We are going fast, aren't we?
It's true that in some years there isn't much to say. This one, for example. Back then, Henry Fonda's victory was universally predicted and, I'd say, very popular. Jane Fonda's long, overly prepared and overwritten speech - and her hairstyle - were probably the most obvious signs that the 70s were definitely over and that the 80s would have been quite different.
Paul Newman's nomination is one of those that can only be explained as a sort of reassurance gesture from the Academy - "you are still on our mind, don't worry, soon it will be your turn". Johnny Depp is getting nomination after nomination just for this reason.
Dudley Moore was a big star back then, this was his Doris-Day-type nomination. These never lead to a win.
Today, it's obviously between Warren Beatty and Burt Lancaster. Beatty is Warren Beatty even as he plays John Reed, but this doesn't mean that his performance isn't a good, engaging one. It succeeds in being epic and intelligent at the same time - not an easy task - and it's his best nominated turn as an actor. He had talent, and it shows.
But Burt Lancaster's is the kind of performance that comes not only from talent - which he had from the beginning - but also from experience, maturity, and I'd say from Europe too - he had clearly learned a few things from Luchino Visconti and Bernardo Bertolucci. (Plus, his Atlantic City director wasn't exactly a second-league one). It's his best performance in an American movie and one of the best portrayals of old age in American cinema.
Best Actor 1981
Re: Best Actor 1981
I think that Fonda was awarded for a lifetime achievement career and not specifically for On Golden Pond in which he was correct. Moore was funny and hilarious and Lancaster was great but my vote goes to Beatty who played the best performance of his life.
Re: Best Actor 1981
There is no doubt in my mind that I had been voting in real time, as a member of AMPAs, I'd vote for Henry Fonda. Is it the best performance nominated? Nope. But the guy who gives the best performance nominated already has an oscar and Fonda's definitely deserving of one of those. I think On Golden Pond is treacle but there's so much simple pleasure from watching this guy on screen that I can forgive a lot of that.
But in our game, we already gave him his one oscar. And if someone gets a second oscar, don't you want it to be for something a lot better than this? That said, truthfully, this isn't that strong a line-up. Similarly to BJ, I think Treat Williams and Steve Martin were overlooked.
Warren Beatty isn't bad, but my irritation at the way Reds was enshrined post-Oscars supercedes his performance. Moore and Newman are proficient but nothing special.
Burt Lancaster gets my vote, and an easy one at that.
But in our game, we already gave him his one oscar. And if someone gets a second oscar, don't you want it to be for something a lot better than this? That said, truthfully, this isn't that strong a line-up. Similarly to BJ, I think Treat Williams and Steve Martin were overlooked.
Warren Beatty isn't bad, but my irritation at the way Reds was enshrined post-Oscars supercedes his performance. Moore and Newman are proficient but nothing special.
Burt Lancaster gets my vote, and an easy one at that.
Re: Best Actor 1981
Meh. I love Atlantic City and I love much of Louis Malle's work but the Lancaster performance does, I think, illuminate the script’s major deficiencies. It’s so obvious that the screenplay was penned by a playwright, because all the characters are rather neatly endowed with quirks and idiosyncrasies. I love with Malle did with Sarandon – she is more intriguing and mysterious and nuanced each time I watch the film. She nailed that role. Her unorthodox screen presence totally brought that character off the page. (You can tell Malle was in love with her back then, too.) But Lancaster’s performance always struck me as somewhat simplistic – a has-been who never-really-was, washed-up, blah blah. He was affectingly pathetic but, really, not much else.
I'll vote for Warren Beatty, whose star charisma is, for once, perfect for this role. You can understand why he’d attract people to his cause, why Reed would be so swept up in his (somewhat false and naive) idealism, his chemistry with Keaton is intriguing as hell, and, as others have pointed out, the dissolution of his dream near the film’s end is absolutely sincere. He’s really great.
I'll vote for Warren Beatty, whose star charisma is, for once, perfect for this role. You can understand why he’d attract people to his cause, why Reed would be so swept up in his (somewhat false and naive) idealism, his chemistry with Keaton is intriguing as hell, and, as others have pointed out, the dissolution of his dream near the film’s end is absolutely sincere. He’s really great.
Re: Best Actor 1981
My picks for 1981:
Henry Fonda, On Golden Pond
Burt Lancaster, Atlantic City
Harrison Ford, Raiders of the Lost Ark
Paul Newman, Absence of Malice
Dudley Moore, Arthur
The 6th Spot: William Hurt, Body Heat
Henry Fonda, On Golden Pond
Burt Lancaster, Atlantic City
Harrison Ford, Raiders of the Lost Ark
Paul Newman, Absence of Malice
Dudley Moore, Arthur
The 6th Spot: William Hurt, Body Heat
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Re: Best Actor 1981
This one is a no-brainer.
Of the also-rans, I agree with the consensus that Treat Williams would have made a solid alternative. I also think Pennies From Heaven is a joy, so I’d consider Steve Martin, whom the Academy has repeatedly underrated. And, bite me, but if Harrison Ford was to receive one nomination for his career, it would be hard for me to argue with Indiana Jones.
Arthur is one of those movies that has a reputation for being a contemporary comedy “classic,” but by the time I got to it, I can’t say I found it very funny. Dudley Moore has some amusing moments, but I think his shtik grows pretty tedious as the film goes on. For me, John Gielgud stole this movie.
Paul Newman is thoroughly proficient in Absence of Malice, but I think this might be my least favorite of the great actor’s many nominations. The scene in which he rips into Sally Field’s character has some power, but I think most of the movie is pretty ho-hum, and Newman isn’t given much of a character to play.
Henry Fonda is Henry Fonda, so when he shows up to work, you’re virtually guaranteed a performance with a certain level of craft and gravitas. And I think he mostly delivers that in On Golden Pond, despite the fact that the script is pure hokum. No, the performance isn’t special, but it’s nice that he finally received on Oscar on his last chance. But with so much great work in the decades prior, this is not the place where I will choose to enshrine him.
Warren Beatty is my clear runner-up for what may be his finest screen performance. His plucky enthusiasm in the film’s early scenes is a joy, and serves as a great contrast to his disillusion and despair near the film’s conclusion. And there’s one acting moment that I’ve always thought was absolutely perfect. When John and Louise finally reunite, at the train station, after both have endured so much, both Beatty and Keaton share a “You’ve got to be kidding me” reaction as they set eyes on one another that I think is priceless. But if I had an ’81 Oscar ballot, I’d check off Beatty’s name plenty; this is the one category that year I think he definitely did NOT deserve to win.
My choice, by a wide margin, is Burt Lancaster, for his greatest screen performance. I think, on the whole, Atlantic City’s story is actually pretty thin. But Lancaster’s work is something major, and he gives the entire film a depth of feeling that makes it seem less flimsy than it may be. Lancaster’s aging gangster somehow breaks your heart and lifts your spirits at the same time, and would be a wonderful Best Actor choice in many years. I wouldn't have voted for Lancaster's earlier nominations, so in my universe, HE'D be the veteran long overdue for the Best Actor Oscar in '81. And I'm happy to make him my runaway pick.
Of the also-rans, I agree with the consensus that Treat Williams would have made a solid alternative. I also think Pennies From Heaven is a joy, so I’d consider Steve Martin, whom the Academy has repeatedly underrated. And, bite me, but if Harrison Ford was to receive one nomination for his career, it would be hard for me to argue with Indiana Jones.
Arthur is one of those movies that has a reputation for being a contemporary comedy “classic,” but by the time I got to it, I can’t say I found it very funny. Dudley Moore has some amusing moments, but I think his shtik grows pretty tedious as the film goes on. For me, John Gielgud stole this movie.
Paul Newman is thoroughly proficient in Absence of Malice, but I think this might be my least favorite of the great actor’s many nominations. The scene in which he rips into Sally Field’s character has some power, but I think most of the movie is pretty ho-hum, and Newman isn’t given much of a character to play.
Henry Fonda is Henry Fonda, so when he shows up to work, you’re virtually guaranteed a performance with a certain level of craft and gravitas. And I think he mostly delivers that in On Golden Pond, despite the fact that the script is pure hokum. No, the performance isn’t special, but it’s nice that he finally received on Oscar on his last chance. But with so much great work in the decades prior, this is not the place where I will choose to enshrine him.
Warren Beatty is my clear runner-up for what may be his finest screen performance. His plucky enthusiasm in the film’s early scenes is a joy, and serves as a great contrast to his disillusion and despair near the film’s conclusion. And there’s one acting moment that I’ve always thought was absolutely perfect. When John and Louise finally reunite, at the train station, after both have endured so much, both Beatty and Keaton share a “You’ve got to be kidding me” reaction as they set eyes on one another that I think is priceless. But if I had an ’81 Oscar ballot, I’d check off Beatty’s name plenty; this is the one category that year I think he definitely did NOT deserve to win.
My choice, by a wide margin, is Burt Lancaster, for his greatest screen performance. I think, on the whole, Atlantic City’s story is actually pretty thin. But Lancaster’s work is something major, and he gives the entire film a depth of feeling that makes it seem less flimsy than it may be. Lancaster’s aging gangster somehow breaks your heart and lifts your spirits at the same time, and would be a wonderful Best Actor choice in many years. I wouldn't have voted for Lancaster's earlier nominations, so in my universe, HE'D be the veteran long overdue for the Best Actor Oscar in '81. And I'm happy to make him my runaway pick.
Re: Best Actor 1981
I'm very much on the fence about voting this year. I've yet to see Absence of Malice, but I can't believe its anything great or that Paul Newman's performance registers half as strongly as Burt Lancaster's great work in Atlantic City. I doubt Lancaster will need my help but he is greater than the other nominees.
Fonda is quite good in On Golden Pond, but he is undermined by the script and direction at all turns. I find it staggering that this film could gross nearly $300 mil adjusted for inflation. I know we've had this conversation before but that would mean that On Golden Pond would have to be considered the front-runner in some capacity. When the National Board of Review AND The Golden Globes agree with Reagan America on the best film of the year...well, that's the 80's, right? I can't begrudge Fonda his win, but it's crazy Hallmark. I'm getting increasingly into Blake Edwards and Dudley Moore. He's an incredibly talented comedian capable of being hilarious while human at the same time. Arthur is a slapdash production. He's a funny drunk but it's a bit much, isn't it? I feel as though most people don't remember the second half of Arthur when they think of it. Warren Beatty is very charming in Reds. Not worthy of Best Actor but one of his better performances.
And I've yet to hear anyone lump Newman with his best nominations. So, my vote goes to Lancaster.
Fonda is quite good in On Golden Pond, but he is undermined by the script and direction at all turns. I find it staggering that this film could gross nearly $300 mil adjusted for inflation. I know we've had this conversation before but that would mean that On Golden Pond would have to be considered the front-runner in some capacity. When the National Board of Review AND The Golden Globes agree with Reagan America on the best film of the year...well, that's the 80's, right? I can't begrudge Fonda his win, but it's crazy Hallmark. I'm getting increasingly into Blake Edwards and Dudley Moore. He's an incredibly talented comedian capable of being hilarious while human at the same time. Arthur is a slapdash production. He's a funny drunk but it's a bit much, isn't it? I feel as though most people don't remember the second half of Arthur when they think of it. Warren Beatty is very charming in Reds. Not worthy of Best Actor but one of his better performances.
And I've yet to hear anyone lump Newman with his best nominations. So, my vote goes to Lancaster.
"How's the despair?"
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Best Actor 1981
I agree with Magilla's two also-shoulda's -- True Confessions provides one of Robert Duvall's most underrrated roles, and Treat Williams gives a daringly unsympathetic performance in Prince of the City. (A gossip columnist at the time opined that, with Pacino in the lead, the under-earning film might have been a hit -- but it also might have been a less probing film if the audience were pre-disposed to love the character) I'd also give a small shout-out to Richard Dreyfuss in the likely-forgotten film version of Whose Life Is it, Anyway?
It's hardly a secret around here that my contempt for On Golden Pond runs deep. I find it a loathsome, manipulative affair that represents the worst of the American theatre. I will acknowledge that I found Henry Fonda's performance the least objectionable element of the film, but that's more or less like pinpointing the least stupid episode of Gilligan's Island. We've already honored Fonda for genuinely great work, and there's no need to repeat the Academy's indulgence here.
What you can say for Paul Newman in Absence of Malice is, he shows just how complete a professional he is. The script was crafted by a journalist with a thesis, who put virtually no effort into creating coherent characters. Sally Field, at the time a quite solid actress, looks totally at sea as she tries to square the contradictory aspects of her role. But Newman sails through as if everything he's doing makes sense. It's nothing special, but you've got to admire the craftsmanship. In terms of actual acting, Newman is probably better in the also deeply-flawed Fort Apache-the Bronx, which came out earlier in the year.
I'd advocated for Dudley Moore in 10, and I think he mostly deserved this nod for Arthur. For the first hour, anyway, the film has alot of laughs, and Ithink Gielgud and Moore share the honors there. Moore was one of the better versions of a now mostly lost type, the funny drunk. In a year without a great deal of competition, I'm happy to see him here.
When the Board of Governors gave Warren Beatty the Thalberg Award, I thought it was an apt decision. Beatty's impressive career has been most notable for the interest-level of the projects he's helped mount. His individual creative contributions to those projects, though, were rarely in real contention for best in any year -- this best director designation the obvious exception, but even there you could argue he's no match for many of the auteurs who've preceded and followed his selection. (He is certainly superior to the Schaffner/Avildsen/Attenborough crowd). It's in the category of best actor where his limitations are most clearly seen. He picked up a batch of nominations in tandem with his successful projects, but his central performances were almost never seen as the prime element in any film's success. Reds is actually one of his most impressive performances: his scenes near the end, where he sees the idealized revolution crumbling around him and struggles to hold onto his faith, are immensely moving. Yet, once again, he's not singular enough to be genuinely considered for the prize.
For me, Burt Lancaster is the only real choice here. As I mentioned way back in the 1960 thread, Lancaster evolved astonishingly as an actor. Where most major stars become far more broad/shtik-laden in their later years, Lancaster got progressively lighter on his feet. In Atlantic City, he's so delicate in his moves it feels like the dramatic equivalent of watching Fred Astaire dance. His line reading are lovely ("I did that! I did that!"), his gestures perfectly restrained. It's an absolutely wonderful performance, easily the best 1981 had to offer.
It's hardly a secret around here that my contempt for On Golden Pond runs deep. I find it a loathsome, manipulative affair that represents the worst of the American theatre. I will acknowledge that I found Henry Fonda's performance the least objectionable element of the film, but that's more or less like pinpointing the least stupid episode of Gilligan's Island. We've already honored Fonda for genuinely great work, and there's no need to repeat the Academy's indulgence here.
What you can say for Paul Newman in Absence of Malice is, he shows just how complete a professional he is. The script was crafted by a journalist with a thesis, who put virtually no effort into creating coherent characters. Sally Field, at the time a quite solid actress, looks totally at sea as she tries to square the contradictory aspects of her role. But Newman sails through as if everything he's doing makes sense. It's nothing special, but you've got to admire the craftsmanship. In terms of actual acting, Newman is probably better in the also deeply-flawed Fort Apache-the Bronx, which came out earlier in the year.
I'd advocated for Dudley Moore in 10, and I think he mostly deserved this nod for Arthur. For the first hour, anyway, the film has alot of laughs, and Ithink Gielgud and Moore share the honors there. Moore was one of the better versions of a now mostly lost type, the funny drunk. In a year without a great deal of competition, I'm happy to see him here.
When the Board of Governors gave Warren Beatty the Thalberg Award, I thought it was an apt decision. Beatty's impressive career has been most notable for the interest-level of the projects he's helped mount. His individual creative contributions to those projects, though, were rarely in real contention for best in any year -- this best director designation the obvious exception, but even there you could argue he's no match for many of the auteurs who've preceded and followed his selection. (He is certainly superior to the Schaffner/Avildsen/Attenborough crowd). It's in the category of best actor where his limitations are most clearly seen. He picked up a batch of nominations in tandem with his successful projects, but his central performances were almost never seen as the prime element in any film's success. Reds is actually one of his most impressive performances: his scenes near the end, where he sees the idealized revolution crumbling around him and struggles to hold onto his faith, are immensely moving. Yet, once again, he's not singular enough to be genuinely considered for the prize.
For me, Burt Lancaster is the only real choice here. As I mentioned way back in the 1960 thread, Lancaster evolved astonishingly as an actor. Where most major stars become far more broad/shtik-laden in their later years, Lancaster got progressively lighter on his feet. In Atlantic City, he's so delicate in his moves it feels like the dramatic equivalent of watching Fred Astaire dance. His line reading are lovely ("I did that! I did that!"), his gestures perfectly restrained. It's an absolutely wonderful performance, easily the best 1981 had to offer.
Last edited by Mister Tee on Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Best Actor 1981
Even before it was made, Henry Fonda was all but certain to win his long overdue Oscar for On Golden Pond.
Yes, the film is schmaltzy and a bit too formulaic but Fonda and Katharine Hepburn brought a lifetime of screen presence to audiences of the day. I'm not sure how the film plays to younger audiences who did not grow up with these two legends, but try watching On Golden Pond in another incarnation - the Julie Andrews, Cxhristopher Plummer version for example - and you might get a sense of how special these two stars were in these roles.
The only other nominee worthy of awards recognitoin is of course Burt Lancaster as the sad, low level old time gangster in Atlantic City.
Paul Newman had his best dramatic role in years in Absence of Malice, but it would be another year before he was really Oscar worthy again.
Warren Beatty was good in Reds, but it seems as though he put more energy into his well-desrved Oscar winning direction and left the really strong acting to his co-stars.
Dudley Moore is fine in Arthur, but John Gielgud steals the show.
So, while only Fonda and Lancaster truly desrve consideration, the others are all very acceptable fill-ins, with only Treat Williams in Prince of the City and Robert Duvall in True Confessions coming to mind as alternatives.
Yes, the film is schmaltzy and a bit too formulaic but Fonda and Katharine Hepburn brought a lifetime of screen presence to audiences of the day. I'm not sure how the film plays to younger audiences who did not grow up with these two legends, but try watching On Golden Pond in another incarnation - the Julie Andrews, Cxhristopher Plummer version for example - and you might get a sense of how special these two stars were in these roles.
The only other nominee worthy of awards recognitoin is of course Burt Lancaster as the sad, low level old time gangster in Atlantic City.
Paul Newman had his best dramatic role in years in Absence of Malice, but it would be another year before he was really Oscar worthy again.
Warren Beatty was good in Reds, but it seems as though he put more energy into his well-desrved Oscar winning direction and left the really strong acting to his co-stars.
Dudley Moore is fine in Arthur, but John Gielgud steals the show.
So, while only Fonda and Lancaster truly desrve consideration, the others are all very acceptable fill-ins, with only Treat Williams in Prince of the City and Robert Duvall in True Confessions coming to mind as alternatives.
Re: Best Actor 1981
Burt Lancaster - Atlantic City
Best Actor 1981
After I see Absence of Malice tonight, I will post my thoughts.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald