Best Actor 2003

[Moviesandpizza]

Moviesandpizza wrote
I always go back to thinking no one on earth that I can remember was predicting Jude Law without a huge huge showing for cold mountain. As everyone knows cold mountain was not nominated for best picture or director or adapted screenplay or Kidman but there is Jude law!! Unbelievable! Good for him but shocking. Then you have go back to why! I guess everyone was kind of working with him at the time. He had like 5 movies in 2004? So there is that. And then there is his main rivals. Cruise was in a Oscar bait disappointment, Crowe had really bad attitude problems, Paul Giamatti small indie and lots of people liked Jack Black in School of Rock but it was Jack Black. So there you have your Jude Law nomination.

Yeah, I remember four being written in stone (Depp, Kingsley, Murray, Penn) and then the fifth slot was largely up for grabs. I think you're right about why Jude Law got in and why the others didn't. Also, Law was a previous nominee for The Talented Mr. Ripley. But you're leaving two off that I think had a shot. Peter Dinklage got a SAG nomination for The Station Agent. Probably too small for the Academy, but Richard Jenkins got in for another Tom McCarthy film (The Visitor) just a few years later. The other contender is Paddy Considine whom I'm more surprised didn't get in for In America. Samantha Morton and Djimon Hounsou (without SAG noms) got in over similarly weak contenders in their lineups. I'm also surprised In America didn't pull in stronger overall. I guess Fox Searchlight wasn't the force in 2003 that it was just the next few years with Sideways, Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, and Slumdog Millionaire. As I scan through their releases, I only see one Best Picture nominee prior to that run (The Full Monty) and a lot of films that they really could have done better with (The Ice Storm, Waking Ned Devine, Quills, and In America).

Yes probably paddy considine. If academy was still on its old schedule and didn’t move thmhs up a lot I bet he would have gotten in.

[Sabin]

Moviesandpizza wrote
I always go back to thinking no one on earth that I can remember was predicting Jude Law without a huge huge showing for cold mountain. As everyone knows cold mountain was not nominated for best picture or director or adapted screenplay or Kidman but there is Jude law!! Unbelievable! Good for him but shocking. Then you have go back to why! I guess everyone was kind of working with him at the time. He had like 5 movies in 2004? So there is that. And then there is his main rivals. Cruise was in a Oscar bait disappointment, Crowe had really bad attitude problems, Paul Giamatti small indie and lots of people liked Jack Black in School of Rock but it was Jack Black. So there you have your Jude Law nomination.

Yeah, I remember four being written in stone (Depp, Kingsley, Murray, Penn) and then the fifth slot was largely up for grabs. I think you're right about why Jude Law got in and why the others didn't. Also, Law was a previous nominee for The Talented Mr. Ripley. But you're leaving two off that I think had a shot. Peter Dinklage got a SAG nomination for The Station Agent. Probably too small for the Academy, but Richard Jenkins got in for another Tom McCarthy film (The Visitor) just a few years later. The other contender is Paddy Considine whom I'm more surprised didn't get in for In America. Samantha Morton and Djimon Hounsou (without SAG noms) got in over similarly weak contenders in their lineups. I'm also surprised In America didn't pull in stronger overall. I guess Fox Searchlight wasn't the force in 2003 that it was just the next few years with Sideways, Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, and Slumdog Millionaire. As I scan through their releases, I only see one Best Picture nominee prior to that run (The Full Monty) and a lot of films that they really could have done better with (The Ice Storm, Waking Ned Devine, Quills, and In America).

[Moviesandpizza]

I always go back to thinking no one on earth that I can remember was predicting Jude Law without a huge huge showing for cold mountain. As everyone knows cold mountain was not nominated for best picture or director or adapted screenplay or Kidman but there is Jude law!! Unbelievable! Good for him but shocking. Then you have go back to why! I guess everyone was kind of working with him at the time. He had like 5 movies in 2004? So there is that. And then there is his main rivals. Cruise was in a Oscar bait disappointment, Crowe had really bad attitude problems, Paul Giamatti small indie and lots of people liked Jack Black in School of Rock but it was Jack Black. So there you have your Jude Law nomination.

I was totally behind Penn!

[Dien]

Not a great year for movies, was it?

Nicolas Cage - Matchstick Men
Paul Giamatti - American Splendor
Cillian Murphy - 28 Days Later
Bill Murry - Lost in Translation
Ewan McGregor - Big Fish

[koook160]

My nominees for this year:

Hayden Christensen in Shattered Glass
Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl *WINNER*
Paul Giamatti in American Splendor
Bill Murray in Lost in Translation
Sean Penn in 21 Grams

Before you all kill me for having Hayden Christensen here, here me out. I won't deny he was terrible in everything else he was in, but in Shattered Glass he gave a wonderfully enigmatic performance that actually made you believe he was an unrepentant liar. The best parts of the performance are when he asks a childish question "Are you mad at me?" to catch people off guard. Plus, that look on his face when Sarsgaard gave him that death glare was priceless.

As for Penn, I was unimpressed with his performance in Mystic River. He was the weak link in an otherwise brilliant film. Yes, we get you're grieving, so stop chewing the scenery. His subtle performance in 21 Grams was far more heartbreaking than his histrionic Jimmy Markum.

Depp was my favorite of the decade. I love the first Pirates since I was ten. Jack Sparrow was such a cool character when it first came out, and I remember that. It's such a damn shame the sequels sucked so bad.

[bizarre]

bizarre wrote
5. Vincent Gallo / Buffalo ‘66

Slow getting to you?

Ah, I meant The Brown Bunny.

[Big Magilla]

I think you mean Olivia Colman, Magilla.

Yes. Of course all this talk could go nowhere like Lesley Manville (Another Year) last year, but Colman's portrayal of a woman who is abused both at work and at home might resonate more with the Academy than Manville's quirky hanger-on.

[rudeboy]

I think you mean Olivia Colman, Magilla. She's very well known gere in the UK for her appearances in various sitcoms, most notably the brilliant Peep Show. She's a terrific comic actress and I'm very excited that she's receiving recognition for what looks to be a great dramatic performance. Looking forward to seeing Tyrannosaur very much.

Considine recently had another supporting role - albeit a memorable one - in the fabulous British comedy film Submarine. Not sure if that's had a US screening yet but I'd strongly recommend it, one of the most perceptive coming of age movies of recent years, and damn funny to boot.

Back on topic, I voted for Kingsley.

[Big Magilla]

As I reflected on the three actors who I thought should have been nominated thia year but weren't - Peter Dinklage, Paddy Considine and Paul Giamatti - I was well aware that both Dinklage and Giamatti had made major career strides in the last few years, both winning major Emmys, Giamattti for John Adams and Dinklage for Game of Thrones, but wondered why Considine's career seemed mired in supporting roles in films no one sees. That may be about to change. Considine's directed Tyrranosuar is beginning to pick up major Oscar buzz for its star, Olivia Cole. Could be Considine himelf will get some year-end traction for Best New Director.

[Sabin]

bizarre wrote
5. Vincent Gallo / Buffalo ‘66

Slow getting to you?

[bizarre]

I've seen all but Depp.

Law was a cipher. There are ways to make passive or watchful intense and interesting, but he let himself get swallowed up by that film's school-diorama artifice.

Kingsley was solid, I remember, a bit over-the-top but the script itself was basically vignettes of people crying or shouting strung together.

Penn was over-the-top with no excuses. The role was bullshit, though - Eastwood doesn't think in characters, only in actions-within-scenes. This gives his supporting actors more room to move around and provide backstory (Guiry, Harden), with his leads his monolithic approach to character dev really cages them in.

Murray was quite good, I'm not as sold on him as some are. But he was funny and he brought a light touch to the drama that helped it stand out more. Still, I can't shake off this tangible feeling of relish he puts out at being able to do a 'serious role'. Like, look at me, I'm a jack-of-all-trades!

I think my ballot is probably one of my favourites of the 2000s.

1. Luis Tosar / Take My Eyes / Te doy mis ojos
2. Ivan Dobronravov / The Return / Vozvrashcheniye
3. Nao Ōmori / Vibrator
4. Paul Giamatti / American Splendour
5. Vincent Gallo / Buffalo ‘66

[OscarGuy]

Back in 2003, I might have voted for Johnny Depp in Pirates, but my vote at the time narrowly went to Bill Murray whose performance is simply sublime in a movie I found one of the better of 2003. Depp's performance then was a breakthrough and one that many of us had been waiting for...one that would finally get him the respect he deserves. How little did we know that he would become a paycheck whore afterward and fail to deliver anything in the way of a substantive performance for his career to this date (I did not mind his perf in Finding Neverland, though, as some do).

I think Jude Law is sufficient in a frequently disappointing film that's more depressing than the intentionally bleak Lost in Translation. I haven't seen Kingsley and, quite frankly, I'm not that worried about it. The only reason I think I'd want to catch House of Sand and Fog is for Shohreh Aghdashloo who I have genuinely liked in several films. Sean Penn is good in nearly everything he does, but Mystic River gives him too much opportunity to showboat. I generally have no problem with grandiose performances, in this case, I think less-is-more would have been more exciting and certainly more interesting.

This seems like a rather weak year to me, considering I can only think of two non-nominated performances that I saw that I would have considered. Billy Bob Thornton does his funniest work in Bad Santa, though I think his performance in The Man Who Wasn't There was significantly better. But Peter Dinklage in The Station Agent may be one of the finest major debuts in the last decade. When watching the film, I knew I was watching work from a gifted thespian, but little did I know that he would become as noted as he has or that he would eventually pick up an Emmy.

1. Bill Murray - Lost in Translation
2. Peter Dinklage - The Station Agent
3. Johnny Depp - Pirates of the Caribbean
4. Sean Penn - Mystic River
5. Billy Bob Thornton - Bad Santa (getting in mainly because I saw so few good male leads this year)

[ITALIANO]

There were, of course, only two nominees actually - and the challenge was as unpredictable back then as it seems to be today here. I hadn't found Lost in Traslation the masterpiece that at the time some said it was. I know that I had liked Mystic River better - but for some reason I don't remember anything about it now, except that the Tim Robbins character had been molested as a child. I'm not sure it's Clint Eastwood's best movie, or one of his best, though Sean Penn must have been good in it, because I wasn't disappointed when he won.
But in our parallel Oscar history that we're doing through these polls, he already has an Oscar and he will certainly have another soon - both, I think, for more memorable performances. So my only alternative is to vote for Bill Murray, though I'm not a big fan of his Noh-theater school of acting - but it was quite effectively used for that character in that movie.

As for the others, Law and especially Depp got the kind of nominations that are more like a message from the Academy: "If your career doesn't go REALLY wrong, the Oscar will be in your hands one day. Just be patient". This is Hollywood, after all, and in Hollywood, honestly, people like Peter Dinklage or Paul Giamatti can vaguely hope to be considered to be "part of the game" only if the Academy is in a really charitable mood - like Angelina Jolie when she goes to Cambodia - and wants to congratulate itself for it. In which case, Best Supporting Actor is still the right place for them - Best Actor is for the Jude Laws, the Johnny Depps. (This is why I smile when I see conspiracy theories applied to foreign-language performances - I clearly see it as part of a much bigger, and complex, issue. But never mind).

House of Sand and Fog? A bad movie, and Ben Kingsley VERY unconvincing as an Iranian. But I didn't know the "Sir Ben" story and I find it very funny.

[Big Magilla]

I'm afraid I don't share the wild enthusiasm here for Ben Kingsley's performance. I've remained mostly immune to his charms throughout his career (I actively dislike him in Sexy Beast). I find him a cold, purely technical actor, and it somehow doesn't surprise me he's pretentious enough to demand people call him Sir (just try that with me sometime).

At the 2008 Oscars -- the show I worked on -- it was hilarious during rehearsals when the state manager, over an open mike, was giving directions/suggestions to the 5 former winners who were presenting Best Actor. Michael Douglas was called "Michael," De Niro was "Robert," etc. But his Kingsley-ship was referred to as "Sir Ben." What a pompous fool.

Anthony Hopkins was also a member of this quintet. When they first met, the stage manager asked him, "Would you like to be referred to as Sir Anthony?" Hopkins burst out laughing, waved his hand in protest and said, "I'm Tony."

Mabe he's getting over it. Kingsley's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (May, 2010) omits the title.

Aside from the pomposity of it, the idea of a "Sir Ben" seems silly on the face of it. "Ben" is a nickname, not a formal name. One would think if you're going to address someone formally you should also use their formal name, not their nickname. In Kingsley's case, his real name is Krishna Bhanji, so "Sir Bhanji" would seem more appropraite.

Anthony Hopkins famously likes to be called "Tony", but even more famously, "Lord" Olivier refused to have a conversation with anyone who didn't address him as "Larry" and Albert Finney refused a knighthood because didn't want to be addressed as "sir" by anyone.

[Uri]

It should have been a two horse race and surprisingly it was, with the right horses – how often does it happen in recent years? And again, it was between two contrasting performances – the nonchalant vs. the operatic. Mystic River was in no way a naturalistic piece and Penn's bravura moments served Eastwood's view perfectly, but as mentioned here, he incorporated these elements with other, quieter and finely drawn details which vividly captured the way grief and bereavement invade everyday life. It's a great performance, and had this been the only chance to honor Penn, I'd probably vote for him, but I've already voted for him once and I'll do it again, so I'm gladly going with Murray here. Yes, he is nominally miscast here, but since his performance is far more about capturing a state of mind, reflecting an existential zone rather than representing a more traditional well structured and executed characterization, it seems irrelevant. And in corresponding this nihilistic abandonment Murray reaches this very rare place where an actor seems to be effortlessly yet totally There. Not the traditional thespianistic turn usually acknowledged by award giving entities (myself humbly included) but I'm happy there is a chance to do it here.

The other three I really don't care that much for. I only time I actually liked Kingsley was in Turtle Diary. In HoSaF I found him to be in his usual grand mode, and again I think he's on the wrong side of this fine line between portraying a highly formalistic and grandly postured person and performing this way. Jude Low lost the battle between his respected tendency to downplay his role in order to convey the reality of his journey and the romantic grandness the premise of his film seemed to require. And then there's Depp, an actor I usually don't get in this so called cinematic entity I couldn't connect to in any way, shape or form.

I'd swap them for the already mentioned Dinklage and Giamatti and Benicio Del Toro,for his lead performance in 21 Grams – his (and Melissa Leo's) presence was the real strength of that film.