Oscars in Review-1998 Best Actor
Roberto Benigni (Life is Beautiful)
Roberto Benigni won best actor for Life is Beautiful in 1999. He plays a father who has a son and both are sent to a Nazi concentration camp during world War II. In an attempt to hide the horrors of the camp from his son, he makes the camp out to be a big game. He tells his son rules like you lose points for being hungry and things like that. It is a bizarre performance that is maybe too lighthearted for the material.
Ian Mckellen (Gods and Monsters)
Ian Mckellen gives an amazing performance as James Whale in Gods and Monsters, and hasn't been as good since (close with the Lord of the Rings but not quite as good). Such a confused and unsettling on screen performance, really an amazing job. The movie focuses on the later parts in James Whale's life. But Ian Mckellen plays him to perfection.
Tom Hanks (Saving Private Ryan)
Tom Hanks in the 90s was in his heyday. He gave lots of knockout performances and this may be the best. As the leader of a small squad tasked with rescuing a single grunt from the front lines, Tom Hanks is mesmerizing. He can't show weakness and fear but yet he is full of it. A terrifying movie and performance from one of the greatest actors of the 90s.
Edward Norton (American History X)
Edward Norton gives a tour-de-force performance as Derek Vinyard a neo Nazi who kills two black men for trying to steal his car. It is his journey through and after prison with his family and his hatred. I will argue that this is Edward Norton's best performance (far better than Fight Club), for this kind of movie almost never works, but with Edward Norton it becomes one of the most powerful and best performances I have ever seen.
The academy gave the Best Actor Oscar for 1998 to Roberto Benigni. Poor Benigni, he really didn't deserve this, but he has it so here's why I think he won.
The Academy loves historical epics, it's no secret. Actually it doesn't have to even be an epic as long as it is based in history and is long (just kidding). They like historical comedies as well as proved by the year's own best picture winner. The academy, I think everyone can agree, also like movies that involve the holocaust or the struggles of people at the time. Examples include Schindler's List and The Pianist (even though The Pianist didn't win best picture). Being set in that time period, I believe is only part of the reason why Roberto Benigni won.
The academy members also seem to have to a hard time sitting down and watching a dark and more challenging film in the past 20 years or so. They still do it, don't get me wrong, but more and more comedies are nominated for awards. They started to like their more entertaining and funny films. There is an increase in lighter and more comedic movies and actors nominated for awards. Even the nominations for Best Actor for 2013 had lots of lighter nominations, such as Christian Bale and Leonardo Dicaprio. Roberto Benigni, I think, won because he made a movie that has material that the academy likes, and was lighter hearted and a comedy. So many more comedians and people from funny movies are nominated, everyone from Whoopi Goldberg in Ghost, Eddie Murphy for Dreamgirls, Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder, to Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids. And these are just to name a few, there is actually a pretty large picking when looking through the oscar history of these light hearted roles being nominated in the last little while. I think this is a big part of why more superior performances lost to Roberto Benigni.
I can understand why Tom Hanks didn't win. He had already won twice in recent years. The Academy doesn't enjoy doing things like this, you don't often see the academy give awards to the same actors within a few years. Which is really a shame, for if an actor gives the best performance of the year but he or she won within the last few years they often do not win the award. Tom Hanks won for 1993 and 1994 and that isn't enough time between 94 and 98 for the academy to have the balls to give him a third best actor win.
Ian Mckellen, if I had watched the Oscars in 1998, would have been the one I would have guessed would win. I was to young at the time to have been watching the Oscars and most of the movies nominated. But this is a great performance that lost for a reason that I do not know.
Why Edward Norton lost is almost baffling to me. But I think I know why still. When it comes to movies that explore racism and race relations, the academy prefers to see movies that tell how to fix the problems. In American History X it shows how not to solve race issues in America. Part of it I believe was that, and the rest fits into the academy again not sitting down to watch these more challenging films. In my opinion this is the best performance given in 1998 and should have won Best Actor.
In fact if I had to nominate 5 best actors from 1998 I would substitute
Roberto Benigni for Jeff Bridges as the Dude.
Well here it is, why I believe Roberto Benigni won over much stronger competition. Honestly this is one of the worst Oscar decisions in history, Edward Norton really should have walked home with the Oscar. Oh well, if you disagree and think Roberto Benigni rightfully won let me know down below why. Hope you enjoyed!
Yeah, 1998 was a totally screwed year for the Oscars. Best Actor is just the tip of the iceberg, but, in short, I couldn't agree with you more. Tom Hanks was the biggest star of the bunch, but he had already won twice and his SPR performance wasn't lauded with any early award (no Golden Globe, SAG, BAFTA, etc). McKellan is amazing, but the movie was too small. Same for Norton (a performance that I absolutely love). But honestly, my vote would've gone to Nolte. His work in Affliction is a towering achievement, and so perfectly capitalizes on his trademark volcanic rage. Best Supporting Actor was one of the awards the Oscars got right in 1998, too bad actor couldn't follow suit. (But, just to be clear, I would've liked a Nolte or Norton win both equally).
ReplyDelete