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: 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

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 

Best Supporting Actor 2005: Results

5. George Clooney in Syriana- Clooney never is believable as a world weary CIA operative, but worse than that he fails to act as the anchor to for the audience he is suppose to be.

4. Paul Giamatti in Cinderella Man- Giamatti gives a good performance even if his character is limited. He shows both the friend in his boxing manager character as well as the furious promoter and showman.

3. Matt Dillon in Crash- Dillon is actually quite effective, and realistic in the role as a racist police officer who still manages to pull through when needed. The only problem is the nature of the film leaves his character with too little to do to make the impact Dillon indicates he could have made in the scenes he does have.

2. Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain- Although his characterization at the beginning of the film is a bit shaky and inconsistent Gyllenhaal certainly makes up for it later as he realizes the frustrations and pain in his character that lead him down a road to bitterness.

1. William Hurt in A History Violence- Good Prediction RatedRStar. Although he most certainly has the least amount of screen time for me he has the most impact. He makes an effective antagonist and actually turns his one scene role into an actual character particularly in Hurt's realization of his character's peculiar relationship with his brother.

Deserving Performances:
Ed Harris in A History of Violence
Mickey Rourke in Sin City

Best Supporting Actor 2005: William Hurt in A History of Violence

William Hurt received his fourth Oscar nomination for portraying Richie Cusack in A History of Violence.

A History of Violence tells the story of Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) a small town family man who becomes a hero by killing to violent men. After killing the men and gaining media attention he finds men looking for him who believe him to be someone else a man involved with violence and crime Joey Cusack.

I must say it is interesting that William Hurt was the actor recognized for this film. After all Ed Harris gives his career best work as a crime boss who is one of the first men who comes looking for Tom. He has a good deal of screen time whereas William Hurt has a slim amount of screen time that makes up only a scene worth of material as Richie the brother of Joey who also is involved with organized crime. Hurt and Harris both had been nominated several times before, perhaps they felt they wanted to see Hurt again after his long absence, or perhaps it is because the academy honestly thought he was just that good in his short single scene performance.

William Hurt I do feel is a bit of an underrated actor these days as he really is one of the best when given the right role. This is not to say Hurt can't give a bad performance as he most certainly can, but in my experience with Hurt performances he really tends to be bad only when he honestly doesn't put very much effort into his performance like his performance in Lost in Space. Nevertheless I am always interested somewhat in a William Hurt performance especially if he really throws himself into a role and he most certainly does in this role as Richie Cusack. Richie is only on screen for a few minutes, Hurt certainly knows this and does his best to make the most of it.

Hurt never for moments tries not to make an impact with his performance as a character who is built quite a bit actually. We know he exists and is another threat to Tom's life that forces him to directly face his past. Hurt really was the perfect choice to portray the single scene character that is Richie since Hurt knows how to make an impact with a single scene. Hurt doesn't waste a moment of his screen time instantly driving hard into turning Richie into a full fledged character as well as creating a memorable visceral performance that will standout despite being very very brief.

Hurt most certainly does not underplay the role in the least, but I never said an actor can't go for a broader and bigger approach in a performance in some of those performances that I have criticized before. If an actor is talented enough and knows just how and when and how to do it they can succeed exceedingly well by taking such a risk with their performance. For me this is most certainly true for William Hurt as Richie here he frankly does not have time to underplay as Richie, Hurt knows this and instead strikes hard and fast with his performance and always tries to be the center of attention.

Hurt is excellent actually as he shows from just his first moment a certain relationship with Mortensen as Richie's brother. Hurt does convey a certain warmness and understanding with his brother that effectively gives a hint into their history together. Hurt plays the scene well as a demented older brother the whole time. it works because Hurt always talks to Mortensen like any older brother disappointed in his younger brother, although certainly to an extreme, but Hurt always shows Richie having a certain familiarity with his brother even if he does not fully understand him.

When the mobster comes out in Richie Hurt is at first quite chilling in the way he coldly indicates to kill Tom without much hesitation, but there is always the sense that he does not exactly love the idea of killing his brother. Afterward though when nothing goes as planned Hurt is darkly comic and effectively so in showing almost that as a mobster everything has been pretty easy. Hurt humorously shows the complete disblief in Richie at his men's utter incompetence. I particularly love his last reaction where he almost tries to shrug after his murder attempt as just being an older brother. This is a short performance by Hurt but a memorable and enjoyable one. In his one scene he holds the screen and surprisingly realizes Richie into a character of his very own not just a simple one scene antagonist.

Best Supporting Actor 2005

 And the Nominees Were:

William Hurt in A History of Violence

Jack Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain

George Clooney in Syriana

Paul Giamatti in Cinderella Man

Matt Dillon in Crash

A Weekend of Good Movie Watching

I had an exceptionally good week of weekend movie watching. The constant rain and enveloping dampness in Chicago meant it was a good opportunity to hunker down with some good movie viewing.

“Anna and the King of Siam” (1946) is the non-musical version of the famous story made even more famous by the Broadway musical and film “The King and I.” This is a marvelous film, despite the politically incorrect casting of Rex Harrison, in his American film debut, as the King of Siam. It’s a hoot to hear the famous “etc., etc., etc.” lines uttered by someone other than Yul Brynner. Irene Dunne plays Anna, and her warm presence and gentle beauty make for a memorable Anna, every bit as good as later interpretations by Deborah Kerr and Jodie Foster. (It really is an unbeatable part. The worst actress in the world couldn’t screw it up.) Linda Darnell plays Tuptim, and she’s not nearly as sympathetic as I remember from earlier versions. She isn’t given much to do, but she’s fine. It’s eerie to watch her being burned at the stake because in real life she had a mortal fear of fire, and ironically, died in a burning house while visiting friends in Glenview, IL. She was only 41.

This is a wonderful film to look and listen to. The Oscar-nominated score by Bernard Herrmann is a treat to listen to and helps act as a guide to the exotic locales. The film deservedly won Academy Awards in the Art Direction/Black and White and Cinematography/Black and White categories.

It’s a little overlong, but packed with detail and story. It runs 128 minutes and when you consider that “The King and I” (1956) ran 133 minutes, and since much of that is devoted to musical numbers, you can see where “Anna and the King of Siam” is able to allow for more incidents.

Rating for “Anna and the King of Siam”: Three and a half stars.

One of my favorite films of 2005 was David Cronenberg’s “A History of Violence”, the dark, disturbing, graphic and morbidly funny saga of a small town diner owner Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) in Indiana who foils a robbery in his diner and becomes a mini celebrity. This attracts the attention of mobster Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) who knows Stall is really Joey Cusack, former enforcer for the Philadelphia mob. The effects this, and other revelations this has on his family, are equal parts horrifying, funny and heartbreaking. The film’s final scene is wonderfully ambiguous. William Hurt was Oscar-nominated for his wonderfully nutty scenes as a gangster, but I think Ed Harris should have gotten the Supporting Actor nomination. His one eyed Carl Fogarty is one of the scariest villains I’ve ever seen.

Rating for “A History of Violence”: Four stars.

A glorious slice of cinematic cheese is “Snakes on a Plane” (2006). You see a movie with a title like that, and you get exactly what you pay for. A combination airplane disaster movie with hundreds of lethal snakes, this is a perfect movie to put your brain on hold, throw all logic out the window, and enjoy the show. I wish there had been more actual snakes used instead of the CGI variety, as the real thing is always more effective, but this is still stupid (in the best sense) Saturday night fodder. It’s fortunate that Samuel L. Jackson is on hand to lend his particular brand of charisma to the proceedings. If ever I’m in a situation where all hell is breaking loose, I want Sam on my side, especially now that Chuck Heston is no longer with us.

Rating for “Snakes on a Plane”: Three stars.

The best movie I’ve seen is ages is “Tokyo Story” (1953), an unforgettable experience that works on many levels. My foreign film viewing is not as strong as it should be, and I’ve never seen a film directed by Yasujiro Ozu, revered by many as one of the greatest directors of all time, and rivaling Akira Kurosawa as Japan’s greatest director.

TCM ran “Tokyo Story” several months ago, and because it’s considered Ozu’s masterpiece, I taped it for later viewing. I didn’t have the opportunity to watch it until Sunday night and when I did…Wow! What a revelation!

“Tokyo Story” runs 135 minutes and I was spellbound from beginning to end. Reading the plot description might make you think there could be no worst ways to spend 135 minutes but you’d be wrong.

The movie is about an elderly couple who decide to visit their grown children in Tokyo, but they are too busy with their own lives to make time for their parents.

Yep, no action, no mob, no snakes on a plane, just a human drama acted and shot to perfection. No fancy camera moves or effects, just watching the heartbreak of generational indifference. Because they’re Japanese, the characters are very stoic and don’t say what they mean, but what they don’t say, and their body language, speaks volumes.

This was a profoundly moving experience, and one that I actually dreamed about that night. It will be a long time before I forget “Tokyo Story” and I now look forward with the keenest of anticipations to seeing other Ozu films.

Rating for “Tokyo Story”: Four stars.