Best Actor 1996

[The Original BJ]

I had an inkling this vote would be all over the map, and after reading the comments here, I thought my hunch was correct. After voting, I was surprised to see one candidate running so far ahead -- it's clear which nominee is the favorite of the silent voters.

I'll echo the praise for William H. Macy, who I think is as much a lead as McDormand is, and who would be my choice for the year's best actor. I also think Chris Cooper gave a fine performance in an atypical (leading) role in Lone Star.

Among the nominees, I don't have a very strong favorite.

By the time I got to Shine, I was shocked to discover how small Rush's role was -- he's barely in the first hour of the movie. You'd have to consider it a lead role -- he's supporting no one -- but a part this small would have to be really tremendous for me to choose it as the year's Best Actor. And Rush absolutely isn't that. I think, on the whole, Rush isn't without talent, but he has a tendency toward to the hammy, and this character indulged all of his worst traits. His performance in Shine is all fussy twitches and over-calculated hysterics. Even given the competition, it's surprising that the critics went for him. His Oscar candidacy has to be one of the more obnoxious marches to the inevitable of the last two decades.

In the opening scenes of Sling Blade, I found Billy Bob Thornton's performance VERY jarring. His characterization was so extreme, Karl Childers seemed almost entirely an actor's affectation rather than a real person. As the film proceeded, I thought, given this take on the character, Thornton DID manage some touching, human moments, particularly in his scenes with Lucas Black. And, seeing Sling Blade AFTER much of Thornton's work since then, I was amazed that he was able to make himself seem like an entirely different actor in this role. But, at the end of the day, it's still just too stunt-y for me to choose.

As I mentioned last time, I'm of the opinion that Tom Cruise is a mostly limited actor who can, with the right role, rise to the occasion and turn out a memorable performance. And I think he does that in Jerry Maguire. It isn't his peak as an actor -- for me, that's Magnolia -- but it's perhaps the film that best utilizes his personality, providing him a role that fits him like a glove. Jerry is a charming cad, and Cruise has a lot of fun in what amounts to a pretty solid star turn. It's no towering feat of thesping, though, and, surprising as it may seem, I just can't vote for the studio comedy candidate unless the work is genuinely inventive.

The real Larry Flynt visited one of my classes in college, and my first thought upon meeting him was...Woody Harrelson acted nothing like this guy in the movie. But mimicry itself isn't always the most important factor in a biopic performance, and I found Harrelson's work entertaining nonetheless. He's very funny in the film -- mostly during the court room scenes -- and also powerful in his more dramatic moments with Courtney Love. I think he carries the movie quite well, and manages to create an interesting, textured character. I could have voted for him, but I think I'll keep him as my runner-up; his performance just doesn't have quite the dominance I'd want in a Best Actor winner.

That leaves Ralph Fiennes, always a wonderful actor, who brings to his role in The English Patient intelligence, panache, and fiery passion. He's a strong romantic in the flashback sequences, and manages to be surprisingly affecting under all that makeup in the present-day scenes. (I love his ironic delivery of "And then eyyyyyye becaaaaaaame...Ennnnnnnnnglish paaaaaaaaytient.") He's not an overwhelming choice; his performance is more of a solid center in an epic than a tour-de-force characterization. But he's no black hole either, and I think the film benefits greatly from having as strong a performer as he is in its central role. So...Fiennes it is.

But really, I just wish either Nicolas Cage or Sean Penn's work from last year could have been on the ballot THIS year.

[Mister Tee]

I think we can summarize the board's view of handicapped performances thusly: "If it's a performance I like, it's full of nuance and textured feeling, amd you're a tasteless moron if you don't appreciate it. If it's one I don't like, it's a pathetic stunt, one of the worst choices in Academy history, and you're a tasteless moron if you disagree"

I can't remember a thread where I've disagreed with more opinions...which is odd, because on the primary subject -- choosing a best actor -- I have so little feeling about any of the contenders that I'm inclined to pass on voting altogther.

First, on the non-nominees: I never got the Nutty Professor hipster bandwagon. I thought it was rude and crude like most of Murphy's movies, and, oh yeah: a stunt.

I'll agree that William H. Macy's performance in Fargo was comparable in size to Frances McDormand's -- but then, I think she belongs in support as well. I think the movie's an ensemble piece, with no one really grabbing a lead position by virtue of role size or prominence in the story. It's a moot point for me, anyway, since I don't much care for Macy's parts of Fargo. I think every moment McDormand is onscreen in wonderful, but the rest of Fargo leaves me cold, and I'vve long been baffled by the outsized praise for it.

Even though his movie was a failed Oscar vehicle, I think Liam Neeson's work in Michael Collins is quite lovely, and generally more successful than his Schindler.

As to those who made the cut:

I wanted to love The People vs. Larry Flynt, but I found it an overly familar piece (much of it seemed cribbed from Lenny -- starting with the introduce-your-female-lead doing a strip, and including some speeches that could have been lifted verbatim). And Woody Harrelson sounds throughout like he's doing an impression of someone (who, I don't know, though oddly it's not Larry Flynt). Pretty much every actor in the film outperforms him.

Ralph Fiennes was on a hot roll back then -- Schindler, Quiz Show and his Tony-winning Broadway Hamlet in a few short years. Connected as he was to the year's best film (and I use that phrase referencing not just the Academy's but my own opinion, and screw anyone who doesn't agree), it would have been an obvious time for him to win if the role offered him enough opportunity. But it didn't; the women got much the better of the roles in English Patient.

I'm afraid Billy Bob Thornton's Sling Blade performance affects me the way Rain Man and Shine affect others. To me it's 100% stunt -- one any two-bit impressionist could recreate without working a sweat. (mmm...mmm...I like them french-fried pertaters, I reckon) I think Thornton is better by miles in A Simple Plan -- playing a not dissimilar character, but investing him with far more recognizable human traits. Sling Blade in general didn't move me much; I see it as a pleasant enough indie that was somehow promoted into an event far beyond its importance. And may I say that Thornton -- who was virtually unknown on nominations day --winning a screenplay prize for this film is right up there with Benigni in proving the omnipotence of the Harvey Weinstein schmooze.

People certainly recognized at the time that Geoffrey Rush's performance in Shine was not a full-length lead, but I think speaking of it as if it's a miniscule role is reductive. Noah Taylor is indeed the better actor (I'd throw in his Max performance as also worthy of attention), but Rush as Helfgott is who most came away remembering. I think Rush is not as good as his slew of awards seemed to suggest (it was a bum year, and critics just didn't know where else to turn), but also not as bad as the backlash has made it out.

Tom Cruise got credit for being in one of the few -- maybe the sole -- studio movie of 1996 that didn't make intelligent filmgoers want to kill themselves. His performance was well within his standard range, but the film was well-liked (except, apparently, here), and Oscar voters were no doubt deeply grateful to be able to nominate at least one person the average American might have heard of prior to Academy night, so he got his second nomination (more deserved than his first, I'd say).

This wasn't building to anything...I really don't wildly care for any of these, and probably will cast a null vote assuming that's still an option.

[Okri]

Ralph Fiennes.

Mark Rylance, Noah Taylor and Charles Berling are all better than this lot.

[Sabin]

Bruce_Lavigne
Geoffrey Rush's Shine nomination is a case of "Right Movie, Right Role, Absolute Wrong Actor." Noah Taylor gives a lovely, perfectly-judged performance as the young David Helfgott, but once Rush takes over the role, the result is one of the worst performances ever to win an Oscar. (This begins what I consider the most abysmal four-year run of winners of any category in Oscar history.) There's nothing here but a hideous collection of annoying, empty tics; the most convincing argument ever that there's a lot more to creating a worthwhile performance than accurate mimicry.

How old was David Helfgott when he had his breakdown and how old was he when he was found again? I would argue that the film would be more effective if Noah Taylor maintained the role and they just marginally fudged his age and applied some old age makeup. I think he could have done an infinitely better job in the role. Noah Taylor is a pretty great actor.

I think I like Geoffrey Rush more than most here. I think he can be very good in monstrous supporting roles like Shakespeare in Love and the Pirates movies. I'd go so far to place him in the pantheon of Great Pirate Performances for the first Pirates films. He's a lot of fun there. But his work in Quills, Elizabeth, and pretty much everything leaves me pretty cold. There are a couple more layers to his work in The King's Speech than I initially pinpointed but the film is so dull, I couldn't bring myself to care too much. I certainly don't think he was any kind of robbed for that performance, but it is nice to know he can play somebody recognizably human. You don't get further away from recognizably human than David Helfgott. I don't care if Rush's performance is a mirror image to David Helfgott. His performance in Shine is a disservice to the mentally impaired.

Also, who on Earth thought it was a good idea to have David Helfgott play at the Oscars? I know that he didn't freak out or anything, and while he hit a few wrong notes, it's still as misguided a decision as anything I could conceive of. What if he just started shitting on the floor or fucking something? If that sounds crude, that is the precise image of what this nut job is capable of given to me by Geoffrey Rush's performance in Shine.

The Oscarcast of Spring 1997 excelled in a very difficult area: making audiences understand and care about these very obscure films. Seeing Billy Crystal insert himself into these movies for the first time was just outstanding. His song medley was better than usual and I don't think he would ever be funny during a show again. The problem was that even the show's sole surprise was won by The English Patient, so it became a bit dull. Geoffrey Rush is a dull winner. Pretty much everyone was. It was hard being a Fargo Fan during The Night of The English Patient. It was just a bad year for studio films. The best I can say about it is that at least it wasn't a night that ended with a victory by Shine. Ugh!

[Bruce_Lavigne]

No Best Actor snub has ever been more conspicuous by its absence than William H. Macy in Fargo. He's on my personal shortlist for best male performance of the '90s, and his placement in the supporting category was probably the most ridiculous act of category fraud ever at the time. (It has since been surpassed by Ethan Hawke in Training Day and Jamie Foxx in Collateral.) Of course, few of the year's other best male performances were really on the radar either; Chris Cooper and Eddie Murphy should've been easy picks for Lone Star and The Nutty Professor, respectively.

Geoffrey Rush's Shine nomination is a case of "Right Movie, Right Role, Absolute Wrong Actor." Noah Taylor gives a lovely, perfectly-judged performance as the young David Helfgott, but once Rush takes over the role, the result is one of the worst performances ever to win an Oscar. (This begins what I consider the most abysmal four-year run of winners of any category in Oscar history.) There's nothing here but a hideous collection of annoying, empty tics; the most convincing argument ever that there's a lot more to creating a worthwhile performance than accurate mimicry.

Ralph Fiennes is usually a wonderful actor, but he's just one more excruciatingly dull aspect of The English Patient.

Jerry Maguire simply features Tom Cruise doing what he does. It's one of the better showcases he's had for doing what he does, but he doesn't deserve awards-level recognition for it.

Woody Harrelson is very good in The People vs. Larry Flynt, but not to the point I feel especially inclined to reward him for it.

And then there's Billy Bob Thornton, about whose performance in Sling Blade I can say nothing that Damien didn't already. It's an extraordinary performance in a very underrated movie, and in a horrible lineup like this, he's as far above the competition as anybody I've voted for has ever been.


My top 5:
1. William H. Macy (Fargo)
2. Chris Cooper (Lone Star)
3. Billy Bob Thornton (Sling Blade)
4. Eddie Murphy (The Nutty Professor)
5. Noah Taylor (Shine)

[mlrg]

Ralph Fiennes - The English Patient

Rush is one of the worst winners ever IMO

[Damien]

This one''s easy.

Billy Bob Thornton created a unique character in Sling Blade, not quite like anyone we'd ever seen on screen before. And as opposed to most screen renditions of people who are mentally handicapped, the performance is very understated. His interactions with Lucas Black and John Ritter are absolutely lovely. I've seen the film several times over the years and I still can't quite reconcile this on-screen character with the Billy Bob Thornton we now all now -- I have no idea how he so miraculously and subtly transformed himself.

On the other hand, Geoffrey Rush is in the pantheon of worst Oscar winners ever. A showy, pointless performance of no consequence, its empty gestures constitute the worst kind of acting. He creates no character beyond the character's odd mannerisms. And with his subsequent performances, we've come to realize that he is just as hideously mannered when he's portraying "normal" characters. Absolutely atrocious performance by the man who is probably the most atrocious actor of our day.

Tom Cruise isn't as aggressively awful as Geoffrey Rush, but, as always, he's simply an incompetent actor, a black hole. Has there ever been a major star who comes across on screen as such a non-entity? But he's just what the facile and phony Jerry Maguire deserves -- a movie with not a single believable moment in it. Cameron Crowe is such a talentless hack.

Ralph Fiennes is one of my absolute favorite contemporary actors. (A few months ago, he sat next to me in a Manhattan restaurant, and he's just as charismatic in person as on screen.) But, though he's the best thing in it, even Fienes can't do much with the unwieldly mess that is The English Patient -- Exhibit number one for the argument that not every great novel should be turned into a movie.

Woody Harrelson is very fine and surprisingly funny in The People Vs, Larry Flynt, but it's in the service of a movie of no particular purpose or interest.

My Own Top 5:
1. Billy Bob Thornton in Sling Blade
2. Guillermo Diaz in Stonewall
3. Frederick Weller in Stonewall
4. Antonio Banderas in Evita
5. Ian Hart in Land and Freedom

[Big Magilla]

This is not an uninteresting line-up and yet none of these performances were in films that anyone ever mentions as being among their favorites. It's something of an off-year, one that we generally gloss over when talking about lead actors. People are passionate about this year's supporting actor nominees and all the women who were and weren't nominated, but not these five nominees.

Two performances others have mentioned, Chris Cooper in Lone Star and William H. Macy in Fargo are the only ones I would even consider this year. Macy's placement is a quandary. He has as much screen time as Francs McDormand and his character arc is just as important to Fargo, but he was a relative unknown so they campaigned him in support. Problem is neither Geoffrey rush nor Billy Bob Thonrton were any better known at the time and Woody Harrelson was only known as a TV actor and a supporting one at that.

Harrelson does yeoman work in The People vs. Larry Flynt but the film itself is lacking in context as Sabin points out. It needed a broader canvas to make itself relevent outside of Flynt's own world. A strong runner-up for me but no more.

I agree with those who think Billy Bob Thornton's writing and directing are the real strengths of Sling Blade but it's a good performance even though it's basically a variation on Forrest Gump, a role Thonrton was considered for before Tom Hanks became attached. An also-ran for me.

There's not much I can add to what's been said about Ralph Fiennes in The English Patient. It's a good performance but far from his best work. Another also-ran.

Geffrey Rush in interviews comes across as one of the most intelligent, charming actors around, but little of that is in evidence in Shine. It's another of those "real person" "handicapped" characters that they're so fond of rewarding, but as has been said, he doesn't come into the film until it's at least half over and Noah Taylor has the more interesting scenes as the younger version of the character. A runner-up for me, but not a real strong one. I would have been just as happy to see William H. Macy or Chris Cooper nominated here instead.

That leaves Tom Cruise who actually is quite good in Jerry Maguire even if he's just playing Tom cruise. Cruise was never a great actor, but at least prior to 2000 he was always interesting to watch and Jerry Maguire was one of the year's more likeable films. It was, after all, the only studio production to receive a Best Picture nomination. He gets my vote, not a particularly enthusiastic one, but a vote all the same.

[Damien]

It comes down to the very classy, very debonair Fiennes as Count Lazslo de Almasy and the schizoaffective David Helfgott. I find it to be a tie between the two.

You can't be serious.

[Damien]

Aren't these topics showing up awfully quickly? Weren't they always posted on Mondays and Thursdays?

[Sabin]

FilmFan720 wrote
As for some also-rans, William H. Macy should be here for Fargo (talk about category fraud), and I would have also cited Nathan Lane in the birdcage and Timothy Spall for Secrets and Lies. Do I lose my Damienite card for citing a Coen Bros. and a Mike Leigh movie in the same sentence?

If you do, I'll happily chuck mine into the pile. Fargo is amazing, and while Secrets & Lies looks a bit vanilla these days, it's still a solid film. I love Naked, and Life is Sweet, Vera Drake, Topsy-Turvy, Happy-Go-Lucky, and Another Year are all pretty wonderful. In fact given 2010's Best Original Screenplay lineup, Mike Leigh is the only reasonable choice for Another Year.


Shine is one of the worst Best Picture nominees of the decade, and a fairly dull film. Although there were better prospective nominees in 1996, Armin Mueller-Stahl's nomination was not undeserving. Noah Taylor would have been even better. I'm a very big fan of The Year My Voice Broke and Flirting, and I'd like to see more of him. I have no idea how accurate Geoffrey Rush's David Helfgott impression is, but if it's any kind of accurate then Fuck. That. Guy. So annoying. I don't care how well he can play the piano. He needs to stay the hell away from me.

Billy Bob Thornton's filmmaking impressed me more than his performance in Sling Blade. He's a fantastic actor, but I didn't really recognize it until 1998 where he lent credibility to Armageddon, peppered Primary Colors with good humor, and astonished me with his dramatic work in A Simple Plan. After seeing A Simple Plan, Sling Blade is rendered especially moot.

After watching The English Patient again, I'm of the camp that it's certainly nowhere near deserving of its Oscar juggernaut status but at this point it's a little underrated as a film. It's not what Anthony Minghella does best, but I like it just fine. The film is somewhat unimaginable without Ralph Fiennes, but it's far from his best work. He basically gave a better version of the same performance in The End of the Affair, and he's been in much better form elsewhere. Just kind of a dull but fine nomination. My favorite performance in The English Patient is Kristen Scott Thomas. Binoche is pretty good as well in a duller section of the film.

For me it's between Tom Cruise and Woody Harrelson. I have no idea when or if Tom Cruise will ever win an Oscar, but it will likely be one of those embarrassing events that rob a truly deserving candidate. So in a field as sparse with exceptional work as this one, he probably should just win because Jerry Maguire is a good movie that provides him with a good role. But for me at least, Jerry Maguire belongs to Renee Zellweger and Bonnie Hunt, and it's a somewhat compromised look at a poorly thought-out marriage that shouldn't have happened that needed to end on amicable terms. After watching The People vs. Larry Flynt again, I thought that it was just shy of being a great film and was simply a very entertaining biopic. Had someone except Milos Forman directed it, I think the scope of the film might have been expanded so as to become a true panorama of the times. Where Forman does excel though is with performances, and those given by Woody Harrelson, Courtney Love, and Edward Norton are fantastic. So I'm going with Woody Harrelson whose post-Cheers career has been unexpectedly rich, and his performance as Larry Flynt remains the highpoint. Even given the sparse nature of the year, I'm a little astonished it was even considered in the running for top awards.

The best male performance of the year is William H. Macy's for Fargo. Shoehorning him into support is ridiculous. I actually love Eddie Murphy in The Nutty Professor, and while the film is a bit broad, there is a world of pathos in his Sherman Klump that he's never been able to tap into before or after. Chris Cooper is fantastic in Lone Star, one of those great, invisible performances that he excels at. I wish he could go back to playing leads and not supporting roles. Not to take anything away from his great work in Adaptation., but outside of that aberration, he tends to play the same conservative asshole in every film. After Tin Cup, Kevin Costner wouldn't be interesting again until The Upside of Anger. And it's pretty easy to shortchange Ewan McGregor's work in Trainspotting, but it really was a star is born performance. I think all these performances would make for a better lineup than the one we had.

[FilmFan720]

Wow, we couldn't be farther apart on this year.

I think Geoffrey Rush is one of the more embarrassing acting wins of my years of Oscar watching. He is so over the top, so ridiculous, so dishonest, and is also barely on screen. With all of the complaining about Hopkins, why does no one pop up that by the time Rush comes on screen the film is over half over!

Tom Cruise gives one of his better performances in Jerry Maguire, but that is not saying much (he will be much worse in his next nomination).

Ralph Fiennes is fine in The English Patient, but it has none of the wry intelligence or humorous charisma that he got in Quiz Show, which he was so unfairly overlooked for two years earlier.

So, it is down to Billy Bob Thornton and Woody Harrellson. Harrellson is the stronger actor in general, and he finds a perfect yet unpredictable vehicle in The People vs. Larry Flynt...it uses his southern charm and genteel nature perfectly, but also let him stretch in so many ways that those of us who just knew him from Cheers could have predicted. Still, I am going to lean towards Billy Bob Thornton here. There was a period, at least to me, in the late 1990s where it looked like Thornton was going to turn into one of our great character actors (I will probably vote for him again in A Simple Plan, and also love his work in Primary Colors and U Turn), but he seems to have hit the high point soon after (Bad Santa) and fallen off the face of things. Still, his Sling Blade is a wonderful creation, both as a film and a character, and I gladly vote for him here.

As for some also-rans, William H. Macy should be here for Fargo (talk about category fraud), and I would have also cited Nathan Lane in the birdcage and Timothy Spall for Secrets and Lies. Do I lose my Damienite card for citing a Coen Bros. and a Mike Leigh movie in the same sentence?

[ksrymy]

Thornton is immediately removed for an embarrassing performance mmm...

Tom Cruise wasn't anything other than Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire.

Woody Harrelson was magnificent in his film but Fiennes and Rush are leagues beyond him.

It comes down to the very classy, very debonair Fiennes as Count Lazslo de Almasy and the schizoaffective David Helfgott. I find it to be a tie between the two. I'll read everyone's posts and then make up my mind.