Best Actor 1998

1998 through 2007

Best Actor 1998

Roberto Benigni - Life is Beautiful
3
7%
Tom Hanks - Saving Private Ryan
3
7%
Ian McKellen - Gods and Monsters
28
61%
Nick Nolte - Affliction
6
13%
Edward Norton - American History X
6
13%
 
Total votes: 46

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by OscarGuy »

Peter, what's the largest sweep so far in these polls?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Bruce_Lavigne
Graduate
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:47 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by Bruce_Lavigne »

I'll give Benigni and Life Is Beautiful the benefit of the doubt, and chalk up their utter inability to "work" for me on any level to the fact that they're distinct cultural products that are destined to look very different to those outside said culture than those inside it. But that doesn't make either the film or its director-star's performance come off any better.

Hanks is very good in Saving Private Ryan, but not to the extent I'd give him any kind of "best of year" recognition for it.

American History X is a pretty terrible movie, but it's kept from being completely worthless by a great central performance by Norton. He creates a compelling, complex character within the confines of a very obvious, schematic story, and is fascinating to watch even when the film isn't. I won't say he hasn't equaled it since; I think he's quite estimable in Fight Club, The Illusionist, and The Painted Veil, and to much more worthwhile effect, since those are all better movies than American History X. But that doesn't take away from his towering achievement in AHX; his nomination is well-deserved, though I might not personally give it to him thanks to the movie.

I have nothing to say about McKellen in Gods and Monsters that Original BJ didn't already say; it's a wonderful performance that would have been a richly deserving winner. But for me, Nolte is just that much better. I'm not nearly as down on Affliction as most of the board seems to be, and Nolte carries it as strongly as McKellen does Gods and Monsters, but the bone-deep rawness of Nolte's performance puts him slightly ahead.

My top 5:
1. Nick Nolte, Affliction
2. Ian McKellen, Gods and Monsters
3. Jeff Bridges, The Big Lebowski
4. Brendan Gleeson, The General
5. Robert Downey Jr, Two Girls and a Guy
Cinemanolis
Adjunct
Posts: 1187
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 9:27 am
Location: Greece

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by Cinemanolis »

Brendan Gleeson – The General
Ian McKellen - Gods and Monsters
Peter Mullan – My Name Is Joe
Nick Nolte - Affliction
Edward Norton – American History X
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by The Original BJ »

Count me as one of those who thinks Jim Carrey deserved to be cited for The Truman Show, the rare film that uses his comic abilities to interesting ends. I also think the exclusion of Joseph Fiennes says a lot about the Academy's differing criteria for male & female actors: Fiennes was deemed too lightweight for a nomination, while Paltrow won the prize for a performance that was equally delightful, but not exactly a dramatic heavy-hitter. (I'd absolutely cite Dylan Baker, though more likely in support, given the ensemble nature of Happiness.)

I have only seen Roberto Benigni in one movie, so I can't assess his talent overall. I will say that Life is Beautiful suggested to me that he COULD be a talented performer, with a unique comic energy that, if put to good use, might be entertaining. I don't think Life is Beautiful provided that opportunity, or rather, Benigni's approach was completely wrong-headed given the material. I didn't find this character's behavior charming or touching in his attempt to shield his child from horror -- it seemed to me that this jokester's antics put his entire family (and barracks) in great danger, and in any real world, there's no way he would even have stayed alive so long. And there's no moment where Benigni reveals that his character's jovial persona is anything like a choice -- an unfathomably challenging choice, given the circumstances -- and so instead of coming off like an act to protect his child, he just appears clueless. I think Life is Beautiful is a troubling movie, but not one that should be quickly dismissed (for historical reasons, but also for aesthetic ones). But on the question of whether or not Benigni deserved Best Actor? A resounding 'no' from me.

Saving Private Ryan is quite a good movie with a solid Tom Hanks performance at its center. Hanks, actually, does a fairly good job of using humor to show how his character is growing more and more disillusioned by his situation, and he resists indulging in the sentimentality that does creep into the film at points. But the work isn't special enough to win, and by this point, we're in full-on Tom Hanks: National Treasure mode, which I don't think has produced performances as interesting as those which gave rise to his first three nominations.

I've given Affliction two tries, and I just don't get what the critics saw in this movie; it pretty much epitomizes my lack of enthusiasm for the dreary, miserable, small-town indie. But...I did like Nick Nolte's work in it, in what was something of a banner year for the actor, which also included his terrific performance in The Thin Red Line. In Affliction, Nolte was alternately forceful and pathetic, and managed to create a character with a troubling backstory that didn't reduce him to a simplistic psychiatric case study (a la Prince of Tides). This is definitely one of the actor's best performances, though I wish it had appeared in a more interesting movie.

Yes, what ever happened to Edward Norton's career? At the time of this nomination, it seemed like he was poised to become an Academy darling, receiving regular nominations over the years, culminating in a win at some point. Obviously, his career over the last decade didn't live up to that promise. But I thought he was fairly outstanding in American History X, another movie which has a lot of issues, mainly the fact that its racist/redemption arc is straight out of the Crash school of simplified storytelling. But Norton didn't reduce his character to obvious dichotomies, and gave us a performance that was explosive and truly frightening in the way it shows a man who can be both very loving (to his family) and yet a monster to others. I'm very glad he was rewarded this nomination (which was somewhat surprising, correct?), and I do wish he'd have the opportunity to turn in another performance even half as good anytime soon.

But my vote without any hesitation goes to Ian McKellen's beautifully humane work in Gods and Monsters. Here he was suave and witty, but also deeply troubled and tragic, and the delicacy of his acting was a wonder to behold. The relationship between James Whale and his gardener is so compelling, with a dynamic so unlike that of most friendships we see on screen, and McKellen deserves a great deal of credit for making its complexities work. He is attracted to Fraser's character, but he also sees in him his lost youth, and he also is simply in need of any companion who can spare him loneliness. McKellen juggles these dynamics with a lightness of touch that makes his acting tremendously exciting even when much of it is so quiet. It's a wonderful performance. Count me as another enthusiastic vote for the Bill Condon candidate! :D
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by Mister Tee »

Damien's post brings to mind some of Viola Davis' scenes in The Help -- a placid exterior concealing a raging volcano.

My favored excludees would be Warren Beatty, for his loosey-goosey Bulworth performance, and, though he's borderline support, Dylan Baker, for his alarmingly sympathetic child molester in Happiness.

I liked Nick Nolte's performance early on in Affliction, but the film -- like most of Schrader's -- lost me over time, and my appreciation for Nolte's work faded in tandem.

I think this is the least distinguished of Tom Hanks' many nominations. Not the worst -- that's probably Gump -- but the dullest.

Let's see if we can discuss Life is Beautiful/Roberto Benigni without dragging out the nuclear weapons.

I found the film pretty spotty. The first, pre-camp half felt more like a sequence of scenes strung together -- a bunch of one-reelers -- than a developing narrative. It was as if Benigni got a signature image in mind (such as him on horseback) and crafted short scenes to lead to that picture, whether it moved the story forward much or not.

The second, more controversial half is obviously a different matter. It's in a more conventional narrative style, but one taking a very risky tone -- putting scenes into a starkly realistic setting but playing them at more or less fantasy/comic level (unless you think, realistically, there wouldn't have been even one person fed up enough to tell this clown to drop his stupid game before he made things worse for everyone). I don't think director/writer Benigni pulls off this high wire act; there's something jarring about this whole part of the movie that is bound to strike many as indefensible bad taste. I don't consider it a crime against humanity, just a failed attempt. But i understand that some would be less forgiving.

And something that's always bothered me about the film: how is the ending supposed to be upbeat? You have a woman whose life seemed utterly empty until this live wire guy came along to provide some excitement. Then you have this kid whose entire life consists of being entertained by his father. How is it a redemptive ending for the catalyst father to sacrifice himself so these two dullard characters can continue on by themselves? Is mere survival supposed to be triumph enough?

As for the performance: I realized not far into the film that Benigni was not simply a comic actor, but a clown -- a type that, from whatever culture, has never really appealed to me (I always get a vibe of "I'm going to entertain you even if it kills us both"). I didn't hate Benigni's performance in the film -- it took his months of Oscar-pimping to arouse my real wrath. But, on performance alone, he'd never have been my choice.

Edward Norton making the cut on Nominations Morning was one of the happiest "Didn't really expect it" moments of recent times. American History X is a mixed bag (unsurprisingly, given the legendary editing fights), but it has plenty of memorable moments, most provided by Norton in his strongest work then or later. The look on his face when he's about to be arrested is unforgettable, and in another year I'd be voting him the award. (And, like many here, I lament the tailing off of his promising career)

But I'm with most of the crowd in voting for Ian McKellen's Gods and Monsters performance. Unlike some, I didn't much care for McKellen as a stage actor -- I saw him in both Amadeus and Wild Honey, and found him a completely empty technician. Something happened to him along the way -- perhaps it was his well-documented emergence from the closet -- but he does far richer work in Gods and Monsters than I'd ever have expected. He's got a wonderfully wry detachment about himself, but still draws us in so we're deeply moved by his memories and his actions. It's easily the best work of the year, and gets my vote with zero hesitation.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by FilmFan720 »

Put me in the Ian McKellen camp, although at the time I was all about Edward Norton (ah, my 16-year old self). None of them are that bad, although this is easily Tom Hanks' most boring nominated performance.

Unfairly left off: Jeff Bridges, Hamayon Ershadi and Tobey Maguire (Pleasantville).
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
mlrg
Associate
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by mlrg »

OscarGuy wrote:All we need now is a couple of votes for Tom Hanks and the graph will look like a big ol' middle finger towards the Academy. :)

ahahaahahahaahahhhha :D
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by OscarGuy »

All we need now is a couple of votes for Tom Hanks and the graph will look like a big ol' middle finger towards the Academy. :)
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
MovieFan
Graduate
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:40 am

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by MovieFan »

Ian McKellen- Gods and Monsters
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by Uri »

ITALIANO wrote:To even just associate an Oscar with crimes against humanity is quite disturbing honestly, and it doesn't say much about Benigni or the Academy (or, most importantly, about humanity) - though it says alot about personal anger.
Just to make it clear, my statement had nothing to do with the Oscars, but with the film itself.
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by Uri »

Ok, it may be a little stretched, but still:

http:/&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0810848759/www.scarecrowpress.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search
ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by ksrymy »

Big Magilla wrote:I suppose it comes down to whether you liked Gods and Monsters or Life Is Beautiful better.
Not necessarily, Life is Beautiful is in my top ten favorite films of all-time but McKellen's work is more intense and pitch-perfect than Benigni's only if by a slight margin.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by dws1982 »

ITALIANO wrote:And whatever happened to Edward Norton? American History X was seen by most as just his first of many possible nominations in this category. It hasn't happened again till now, and this certainly promising, talented actor seems to have mysteriously vanished - from Italian screens, at least.
He ruined his career by being very difficult to work with.

Voted for Nolte.
mlrg
Associate
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by mlrg »

Ian McKellen - Gods and Monsters
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Best Actor 1998

Post by ITALIANO »

To even just associate an Oscar with crimes against humanity is quite disturbing honestly, and it doesn't say much about Benigni or the Academy (or, most importantly, about humanity) - though it says alot about personal anger.

Benigni's performance is both poetic and comic, from a great actor who is also a true intellectual - and one who, like all true intellectuals should do, didn't just read books or see movies but filtered all this through life, real life, a fully lived life, which includes the joys of sex, of food, etc. And one feels that, and should be grateful for that.

But I've been there before. Plus, it's true that this was a very competitive race, and they were all at least good - even Tom Hanks, never my favorite actor, but at his personal best, and reasonably affecting, in Saving Private Ryan.

And whatever happened to Edward Norton? American History X was seen by most as just his first of many possible nominations in this category. It hasn't happened again till now, and this certainly promising, talented actor seems to have mysteriously vanished - from Italian screens, at least.

I may have been too tough on Gods and Monsters back then. While not a masterpiece, it's definitely a honest movie - which considering recent American cinema is something rare. And the director is very good with his actors - especially with McKellen who, and I can say it now, while certainly great on the stage, has never been really impressive in his other film appearences. Cinema, obviously, isn't his medium, but Gods and Monsters, where he's rather good, is his best performance.

Nick Nolte is even better in Affliction - raw, intense work from an actor who with the right material could be at least interesting, and sometimes very good.
Post Reply

Return to “The 8th Decade”