Best Actor 1992

[Big Magilla]

She has been starring for the last six years in the HBO series Burn Notice with Jeffrey Donovan, Bruce Campbell and Sharon Gless.

[Reza]

I think the big, unasked question in this thread is...whatever happened to Gabrielle Anwar?

Last I saw her was in a few racy scenes (as Henry VIII's sister) in HBO's The Tudors.

[flipp525]

I think the big, unasked question in this thread is...whatever happened to Gabrielle Anwar?

[Greg]

Al Pacino absolutely must have an Oscar, so I guess it's better that he finally won here than that he didn't at all. But I think his "hoo-ha"-ing is pretty silly. By this point, Pacino was too often indulging in his most over-the-top tendencies (see also: Dick Tracy), and so a suicidal, alcoholic blind man wasn't exactly the kind of role that would have encouraged a return to his subtler, more "real" acting talents.

What is ironic is that probably Pacino's best-remenbered scene in Scent Of A Woman, the tango in the restaurant, is, at least to me, some of his most restrained work in the film.

[The Original BJ]

Of those excluded, definitely Tim Robbins's sly, deadpan work in The Player deserved citation. (I haven't seen the film version of Glengarry yet.)

Al Pacino absolutely must have an Oscar, so I guess it's better that he finally won here than that he didn't at all. But I think his "hoo-ha"-ing is pretty silly. By this point, Pacino was too often indulging in his most over-the-top tendencies (see also: Dick Tracy), and so a suicidal, alcoholic blind man wasn't exactly the kind of role that would have encouraged a return to his subtler, more "real" acting talents.

I was pretty impressed with how well Robert Downey, Jr. captured Charlie Chaplin in the on-screen sequences of this biography. It would be daunting for any actor to attempt to capture such instantly iconic and recognizable physicality, but I thought Downey pulled it off. It's the OFF-screen sequences that suffer, mostly because the film isn't interested in anything beyond a cursory portrait of Chaplin, so Downey doesn't have much room to stretch.

I don't really have a strong preference between the remaining three nominees -- the NYFCC, LAFC, and NSFC winners.

I understand it wasn't entirely expected for Stephen Rea to make the list, but I'm glad he did. I think one of the reasons The Crying Game works beyond The Big Twist is because Rea's world-weary character touches us on such an emotional level. It's a quiet, subtle performance, one that allows his co-stars of varying registers -- from Whitaker's inner turmoil to Davidson's seductive charm to Richardson's shrillness -- to play off him effectively. To reiterate what someone else wrote, he's a very solid anchor for this film, and I understand the votes for him.

I have no problem declaring Eastwood the Director one of contemporary cinema's greats. I'm not sure I'd rate Eastwood the Actor quite so high, but I do think he can be a very strong performer, and Unforgiven is certainly one of his acting high points. Unforgiven is sort of the ultimate demythologized Western, so how could anyone but Eastwood have played this role, which so richly deconstructs his screen persona? Eastwood pushes his archetypal image into darker, more disturbing territory here, and I certainly understand those who want to reward a performance that is so quintessentially Eastwood, yet something fresh at the same time.

But I picked Washington. Truth be told, I actually expected a bit more from the actor's much-heralded performance -- Denzel isn't the deepest of actors, and I take the point that his portrait of Malcolm X isn't as insightful or probing as it could have been. But what Washington DOES excel at -- sheer commanding presence -- he puts to very fine use here. Particularly in the film's second half, once Malcolm has ascended to a leader within the Nation of Islam, Washington is a life force, taking hold of the screen with angry intensity that commands the viewer's attention. As I said, I could have gone with Rea or Eastwood, but I would like to put Washington's career on the books, and this is certainly the most appropriate place to do it.

[Bruce_Lavigne]

Unlike most of you, I actually don't think there's a truly bad performance in the lot this year. Downey is extraordinary in a not-very-good movie, and Eastwood makes some of the best use I've ever seen of his legendary screen presence in an extraordinary movie; I wouldn't nominate either of them, personally, but I won't complain that the Academy did.

I quite like Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman. The movie certainly isn't anything special; the performance looks on the surface more like the hammy, unnecessarily noisy Pacino of his later years than the intense master thespian of his prime; and the role is such a slice of award bait that it's reasonable to assume the movie never would have been made if Pacino already had an Oscar. I'd argue, however, that he takes that actor-proof (indeed, indulgent) role, in that unnecessary mediocrity of a movie, and plays it very well. This is a classic star turn of undeniable charisma and joy of performance, and what would later become empty mannerisms still have the feel of genuine character dynamics here, mostly because here he invests as much into his subtle, quiet moments as he does the BIG moments. (Indeed, only the climactic "Oscar clip" speech feels truly over-the-top to me.) No, this shouldn't be the performance for which Al Pacino has his only Academy Award, but it's certainly a performance for which he deserved his nomination.

I'll echo what everybody else has been saying about Stephen Rea. It's a lovely performance in a great movie that's become quite underrated since its brief sensation.

But with Denzel Washington on the ballot for Malcolm X, this is one of my "no-brainer" years. It's a charismatic, incredibly varied performance that flawlessly captures the incredible scope the film is going for. (Has any other "bio-pic" actually tried to cover its subject's entire adult life the way Malcolm X does?) He inhabits the smooth, flashy hustler as completely as he does the controlled, powerful Nation of Islam disciple, and the thoughtful, peaceful post-pilgrimage leader, and more impressively, he effortlessly manages to make them all believable steps of the same man's ever-changing life. I'll agree with Italiano that Washington is typically pretty far from "daring" and "profound" on-screen (he hasn't come close to equaling his work as Malcolm X either before or since), but I'd argue that's not at all the case here. For one movie, he's everything an actor should be -- must be -- to play one of 20th-century America's most controversial and complex public figures -- a role I can easily picture an actor screwing up. (Hell, I can picture Washington himself being that actor, in a different movie with a different director less interested in making a major cultural event.) It's a phenomenal performance, in what I actually think is a very good movie, and gets my vote easily.


My top 5:
1. Denzel Washington, Malcolm X
2. Harvey Keitel, Bad Lieutenant
3. Stephen Rea, The Crying Game
4. Edward James Olmos, American Me
5. Al Pacino, Scent of a Woman

[Damien]

I loathe Charlie Chaplin, so I am certainly not going to reward someone for impersonating that insufferable boor.

Other than for the first Godfather and Donnie Brasco, I am no fan of Al Pacino (and he's even worse on stage). So I kind of like the fact that he got his Academy Award for a vehicle and a performance no one thinks highly of. If they're going to waste an Oscar on him, at least the circumstances are embarrassing. God, he's tiresome in a move which feels like it will never end.

If Malcolm X had been as charisma-free and smug as Denzel Washington, he never would have gotten past being just Macolm Little in the neighborhood. But then, of course, Washington is always a cold, arrogant and self-satisfied actor.

Stephen Rea is perfect in The Crying Game. It's a wonderful performance, but The Crying Game really is an ensemble piece, and Forrest Whitaker, Jim Broadbent, et al are just as good as he, so it doesn't seem quite right giving Rea the statuette.

Unforgiven is a great film, and Eastwood is perfect at conveying the gradual abhorrence one man comes to feel about the violence on which he made his career. It's a performance in which small moments combine to create a major performance. He's got my vote.

[ITALIANO]

With about 10-15 minutes of screentime in Ali, I think Mario van Peebles creates a much more complex and interesting Malcolm X than Denzel Washington does in the three-and-a-half hours of Spike Lee's film.

This is very true. I didn't know the name of the actor, but I agree - that was a better Malcolm X.

I don't know. I'm sure that Denzel Washington isn't exactly a bad actor, and he's certainly a famous one - but I've never found him an especially daring, profound performer - and daring and profound is what an actor playing Malcolm X should be. But then of course it's possible that he's getting so many votes here for the same reason why Ben Kingsley won - a strong, iconic historical character (and a bit of guilt feelings) can do miracles.

[Okri]

I think Scent of a Woman, while nowhere near the level of the Gassman movie on which it's based, would have been a perfectly enjoyable little movie at an hour and 40 minutes. Martin Brest -- who was then still seen as mildly promising -- should be flogged for letting it drag on to 2:20. I also think Pacino's performance is at this point a tiny bit under-rated because it became his Oscar vehicle while so clearly inferior to his earlier work (and at least one later performance, in Donnie Brasco, for which you'd wish the Academy had waited). It's late-vintage, hamola Al, but fun up to a point. Not, of course, remotely deserving of best actor, even in a year I view as thin.

Yeah, that would've been nice.

[Mister Tee]

In the alternate department, I'd also throw in Jack Nicholson's Hoffa -- another of his latter-day "actual acting samples". And I'd note that, with all the discussion we have here about leading performances masquerading as supporting, no one ever brings up Gene Hackman in Unforgiven. Hackman is easily Eastwood's equal in character dominance, and, oh yeah, I think he's miles better.

This is not to completely dismiss Clint's performance. I think he uses his persona well in Unforgiven. But I think the nomination was largely a tack-on reward for his big breakthrough to mainstream critical respectability. And I think in sheer acting terms he's far better in the following year's In the Line of Fire.

I think Scent of a Woman, while nowhere near the level of the Gassman movie on which it's based, would have been a perfectly enjoyable little movie at an hour and 40 minutes. Martin Brest -- who was then still seen as mildly promising -- should be flogged for letting it drag on to 2:20. I also think Pacino's performance is at this point a tiny bit under-rated because it became his Oscar vehicle while so clearly inferior to his earlier work (and at least one later performance, in Donnie Brasco, for which you'd wish the Academy had waited). It's late-vintage, hamola Al, but fun up to a point. Not, of course, remotely deserving of best actor, even in a year I view as thin.

I'd been a fan of Robert Downey Jr. for a while by the time Chaplin came along, so I was happy to see him acknowledged here. But I can't say the film offers one of his strongest performances. His physical comedy work is outstanding, but I don't get much sense of Chaplin the Man. Of course, that's at least partly the fault of the material.

I can see why a number of people are going for Stephen Rea. He's a very solid, unshowy actor, with a pretty good sense of humor (though that isn't utilized much in The Crying Game). He anchors the film perfectly well, and wouldn't be a bad choice.

But Malcolm X is a showy, dominant role, and of Denzel Washington's three lead nominations I think it's overwhelmingly the best. Denzel isn't the subtlest of actors, but he does bitter, right-on-the-surface anger extremely well, which worked for him Glory as well as here. If you think one the most charismatic and dynamic African American actors of our time deserves an Oscar -- and I do -- then this, with no one else crying out for the win, is where you give it to him.

[Sabin]

Despite a couple of notable snubs (Robbins, Lemmon), a pretty good lineup. Pacino should not have won for Scent of a Woman but actors have won for more intolerable performances and films. It's still a moderately enjoyable piece of overlong corn.

Downey, Jr. can't really succeed in that disastrously unfocused film Chaplin but he tries nobly. Eastwood is very good in Unforgiven. At the time, it was a great decision by the Academy to honor his equally iconic acting with a nomination along with his directing because Lord knows they go hand in hand. But he gets my vote later on for his greatest performance. That leaves Stephen Rea and Denzel Washington. I think Stephen Rea is incredibly underrated as an actor and it seems as though only Neil Jordan knows how to use him. He was beautiful in Breakfast on Pluto. And his performance in The Crying Game is as key to the film's success as Davidson. But I have to go with Denzel Washington even though I haven't seen Malcolm X in ages. It's my one sensible opportunity to vote for Denzel Washington and he certainly earns it on-screen. After a revisitation down the road and I might have found myself giving it to Rea though.

[Okri]

Flip Eastwood and Washington in dws' statement, and you have my opinion.

[FilmFan720]

I haven't seen Scent of a Woman, but still felt comfortable voting nevertheless.

The other four nominees are all worthwhile. Still, the Academy did miss the two best performances of the year: Jack Lemmon and Tim Robbins.

Robert Downey Jr. is very strong, but his film is such a mess that he can't completely overcome it. I rewatched Unforgiven this weekend, and this is not as great as two upcoming Eastwood performances (The Bridges of Madison County and Million Dollar Baby), but this is still really strong work, even if his costars are the ones who really shine in the film. Stephen Rea is wonderful in The Crying Game, and it makes you wish he had more of a steady career and we could see more like this. In the end, though, I am going with Denzel Washington.

[dws1982]

I think Eastwood and Rea are the only two who even deserve consideration. But me being who I am, I went with Eastwood. I think it's a fascinatingly introspective film, a real deconstruction of Eastwood's persona, and even though it probably is more of a director's achievement, Eastwood's performance is great too. Never understood the acclaim for Denzel Washington's Malcolm X. With about 10-15 minutes of screentime in Ali, I think Mario van Peebles creates a much more complex and interesting Malcolm X than Denzel Washington does in the three-and-a-half hours of Spike Lee's film.

[mlrg]

Denzel Washington - Malcolm X