Alternate Best Actor 1957: Results

5. Andy Griffith in A Face in the Crowd- Despite an effective beginning to his performance Griffith never quite matches the ambition of his character, even though he does try.

4. Henry Fonda 12 Angry Men- Fonda gives a good performance consistently portraying the steadfast conviction of his part.

3. Toshiro Mifune in Throne of Blood- Toshiro Mifune gives an effectively brutal turn as his version of Macbeth. He holds no bars physically or mentally in his towering performance.

2. Tony Curtis in Sweet Smell of Success- Tony Curtis gives a strong performance that portrays well the abilities of his amoral press agent, and only shows a glint of conscience in the most powerful moments.

1. Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory- Douglas gives the second best performance that I have seen this year, and gives one of the very best performance as almost entirely moral character. Douglas never gives a hint of sanctimony, or falseness, but instead powerfully and honestly portrays the deep of concern of his character believably throughout the film. 

Overall Rank:

1. Alec Guinness in The Bridge on The River Kwai
2. Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory
3. Tony Curtis in Sweet Smell of Success
4. Toshiro Mifune in Throne of Blood
5. Charles Laughton in Witness for the Prosecution
6. William Holden in The Bridge on the River Kwai
7. Henry Fonda 12 Angry Men
8. Anthony Quinn in Wild Is the Wind
9. Van Heflin in 3:10 to Yuma
10. Andy Griffith in A Face in the Crowd
11. Glenn Ford in 3:10 to Yuma
12. Gary Cooper in Love in the Afternoon 
13. Marlon Brando in Sayonara
14. Rock Hudson in A Farewell to Arms
15. Lee Philips in Peyton Place
16. Don Murray in A Hatful of Rain
17. Anthony Franciosa in A Hatful of Rain

Next Year: 2008 Supporting

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1957: Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men

Henry Fonda did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying juror number 8 in 12 Angry Men.

12 Angry Men is an effective drama about how one juror of 12 tries to convince the other 11 than the man charged may not be as guilty as the evidence seems to say. Although it is well directed film by Sideny Lumet, I do have to say some of the writing in regards to treatment of the evidence by the jurors is quite absurd at times. I mean juror 8 takes a few too many assumptions.

Henry Fonda portray the lone juror who says not guilty in the initial roundup of votes. I will keep the fact that in all honesty that the character is somewhat misguided, as he really commits quite the injustice in his approach in the room, and really the obviously best juror in the room is number 4, until that is he falls into the insanity of everyone else. Well really before I get to this performance I can't help but espouse with problems with some of the writing of the film, even though it does form into a compelling piece of cinema in the end anyways.

Firstly the disregard of the eye witnesses basically only on their appearance. As we all know one can only possibly give good testimony if you are young, good looking, and entirely well dressed. Also the fact that 8 and the others continually use testimony they denounce as reason as fact. One should also not forget that the boy's failure in his alibi really is not properly thwarted by the others as 4 could still recount far more of his films four days than the boy could the same night. I especially love it when 4 gets one adjective wrong and they act like it is a big deal.

All in all really they did a pretty bad job especially since at the end of the day if the son did not kill the father than just who did. The son had the motivation, and the murder weapon was obviously his. Fell out of his pocket is an unlikely story, and so there were other knifes like his, that still made it no less likely that it was his knife. I just love though when they say no one would ever use a knife a certain ways, or ever have their glasses on in bed, or near a bed to quickly put them on, or who knows maybe she wore reading glasses and that was completely immaterial, but either way they all put these down as scientific fact.

Anyway I really should get off that and get to Fonda, but I did want to state my problems with the reasoning, because it does actually stop me from really getting entirely behind this performance as well simply because of these flaws. Fonda I should say is quite good in the role that is fairly typical Fonda fare as the steadfast moral man who will not let anger or hatred sway his emotions, even if he will be swayed by over sentimentality, alright I really should stop with that. Anyway though Fonda has a quiet but strong presence here that is always made known in from his first moment in which he decides to vote not guilty in front of all the others.

There is no wonder why Fonda was as popular as he was in these sorts of roles because he is terrific in playing a real down to earth wisdom, that never is over or underwhelming. This is most certainly true here as he is not especially loud in his portrayal but he has a particular passion that cannot be ignored by anyone. He is able to portray the sensibility behind this man who will stand for what he believes no matter what others will say against him clearly. Fonda proceeds through the film with an incredible force of will really that never lets up during the film, and he is honestly allows it to be believable that he would be able to sway the opinion as he does.

I would say what are just as important as his own self assured speeches are his moments where he supports the other men who come up with an idea or two to question the evidence. These moments are pretty short reactions but very effectively used by Fonda. They are usually a small smile or a pat on the arm, but they are quite well handled. Fonda in these moments is able to show both that 8 gains genuine happiness as he pulls each juror over to his more humane way of thinking. Fonda in these moments as well though is able to really show through his gentle positive support how he is able to keep the others on his side.

This is a performance that certainly does not have twists or turns, but nor should it. It is rightfully a consistent performance as a morally righteous man (at least in the film's view) than refuses to falter in the slightest when it comes to his beliefs. In comparison to Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory I would say that Fonda does not quite match up perfectly though. That is not to say Fonda is not good, he is, but juror number 8 never brings nearly as much power to the role as Douglas does, as well Douglas never for a moment has even a hint of sanctimony, I can't quite say the same about Fonda. Even though this is not the greatest performance of its kind, I must stress this is still strong work from Fonda nevertheless.

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1957: Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory

Kirk Douglas did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Colonel Dax in Paths of Glory.

Paths of Glory is a brilliant film about the French army court marshaling three men after a failed attack during World War I.

Kirk Douglas portrays the Colonel in charge of the regiment used by the ambitious and pompous General Mireau (George Macready) to take an impossible to overcome German position. Douglas here portrays one of the few officers in the film who is not an amoral man who cares far more about his own military career than for the welfare of his soldiers. As he is one of the few officers who seems to treat the war and casualties as something to be truly concerned about. Douglas portrays Dax as a  man who cares deeply for the lives of his men, although still believes that there is a task that needs to be done. 

Douglas takes a fairly simple but effective approach to the part of Dax. He does not really try to portray Dax in any sort of flamboyant fashion which is fairly common in Kubrick's films. Douglas plays it straight and properly so. In the middle of the men who seem almost insane in their manner towards the war, Douglas shows us a man who stands firm in the belief in his men, even if he does need to still follow orders. Douglas says a lot here with very little as even as he agrees to lead the charge on the hill he shows the genuine concern for the lives of his men as well as his own disbelief in his superior officer.

There is an underlying passion and drive always in this performance bringing to life that Dax is a man of action. Douglas importantly though as well even when he is ordering his men to go out on risky scouting maneuvers that there is always a deeply human compassion within Dax. He is never just a man blindly ordering his men about to risk their lives for the war. Douglas importantly in his performance does manage to portray a caring commanding officer even though he still commits to action. It is an important role within the film itself, and Douglas is excellent because he never seems sanctimonious or false. The goodness of his character always comes through as it needs to.

As the film proceeds Douglas stays though as the steadfast moral center of the film who refuses to accept his superior's stance that his men were cowards after the failed attack. Douglas has a quiet and effective intensity as he stands with his men and tries to help the three accused of the cowardice avoid the firing squad. Douglas is terrific representing all of the frustrations felt by the insanity espoused by his superiors who refuse to come to their senses. Douglas is very strong here and even has just the right about of satirical edge to his performance. In just the smallest reactions during the trial scene he can portray the true lunacy behind the charges.

Douglas never portrays the part as sanctimonious and he is able to portray the intelligence and anger behind Dax. After the men are sentenced to death Dax tries his best to make those who caused this to occur suffer as well as he can for their dreadful actions. Douglas's performance always puts forward the extreme hate, and disgust he has for the amoral officers he serves brilliantly. He never makes him seem like just a rebel, or a pointlessly angry man though. He is always firm and proper in his characterization making his moments where he tells his superior just exactly what he thinks extremely powerful. Douglas is absolutely truthful in this as he makes Dax truly the better man.

This may not be Douglas's most complex character, but this is one of his very best performances. Colonel Dax is an essential character in the film as he is the conscience of the entire film who stands against the structured lunacy of the military heads. Douglas keeps the honesty, and goodness of his character to life without ever being boring, dull, or seem in any way false. Douglas is able to genuinely finds the heart of his character, and becomes the heart of the film realistically throughout the film. Technically speaking it might not be the most showy performance in the film, but Douglas succeeds entirely within his performance achieving in finding the incredible power in his character's passion throughout the film. 

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1957: Andy Griffith in A Face in the Crowd

Andy Griffith did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes in A Face in The Crowd.

A Face in the Crowd in the crowd is an interesting film about a man who goes from a prison to becoming both a popular and powerful television entertaining.

Andy Griffith is most certainly best known as Andy Taylor the kind, honest, and wise sheriff of Mayberry, and if not that the honest attorney known as Matlock. Griffith here to anyone who knows him for his most famous roles would see this performance as Lonesome Rhodes as quite against type. Although technically speaking Griffith did not yet gain his type, nevertheless this is a very different type of role for Griffith who is best known as a nice man. If there is one thing Lonesome Rhodes is not is nice.

In his first scene we open on Lonesome Rhodes in a lock up as a sweaty and reprehensible sort who is convinced to entertain in for a radio show only because he will allowed to leave the prison. Griffith is actually quite good early on at being just a brash, angry drifter. There is nothing at first that suggests that is anything but a pretty lowly type of man who just happens to be able to play a guitar more than anything. When he finally does sing though there is seems to be another side who enjoys an attention as long he is the one forcing others to pay attention to him.

After he gets out of jail Griffith portrays well two quieter scenes. First he has his first scene where has become the radio host, and Griffith has a great deal of charm in this scene showing exactly how Lonesome can so quickly gain in popularity. There is also a very important moment where he talks to the radio producer who discovered him Marsha (Patrica Neal), who he also charms but in a different fashion. In the brief scene Griffith portrays a sympathetic quiet moving portrait of a man who never really had a pleasant place in his life, and this remorseful scene really appropriately gives view to his later actions. 

Once these quiet scenes are done Griffith goes full force into Rhodes driving hard to become one of the most influential and popular men. His performance becomes considerable louder here as really Rhodes becomes as amoral as possible. Griffith spends a great deal of this performance becoming bigger and bigger in his portrayal of Rhodes becoming a louder and louder presence as an entertainer, and a manipulator. In terms of the transformation in terms of going off the deep end Griffith is fine, in that he just gets louder and louder, and he quiets down less and less often.

Griffith really does efficiently portray Rhodes as the almost crazed entertainer that just will not stop no matter what he does, or who he hurts. Griffith is good in his short moments of the apologetic Rhodes, because he manages to show Rhodes as not exactly lying when he says he is sorry, but rather Rhodes does believe at the moment what he is saying even if it is not true. The apologetic moments are short though and Rhodes ego only continues to grow as Griffith's performance becomes only bigger and broader. There no longer is any hesitation in him.

Later in the film Griffith I will say is pretty strong in bringing to life the energy in the performer, but when he is not on he gives basically the same performance but only meaner. There are moments where he is suppose to be the most manipulative, and Griffith frankly would have been better off he downplayed them as he is not nearly as powerful in these scenes as he could possibly have been. He is suppose to be a cold calculated controller in these moments but frankly he stays just a bit to obtuse to be as effective as he would need to be.

I do want to say though that even if Griffith could have been even better later on this is still a very interesting performance by him particularly in his earliest scenes. To be entirely honest if he stayed as good as he is in the first third of the film he would be an easy five. The only problem as his performance becomes even more ambitious and tries to be a larger than life character he just does not quite have the punch he needs to achieve this effect. It most certainly is a good performance though, and certainly quite fascinating when compared to his performances later in his career.

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1957: Toshiro Mifune in Throne of Blood

Toshiro Mifune did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Taketoki Washizu in Throne of Blood.

Throne of Blood is an excellent adaptation of Macbeth set in feudal Japan.

Macbeth is certainly a character who has received many different portrayals as Macbeth certainly is very open to interpretation. As with most of Shakespeare's leads there really is not a definitive portrayal even in film. Mifune's performance as Washizu who is Macbeth really is very different from other portrayal of the treacherous lord, one reason I would say is unlike other portrayals his does not have soliloquies. Akira Kurosawa keeps this version of the story very refined, and it always moves forward leaving Mifune to move right forward with his performance of the character.

Although Mifune does not have his inner monologues to himself to describe his internal struggle as that is not really a problem. Mifune takes a striking approach with Washizu as a man who barely has any time to really think about the moral troubles of the situation. Something that really is effective about this version is actually that it is a very short adaptation. It never seems lacking though making it that Washizu's decision to betray the King to seem even more pointless than in other versions of Macbeth due to how little time he seems to be able to enjoy his time at the top.

Mifune portrays the ambition as a necessity though brought on by his wife who basically convinces him that it will be either him or the Emperor whether he likes it or not. There is not a delay in his performance as Mifune portrays the betrayal as his own preservation. It really is not ambition he has at first as it very much is in his concern for his own place and power. Mifune genuinely shows that his original intentions may not be nearly as dreadful as one might think, even though his thoughts are entirely manipulated by his wife who most certainly wants the Emperor dead entirely for her own ends.

Of course the amount of sympathy one can have for Washizu quickly drifts as Mifune only can portray concern for one's self for so long. As he quickly becomes deeper into his dark deeds Mifune brings out his incredible intensity in the part. There are not hesitations in his Washizu once he justifies his actions once.  There is rage and passion here that conveys well the level that Washizu will go to keep and maintain what he has gained. Mifune has a great power in his performance showing Washizu's desires to be an incredible force of nature that propels forward his desire and greed that only causes him to commit worse acts along the way.

As he goes down further into the darkness Mifune brings about a growing insanity within Washizu. Mifune has quite a challenge in that Washizu begins pretty crazy and he only goes crazier and crazier. Mifune though actually manages to bring about the level of insanity required for the part as his actions drive him further and further out of control. The famous ghost scene is particularly well handled by Mifune who in the scene brings a strong visceral effect in his portrayal as Washizu goes on a mad rant of hatred, fear and some regret at the apparition that only he can see.

Mifune creates a portrait that really is unrepentant though, even though he does indicate some regret, when he sees his best friends severed head that he ordered done. Mifune though does not beat about the bush here as there is a great deal of conviction in all of his actions. Even in his short moments of shame, Mifune is terrific in that he has Washizu almost hatefully blame those he wronged for the guilt he feels, rather than honestly feeling any honest or lasting grief for the wrong he has done.

The greatest moment in this performance has to be the final moments of the film as he psychotically postures his presumed power, that is instantly shattered as he sees the truth of what his fate will be. Mifune's final breakdown well being slowly killed by a barrage of arrows is astounding. Mifune becomes a beast in a cage as Washizu flails around trying to avoid the arrows well fully realizing the results of his action. It is a very physical and extremely effective death scene by Mifune that is fitting painful and powerful end for his treacherous character.

He takes a very specific approach with the part that easily commands the screen through the entirety of the film. Macbeth can be portrayed many ways often as a man who reluctantly becomes the same evil he vanquished at the beginning of the story. Mifune takes really no prisoners with his performance as he turns his version of the character that truly is the evil really from the beginning. It is exceedingly memorable that Mifune creates Washizu as a man where the evil simply needed to be let out by a twisted justification. This is terrific portrayal of "Macbeth" that is uncompromising in his depiction of the immorality and brutality.

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1957: Tony Curtis in Sweet Smell of Success

Tony Curtis did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Sidney Falco in Sweet Smell of Success.

Sweet Smell of Success is an excellent film about a columnist J.J. Hunsecker who gets an ambitious press agent to break up Hunsecker's sister's relationship with a musician. 

Tony Curtis portrays the press agent who will be doing the job for Hunsecker. I considered reviewing Lancaster as well, but watching the film again I would put him in the supporting category. It is an oppressive character so it is easy to see why one could see him as lead as well though. The greater focus of the film though goes onto Tony Curtis's performance as the conniving Sidney Falco. Falco very much is the lackey henchmen of Hunsecker in the film, although it has nothing to do with loyalty, the only reason he follows Hunsecker's demands is to further his own career.

Curtis who usually portrayed good guys before this performance, or at least in some way charming fellow takes on entirely different method here as Sidney Falco. It is a fascinating performance that particularly works well in comparison to Burt Lancaster's superb performance. Both are very much similar men in their amorality, and power waving or seeking, but Lancaster and Curtis take greatly different methods in their performance. Where Lancaster's portrayal of the amorality is very much like forceful brick wall that cannot be surpassed, Curtis though portrays it as something constantly in motion.

Falco is always a man in some sort of motion, and Curtis is excellent in portraying that Falco is constantly playing for some sort of gain. Interestingly enough Curtis always portrays Falco in some sort of motion even when he is standing still or sitting usually blinking at a rapid rate. Curtis puts just the right amount of animation into his role to be able to bring across the idea of how Falco is always a man thinking of the next move during every point of the story, but as well he never does it to the point in which it seems like something flamboyant. It is instead entirely something natural to Falco as a person.

One of the most important lines for Curtis's character is when Hunsecker describes Falco as a man of forty faces not one. This in itself is quite a bit of a challenge to be lived up to, but Curtis is more than capable of doing so. Curtis face is particularly expressive here and quite apt at bringing about the various facades that Falco puts on to move forward in his business. One scene in which Curtis portrays this especially well is when he approaches Hudsecker for the first time in the film. In the scene Hudsecker insults Falco, and Curtis's expression is brilliant. There is a very forced upon slight smirk the entire time, but Curtis so well portrays the incredible hate and venom he does feel Hudsecker in the moment.

Really one of Curtis's greatest assets in this performance are actually his boyish good looks. He plays Falco brilliantly in every scene but especially when he is working his job. There are many who are already put off by him due to previous experience, but there are just as many who do not know the truth about him. Curtis is excellent in every moment of portraying Falco's method as he does not really portray him as the slickest man at all. In fact when some of his angry costumers confront him Curtis is good in showing that quick annoyance and anger Falco comes to right away when confronted being unable to really explain himself.

Curtis though does portray Falco's abilities just as well particularly in showing his abilities to so quickly put wool over people's eyes to meet his demands. Curtis is excellent in bringing across the intelligence in Falco. He never loses a beat and he makes it entirely believable that he could work his way through all of his success. What is so important though is that even when the others doubt him Curtis all brings an incredible degree of determination within Falco that never seems to cease when he is putting one over on someone. There is always a drive in him that keeps him prodding and pushing until he gets his way, or at least gets the person to hate him.

Although Curtis never takes an easy route to be likable in the traditional sense, he does well in adding just the slightest bit of a conscience to his character. Of course Curtis really is terrific here becuase of just how little morality he does give him, making the moments where he does show it quite powerful. Curtis never makes it an overt moment or two as he does the most wretched of things for Hudsecker but there are just the smallest moment of hesitations when doing the worst. Curtis though shows that even the moments of conscience only press for a a slight reaction, but his want for success always shifts to a slight smile of immorality.

Tony Curtis gives a great performance here as Sidney Falco because he never for a moment gives up on that Falco really is only opportunist as Hudsecker calls him. Even in the final showdown between the two Curtis still stays firm that it is not really for goodness sake that he reveals the truth to Hudsecker's sister, he portrays it almost as an accident because it really comes only for his hatred for Hudsecker who betrayed him. He never is overwhelmed by the dialogue or over shadowed by Lancaster, he stands firm in his fascinating depiction of a this unscrupulous man.

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1957

And the Nominees Were Not:

Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men

Andy Griffith in A Face in The Crowd

Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory

Tony Curtis in Sweet Smell of Success

Toshiro Mifune in Throne of Blood

Read More