TrekBBS Academy Awards #24: Best Lead Actor, 1989

[Star Treks]

This is the 24th in a series of polls examining how you, the TrekBBS users, would have voted, were you in the Academy. Up next: Best Actor in a Leading Role, 1989. Which nominee most deserved the Academy Award?

Comments of all sort encouraged.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Branagh; still his best performance (and best film) twenty years later. His delivery of the Saint Crispin's Day speech alone would deserve it.

Great year for performances (though Williams' work in Dead Poets Society seems more like a Supporting performance).

 

[Star Treks]

Agreed - a strong year for lead actors.

 

[Harvey]

I don't think Williams was that great--and the movie certainly wasn't--so he's out. It's probably blasphemous, but I'll choose Tom Cruise as Ron Kovic. An outstanding performance for an actor who usually exhibits limited range.

 

[aladinsane]

Branagh for me. Henry V was fantastic--hands down one of the best, if not the best Shakespeare film. Branagh was terrific in front and behind the camera on that one.

 

[Harvey]

Branagh for me. Henry V was fantastic--hands down one of the best, if not the best Shakespeare film. Branagh was terrific in front and behind the camera on that one.

I think it's fantastic, too, but how do you feel about Richard III (1995) and Titus (1999)? Both, I think, are incredible adaptations, and take more risks with invention than Branagh's piece.

 

[CaptainCanada]

I think it's fantastic, too, but how do you feel about Richard III (1995) and Titus (1999)? Both, I think, are incredible adaptations, and take more risks with invention than Branagh's piece.

The Loncraine Richard III is an extremely strong piece of work, and very clever, but it just doesn't (for me) match the raw power of Branagh's work (also, both guys are working with budgets that don't really allow them to address their setting in full, but Loncraine's WWII depiction doesn't cover this up as well as Branagh does).

Titus has some good parts, but it's a bit too aggressively weird for me (and the source material isn't really in the same league as either of the other plays discussed here).

 

[Harvey]

The Loncraine Richard III is an extremely strong piece of work, and very clever, but it just doesn't (for me) match the raw power of Branagh's work (also, both guys are working with budgets that don't really allow them to address their setting in full, but Loncraine's WWII depiction doesn't cover this up as well as Branagh does).

Intersting take. To be honest, I wasn't aware of obvious budget constraints when I saw these films, which is either to both filmmakers credit or my discredit. I'll have to see them again.

Titus has some good parts, but it's a bit too aggressively weird for me (and the source material isn't really in the same league as either of the other plays discussed here).

I agree that the source material isn't as strong as either Henry V or Richard III, but the weirdness of Taymor's approach really puts it over the top for me. But I have weird tastes.

Out of curiosity, since I'm no expert on Shakespearean translations to film (add to this Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing, an atrociously low budget British adaptation of Julius Caesar with Charles Gray [I think], and Olivier's version of Richard III, that's about it that I've seen [again, I think]), are there any other Shakespearean films as good as these that I should see?

 

[Thrall]

I was only a kid when I saw Henry V. I had no idea what the hell anyone was saying but I knew I'd follow that guy into Hell.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Out of curiosity, since I'm no expert on Shakespearean translations to film (add to this Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing, an atrociously low budget British adaptation of Julius Caesar with Charles Gray [I think], and Olivier's version of Richard III, that's about it that I've seen [again, I think]), are there any other Shakespearean films as good as these that I should see?

Branagh's really long adaptation of Hamlet that he did after Much Ado.

Polanski's Macbeth is the best filmed version of that.

Orson Welles' The Chimes at Midnight (also called Falstaff) is really interesting (but it's rather difficult to get your hands on).

The ones discussed so far are really the cream of the crop; Branagh recently did a version of As You Like It was was decent (it's a rather slight play, and he sometimes overdoes the "oh my, isn't this all so whimsical and joyous!" music/direction, but it's got a great lead performance from Bryce Dallas Howard).

 

[Harvey]

I'ld love to get my hands on the Chimes of Midnight, but when even Roger Ebert mentions how rare it is seen in his review, you know it's going to be hard to come by.

I've been meaning to just go and buy Branagh's Hamlet everytime I see the DVD at Costco back home, but then I realize how much I need to save money. I bet the library here has it.

I haven't seen or heard about his version of As You Like It. From your description, it sounds about on par with Much Ado About Nothing--slightly above the middle of the road.

I'm sure we've derailed this thread far too much already, though. PM me if you'd like to continue the conversation (though be warned I'm rather slow to reply to such things at times).

 

[Kira's Mom]

Kenneth Branagh should have won. And I still don't understand why Henry V wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

 

[Star Treks]

I adore Titus. One of my top ten films of all time.

 

[Kirkman1987]

Branagh

 

[auntiehill]

Daniel Day-Lewis. No doubt whatsoever.

As much as I adore Branagh, My Left Foot was so brilliant, it just floored me. The role was far more difficult, in that he had to convey the depth and artistic soul of a character who could not control his own body, and barely had control of his voice. And he had to make us like him, when Christie Brown definitely had unlikable characteristics.