Best Actor 2000

1998 through 2007

Best Actor 2000

Javier Bardem - Before Night Falls
16
41%
Russell Crowe - Gladiator
4
10%
Tom Hanks - Cast Away
10
26%
Ed Harris - Pollock
6
15%
Geoffrey Rush - Quills
3
8%
 
Total votes: 39

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by Big Magilla »

Mister Tee wrote:
Damien wrote:I remember back in late summer/early fall of 2000, somebody on this board -- I think it was Pepe (was there someone by that name?) -- said Gladiator and Russell Crowe would be leading contenders for the Oscar. I laughed and pooh poohed the idea that such a piece of Ridley Scott junk would be remembered come nominations day, let alone Oscar night. Shows how much I know.
I believe Pepe was the earlier incarnation of Penelope, on the first board.
Yes, I meant to respond to this last night but sleepiness got the better of me.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by Sabin »

Mister Tee wrote
As much as I don't care for Quills in general, I do agree that Phoenix's performance was quite good -- for me, better than his Gladiator work. I thought Kate Winslet was quite strong in the film, as well.
That fifth spot for Best Supporting Actress was one of the most up in the air nomination slots of the decade. Catherine Zeta-Jones got the Globe nomination, Kate Winslet got the SAG nomination, the critics went for Lupe Ontiveros, Marcia Gay Harden, and Elaine May. And there was talk of Ziyi Zhang as well. I don't know how many people predicted Marcia Gay Harden for the nom, let alone of the win.
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by Mister Tee »

Damien wrote:I remember back in late summer/early fall of 2000, somebody on this board -- I think it was Pepe (was there someone by that name?) -- said Gladiator and Russell Crowe would be leading contenders for the Oscar. I laughed and pooh poohed the idea that such a piece of Ridley Scott junk would be remembered come nominations day, let alone Oscar night. Shows how much I know.
I believe Pepe was the earlier incarnation of Penelope, on the first board.

Most of us pooh-poohed Gladiator early on as any best picture contender -- rightly so, given how minor a piece it is. We probably need to "credit" Owen Gleiberman for keeping it in the spotlight; he kept touting it as some sort of crossover-to-serious effort. Even with that, it took a very disappointing year to put it into contention, with the only other prime candidates a martial arts film in Mandarin Chinese and a panoramic view of the drug trade that critics (wrongly) labelled deeply dark. There were no consensus anywhere -- it was a rare year PGA/DGA/SAG all picked different film -- and right up to the end we weren't sure what would win.

The Crowe emergence was even more shocking to me, and here I grudgingly have to point to the Broadcast Critics, who voted him best actor at a time when I didn't even have him on my list for the year. It might have been the first time they really asserted their influence.

As much as I don't care for Quills in general, I do agree that Phoenix's performance was quite good -- for me, better than his Gladiator work. I thought Kate Winslet was quite strong in the film, as well.
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by Reza »

Voted for Bardem.

My picks for 2000:

Christian Bale, American Psycho
Michael Douglas, Wonder Boys
Javier Bardem, Before Night Falls
Russell Crowe, Gladiator
Geoffrey Rush, Quills

The 6th Spot: Jamie Bell, Billy Elliott
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by Sabin »

Damien wrote
(Interestingly, Joaquin Phoenix was wonderful in both Quills and Russell Crowe’s movies, his sly quiet incisiveness acting rings around Rush’s hambone hijinks and Crowe’s bland stolidness.)
I haven't seen The Yards but I've heard that he's fantastic in that as well. James Gray has always made very good use of Phoenix. I honestly don't know which film I prefer Phoenix in. His tortured priest is surprisingly genuine for such a histrionic film, very moving. And his Commodos must have read ridiculously on the page, but he makes him utterly believable on the screen. Both a loathsome and sympathetic villain.

2000 was a year I spent a lot of time on this Board, and I recall that there was very little consensus towards astute prognostication, and was rather astonished by Gladiator's ascension to Oscar front-runner status. Quills was a front-runner. Billy Elliot was a front-runner. I think I may have predicted Enemy at the Gates at one point. The year was all over the place. I think I eventually settled on Almost Famous before the nominations came out. More so than most years, the lineup of 2000 is absolutely no reflection of which films I find exceptional and although the show was pretty great it was very difficult to care about whether Traffic or Crouching Tiger or Gladiator won. I found myself rooting for the people, not the performances.

The most unexpected pleasant surprise for me was Dede Allen's Editing nom for Wonder Boys, which is a deceptively brilliant editing job. What Curtis Hanson did in that film was model the photography after Festen, and carry deep focus from performer to another which meant he staged multi-character scenes like a play and danced his hand-held camera methodically from one actor to another, meaning a lot of the time between "lands" must have been out of focus...and I don't remember one moment of the film that was. Look at what Festen looked like and look at this. It's not just the budgeting, it's the choices in the editing room. That's a testament to Dede Allen as much as Curtis Hanson.

Nice to see love for John Cusack's great work in High Fidelity.
"How's the despair?"
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by Uri »

I guess everything that had to be said about Rush and Crow had allresdy been said. Both shouldn't have been on this list. Hanks should have – it's probably the last time he hadn't fully succumbed to his own celebrated image. He was a great actor and this is a very solid turn in a film that could have been better. Javier Bardem is another great actor, and he's capable of overcoming pretentious, poorly judged films – his two nominations as lead actor were for such outings. Ironically, one of my main problems with BNF is what actually makes him eligible in my book – this film should have been a Spanish speaking one. But while he does manage to rise above the fakeness surrounding him, the overall result is not as good as his turns in the like of Live Flesh (still his best ever).

But as I was a decade ago, I'm going to be the contrarian* here and not only vote for Harris as my default choice but also to claim his is a truly deserving, fascinating performance. It's often considered as a vanity project, a self indulging one – as Harris himself said, what initially brought him to do it was the fact that he looked like Pollock, the mere physicality of him and not his art or personality of which he eventually became fascinated with. And I find his film reflecting this process. It is not so much about painting and THE ARTS – it more about the art of Harris himself, about acting and the way an actor inhabits a character. He does it by making a film about the physicality of the artistic process, about the way an artist, every artist, uses the very basic tool he owns – his body. This is a film and a performance which explores the way the body is used, operates and framed. While there's Krasner on one side whose art and outlook is all about the mind, Pollock is depicted as a very physical entity, at first confined by the conventional ways painting is done and then being fully liberated once he find a way to practice his art in a way which naturally and freely enables him to use his whole body – the canvas is turned into a stage, the art of the painter and that of the actor become one. In its minor way, Pollock managed to combine these three artistic deeds – that of the character, the actor who portrays this character and the director who observes these two, into one clear, coherent entity. I, for once, like it.


* I was writing this post and then when I was about to post is I was pleased to see what Damien and BJ said.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by Damien »

Sabin, I too was sure that Ed Harris was going to win the Oscar this year. Looking back, it still seems that a Harris victory would have been logical. But this year Best Oscar race fell into irrelevance when Michael Douglas’s great performance in Wonder Boys was ignored . . .

I remember back in late summer/early fall of 2000, somebody on this board -- I think it was Pepe (was there someone by that name?) -- said Gladiator and Russell Crowe would be leading contenders for the Oscar. I laughed and pooh poohed the idea that such a piece of Ridley Scott junk would be remembered come nominations day, let alone Oscar night. Shows how much I know. But Russell Crowe's win is even more ludicrous than Charlton Heston's. They're both marginally serviceable physical performance in the service of dull empty spectacles. (How did Victor Mature lose out on winning an Oscar?)

After 10 minutes of Tom Hanks being stranded on that island, I was ready to scream and leave the theatre, , so simultaneously cutesy and mundane was he. It would be torture to be stuck on an elevator with the guy.

Everything that is horrible about Geoffrey Rush is on display in Quills. Mannered, fussy, over-the-top, there is no more piquant proof that when it comes to acting, more is definitely less. Another atrocious performance by the current day King of Atrocious Performances. Ithought the once he had died, we were rid of Lee J. Cobb, but then along comes this clown to take his place. (Interestingly, Joaquin Phoenix was wonderful in both Quills and Russell Crowe’s movies, his sly quiet incisiveness acting rings around Rush’s hambone hijinks and Crowe’s bland stolidness.)

As for Javier Bardem, I’m embarrassed to say I remember almost nothing about Before Night Falls. In fact when I saw him listed in this poll as a nominee my first thought was, “Oh, yes, that’s the movie he played a paraplegic who wanted to die.” When I looked up Before Night Falls, it sort of came back to me, but not too vividly.

Pollock has a terrific sense of time and place and it’s recreation of the New York art world od the 40s and 50s is wonderful. But the film itself is way too straight-forward and as a director, Ed Harris should be making TV movies. But his ferocious characterization grabs you from the get-go, and what makes his work here memorable is that, like Karloff as Frankenstein, he is a monster but a monster who reveals inner pain. he also ably conveys a feeling of catharsis wjen he's going through the painful process of creating art. For me, among this group of contenders, Ed Harris is a no-brainer choice.

My Own Top 5:
1. John Cusack in High Fidelity
2. Michael Douglas in Wonder Boys
3. Jamie Bell in Billy Elliot
4. Jalil Lespert in Human Resources
5. Alexis Loret in Alice and Martin
Last edited by Damien on Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by The Original BJ »

My choice for the year's best actor was Michael Douglas in Wonder Boys, and his exclusion on nomination morning (followed by the Almost Famous snub in Best Picture a moment later) marked this the year I learned the Oscars were not all about endorsing MY favorites. Mark Ruffalo was also excellent in You Can Count on Me, but subordinate to his costar, and it's a lot easier for women to nab those kind of lead nominations than men.

I wonder how many of us who picked Farnsworth or Spacey last year would gladly shift our vote to Crowe in '99 if it could have prevented the eventual outcome THIS year. I'd be tempted. I think Maximus barely even qualifies as acting, and I didn't think Crowe would even be nominated for the Oscar (a la Mel Gibson in Braveheart) until SAG put him on their shortlist. I did end up predicting him to win on Oscar night, but oh, how I hoped I'd be wrong. I think this is one of the lamest choices ever.

And I'm sorry to say, but I didn't approach the other favored win-option with much enthusiasm either. I recently revisited Cast Away, knowing that many have always rated Hanks's work highly, and I had the exact same reaction I did in 2000: I thought Hanks's character was basically a cipher, and found the actor's work fairly unexceptional. He isn't BAD, I just don't think the role is that challenging (aside from the obvious physical demands), and I certainly didn't think he needed a third Oscar for it. By me, this is Hanks's least impressive nomination.

So, on Oscar night, I was rooting for an upset by one of the other three.

Quills is actually the one time I really liked Geoffrey Rush, mainly because it allowed him to indulge in his favorite pastime -- refusing to cede one moment of any scene to a costar -- but in this case it was completely appropriate for the character he was playing. As scripted, the Marquis de Sade is nothing short of an attention hog, and Rush has a lot of fun playing this character to the hilt. I think it's a wicked, entertaining performance, but maybe not profound enough to be a great one.

Given that Ed Harris was most widely viewed as the upset possibility, I was rooting for him an Oscar night. After Harden surprised, I really began to think it was possible. I wouldn't have been at all upset by Harris's selection, partly based on his career points, but also for this specific performance. Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't received more support here. This was a case of a wonderful character actor finally having the opportunity to shine in a great lead role, and Harris's volatile, passionate Jackson Pollock was a very exciting creation. The movie overall isn't all that special, but Harris and Harden have dynamite chemistry, and their performances elevate the film beyond the artist bio trappings of the script. As bummed as I was by Michael Douglas's exclusion, the silver lining for me was that at least Harris scored this surprise nomination.

But I'm going to agree with the majority that Javier Bardem gives the best performance of the bunch, one full of deep wells of feeling. Upon first viewing, those final scenes, where his character is ravaged by AIDS, seemed absolutely devastating to me. On a more recent viewing, I was surprised to find that Reinaldo Arenas's charm and good humor felt completely singular, and so unlike much of Bardem's work this past decade. (I particularly like the scene where he tries to appear as "gay" as possible, so the authorities will let him leave Cuba.) He isn't, for me, the only possible choice here, as he is for many, but he gives the most emotionally resonant performance on the ballot, and he gets my vote.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by Big Magilla »

Okri wrote:I know that the right answer is Bardem...
There is no "right" answer when it comes to these polls.

I find the comments and reasoning by everyone very interesting, especially when people agree with me in part, but vary wildly from my opinion on other choices. It often leads me to re-watch a film or a performance I hadn't been crazy about to see if I missed something. Case in point: Fearless, which I just re-watched in order to re-evaluate Jeff Bridges' performance.

I've always maintained that Bridges' best work in 1993 was in American Heart, which I haven't watched in years, but still recall parts of. Fearless I hadn't seen since 1993 or 1994 but vividly recalled Rosie Perez's Oscar nominated performance. Having rewatched it now, I still find her performance to be the best thing about the film. Bridges is fine in the early scenes of the film, but his character's arc simply doesn't ring true for me.

As for Russell Crowe, I actually think his best performance was in A Beautiful Mind - a movie I otherwise loathed. Funny that Tee compares Crowe's win for The Galdiator to a win for Charlton Heston in El Cid . I always thought it was more like awarding Victor Mature an Oscar for Demetrius and the Gladiators. He would have been laughed off the stage, but then 1954 was the year of Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront; Humphrey Bogart in The Caine Mutiny; Bing Crosby in The Country Girl and James Mason in A Star Is Born, so there was no chance of that happening.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by Okri »

I know that the right answer is Bardem, but I don't really care for Before Night Falls (I dislike Schnabel as a director immensely) and don't recall all that much about his performance. I ended up voting for Crowe - it's definitely a charismatic star turn - the most memorable performance from the group.

I'll echo Crudup (my winner), Bale, Ruffalo and Douglas. I'd also toss in Denis Lavant (Beau Travail), Dan Futterman (Urbania), and Sergi Lopez (An Affair of Love) as worthy of consideration.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by Mister Tee »

Damn, I just get through one of these and another pops up.

I don't share the general disappointment over Michael Douglas' omission. Much as I love Wonders Boys -- from a favorite novel -- I think everyone else in the cast is more responsible for the film's success than Michael Douglas. I don't find Douglas a very interesting actor in general, and here I just see a mediocre performer running around in glasses and a bathrobe, trying to stretch but not getting there.

I don't have many substitutes for this year's line-up. About the best I can come up with is Billy Crudup in Jesus' Son.

I actually think Philip Kaufman -- the great under-used director of the last quarter century -- brings alot to Quills: his opening shot, running from Harlequin romance to S&M to the guillotine in seconds, is wonderful. But Quills the play runs on and on, getting more and more shrill as it does, with Geoffrey Rush leading the way. By the end, I pretty throughly disliked Rush and the film.

As deserving as Russell Crowe was of a make-up Oscar, this win really pushed the envelope. Gladiator was a summer movie plot in old-time Biblical film garb, somehow taken ridiculously seriously by enough Oscar voters to win it wholly undeserved prizes. One might as well have awarded Charlton Heston in El Cid as Crowe in this film.

I, too, thought Ed Harris might might that night, on pretty much the same reasoning Sabin used, but I know I'd have been unhappy in the long run. Much as Harris' career in general seems Oscar-deserving, it's hard to gind an actual place he was nominated where you'd like to vote for him. This is an unobjectionable but also unspecial performance; as mentioned, Marcia Gay Harden runs rings around him.

I think Cast Away is one of Tom Hanks' best nominated performances. His go-getting early scenes bring to mind the Hanks alot of us had initially taken to in the 80s, a persona that seemed lost by 2000. And Zemeckis gives him some very interesting scenes to play along the way (as well as some banal ones, proving he's still Bob Zemeckis). Hanks' NY critics win was not unmerited.

But I can't echo it, because I, like most, was completely won over by Javier Bardem's work in Before Night Falls. I hadn't seen any of Bardem's work before then, so I was unprepared for his serious charisma and serious acting ability. That he's gone on to become an international star makes a vote for him even easier to rationalize in retrospect, but, even at the time, he was my choice for the lackluster 2000, and remains so today.
HarryGoldfarb
Adjunct
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by HarryGoldfarb »

rudeboy wrote:My top five

1. Mark Ruffalo, You Can Count on Me
2. Michael Douglas, Wonder Boys
3. Jamie Bell, Billy Elliot
4. Guy Pearce, Memento
5. Javier Bardem, Before Night Falls
Great!
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
bizarre
Assistant
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by bizarre »

I haven't seen much from this year.

1. Eric Bana / Chopper
2. Stanislas Merhar / La captive
3. Jia Hongshen / Suzhou River
4. Ray Winstone / Sexy Beast
5. Lee Sung-jae / Barking Dogs Never Bite
mlrg
Associate
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by mlrg »

Tom Hanks - Cast Away
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Best Actor 2000

Post by ITALIANO »

The Academy found a perfect winner this year: a young, handsome, muscular, not untalented movie star, able to carry an old-fashioned epic, and potentially perfect for playing heroic/romantic roles. The problem, of course, was it wasn't Hollywood in the 50s anymore - this, and Crowe's personal character, prevented this movie dream from coming true, though his performance in Gladiator isn't exactly bad - just not very profound and, obviously, not Oscar-worthy.

Tom Hanks played his usual Tom Hanks persona, only, this time it was Hanks as Robinson Crusoe. Not exactly exciting.

Rush was also his usual overacting self in Quills - an enjoyable (his detractors would rather say: annoying) turn, but in any case not great. And Harris, while probably deserving of a nomination for Pollock, is the kind of actor that we know should have an Oscar by now - the problem is that it's difficult to find the movie, and the year, when he should get it.

Thank God, there's Javier Bardem here. And Javier Bardem is a wonderful, versatile, intensely Spanish still very exportable (true talents almost always are) actor, and Before Night Falls is one of his best performances. He should definitely win.
Post Reply

Return to “The 8th Decade”