Best Actor 1994

[The Original BJ]

I thought the performance of the year was Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, who was so explosive when he was on screen that, like Hopkins in Silence, he COULD have been considered a co-lead. But, he was gone from a good chunk of the movie, so I think his placement in support is equally justifiable.

Of the obviously-lead omittees, I'd cite Ralph Fiennes's terrific work as worthy of inclusion, but the list of also-rans was pretty broad -- you'd have to imagine a number of those guys might have made it in a year like 1990.

Hawthorne is the first to go for me. I don't think The Madness of King George (aka "The King's Insanity") is a terribly interesting movie. Hawthorne was definitely the most amusing thing about it, and entertaining enough in his role as a regal leader losing his marbles. But I don't view the work as major enough to consider. For me, Insanity + Monarchy is not the golden combination it is for the Academy.

I don't really get the argument for placing Freeman in support. Nearly half of the story belongs to him, and he provides voice-over for a good chunk that belongs to Robbins. In many ways, Shawshank provides the actor with his most Freeman-esque role: the strong moral compass, the soothing voiceover, and the genial humor highlight many of the qualities with which audiences identify the actor. As a result, I can see why some might wish to honor him here. But I think Shawshank is pretty sentimental stuff -- it's the ultimate macho-man weepie -- and I'd prefer Freeman to win for one of his performances with a little more bite.

I can't say I understand the impulse to place Travolta in support either, unless you're just going to say that EVERYONE in the movie is a supporting character, which I have a hard time doing unless the cast is Altman-size big. Travolta gives a star turn in the central role here -- bumping him down a category just doesn't seem remotely fair to people like Scofield in Quiz Show. As for the performance, I think the mostly-limited Travolta is about as good as he ever got here. His performance is really funny in a way that feels completely spontaneous. Of course, now we know that his career "comeback" only lasted a year or two, but it isn't hard to see why this performance was considered fresh and exciting for the actor at the time.

Forrest Gump was one of the first "adult" movies I ever saw, and my ten year-old self was completely blown away by it the first time I saw it. This first impression may have colored my attitude toward the movie, but I've seen it many times over the years and am still quite fond of it. I'm a little surprised Tom Hanks hasn't gotten a single vote here -- I think he's wonderful, in a performance that celebrates the innate kindness of a man like Forrest while also showing how that goodness can sometimes be as much a challenge for him as his limited intelligence. He is also very funny, and deserves a lot of credit for the fact that so many of the film's lines became instant catchphrases. I don't think it's Hanks's finest piece of acting, but it's certainly the character for which he will be forever remembered, and I don't have a problem with him winning the Oscar for this role.

But he doesn't get my vote, which goes to Paul Newman, in his last great performance as the ornery Sully in Nobody's Fool. His turn here is a compendium of wonderful moments, many poignant, many humorous. Although the actor doesn't have many BIG scenes, his work is thoughtful and intelligent throughout; he's the perfect center to a film about the quiet joys and struggles of small-town life. I have voted for Newman a number of times already in this game, but see no reason to overlook him for a performance this lovely just because I've honored him before. So, one last vote for this great, great actor!

[Reza]

I absolutely loathe Tom Hank's in Forrest Gump......shades of that other Oscar bait performance, which I also hate – Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.

You are aware that unlike Raymond Babbitt or Christy Brown, Forrest Gump is not a character but a metaphor for the kind of Americanism which would eventually fully manifest itself in the shape of the second Bush era, aren't you?

Please don't get me started on this.........

[Reza]

Can someone explain to me why everyone puts Terence Stamp down as lead when his character in Priscilla is the definition of support in my mind?

Magilla gave the correct answer but I have a pretty juvenile sounding answer of my own on this. I just ''feel'' that if Terence Stamp should ever be nominated he should have at least one in the lead category. I also think he was pretty much a co-lead in the film.

I remember being thrilled at the time with Vanessa Redgrave's win but I've never mentally accepted that win because I feel that if Vanessa Redgrave was ever to have the label of Oscar winner attached to her name it should be for a win in the lead category. I'm still hoping she wins that category someday. Yes, yes I know it's a dream !!!

[Uri]

I absolutely loathe Tom Hank's in Forrest Gump......shades of that other Oscar bait performance, which I also hate – Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.

You are aware that unlike Raymond Babbitt or Christy Brown, Forrest Gump is not a character but a metaphor for the kind of Americanism which would eventually fully manifest itself in the shape of the second Bush era, aren't you?

[ksrymy]

I'm almost tempted to vote for Paul Newman because he punched Philip Seymour Hoffman in the face in Nobody's Fool. . .

Did Philip Seymour Hoffman play the police officer?

Why yes sir he did.

[Big Magilla]

Can someone explain to me why everyone puts Terence Stamp down as lead when his character in Priscilla is the definition of support in my mind?

Terence Stamp's character was also the one singled out by the Tony and Drama Desk committees as lead. He, Hugh Weaving and Guy Pearce were co-leads in the film. Stamp, the bigger star, was top billed and his screen time is at least as much as Weaving's. However, a case could be made for his placement in either category as it could for Freeman, Travolta and Jackson this year.

[OscarGuy]

Can someone explain to me why everyone puts Terence Stamp down as lead when his character in Priscilla is the definition of support in my mind?

[Sabin]

William Goldman wrote a piece a while ago about where you leave your favorite actors captured in film. What film, what moment.

Because I leave Paul Newman at the end of Nobody's Fool, asleep in his chair, there's really not much debate in my mind as to whom I vote for in this race. In a race without Hugh Grant and Johnny Depp, my vote goes to Paul Newman.

I don't really have any complaints about anybody else in the race. Even Hanks in Forrest Gump, who seems to be one of the few runaway Oscar winners to receive zero votes on this board. To those who love it, I think it's incredibly problematic and overrated. To those who hate it, I think it's a little underrated at this point. I think Forrest Gump is kind of hilarious. I wouldn't say that what Hanks is doing is great acting, but rather a character that inspires others to change...which is the kind of character that Will Smith has been trying to lock in on for a while now. Neither Gump nor Philadelphia are close to the actors' best work, but I think I"m fonder of Gump than most here.

[Reza]

I absolutely loathe Tom Hank's in Forrest Gump......shades of that other Oscar bait performance, which I also hate – Dustin Hoffman in Rainman. Newman is very good in one of his great late career performances in Nobody's Fool, but I found his film to be sleep inducing. Hawthorne is quite moving as the ''mad'' King George while Freeman brings a quiet dignity to the role of the convict in The Shawshank Redemption. Travolta is good but he should have been nominated in the supporting category.

Voted for Newman here.

My picks for 1994:

Hugh Grant, Four Weddings and a Funeral
Terence Stamp, The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
Johnny Depp, Ed Wood
Paul Newman, Nobody's Fool
Morgan Freeman, The Shawshank Redemption

The 6th Spot: Nigel Hawthorne, The Madness of King George

[Uri]

The Shawshank Redemption has had the weirdest popularity trajectory of any movie I can think of. Pre-release, the film had enormous buzz, but, when it finally opened, it got decent but not overwhelming reviews, and performed quite tepidly at the box-office (about the same as the also-thought-disappointing Quiz Show, a fair bit short of Little Women and Nobody's Fool). In VHS, though, the film became a major cult hit, and now ranks way up on IMDB's popularity chart. It was a bit of a surprise (to me) that, despite its semi-flop reputation in initial release, it did as well as it did in accumulating Oscar nominations. I'll have to disagree with the Robbins-over-Freeman view being expressed here. Red may have been right in Morgan's wheelhouse, but his performance is no less memorable for that, and the best thing about the film.

The secret of The Shawshank Redemption success is very simple. It's an ultimate catharsis mechanism. One may be totally aware of it – certainly after numerous viewings – yet it works – maybe exactly because by now there's this tingly expectation for things to fall perfectly into place. Every time. It doesn't make one proud of oneself, but it's extremely effective.

[Damien]

I hate Forrest Gump. I think it's one of the most reactionary and offensive movies ever perpetuated. Tom Hanks is strictly one note and it's a lousy note.

Watching Pulp Fiction, I kept thinking that Quentin Tarantino is not half as clever as he thinks he is. And it got very tedious very quickly. Still, John Travolta was so loose and clearly having good time that his joy was infectious. But he remained a limited actor.

Nigel Hawthorne was fine in The Madness of King George. But he didn't do anything that any other talented British stage actor of a certain age couldn't have done equally well. And the movie itself is rather shoddy.

Nobody's Fool is a nice evocation of small-town life with some lovely moments, but it tries too hard to be "quirky" in the manner of those dreadful TV series shepherded by the likes of David Kelly and Steven Bochco. I've never gotten how anyone could say Paul Newman was ideally cast in Nobody's Fool. He comes across as too intelligent and in too good shape to play an old loser convincingly. I remember thinking at the time that Brian Keith would have been the perfect Sully. As Time's Richard Schickel put it, "Newman is all wrong for the part of Sully . . . a man logic tells us should look ill-used by the years instead of like a movie star gorgeously defying them."

The Shawshank Redemption is hokey as all get-out, featuring some of the most absurdly benign convicts in movie history. But it is still quite enjoyable and affecting, largely because of the performances of Robbins (even though he's miscast) and Freeman. Looking at my notes from when I saw the picture I see that I called the latter, "the magnificent Freeman" and stated that he's "one of the most magnetic presences on screen today. It does seem odd to honor his performance when Robbins is the true lead, but I do think he's the best of the 5 nominees.

My Own Top 5:
1. Hugh Grant in Four Weddings And A Funeral
2. Johnny Depp in Ed Wood
3. Ralph Fiennes in Quiz Show
4. Terrence Stamp in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
5. Nicolas Cage in It Could Happen To You

[Greg]

I'm almost tempted to vote for Paul Newman because he punched Philip Seymour Hoffman in the face in Nobody's Fool. . .

Did Philip Seymour Hoffman play the police officer?

[Mister Tee]

As usual, Oscar voters passed on the comedy guys, and left off two of the year's true best -- Terence Stamp and Hugh Grant. Grant, especially, had a major breakthrough in Four Weddings in a Funeral. Prior to this, he'd seemed a wispy screen presence -- his characters had been so stumbly and reticent that it felt like a light breeze would knock him over. In Four Weddings, he kept the reticence but married it to a toughness bordering on selfishness that felt wonderfully refreshing at the time. Since then, of course, it's become Grant's standard screen persona, and thus more familiar. But in 1994 it was a tonic.

I feel like most of the actual nominees came from movies where I deviate from consensus opinion.

I never much cared for The Madness of King George, which became a late-blooming contender (hardly anyone had heard of it prior to its Christmas opening). I didn't find it particularly funny or especially insightful in its history; it all just kind of sat there for me. Nigel Hawthorne gave a perfectly acceptable Brit performance, but nothing that contended.

I saw Forrest Gump opening day -- before anyone knew it would become a commercial phenomenon -- and found it agreeable enough. Once it hit the commercial stratosphere, of course, people divided into camps, either loving or despising it. There was even an (I thought) glib, silly attempt to link the film to the Gingrich-led takeover of the US Congress later in the year, with many people labelling long-time Democrats Zemeckis and Hanks' film a right-wing screed. It's certainly true that, in the film, Forrest comes from Alabama, fights in Vietnam and dislikes a key war resistance leader. But he also helps integrate Southern schools and gives his money away to a black woman -- not generally trademarks of the right-wing. I just don't think the pigeonholing works; if anything, the film attempts to view events long seen only through a political lens with non-partisan, apolitical eyes.

As for Hanks -- I found it a mostly uninteresting, one-note performance. And I lament that it marked the beginning of a far flatter period in his career -- pretty much since, he's been unable to recapture the zing of his early work (one exception: Cast Away -- especially the earlier scenes). He's become more bureaucrat than actor.

In tandem with not hating Gump, I also didn't adore Pulp Fiction, as so many told me I should. I found it immensely entertaining and funny, but didn't think it added up to anything much beyond noodling from Tarantino's brain. (My general take on him is, he's an enormously talented guy with almost no interest in exploring genuine human behavior) I don't see why people would question John Travolta's being a lead actor, especially vis a vis Jackson. He's alongside Jackson "save his scenes with Uma Thurman and Eric Stoltz"? That amounts to about 1/4 to 1/3 of the film. That said, I don't think Travolta rates award consideration. Most of the enthusiasm for his performance was a mixture of support for his film and excitement about his comeback. (Which was a long time coming, though we're running through these contests so quickly, it feels like we only discussed Saturday Night Fever a few weeks ago)

The Shawshank Redemption has had the weirdest popularity trajectory of any movie I can think of. Pre-release, the film had enormous buzz, but, when it finally opened, it got decent but not overwhelming reviews, and performed quite tepidly at the box-office (about the same as the also-thought-disappointing Quiz Show, a fair bit short of Little Women and Nobody's Fool). In VHS, though, the film became a major cult hit, and now ranks way up on IMDB's popularity chart. It was a bit of a surprise (to me) that, despite its semi-flop reputation in initial release, it did as well as it did in accumulating Oscar nominations. I'll have to disagree with the Robbins-over-Freeman view being expressed here. Red may have been right in Morgan's wheelhouse, but his performance is no less memorable for that, and the best thing about the film.

But not as good as Paul Newman in Nobody's Fool -- the best performance of 1994 in my favorite movie of that year. Unlike some here, I've not voted for Newman over and over -- The Hustler was my only previous time checking his name. And I think this performance provides a perfect book-end for that earlier work. His Sully is what a Fast Eddie Felson who never left his home town might have turned into. Newman has moments in this film as fine as he's ever achieved (his reaction when Melanie Griffith flashes him is beyond priceless), and he's head and shoulders above the other nominees. An easy choice.

[MovieFan]

Paul Newman- Nobody's Fool

[ITALIANO]

Tom Hanks is better in Forrest Gump than he had been in Philadelphia - or, at least, better cast - and I'm sure that he isn't a bad actor, but the role is only slightly less-complex, from an actor's point of view, than Dustin Hoffman's equally, and unfairly, celebrated one in Rain Man. Plus, how shall I put it, I always feel that Hanks's choices are a bit too safe for my tastes, or maybe it's his presence and his approach to the roles that are too safe. He obviously likes to be liked, but I prefer my actors to be a bit more challenging.

Morgan Freeman is a very good actor, and sometimes a challenging one, too, and definitely the best aspect of that mystery called The Shawshank Redemption - I never "got" the film itself and never understood why it instantly became such a cult movie in the US. It's not the masterpiece some said it is.

Pulp Fiction is, of course, a much better effort from a much more inventive director, and Travolta is so well-used in it that at times it seems like he's really giving an intelligent, self-sarcastic performance. Time has proved that this much-talked-about "second phase" of his career, and the new, mature side of his personality, haven't amounted to much.

It's clearly between Paul Newman and Nigel Hawthorne. Newman will win here, and probably rightly so - it's the best performance of his later years, a subtle, unshowy and deeply human turn - but how many times should one vote for Paul Newman? I think I've picked him two or three times already, so I won't feel guilty if I choose the far-less-known Hawthorne for his eccentric turn as the funny and sad king George. Not a memorable movie, probably, but his performance is expert, effective and even surprising.