Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1979: Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now

Marlon Brando did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now.

Marlon Brando gets the Harry Lime role for this film a character we do not see much of, and we don't even meet until the third act yet there is such a tremendous build up for the character as we hear so much about him before we get our chance to meet him. Marlon Brando, being looked upon as basically a larger than life figure in terms of acting, was the perfect fit for the rouge army colonel figure who is apparently being worshiped like a god. Brando is an actor, much like Jack Nicholson, who I feel as his career progressed slowly became overly indulgent as an actor as if no one would question his greatness, and like Jack Nicholson it seems like it would require basically the director to really reign in their performances. Well Francis Ford Coppola seems like the perfect fit for one as he gave Brando his comeback role in The Godfather.

Now this could seem like a indulgent Brando performance, and Coppola notoriously had an incredibly difficult time with Brando while making this film. The thing is though, even if perhaps Brando was being very indulgent here, it works completely for the role of Colonel Kurtz. Kurtz after all is a man who could very easily be described as rather indulgent himself. When Willard (Martin Sheen) finally arrives to Kurtz's compound to assassinate him he has already seen many forms of madness, having some of that madness even in himself, but what Brando does is bring a whole different type of madness with his first scene. Enveloped in almost absolute darkness Brando brings us a man who is of his own world in more than one respected, it's his world that he is created that Willard is entering a world filled people who worship him, and his mind is also of another world.

Brando's unique manner of speaking creates this sense of Kurtz as an otherworldly figure. Brando does not simple speak as himself though as he speaks as though he is delivering a sermon in the specific conviction of his words yet there is an aloofness as if this sermon is only truly for himself. Brando's reactions equally portray Kurtz as viewing himself as something other than any normal man. He does not react naturally, rather as a man who knows all, and as if those who are near him are only there since he wished it. Brando carefully does not truly make Kurtz the god he portrays he makes the delusion, but along with that he brings the reality. Brando in a few moments, such as his angry outburst towards Hooper's photojournalist, that are short and to the point, but in these moments Brando effectively shows that are frustrations of a normal man. Brando treads carefully making the delusion something to be believed, but never shows it to be an absolute truth.

Brando makes the larger than life figure Kurtz should be, but above all his performance does meet the challenge of having this tremendous build up to his character. Brando's performance is most importantly compelling portrayal of Kurtz's unique brand of madness that in turn creates many others' madness. Brando delivers in making Kurtz an allusive, yet still fascinating mystery to behold. There is philosopher found in his constant ramblings, but there is the soldier as well as Brando is able to carry a palatable menace particularly in the scene where Kurtz offers Willard a most peculiar "gift" while Willard is his prisoner. The final fate of Colonel Kurtz may have seemed slightly absurd, but Brando makes it completely believable through his realization of Kurtz's complex insanity. Brando matches the challenge of the character and perhaps gives the last performance where he actually made use of his considerable talent.

Read More

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1979

And the Nominees Were Not:

Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now

Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now

Ian Holm in Alien

Michael Palin in Life of Brian

James Remar in The Warriors

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1979: Results

5. Graham Chapman in Life of Brian - Chapman gives enjoyable enough performances as both a straight man and a very silly one, but is never that hilarious.

Best Scene: Brian on the cross.

4. Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now - Sheen gives a solid mostly reactionary performance although I do feel he is a bit overshadowed by the film's direction and its other performances.

Best Scene: Willard is told about his previous missions.

3. James Woods in The Onion Field - Woods gives a compelling portrayal that brings depth to a character who could have been just a simple psycho killer.

Best Scene: Lead up to the murder.

2. Klaus Kinski in Nosferatu the Vampyre -Kinksi effectively replicates aspects of Max Schreck's performances, but also offers his own interpretation by strangely yet poignantly bringing some honest humanity to the creature.

Best Scene: Dracula speaks of his desire for love.

1. Brad Dourif in Wise Blood - This was an easier choice than I expected to be as I found Dourif easily gave the best leading performance from 1979. Dourif might not give the most accessible turn, but is consistently fascinating portrait of a truly unique character.

Best Scene: Motes confronts his imposter.

Overall Ranking:

1. Brad Dourif in Wise Blood
2. Peter Sellers in Being There
3. Klaus Kinski in Nosferatu the Vampyre
4. James Woods in The Onion Field
5. Robert Duvall in The Great Santini
6. Roy Scheider in All That Jazz
7. Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now
8. Jack Lemmon in The China Syndrome
9. Dustin Hoffman in Kramer vs Kramer
10. Mel Gibson in Mad Max
11. Alan Arkin in The In-Laws
12. Peter Falk in The In-Laws
13. Bruno Ganz in Nosferatu the Vampyre
14. Al Pacino in ...And Justice For All
15. Clint Eastwood in Escape From Alcatraz
16. Frank Langella in Dracula
17. Graham Chapman in Life of Brian
18. Dennis Christopher in Breaking Away
19. Woody Allen in Manhattan  
20. John Savage in The Onion Field
21. Franklyn Seales in The Onion Field
22. William Shatner in Star Trek The Motion Picture
23. Sylvester Stallone in Rocky II
24. Kelly Reno in The Black Stallion
25. Michael Beck in The Warriors

Next Year: 1979 Supporting

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1979: Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now

Martin Sheen did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a BAFTA, for portraying Captain Benjamin Willard in Apocalypse Now.

Apocalypse Now is an Odyssey into Darkness and Martin Sheen is our Odysseus through the character of Captain Benjamin Willard. Where Odysseus started his journey after his time in the Trojan war Willard also begins the film after obviously going through many things in the Vietnam war although we never really learn what that is precisely only that he's contributed to some very unofficial assassinations before. The opening scenes of the film has Willard on R & R obviously not really mentally all there and this is only made worse since he is obviously drunk. Sheen is effective in this scene in portraying a completely despondent man, probably helped that he was actually drunk in the filming of the scene. It is interesting as both Sheen and the film show Willard at his most mentally unstable at the beginning of the film before he technically becomes a saner seeming man for basically the rest of the film.

Sheen is far more reserved after this point although properly does show a certain intensity beneath the surface of Willard that never truly leaves him. A very strong moment of Sheen's comes early on when he's given his new assignment to assassinate Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) with extreme prejudice. During the scene his superiors basically lay out a few of his earlier assignments which Willard properly denies after having existed. In the moment though Sheen is quite terrific in portraying the memories of these killings in his haunted face as they go over them. We don't know what exactly these mission required or entailed exactly, but Sheen hints at through his face as Willard seems to be remembering them ironically enough while denying that they every happens. It's once again an effective moment for Sheen and his first scene with this one does well to set up where Willard is coming from.  

Even though Sheen is the lead of the film once the journey starts though he often takes the back burner to the other characters of the film. His narration is always present though, which apparently was performed by both Sheen and his brother, which has the right dour quality as his voice sound like a man going to a place of true darkness. As soon as the journey starts though Sheen is pushed to the side by the larger than life characters he encounters the first being Robert Duvall's Colonel Kilgore. Duvall dominates all of his scenes without question. Even after that meeting Sheen is not always the main focus on the boat focuses more often on the interactions of the other crew members. Willard is seen as the outsider and is often away from the others and really when it focuses on Willard in the boat it is usually when he is reading Kurtz's file and reacting to that man's history.

On re-watch of the film I was surprised at just how reactionary Sheen's performance ends up being in the film as most of it depicts Willard watching others and only are there a few actions of Willard are relatively brief in nature and interestingly enough usually focus on the other characters reactions. For example after the crew accidentally murders a group of civilians and suddenly Willard finishes off the only survivor the focus on Sheen is very brief making it quick moment with us barely even able to see Willard's whole mindset. This is not to be negative toward Sheen in the slightest as his subtle reactions usually are well handled adding to the atmosphere of any scene through his own troubled reaction as the journey slowly becomes even more perilous. In fact almost all of Sheen reactions are well done even the more intense reactions such as one where a head is dropped in Willard's lap, and Sheen's reaction is properly realistic.

I have to say I was a bit surprised altogether with my revaluation of this performance as I find in the whole scheme of the film Sheen's performance does not have all that great of an impact. In the overall tapestry of Francis Ford Coppola's film Sheen actually does not make his presence all that known and does seem to be just a part of the tapestry that Coppola paints. I don't want to sound overly negative though as Sheen is good in the part, and gives a solid performance. Even in terms of the performances of the film though Sheen is overshadowed by almost every one of the flashier performances, and there are cases where a withdrawn performance can makes the biggest impact. That is not the case here as Sheen never quite gives a great performance here, it's a good performance I have no doubt about that but it's no longer one I feel goes beyond the call of duty (no pun intended).

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1979: Graham Chapman in Life of Brian

Graham Chapman did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Brian Cohen and Biggus Dickus in Life of Brian.

Life of Brian is an enjoyable comedy about a man born near Jesus who gets mistaken for a messiah.

Life of Brian has plenty of absurd characters to go around played by the Monty Python members, but one of the least insane characters is played by Graham Chapman in the leading role. Brian is just a rather simple fellow and Chapman plays him as such going the extra mile really in his method of portraying that Brian is just some average sap. Chapman makes all of his expression simple without being overly stupid and his whole manner gives Brian a whole sort of naivety as a man. Brian is a man without really any big ideas or big ambition for himself therefore he's the perfect sort to be manipulated by some other upstarts. Chapman certainly gives us this man completely, and Chapman does a pretty admirable job of simply being the somewhat hapless fellow that Brian should be.

Most of the Python members are going for the laugh in a very broad way, Chapman does this himself which I will get to, but that's not the case with Chapman's portrayal of the lowly Brian. Instead Chapman is the straight man to all the absurdity as the film covers his reactions to those around him who seem rather insane. Chapman certainly derives a nice amount of humor as first Brian is just sort of strung long by the schemes as others as he basically smiles and follows like a good lad. As the film progresses Chapman adjusts accordingly to the more traditional straight man of comedy as he gets increasingly exasperated at the foolishness of others. Chapman again is quite funny and aids in the less subtle performances well with his own more down to earth portrayal of Brian's confusion and eventually annoyance at the actions of others.

Chapman is not only Brian being the straight man but he actually has his own broader character whose absurdity obviously begins with his name Biggus Dickus. Old Dickus is a Roman centurion who is not particularly intimidating to say the least. Chapman is fairly entertaining in giving the character a funny voice that sounds more like out of cartoon than a biblical epic. Overall though there really is not all that much of the oddly named man, and really Chapman's total time as this character is extremely brief with only a few lines given to him to say in that funny voice. Also I won't lie though these scenes though do belong to Michael Palin as Pontius Pilate not Chapman. Chapman's never bad though and certainly gets his fair share of laughs too, but Palin's performance is the one that you remember.

Chapman overall succeeds quite well within the film being the appropriate element of sanity to stabilize the humor in the right fashion when playing Brian, and being properly entertaining with the one character that let's him join in with the rest of the cast. I would not say that this is a great performance by any measure as I don't think this is a case of straight man turn that actually steals the show from the showier turns, in this case it is the showier turns that are the funniest, and even Chapman's showier character is far from the funniest character of that nature. This is a good comedic performance that serves his purpose well enough but I never thought it was a truly hilarious performance nor did I feel that Chapman went all that further with any other element of the character to make up for the fact that he's not ridiculously funny.

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1979: Brad Dourif in Wise Blood

Brad Dourif did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Hazel Motes in Wise Blood.

Wise Blood is an odd but intriguing who gets involved in the preaching game in the south.

Brad Dourif often plays off kilter roles although more often than not these are supporting characters of the film. This is not the case for Wise Blood as we follow his character Hazel Motes throughout the film starting when we catch him after returning from some war somewhere now back in apparently where he came from to start his new life. The new life for Hazel Motes is not the type of life usually associated with a returning war veteran. It is common though that some character might be a bit emotionally damaged, which is certainly the case for Hazel Motes, but I must say that it seems that whatever he did as a soldier probably only contributed to some of what Motes does once he begins his life anew. I suppose that should be expected though when it is Brad Dourif who is playing the role though.

This is a performance that does not some time to settle to say the least as the first time I watched the film I was not sure what exactly to make of Dourif as well as the film. Dourif's performance is particularly obtuse here as his portrayal of Hazel Motes has a certainly a rather bizarre style to it. I suppose it is not helped by the path of Hazel Motes as a character which one probably would not describe as natural, and certainly would not describe as normal. If one were to read something about the film and just here it as a man trying to become a preacher one may think it was an Elmer Gantry type story with Dourif taking up the role of the charismatic preacher with a questionable past. That is not the case the case here as Dourif's plays Hazel Motes as not really the preacher type really, at least not the traditional type, well at least no in the type one would expect, well at least he's a strange one to say the least. 

Brad Dourif's performance is odd and in fact you might hate it or at least be baffled by it, but give it time as I did and there is something very special to be found here. The early scenes of the film shows Hazel Motes moving around the land seemingly in an aimless fashion as he dresses as a stereotypical preacher while naturally spending some of his time with a prostitute. Dourif's whole performance is a bit of enigma from the very beginning just as Motes is an enigma so it certainly is fitting. Dourif always brings this underlying intensity in his portrayal here that is rather piercing in nature even with the fact that Dourif is obviously not a the most menacing figure physically. The intensity in his portrayal is particularly effective in setting up Motes as obviously not a sane man. His method is quite different from the usual method of playing an insane person, or even the way Dourif usually plays them, but it completely works here.

There is a constant anger in his portrayal of Motes as he begins to interact with some other people most notably a "blind" preacher Asa Hawks (Harry Dean Stanton), his daughter Sabbath Lily Hawks (Amy Wright), and a different sort of aimless young man Enoch Emory (Dan Shor). Motes seems to hate these preachers so much that he states his desire to make a church based around the idea of no church. This odd idea seems completely believable coming from his mouth as the anger Dourif expresses in every moment is so strong that it could compel this man to such a bizarre course. This is a madness to be sure but it is fascinating to watch because of how compelling he makes this behavior of Motes. It's not quite like anything normal yet Dourif makes all normal to this character, and truly an oddity that's hard not to watch no matter how angry and eventually even psychopathic the man may be.

One of the achievements of this performance is the charisma that Dourif does create in the role even though Motes is not a particularly likable man. The characters of Emory and the preacher's daughter seem to simply want to be near Motes despite the fact that his attitude toward them is not particularly pleasant in nature. This can be wholly believable because of Dourif and dark magnetism that he does bring to the part. In the scenes of his attempted preaching, which never seem to go well and always seem to be interrupted by someone, Dourif does bring something special in his power he brings to Motes. Motes really is not even saying anything particularly profound and certainly not inspirational in anyway as Motes seems to be motivated by hate and pessimism more than anything else. Dourif is able to bring power to the pessimism through his devoted performance that creates such a fervent passion in Motes's philosophy.

One of the difficulties in grasping this performance and this character is the seeming unchanging ways of the character for most of the film, and the fact that even when we do see changes the are so extreme that they are not exactly making Motes anymore of a character with whom you can easily relate. That's not the point of Hazel Motes as a character and definitely not the intent of Dourif's performance. This is an out of the ordinary character that gets center stage and Dourif never dulls him down to this instead goes about just being incredibly interesting by realizing this strange man so vividly. When Motes goes and does some truly odd things particularly at the end in his attempt at a spiritual? quest which ends up with Motes blinding himself, well because obviously that's the case. Well it does feel obvious and not at all opposed to Dourif who grasps his character so well here that even such seemingly impossible understandable event actually just seems a natural course for Motes.

I will freely admit that I'm not sure I know exactly how describe this performance fully, but all I can say is I loved what Brad Dourif did in this film. This is a performance that stand out as something to be viewed all on its own as Dourif allows us to witness the journey of this man, who one would never accuse of being normal. It's an extremely effective performance that takes the risk of keeping in line with who the character is and even technically risking being repetitive since Motes is rather steadfast in his beliefs. Dourif never takes the easy way out with his work yet he never makes Motes seem uninteresting in the least. I won't lie one watch is probably not enough to appreciate this performance for its worth, but give it time to settle and I think you'll see something special This is a fantastic performance by Brad Dourif that rejects all common constraints and gives an impossibly intriguing portrait of one very memorable character.

Read More

Alternate Best Actor 1979: Klaus Kinski in Nosferatu the Vampyre

Klaus Kinski did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Count Dracula in Nosferatu the Vampyre.

Nosferatu the Vampyre is an atmospheric and very effective remake of the original silent Nosferatu by Werner.

This is the first time I have reviewed a performance by the infamous Klaus Kinski, but interestingly here he is following another actors footsteps. That of course being Max Schreck who played the monster in Nosferatu, and since it is a remake of that film rather than another adaptation of the novel Kinski's approach in conception shares many similarities with Schreck's performance. Kinski replicates many of the qualities of Schreck's performance most notably the way he seems to stand in a way in which he looks unnatural thin, and particularly oddly shaped. Kinski manages to replicate the physical mannerisms of Schreck while doing enough to make them him own, and it never seems as though Kinski is simply just trying to ape Schreck's performance. Kinski does make the character his own.

This is not the normal vampire seeming to come from a rat rather than a bat, and in both cases the vampire seems to be a personification of death and decay as the vampire brings the death of the plague wherever he goes. Kinski adds to his own portrayal of the monstrous elements of the monster utilizing the fact that he gets to use sound to his advantage. Kinski speaks and even breaths in a peculiar way as if he were a dying man. Kinski creates this odd monsters in a chilling and oddly believable fashion but this Dracula purpose is a bit different than Schreck's Count Orlok, Schreck sought to mainly realize this monster in all his terror, which he certainly achieved, but Kinski's performance actually has some more humanity to it. This can actually be seen in one of the main visual differences between the two versions which is found in the eyes.

The most human feature on this monster is in his eyes and Kinski utilizes this well to show a constant sadness and sorrow in his expression. Kinski brings a somberness to Dracula, and although he obviously makes him a monster, Kinski never forgets the man who must have once been there. Instead of revealing in his evil, Kinski does not show even a moment where Dracula seems to enjoy the havoc and pain that he is causing for others. Kinski portrays Dracula in a constant depression and is even quite moving as he states his pain from being an immortal monster. This whole idea may seem quite strange or could potentially make not make Dracula particularly frightening. Well Kinski never allows that create a palatable dread through his performance as the evil, but as well doing just as much in terms of humanizing Dracula.

Kinski is outstanding by somehow finding a balance that seems natural for this odd creation. The most fascinating part of his performance are his scenes with Lucy Harker (Isabella Adjani) where Dracula approaches her obviously going to eventually be going for blood but there is something more than that. Dracula wants her to love him and what is so notable about Kinksi's performance is he does not play this as lust of blood or of sexual desire. Kinski instead somehow manages to be very strangely poignant in his portrayal as he shows Dracula asking for this love in such a tender fashion. Kinski does not make his Dracula a monster looking to sustain his own constant and uncontrollable desires, rather his portrayal makes the monster more of a cursed man who is simply trying to either end his torture or find some sort of comfort in it.

As is often the case with Dracula films Kinski's screen time is not substantial as Dracula often disappears for somewhat extended periods to make his sudden appearances all the more disconcerting. This certainly works well in the case of this film as Dracula's presence can be felt even when he is off screen which is a testament to the collaborative effort of both Kinski and Herzog. Kinski's portrayal here is great as he manages to follow the very difficult footsteps set up by Schreck quite deftly yet he still manages to make this seem like his own unique take on the very frequently portrayed character. Kinski gives a very memorable and haunting turn in creating the terror of the inhuman monster that is Dracula while somehow, without contradicting himself, showing that perhaps there is some form of humanity still to be found in such a creature.

Read More