scene, Irons's performance simply goes to a whole new level of brilliance. He creates a chemistry between the two that it made facilitating by his performance that never falters for even a moment. Early in the film we see them together and Irons creates a camaraderie clearly between the two as they play their game, and at first just seem to be having a fun time of it. There is a certain dichotomy to their scenes together though as Irons has Elliot very much the one in control of the two as they speak. After all it is only with Elliot's urging that Beverly even decides to even start his own relationship with Claire.

The dynamic that Irons creates between the two is simply astonishing. As the two seem to drift somewhat due to Beverly not wanting to only have a game with Claire, and falls in love with her. Irons is effective as he portrays Beverly's attempts to distance himself from his brother's attitudes. He portrays the greater humanity in Beverly as the game wears on him. Irons is just spectacular in the scene where Claire meets both brothers at the same time for the first time as she disgusted by their tricks. Irons in the same scene portrays Elliot who only continues to enjoy himself with the trouble he has caused for a woman he only sees as something to gain pleasure from, all the while he powerfully portrays the heartbreak Beverly suffers from Claire hatred toward him as well as Elliot's lack of caring.

The two are one but are separated is the constant idea throughout the film, and as strange and impossible that might seem Irons some how does it with this performance. As they are at first connected by their games they play they separate, and the two compensate for each with Irons portraying these compensations flawlessly. Beverly after being separated by Claire falls into drug addiction, and Irons is bluntly effective in his depiction of Beverly's painful despair, as loses. He is particularly strong as Beverly becomes less and less composed he comes in contact with Elliot who tries to help him recover. Irons in these scenes shows Elliot as staying very much in control of himself still, but importantly Irons portrays Elliot as very deeply caring for his brother with a certain warmth, and something else which I will get to.

In the very same film we see Beverly recover somewhat, and Elliot now falls into the addiction. Amazingly though this not all seems repetitive, and Irons seems to create two types of despair in each brother that causes their fall. Beverly far more self loathing, and Irons creates in Elliot a despair over his own troubles regarding understanding his brother. At the end of the film where Beverly attempts to help Elliot as Elliot had helped him a similar way the connection appears fully. Irons in the scenes where Elliot helped his brother showed a warmth, but as well a disturbing obsession that Elliot feels himself to be Beverly all the same. The complexity and oddity of the whole situation could have been entirely lost by simply the idea itself, but Irons some how honest all the elements in to make it so it all works in the study of the two men.

Their final scenes are truly something to behold in both the disturbing sense and in an awe inspiring sense. As the two men's relationship entirely comes together that leads to disastrous results, it is Irons's performance makes this all work as brilliantly as it does. He fully realizes this connection between the two that overcomes both in a fashion that is unable for either to escape their mutual madness. Irons's final moments as Beverly and Elliot are both horrible, and oddly poignant at the same moment, becuase of how well he realizes their relationship. Irons makes the relationship that could so very easily seemed unbelievable believable. This is an astonishing work that I cannot praise enough. Irons's performance is almost otherworldly in how completely he brings in these two men and their bizarre duet to life. This is one of the greatest performances of all time, simple as that.

Alternate Best Actor 1988

And the Nominees Were Not:

Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers

John Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons

William Hurt in The Accidental Tourist

Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Forest Whitaker in Bird