Best Actor 1994

[mlrg]

John Travolta - Pulp Fiction

[Uri]

Newman. Easily. Next.

[Okri]

A solid category, if largely unexciting. But there's no one off the list who I need to have on it. Depp in Ed Wood (the last great Depp-Burton work) and Grant in Four Weddings and a Funeral would have been as equally deserving as some of these nominations, and if we extend our hand to foreign films, there's Jean-Louis Trigniant for Red. Most of 1994's great performances would've been eligible next year, but I can make a list out of Manchevski, Greenwood, and Peter Greene. And I wouldn't have minded seeing Colm Feore in this line-up for 32 Short Films About Glenn Gould. And of course, Tim Robbins.

I have no idea how to evaluate Hanks. It's true that he does exactly what the film asks him to do, but like OscarGuy says, it's a stunt caricature at best. I've heard that the book is more satiric, and I think that would definitely be a more interesting take, but oh well. It's certainly not incredibly deep work.

Nor is Travolta's performance. I actually think his Face/Off work is better.

Newman will likely win this, and he won't be a bad winner by any means. It's typically graceful work from a great actor, but there's others I'd like to honour.

Between Freeman and Hawthorne, I go with Freeman. For me, Freeman is lead. The film is about the friendship between Andy and Red, and I don't see shunting him to support as justified. People can explain all the faults of the Darabont film to me and I can say "yes, good points all." But then I watch the film, and I surrender to it anyway. The Deakins-Newman tandem is undeniably strong (indeed, you could probably convince me that they trick people into thinking it's a great film. Until the next time I watch it, anyway). But the film gets so much mileage from Freeman's voice, from his gait. Every time I see this film (and despite it being years, we're talking about double-digits here) I simply believe it, and Freeman's a good portion of the reason why.

My line-up

1. Morgan Freeman, The Shawshank Redemption
2. Jean-Louis Trigniant, Red
3. Milcho Manchevski, Before the Rain
4. Tim Robbins, The Shawshank Redemption
5. Bruce Greenwood, Exotica

[rudeboy]

Forrest Gump is undoubtedly the most beloved movie character in the history of cinema.

You really think?!

Can't stand Hanks in Forrest Gump. Awful, awful performance. There's some clever trickery in the film and its watchable at times - generally when Gary Sinise, an actor I've never warmed too otherwise, is onscreen. But boy does Hanks fall flat - a grating, thoroughly tedious one-note hackjob, and one of my least favourite best actor-winning performances.

Hawthorne is good value but I feel the one great performance in King George was Ian Holm's doctor. Still, nice to see the actor who was so wonderful as (British) TV icon Sir Humphrey in the marvellous sitcom Yes Minister make it to the Oscars.

Never cared for John Travolta. He's OK in Pulp Fiction but founders in the wake of firing on all cylinders Sam Jackson.

Almost voted for Freeman. This IS a leading performance. He's the heart and soul of The Shawshank Redemption, a great performance in a good, very good even though now bewilderingly overrated movie. I adore his performance, whereas I find Tim Robbins' character and performance a shade dull and unengaging. The narrative may focus on Robbins' Andy, but Freeman's Red is our eyes and ears throughout.

But then there's Paul Newman. What a magnificent late career triumph this was. If he hadn't picked up an Oscar for solid throwaway work eight years earlier he'd certainly have triumphed here, and this lovely film would be much better known today. Its a great performance, touching, funny and oh so real. An easy choice.

My favourites from this year

1. Paul Newman in Nobody’s Fool
2. Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption
3. Johnny Depp in Ed Wood
4. Kevin Spacey in The Ref
5. Ralph Fiennes in Quiz Show

[ksrymy]

I believe the Academy gave the Oscar to Tom Hanks not only because he played a man with a handicap but because Forrest Gump is undoubtedly the most beloved movie character in the history of cinema. An honor of a great character not great acting.

Travolta was lovely in Pulp Fiction but I agree with the rest of you; he should have been in support alongside Jackson whom he is beside for nearly the entire film save his scenes with Uma Thurman and Eric Stoltz. A good performance nonetheless.

I find Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption to play just that: Morgan Freeman. He's great, don't get me wrong, but he's clearly support to Robbin's Dufresne. I believe it was his status as a leading man by that point that got him lead consideration (apart from screen time).

So it's between Hawthorne and Newman (surprise, surprise). I just watched Nobody's Fool last night and found it a tiny bit difficult to get through at times. Newman was absolutely right for the role and deserved a nomination. Hawthorne, a virtual unknown to Americans at the time, plays a British monarch with some form of handicap (that means the Academy likes him TWICE as much). I'm almost tempted to vote for Paul Newman because he punched Philip Seymour Hoffman in the face in Nobody's Fool but I'm going to cast my vote (which will probably be the sole one) for Nigel Hawthorne. He was brilliant in a once-in-a-lifetime role in a marvelous movie. I just couldn't get into Nobody's Fool.

[OscarGuy]

Hanks' performance in Forrest Gump was a caricature. It was a stunt more than a performance. The film is ok, but has major shortcomings, one of which is Hanks in the lead role.

Travolta can thank this film for reviving his career and while he's certainly one of the better performers in it, I don't know that he deserved a nomination for it.

Freeman gives one of those solid journeyman performances that he's always done, but he's not the lead in this film and never should have been nominated for Best Actor. Tim Robbins definitely deserved a nod here instead.

That leaves my choice between Hawthorn who was divinely loony in Madness and Newman with his subtle grace. In the end, as I did in 1994, Newman was my choice for Best Actor among this lot.

Performance I think would have deserved nomination, especially over Hanks and Travolta: Hugo Weaving in Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Woody Harrelson in Natural Born Killers or Hugh O'Conor in The Young Poisoner's Handbook.

And I'll disagree with Peter on Stamp, not that he didn't deserve a nomination, he should have won the Oscar, but his was a supporting performance, not lead. This film is about Weaving's Tick/Mitzi. Matter of fact, I would have loved to have seen all three men, including Guy Pearce nominated this year, but Stamp and Pearce in support.

[Big Magilla]

This was one of the best years for actors ever, which contrasted with the dismal choices in the lead actress category making this one exciting to watch.

The surprise nominee was Nigel Hawthorne, a British stage actor all but unknown in the U.S. - but then he was playing a British monarch with a handicap - which made it practically impossible for the Academy to ignore him. His nomiantion came at the expense of at least four better performances by Tim Robbins in The Shawshank Redemption; Hugh Grant in Four Weddings and a Funeral; Ralph Fiennes in Quiz Show and Terence Stamp in The Adverntures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.

For my own awards I eliminated Hawthorne and relegated two of Oscar's Best Actor nominees to support to make room for Robbins, Grant and Fiennes and was still dismayed that I had no room for Stamp.

Morgan Freeman has almost as much screen time as Robbins in The Shawshank Redemption and his star status justifies a lead nomination, but the character is fundamentally in support of the film's main character so if there is room for only one here then the one should be Robbins with Freeman more fittingly placed in support.

John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson have fairly equal screen time as partners in crime in Pulp Fiction and both should be considered in the same category, which given the film's ensemble, fits more comfortably in support where both should have been considered. With room for just one in that category, which is also a strong one, Travolta gets my slot only because his performance is the more surprising. As brilliant as Jackson is in the part, Travolta's strength seems to come out of nowhere after years of starring in sub-par films.

Tom Hanks is in almost every scene in Forrest Gump yet he seems part of the background. His monotone delivery might be grating coming from a less accomplished actor, but he makes it charming nonetheless. It really is one of his best performances, but a nomination coming after his win of the previous year should have been enough.

Then there's Paul Newman glorious performance in Nobody's Fool as an active guy approaching retirement age who doesn't quite accept the vicissitudes of aging. It's a remarkable performance made all the more so by a 69 year-old actor's total believability as a man ten years younger. He should have won in a walk, limp and all. Hopefully he'll win here.

[ksrymy]

I will cast my vote after I see Nobody's Fool.