After a run of landslides, it's fun to see another all-over-the-place year.
Campbell Scott is for me the big omission. He was gifted with a ton of wonderful dialogue, but he handled it like a master.
The Pianist is another all-time "I don't get what people see" movie. I think it's perfectly well-made, but the first half feels startlingly close to generic-Holocaust, and the latter portions (the least derivative) for me suffer from an extreme lack of point of view: I have no idea why Szpilman does the things he does or how he feels about them. I think this opaqueness probably served the film well in Oscar terms -- it's likely Polanski saw it as "anything he does to survive is fine", but by keeping that ethic submerged, he allowed the "everyone who survived the Holocaust is heroic" bloc to feel better about the character. In any event, I found/find Brody a pretty recessive actor, and I don't view his performance as anything special. (I'll admit to maybe a hint of beyond-the-film bias: 2002 was the year my wife was on the SAG Nominating Committe, so we saw the film early November, with Brody interviewed afterward, and he was as pleased-with-himself in that interview as any narcissist I've ever seen)
I'm afraid I fall on the "too much" side of the Daniel Day-Lewis debate here. Or maybe just "too little recognizably human". It was an entertaining enough turn -- certainly compared the film's other bland leading players -- but not a patch on his two great Oscar-winning performances.
The other three are all quite splendid. I think Michael Caine in The Quiet American gives perhaps the perfect career-summation performance. We've seen lots of Michael Caine the leading man, from Ipcress File/Alfie on, and plenty of Caine the character actor in later work like The Cider House Rules. But here, for once, he lets us see the leading man aging into the character actor -- and shows plenty of warts in the process. It's very solid work, though in a fairly routine translation of Greene's great prescient novel.
By the time of Adaptation, Nicolas Cage had squandered all the goodwill he'd picked up from Leaving Las Vegas. It had begun to look like he'd never work for anyone but Jerry Bruckheimer again. But here he proved he still had some juice left, with two very different (and, as BJ says, easily distinguishable) characters. I consider him quite the equal of Streep and Cooper in this film; all three actors are at the top of their game.
But so is Jack Nicholson, and, in the end, I have to go for him. I don't comprehend the hostility this film receives in some quarters here. I think it, like all Payne films, is beautifully written, cynical and funny, and populated with wonderful characters. Jack's Warren Schmidt towers above them all; more than 30 years after we became aware of him, Jack showed he still had new colors to display. Scenes like his trip to his childhood home-turned-tire store, or his voice-overed letters, are in a different key from any character he'd created in the past -- poignant and rueful but still funny and never sentimentalized. This is, at least to date, the last great creative outburst of one of history's most significant screen actors, and he well deserves my vote for our little prize.
Best Actor 2002
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
-
Bruce_Lavigne
- Graduate
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:47 pm
- Location: Boston
Re: Best Actor 2002
I voted for Daniel Day-Lewis, as decisively and as enthusiastically as I would have almost 10 years ago. At the risk of revisiting the minor flame war I inadvertently started when I first joined the board, it’s for my money the greatest, most thrilling performance any actor has ever committed to film, one that creates right before our eyes a whole new style of screen acting — not, admittedly, a style that would work in just any context, but one perfectly suited to the film Day-Lewis is in this year and the character he's playing.
Without question, this is a big performance; such a big character would brook nothing less. But is he "overacting"? Frankly, I can't get my head around the idea that he is. To say that a performer is "overacting" implies that he is doing more than is necessary in order to achieve the necessary effect. First of all, that's not automatically a negative (though it's certainly not to everyone on the board's tastes). But that's irrelevant here, because whatever Day-Lewis is doing in Gangs, it isn’t that. Yes, "big" acting in "big" roles can be insufferably self-indulgent in a way that subtle, smaller-scaled performances usually aren't, but it can also be electrifying and revelatory, and I'll agree 100% with BJ's assessment of Day-Lewis as an actor of impeccable control whose most flamboyant and outsized mannerisms still seem life-sized. I'll add to that the view that he's also, quite simply, a very soulful actor who's as good as anybody at creating the sense that everything his characters do is the culmination of an entire lifetime's worth of experiences and feelings. He consistently delivers perfectly-calibrated performances that get under a character’s skin and bring them to life as real, breathing human beings, and here he does so in a role that seems designed as anything but "real." The performance is perfectly scaled to the role, which in turn seems to grow naturally out of the film's stylized vision of old Manhattan — a vision that, to me, makes Gangs of New York one of the most thrilling (there's that adjective again) films of the decade despite its narrative creakiness and the flat performances of Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz in roles they're spectacularly ill-suited to.
I can't think of a moment in Gangs of New York where I thought of Day-Lewis "That was too much," or "That didn't come off the way I think he meant it to." I was simply mesmerized by the outrageous, bizarre, and fascinating character he and Scorsese had created. There's a remarkable precision and restraint to everything he does, with each gesture carefully chosen and thought out, even when the character engages in his most flamboyant posturing. Everything he does just seems to be pouring out of the character, making him seem completely real just by the way he interacts with his Dickens-by-way-of-Bosch environment and relates to his scene partners. This is a performance (and a role) of tremendous imagination and invention (not to mention style and panache), plus a soul and humanity that the role needs to play. What Day-Lewis does in Gangs is as grand and intricate as any work of art, and he gets my vote without hesitation.
My top 5:
1. Daniel Day-Lewis, Gangs of New York
2. Michael Caine, The Quiet American
3. Campbell Scott, Roger Dodger
4. Adrien Brody, The Pianist
5. Jack Nicholson, About Schmidt
Without question, this is a big performance; such a big character would brook nothing less. But is he "overacting"? Frankly, I can't get my head around the idea that he is. To say that a performer is "overacting" implies that he is doing more than is necessary in order to achieve the necessary effect. First of all, that's not automatically a negative (though it's certainly not to everyone on the board's tastes). But that's irrelevant here, because whatever Day-Lewis is doing in Gangs, it isn’t that. Yes, "big" acting in "big" roles can be insufferably self-indulgent in a way that subtle, smaller-scaled performances usually aren't, but it can also be electrifying and revelatory, and I'll agree 100% with BJ's assessment of Day-Lewis as an actor of impeccable control whose most flamboyant and outsized mannerisms still seem life-sized. I'll add to that the view that he's also, quite simply, a very soulful actor who's as good as anybody at creating the sense that everything his characters do is the culmination of an entire lifetime's worth of experiences and feelings. He consistently delivers perfectly-calibrated performances that get under a character’s skin and bring them to life as real, breathing human beings, and here he does so in a role that seems designed as anything but "real." The performance is perfectly scaled to the role, which in turn seems to grow naturally out of the film's stylized vision of old Manhattan — a vision that, to me, makes Gangs of New York one of the most thrilling (there's that adjective again) films of the decade despite its narrative creakiness and the flat performances of Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz in roles they're spectacularly ill-suited to.
I can't think of a moment in Gangs of New York where I thought of Day-Lewis "That was too much," or "That didn't come off the way I think he meant it to." I was simply mesmerized by the outrageous, bizarre, and fascinating character he and Scorsese had created. There's a remarkable precision and restraint to everything he does, with each gesture carefully chosen and thought out, even when the character engages in his most flamboyant posturing. Everything he does just seems to be pouring out of the character, making him seem completely real just by the way he interacts with his Dickens-by-way-of-Bosch environment and relates to his scene partners. This is a performance (and a role) of tremendous imagination and invention (not to mention style and panache), plus a soul and humanity that the role needs to play. What Day-Lewis does in Gangs is as grand and intricate as any work of art, and he gets my vote without hesitation.
My top 5:
1. Daniel Day-Lewis, Gangs of New York
2. Michael Caine, The Quiet American
3. Campbell Scott, Roger Dodger
4. Adrien Brody, The Pianist
5. Jack Nicholson, About Schmidt
Last edited by Bruce_Lavigne on Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Best Actor 2002
Adrien Brody - The Pianist
Re: Best Actor 2002
Based on my Shouldabeen list for 2002:
Adrien Brody, The Pianist
Nicolas Cage, Adaptation.
Daniel Day-Lewis, Gangs of New York
Hugh Grant, About a Boy
Jack Nicholson, About Schmidt
Out of the line-up, Brody was still my choice, though it was a close one.
Adrien Brody, The Pianist
Nicolas Cage, Adaptation.
Daniel Day-Lewis, Gangs of New York
Hugh Grant, About a Boy
Jack Nicholson, About Schmidt
Out of the line-up, Brody was still my choice, though it was a close one.
Re: Best Actor 2002
Wrote a long post defending Brody and his film, but then I clicked "submit" and the system had logged me out!
Hopefully I'll have time to rewrite it later, but for now, my picks for 2002:
1- Adrien Brody, The Pianist
2- Nanni Morretti, The Son's Room
3- Lior Ashkenazi, Late Marriage
4- James Nesbitt, Bloody Sunday
5- Samuel L. Jackson, Changing Lanes
Hopefully I'll have time to rewrite it later, but for now, my picks for 2002:
1- Adrien Brody, The Pianist
2- Nanni Morretti, The Son's Room
3- Lior Ashkenazi, Late Marriage
4- James Nesbitt, Bloody Sunday
5- Samuel L. Jackson, Changing Lanes
Re: Best Actor 2002
Nah. 2005. At the time it seemed like a better lineup than usual in that one could conceivably pick more than one performer as a personal choice to win with a straight face, but it can't compare with Hoffman, Howard, Ledger, Phoenix, and Straitharn.The Original BJ wrote
I haven’t seen every Best Actor nominee, but based on what I have seen (which is a good deal), I might argue that this is the greatest Best Actor lineup in the history of the Academy Awards. I’d be hard-pressed to say that any of these performances were remotely UN-worthy of inclusion in this field.
"How's the despair?"
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Re: Best Actor 2002
I haven’t seen every Best Actor nominee, but based on what I have seen (which is a good deal), I might argue that this is the greatest Best Actor lineup in the history of the Academy Awards. I’d be hard-pressed to say that any of these performances were remotely UN-worthy of inclusion in this field.
If I HAD to rank these men, I would probably list Adrien Brody last, but I wasn’t at all upset that he won, for several reasons: 1) his competition had been fairly amply rewarded, 2) his win provided a genuinely exciting jolt to Oscar night, the likes of which we could use more of these days, and, most importantly, 3) his performance was impressive. One of the simplest, most effective moments in The Pianist comes when Brody is confronted about wearing the German coat, and he responds, “I’m cold.” It’s a perfect summation of what this character has struggled with throughout the film; he cannot afford to care about ideology, or even worry about how the war will end anymore. He can focus on nothing but the moment-to-moment challenge of how to keep himself alive, and Brody perfectly captures the physical pain and mental anguish of such a situation. The actor does almost the opposite of command the screen -- you could say he retreats into it, attempting to make himself as small and inconspicuous as possible, relying on a tool as expressive as his eyes to reveal his thoughts. Ultimately, I think the other actors are allowed to burrow deeper into more interesting characters than Brody is, so he doesn’t get my vote, but his work here is noteworthy, and I do hope he’ll find another role in the future that might be able to prove this wasn’t a fluke.
Nicolas Cage is sublime in Adaptation. I was mortified when he lost the Globe to Richard Gere, and feared he could be omitted on Oscar morning, as so many fine comic lead actors have been this decade. But thankfully, he made the cut for this wondrous dual role. I never had any doubt which Kaufman brother I was watching, simply because Cage invests each character with such hilarious specificity. And beyond that, he creates a brotherly bond that is, at first, amusing with its competing encouraging/antagonistic undercurrents; by film’s end, it has become something surprisingly touching. Adaptation is definitely my favorite film of this lineup, and I think Cage is a great alter ego for Charlie Kaufman (has the writer’s inner monologue ever been captured as humorously as by this actor/writer pair?) But I voted for Cage for Leaving Las Vegas, and I think one Oscar is enough.
Michael Caine was another actor I feared would miss out on this nomination, and I was thrilled he didn’t. This is one of the actor’s great leading roles, a haunting, morally complex antihero who learns that one cannot simply observe in a time of turmoil -- the political will eventually have an effect on the personal. Caine’s embassy outburst is a great moment, and a classic Oscar clip, but like Tom Wilkinson’s kitchen explosion a year prior, it works so well because the actor has let his character’s bitterness slowly simmer through earlier parts of the film. Although some of his character’s actions may be surprising, Caine shows us little by little how they are the only course of action for this man, the direct result of his seemingly passive, jaded attitude. I remember reading that Caine really did wish to win a lead actor statue at some point in his career, and this would have been a fine time to give it to him, but for me, this award comes down to the other two performances.
I know there are some here who find Daniel Day-Lewis consistently over the top. As a fan of the actor, let me say that what I respond to in his work is his sense of control, that he is often able to create big, larger-than-life characters without seeming like he’s flailing, or reaching for effect. (Obviously, one’s mileage on this might vary.) And that’s precisely what I see in his Gangs work: Bill the Butcher is a colorful, theatrical, character, with a glass eye and a thick New Yawk accent, but Day-Lewis brings such confidence and commitment to this role that he never felt to me like a caricature. Day-Lewis creates a striking monster with a venomous sense of humor, but has a nice change of pace scene by DiCaprio’s bedside, draped in the flag, that reveals vulnerability as well. I predicted him to win on Oscar night, and I was perfectly happy to cheer that outcome, though he wasn’t my pick at the time. In retrospect, it's even easier to wait to give him a second Oscar for an even more central, dominant role just ahead.
So my pick today, and nearly a decade ago, is Jack Nicholson, in what I view as his best late-career performance, maybe even his finest post-seventies work. I know some don’t care for About Schmidt, but I’m a big fan of the movie, and think Nicholson’s central performance is a key element to its success. With great humanity, Nicholson captures the regret and isolation of a man who is closer to the end of his life than the beginning, and is wondering just what it was all about. His voice-over throughout is poignant, those scenes when he tries to connect with other people are often heartbreaking, and that last close-up is a thing of beauty. And he’s very funny to boot! (Loved Nicholson's response when he won Best Actor in a Drama at the Globes: "I thought we made a comedy.") Somehow, Nicholson manages to touch the audience while at the same time creating a character who is often a jerk, and it’s these completely oblivious interactions with others that provide much of the film’s humor. I particularly love his response to Hope Davis when he tells her that he didn’t pick the LEAST expensive coffin for his wife. And the “Dear Ndugu” letters are delivered with just the right amount of condescension to allow us to laugh at Warren’s ignorance while sympathizing with his loneliness. I’m not surprised the Academy passed on Jack, given his win several years earlier and their general antipathy toward his film. But in my world, Jack’s As Good As It Gets Oscar really should have been for this.
If I HAD to rank these men, I would probably list Adrien Brody last, but I wasn’t at all upset that he won, for several reasons: 1) his competition had been fairly amply rewarded, 2) his win provided a genuinely exciting jolt to Oscar night, the likes of which we could use more of these days, and, most importantly, 3) his performance was impressive. One of the simplest, most effective moments in The Pianist comes when Brody is confronted about wearing the German coat, and he responds, “I’m cold.” It’s a perfect summation of what this character has struggled with throughout the film; he cannot afford to care about ideology, or even worry about how the war will end anymore. He can focus on nothing but the moment-to-moment challenge of how to keep himself alive, and Brody perfectly captures the physical pain and mental anguish of such a situation. The actor does almost the opposite of command the screen -- you could say he retreats into it, attempting to make himself as small and inconspicuous as possible, relying on a tool as expressive as his eyes to reveal his thoughts. Ultimately, I think the other actors are allowed to burrow deeper into more interesting characters than Brody is, so he doesn’t get my vote, but his work here is noteworthy, and I do hope he’ll find another role in the future that might be able to prove this wasn’t a fluke.
Nicolas Cage is sublime in Adaptation. I was mortified when he lost the Globe to Richard Gere, and feared he could be omitted on Oscar morning, as so many fine comic lead actors have been this decade. But thankfully, he made the cut for this wondrous dual role. I never had any doubt which Kaufman brother I was watching, simply because Cage invests each character with such hilarious specificity. And beyond that, he creates a brotherly bond that is, at first, amusing with its competing encouraging/antagonistic undercurrents; by film’s end, it has become something surprisingly touching. Adaptation is definitely my favorite film of this lineup, and I think Cage is a great alter ego for Charlie Kaufman (has the writer’s inner monologue ever been captured as humorously as by this actor/writer pair?) But I voted for Cage for Leaving Las Vegas, and I think one Oscar is enough.
Michael Caine was another actor I feared would miss out on this nomination, and I was thrilled he didn’t. This is one of the actor’s great leading roles, a haunting, morally complex antihero who learns that one cannot simply observe in a time of turmoil -- the political will eventually have an effect on the personal. Caine’s embassy outburst is a great moment, and a classic Oscar clip, but like Tom Wilkinson’s kitchen explosion a year prior, it works so well because the actor has let his character’s bitterness slowly simmer through earlier parts of the film. Although some of his character’s actions may be surprising, Caine shows us little by little how they are the only course of action for this man, the direct result of his seemingly passive, jaded attitude. I remember reading that Caine really did wish to win a lead actor statue at some point in his career, and this would have been a fine time to give it to him, but for me, this award comes down to the other two performances.
I know there are some here who find Daniel Day-Lewis consistently over the top. As a fan of the actor, let me say that what I respond to in his work is his sense of control, that he is often able to create big, larger-than-life characters without seeming like he’s flailing, or reaching for effect. (Obviously, one’s mileage on this might vary.) And that’s precisely what I see in his Gangs work: Bill the Butcher is a colorful, theatrical, character, with a glass eye and a thick New Yawk accent, but Day-Lewis brings such confidence and commitment to this role that he never felt to me like a caricature. Day-Lewis creates a striking monster with a venomous sense of humor, but has a nice change of pace scene by DiCaprio’s bedside, draped in the flag, that reveals vulnerability as well. I predicted him to win on Oscar night, and I was perfectly happy to cheer that outcome, though he wasn’t my pick at the time. In retrospect, it's even easier to wait to give him a second Oscar for an even more central, dominant role just ahead.
So my pick today, and nearly a decade ago, is Jack Nicholson, in what I view as his best late-career performance, maybe even his finest post-seventies work. I know some don’t care for About Schmidt, but I’m a big fan of the movie, and think Nicholson’s central performance is a key element to its success. With great humanity, Nicholson captures the regret and isolation of a man who is closer to the end of his life than the beginning, and is wondering just what it was all about. His voice-over throughout is poignant, those scenes when he tries to connect with other people are often heartbreaking, and that last close-up is a thing of beauty. And he’s very funny to boot! (Loved Nicholson's response when he won Best Actor in a Drama at the Globes: "I thought we made a comedy.") Somehow, Nicholson manages to touch the audience while at the same time creating a character who is often a jerk, and it’s these completely oblivious interactions with others that provide much of the film’s humor. I particularly love his response to Hope Davis when he tells her that he didn’t pick the LEAST expensive coffin for his wife. And the “Dear Ndugu” letters are delivered with just the right amount of condescension to allow us to laugh at Warren’s ignorance while sympathizing with his loneliness. I’m not surprised the Academy passed on Jack, given his win several years earlier and their general antipathy toward his film. But in my world, Jack’s As Good As It Gets Oscar really should have been for this.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: Best Actor 2002
Peter is correct. It was a cross-comparative comment relating two actors who won undeserved Oscars for roles in Holocaust films. That, and the comparison continued referencing their antics at the Oscar ceremonies at which they won.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19338
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Best Actor 2002
I think he was making the analogy based on the Holocaust theme of both films.ITALIANO wrote:Oscar Guy, if, of thousands undeserved Oscars, you can only always remember Benigni, well, let's just say that your lack of sense of history is VERY American (which is a good thing, probably. America is a great country, as we all know).OscarGuy wrote: like Benigni before him, he has an undeserved Oscar
Re: Best Actor 2002
Oscar Guy, if, of thousands undeserved Oscars, you can only always remember Benigni, well, let's just say that your lack of sense of history is VERY American (which is a good thing, probably. America is a great country, as we all know).OscarGuy wrote: like Benigni before him, he has an undeserved Oscar
But yes, I agree with you, Adrien Brody didn't deserve his Oscar. I don't want to use strong words, I'm too mature for that - it's certainly a not especially impressive, or expressive, turn, and it doesn't even suggest a potentially great actor (though Brody has been better in other movies). He won for several reasons - including the fact that he was in a good and respected film; those who like to read between the lines should admit that the fact that his character was a persecuted Jew also played a role (I'm not sure that winning for this reason truly helps the Jewish cause though). It's not the worst Best Actor Oscars ever, but not one of the best either, and it's interesting that Brody, despite being young and undeniably interesting, didn't have much of a career afterwards (two years ago he even came to Italy to star in a very minor Dario Argento movie - and Dario Argento isn't THAT Dario Argento anymore - which didn't even find a distribution in cinemas here).
Brody isn't very good but he's still better than Nicolas Cage. Caine's movie was unfortunately dreadful, and his lazy performance not one of his best.
So I'd say that it's between Daniel Day-Lewis and dear old Jack Nicholson. Day-Lewis is in the better (though flawed) movie, and his over-the-top performance is quite enjoyable; but my vote goes to Nicholson, much better than the movie he's in, intense, and for once reasonably subdued. A beautiful performance.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: Best Actor 2002
I'll admit up front that I have not seen Caine in The Quiet American.
Of the remaining four, I'd be hard-pressed to select any of three of them. This is probably Nicolas Cage's best work, though I like Leaving Las Vegas even though others don't seem to here. I give him the lead over Daniel Day-Lewis who was terrific in Gangs of New York, but had the subtlety of a sledge hammer. Jack Nicholson did some nice late-career work in About Schmidt as well.
I've never liked Adrien Brody's win largely because I don't care much for The Pianist. I think, for a film about the Holocaust, to feel so emotionally detached is a disservice to that horrible time. Of course, I may be alone in my dislike of the film. I thought Brody was mostly just serviceable. And nothing from his later career has changed my opinion about him. He got really lucky and now, like Benigni before him, he has an undeserved Oscar and a legacy that will live on because of his antics on stage (or off in the case of Benigni).
Some wonderful male lead performances from this year include Hugh Grant in About a Boy, Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can, Richard Gere in Chicago, Jeremy Renner in Dahmer and Robin Williams in One Hour Photo.
If I were forced to rank the 5 best of the ones I've seen:
Robin Williams - One Hour Photo
Jeremy Renner - Dahmer
Nicolas Cage - Adaptation. (originally my top-ranked person from that year, but has slipped in my memory and estimation)
Richard Gere - Chicago
Jack Nicholson - About Schmidt
Of the remaining four, I'd be hard-pressed to select any of three of them. This is probably Nicolas Cage's best work, though I like Leaving Las Vegas even though others don't seem to here. I give him the lead over Daniel Day-Lewis who was terrific in Gangs of New York, but had the subtlety of a sledge hammer. Jack Nicholson did some nice late-career work in About Schmidt as well.
I've never liked Adrien Brody's win largely because I don't care much for The Pianist. I think, for a film about the Holocaust, to feel so emotionally detached is a disservice to that horrible time. Of course, I may be alone in my dislike of the film. I thought Brody was mostly just serviceable. And nothing from his later career has changed my opinion about him. He got really lucky and now, like Benigni before him, he has an undeserved Oscar and a legacy that will live on because of his antics on stage (or off in the case of Benigni).
Some wonderful male lead performances from this year include Hugh Grant in About a Boy, Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can, Richard Gere in Chicago, Jeremy Renner in Dahmer and Robin Williams in One Hour Photo.
If I were forced to rank the 5 best of the ones I've seen:
Robin Williams - One Hour Photo
Jeremy Renner - Dahmer
Nicolas Cage - Adaptation. (originally my top-ranked person from that year, but has slipped in my memory and estimation)
Richard Gere - Chicago
Jack Nicholson - About Schmidt
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19338
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Best Actor 2002
This was an easy choice for me. Michael Caine, an actor I'd always liked but never loved, really came through in The Quiet American, his best performance by a mile, the first and only time I've considered him the best of any year.
Jack Nicholson was spot-on in About Schmidt. The film had a few excesses but Jack and Kathy Bates, who should have won in support, easily surmounted them.
Adrien Brody was good, and nomination worthy in The Pianist, but he was the only one of the nominees who had never won. Caine already had two Oscars and Nicholson three. I pretty much figured his surprise win over the predicted Day-Lewis was a default win given the only nominee who hadn't yet won.
I did not like Adaptation, although I did like the supporting performances of Chris Cooper and Meryl Streep to a point. One Nicolas Cage, though, can be too much. Two of him is way too much.
I thought Day-Lewis's over-the-top performance was the best thing about Gangs of New York, which contrary to popular opinion, I did not find authentic at all. My gret-great grandfather - my mother's father's mother's father - was an Irish immigrant who was lost in the Civil War - his body never found - and his wife, my great-great grandmother, a widow with four children to raise, was a street vendor who sold turnips and radishes from a cart on the streets of New York depicted in the film. She wouldn't have been able to walk those streets, let alone make a living if they were as bloody violent as all that.
Of those left off the list, Leonardo DiCaprio, who was dull as dish water in Gangs, but earned his kudos for Catch Me If You Can and should have been for that in place of Cage. Nobody else this year was really award-worthy, although Campbell Scott in Roger Doger and Hugh Grant in About a Boy come close.
Jack Nicholson was spot-on in About Schmidt. The film had a few excesses but Jack and Kathy Bates, who should have won in support, easily surmounted them.
Adrien Brody was good, and nomination worthy in The Pianist, but he was the only one of the nominees who had never won. Caine already had two Oscars and Nicholson three. I pretty much figured his surprise win over the predicted Day-Lewis was a default win given the only nominee who hadn't yet won.
I did not like Adaptation, although I did like the supporting performances of Chris Cooper and Meryl Streep to a point. One Nicolas Cage, though, can be too much. Two of him is way too much.
I thought Day-Lewis's over-the-top performance was the best thing about Gangs of New York, which contrary to popular opinion, I did not find authentic at all. My gret-great grandfather - my mother's father's mother's father - was an Irish immigrant who was lost in the Civil War - his body never found - and his wife, my great-great grandmother, a widow with four children to raise, was a street vendor who sold turnips and radishes from a cart on the streets of New York depicted in the film. She wouldn't have been able to walk those streets, let alone make a living if they were as bloody violent as all that.
Of those left off the list, Leonardo DiCaprio, who was dull as dish water in Gangs, but earned his kudos for Catch Me If You Can and should have been for that in place of Cage. Nobody else this year was really award-worthy, although Campbell Scott in Roger Doger and Hugh Grant in About a Boy come close.
Re: Best Actor 2002
My picks for 2002:
Michael Caine, The Quiet American
Ajay Devgan, Company
Jack Nicholson, About Schmidt
Adrien Brody, The Pianist
Daniel Day-Lewis, Gangs of New York
The 6th Spot: Hugh Grant, About a Boy
Michael Caine, The Quiet American
Ajay Devgan, Company
Jack Nicholson, About Schmidt
Adrien Brody, The Pianist
Daniel Day-Lewis, Gangs of New York
The 6th Spot: Hugh Grant, About a Boy
Re: Best Actor 2002
I really don't understand the praise for Brody's performance in The Pianist. I actually felt he was the weakest of the nominees, the other performances showed far more imagination and creativity. I just felt it was Polanski guiding Brody all the way through as oppossed to an actor adding something extra to the part. Nicholson gets my vote.
Re: Best Actor 2002
First off is Nicholson, painfully miscast in About Schmidt, Alexander Payne's worst film. I think this is one of the worst performances nominated of the decade, and I don't for the life of me understand the raves.
I do understand the raves for Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York, but hindsight is 50/50 and Most Acting is not Best Acting. I still enjoy Gangs of New York to some degree, for its sets, for its history, and for various miscellany that yet fail to bore me; but Day-Lewis gives a supporting performance in a fairly directionless film. Just because nobody else is taking the lead doesn't make him one. It's a lot of acting, sometimes to good effect and sometimes not. I blame the script and that Scorsese doesn't really know what movie he is making. It's fun, but it's not art. I remember predicting that Gangs of New York would win Best Director, Best Actor, Best Original Song, and Best Art Direction, and then it went onto become one of the great Oscar losers.
I am glad that Adrien Brody won. The notion of seeing Jack Nicholson on the stage...ugh! Or Daniel Day-Lewis, regardless of how gracious his SAG speech was. Michael Caine and Nicolas Cage didn't have a prayer. Then there's Brody in a subtle, fascinating movie. A very deserving winner, but for me more by process of elimination than for the actual acting. I find Adrien Brody to be largely superlative in a film with a lot more on its mind than allowing for a brilliant, lead performance. He's very good and for the life of me I don't understand why he's failed to capitalize on his win more.
It's between Caine and Cage for me. It's staggering to think that Richard Gere could have replaced one of these performers! I think The Quiet American is a blip of genius in what was quickly becoming a very reliable and enjoyable supporting career for Michael Caine. It's his best leading performance in ages, and he does great work. I remember thinking that the film let him down in parts, and I've already voted for him for Hannah and Her Sisters. So I'm going to give this to Nicolas Cage for the only nominated performance that matches his earlier wackadoo roles. I'm less of an Adaptation. groupie now than I was. It's a film of wonderful moments and ideas, but it's strung together by a streak of self-absorption and directionless that I now find a bit twee. But Cage's performance remains a funny, vulnerable delight. I'm compelled beyond any and all rational thoughts to choose Cage.
Best Actor
1. Nicolas Cage, Adaptation.
2. Campbell Scott, Roger Dodger
3. Michael Caine, The Quiet American
4. Hugh Grant, About a Boy
5. Lior Ashkenazi, Late Marriage
I do understand the raves for Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York, but hindsight is 50/50 and Most Acting is not Best Acting. I still enjoy Gangs of New York to some degree, for its sets, for its history, and for various miscellany that yet fail to bore me; but Day-Lewis gives a supporting performance in a fairly directionless film. Just because nobody else is taking the lead doesn't make him one. It's a lot of acting, sometimes to good effect and sometimes not. I blame the script and that Scorsese doesn't really know what movie he is making. It's fun, but it's not art. I remember predicting that Gangs of New York would win Best Director, Best Actor, Best Original Song, and Best Art Direction, and then it went onto become one of the great Oscar losers.
I am glad that Adrien Brody won. The notion of seeing Jack Nicholson on the stage...ugh! Or Daniel Day-Lewis, regardless of how gracious his SAG speech was. Michael Caine and Nicolas Cage didn't have a prayer. Then there's Brody in a subtle, fascinating movie. A very deserving winner, but for me more by process of elimination than for the actual acting. I find Adrien Brody to be largely superlative in a film with a lot more on its mind than allowing for a brilliant, lead performance. He's very good and for the life of me I don't understand why he's failed to capitalize on his win more.
It's between Caine and Cage for me. It's staggering to think that Richard Gere could have replaced one of these performers! I think The Quiet American is a blip of genius in what was quickly becoming a very reliable and enjoyable supporting career for Michael Caine. It's his best leading performance in ages, and he does great work. I remember thinking that the film let him down in parts, and I've already voted for him for Hannah and Her Sisters. So I'm going to give this to Nicolas Cage for the only nominated performance that matches his earlier wackadoo roles. I'm less of an Adaptation. groupie now than I was. It's a film of wonderful moments and ideas, but it's strung together by a streak of self-absorption and directionless that I now find a bit twee. But Cage's performance remains a funny, vulnerable delight. I'm compelled beyond any and all rational thoughts to choose Cage.
Best Actor
1. Nicolas Cage, Adaptation.
2. Campbell Scott, Roger Dodger
3. Michael Caine, The Quiet American
4. Hugh Grant, About a Boy
5. Lior Ashkenazi, Late Marriage
"How's the despair?"