Review of Oscar Nominees: Best Actor

Demián Bichir

Age: 48
Film: A Better Life
Role: Carlos Galindo, an undocumented worker, single father, and longtime L.A. resident who buys a truck in order to start his own lawn care business to provide a better future for his teenaged son.

Nomination History:
This is Bichir’s first nomination.

Why He Should Win

Even though Bichir received a SAG nomination, people still thought he wouldn’t be nominated for an Oscar. But he was. This probably happened because voters prefer to identify with a loving father than with a well-endowed sex addict or an ugly man wearing his mother’s dress and sobbing on floor because he wants an Oscar so very, very badly. (Don’t get me wrong. Shame was a beautiful, powerful film, and Michael Fassbender’s performance was pitch perfect. And Leonardo DiCaprio, possibly my favorite actor, is good in everything. Both of these talented men deserved a nomination.)

But so does Demián Bichir, and since he’s virtually unknown in the United States, a nomination for him means much greater exposure for his work and for the film itself. (I know I wouldn’t have watched A Better Life if Bichir hadn’t been nominated. For one thing, I hadn’t heard of it until the SAG nominations were announced. Also, I’m deeply skeptical of Chris Weitz as a director (perhaps unfairly. He might not be entirely to blame for his disastrous adaptation of The Golden Compass, and American Pie has its moments.) A Better Life is actually a pretty good movie. Granted, it’s not The Bicycle Thief (though it tries), but it’s not an episode of the Twilight Saga, either (say, New Moon, for example). It feels very real, a satisfying slice of life.

Bichir makes Carlos Galindo immediately sympathetic. He’s deep, but not complicated. His motivations are clear and hard to question. Every day he gets up and goes to work doing dangerous manual labor. He’s paid in cash. He uses the cash to pay the rent and buy groceries, so his teenaged son can focus on his education. Carlos knows that education is the key to a brighter future, and he encourages his son to dream big and work hard. Much of Bichir’s performance is subtle and small since Carlos is soft-spoken, polite, and too busy focusing on his work to give melodramatic speeches. The character does cry but not often and certainly not for show.

Basically, Bichir is just playing an average American father, a normal guy. Why would playing a normal guy get you an Oscar nomination? Simple. Bichir’s normal guy is an undocumented worker who came to this country illegally because he had no idea how to come here any other way. Bichir works in the United States without any kind of legal permit. In every other respect, however, he behaves ethically, courteously, conscientiously, kindly, and responsibly. He may not be a citizen, but he’s more mainstream than Michael Fassbender’s sex-addict citizen, or Leonardo DiCaprio’s tormented, misanthropic FBI director. Carlos Galindo is an everyman character who definitely exists even if some people refuse to see him. Not only does he exist, but unless you make your living by climbing to the top of palm trees without proper safety equipment, he’s not taking your job. (Of course, if you’re my sister, he might be using your social security number. She’s had it used fraudulently more times than I can count.)

The scene that has Oscar written all over it is Bichir’s talk with his son near the end of the film. The tears that he cries as he describes his hopes for his son and his frustration in the face of his own limitations and circumstances seem natural, genuine, and simply human. I also appreciated the subtlety of his reactions to the sometimes disturbing things his son said to him during their lunch out earlier in the film.

Why He Might Not Win

I’ve heard people complain that the movie is “liberal propaganda” designed to trick people into sympathizing with immigrants who live and work here illegally. And I’ve heard people respond, defending the film from “conservative hysteria,” saying no, on the contrary, it’s just another take on The Bicycle Thief, a beautiful movie about a father and son that has no ulterior motives.

Now let’s be honest. Of course this movie is trying to get us to sympathize with undocumented workers! But is that a bad thing? They are human, aren’t they? They are fathers and mothers and sons and daughters, just like the rest of the population. What really stuns me is that this year’s other four nominated actors aren’t in films making more overt political and social statements. (I mean, you’ve seen the Oscars before, right?)

If you want to talk about making manipulative emotional appeals to humanize the immigration issue, Adriana Barraza did it before, more blatantly, and better in Babel (2006). (She gave a stunning performance, and was nominated in an unusually competitive race for supporting actress.) Watching A Better Life did make me realize, Wouldn’t the world be scary if you couldn’t appeal to the police or the law when bad things happen to you? But then I remembered the number of times I’ve called the police for help. Zero. I don’t have room here for a lengthy discussion of the movie itself, but I hardly think its obvious political and social agenda will hurt Bichir’s Oscar chances. (Again, you’ve seen the Oscars before, right?)

People have also complained that the character speaks English unrealistically well. How stupid! Carlos has lived in Los Angeles for at least fifteen years, and he values education highly. His sister has married a U.S. citizen, and his son has learned English in school. His goal is to assimilate into the society around him. Not all people in his situation speak English so well, to be sure, but with aptitude, desire, and fifteen years of opportunities for immersion, it certainly seems more than possible.

All that said, Bichir probably won’t win. (If I had to guess, I’d say that all four of his fellow nominees have a stronger chance than he does.) To win, you must either already be a big star or do something that really gets people’s attention. His performance is solid but not mind-blowing.

 

George Clooney

Age: 50
Film: The Descendants
Role: Matt King, the conflicted trustee of a Hawaiian legacy of land, who struggles to hold his immediate family together when a boating accident leaves his wife comatose, forcing him to step in as a more active parent to his two troubled daughters, one of whom has a secret that further shakes his world.

Nomination History:
Won Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 2006 for Syriana (2005)

Previously nominated twice for Best Actor for Michael Clayton (2007) and Up in the Air (2008)

Nominated for Original Screenplay and Directing for Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)

Also nominated for Adapted Screenplay this year for The Ides of March (2011)

Why He Should Win

Despite his loss to Dujardin at the SAGs, many still consider Clooney the front runner for the Oscar, and I agree that he deserves it.

In The Descendants, George Clooney plays a character completely unlike his public persona and markedly different from his usual screen persona. (We don’t get any, “I’m so angry, yet simultaneously so cool,” scenes.) The role is wonderful, probably the best part offered to any actor this year because it allows him to show amazing emotional range without requiring him to do anything too flashy or unusual. The character not only remains sympathetic while going through hell, he emerges from his trials more sympathetic than ever.

Like Brad Pitt’s Billy Beane in Moneyball, Clooney’s Matt King owns every minute of The Descendants, dominating the screen time, appearing in every scene I can remember (except for the brief glimpse of his wife’s accident). During that time, he doesn’t have to do anything weird to get our attention. Like Bichir’s Carlos Galindo, Clooney’s King is a hard working father, but he becomes an attentive father only when circumstances force him to step away from his work and pay attention to his family. Throughout the movie, he struggles to understand his daughters. He’s also trying to come to grips with the fact that his wife was having an affair and spends most of the movie trying to track down the other man, not for vengeance, but for closure. This pursuit not only helps occupy his mind (so that he does not wallow in grief), but it also brings him closer to his teenaged daughter, Alexandra. On top of all this, he has to decide what to do with his extended family’s trust of valuable Hawaiian acreage.

Relating to the character is easy. Most people have a father, or at least, a parent. Almost every adult has experienced some type of loss or serious frustration. Everyone has family (biological or otherwise). Any social relationship brings the kind of desired but difficult responsibilities Matt deals with in the film. Whether Matt is spontaneously running to cope with conflicted feelings and find answers, sitting quietly with his girls, or attempting to talk to his unresponsive wife in the hospital, Clooney delivers a strong and realistic performance.

I’ve never seen such good acting from George Clooney. Is this the best performance of all time? No. But is it the best performance this year? Probably. It’s a weak year, and The Descendants is arguably Alexander Payne’s strongest movie yet. (I certainly can’t think of a lead actor performance that’s better this year, equally strong, maybe, but not better.)

Why He Might Not Win

Jean Dujardin could just as easily win, and if he did, he would deserve the award just as much as Clooney. Dujardin also might split the vote with Clooney, causing Brad Pitt to walk away with the Oscar. Even Gary Oldman (who has the benefit of coming late to the party) has an outside chance. But this is the best acting I’ve seen from George Clooney. Ever.

Jean Dujardin

Age: 39
Film: The Artist
Role: George Valentin, a huge film star in silent Hollywood who loses everything and goes into a downward spiral when his studio makes a sudden switch to talking pictures.

Nomination History:
This is Dujardin’s first nomination.

Why He Should Win

He’s the only nominee who wasn’t born right around 1960, so he might as well also stand out by bringing home the Oscar. That’s a joke, of course, but Dujardin is about ten years younger than the competition. Another thing that makes him standout—he barely speaks English. I’ve read that until The Artist started getting so much attention, Dujardin knew virtually no English at all. (I’m sure there’s a bit of self-effacing modesty involved there, but still.) Why is his limited English such a big deal? Well, despite this limitation, at both the Golden Globes and the SAG awards, Dujardin managed to deliver prepared speeches that were charming, sincere, witty, and elegant. Behaving graciously is a good way to keep winning, particularly when it takes extra effort on your part.

His behavior off camera aside, Dujardin is a marvel on the screen and actually does turn in a performance worthy of the award in its own right. Without the use of speech or sound, he manages to create a fully rounded character with the ability to touch the audience. At first Valentin is a perpetually smiling cliché of a man, a star who (despite a name that evokes Valentino) reminds us most of Gene Kelley’s Don Lockwood in Singing in the Rain. He mugs for the camera, the audience, his fans, his friends. He grins all the time—until one day he stops. The change is gradual, but the power of it hits us all at once. Dujardin convinces us that Valentin sinks into a serious depression, and he does it without speaking at all.

In the film’s surreal dream sequence, Dujardin shines. He’s also amazing in the scene that ends in flames. But my favorite moment is his performance in his self-produced silent flop. Even though it is a stereotypical silent performance, it’s still a powerful performance. Dujardin makes his film-within-a-film both amusingly appropriate for its time and incredibly moving nonetheless.

Why He Might Not Win

Dujardin deserves to win, but so does George Clooney. (And even though they’re the competitive front runners, someone could easily win instead of them.) Dujardin won at the SAGs which often indicates the frontrunner, but George Clooney is so popular and gives an equally powerful (yet different) performance.

Gary Oldman

Age: 53
Film: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Role: George Smiley, the ironically named, tight-lipped British secret agent charged with the task of spying on his former friends in order to ferret out a mole selling secrets to the Soviets during the height of the Cold War in the 1970s.

Nomination History:
This is Oldman’s first nomination. Tight-lipped Smiley is also the oldest man nominated.

Why He Should Win Anyone

Anyone who has seen Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy knows exactly who George Smiley is and what he’s all about. If you haven’t seen the film, that’s a more powerful endorsement of the strength of Oldman’s charisma than you may realize. In a cinematic world deliberately designed to mesmerize us with muted colors and characters who want to blend in, Oldman’s Smiley definitely stands out from the rest.

Here’s the essential genius of Oldman’s performance. He plays a British spy, a man reserved by nature and secretive by trade, yet somehow he manages to imbue Smiley with uncanny emotional resonance. Oldman’s Smiley tells us so little about himself, yet by the end of the film we not only come to understand him, we genuinely feel for him and almost fall in love with him. During a first viewing of the deliberately disorienting and intricately plotted spy film, we don’t have time to connect with every character, so the betrayal of the mole isn’t that upsetting for us—until we realize how deeply the betrayal touches Smiley.

The film gives him two standout scenes. In his lengthy, unusually impassioned monologue about Karla, Smiley gives us an unprecedented glimpse into his own psyche. By listening to the carefully chosen characterization of his antithetical nemesis, we come to understand Smiley’s view of the world, his place in it, and ultimately himself. For the first time, too, we realize the pitiable, nearly tragic folly of the mole, working for a man who cannot possibly respect him. Oldman delivers the speech perfectly, with an understated urgency that makes the moment truly powerful on screen. He’s equally good, however, in a brief flashback as he stands in front of the window at a Christmas party and quietly reacts to what he sees outside in the moonlight.

Why He Might Not Win

That Oldman was nominated came as a pleasant surprise. It would be an out-and-out shock if he won. I really don’t think he has a chance. For one thing, the film is very confusing and amazingly emotionally reserved compared to the other nominees’ movies. The script of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy never gives Oldman the opportunity to cry brokenly, run through the streets coming unglued, sink melodramatically into quicksand, or be married to Angelina Jolie. (Billy Beane spends most of Moneyball smiling or smirking, but let’s face it, Brad Pitt brings a lot of emotional baggage to any role. You look at him grinning and think, Angelina helps orphans and wears blood amulets.)

For Oldman, an astonishingly versatile actor with a gift for literally disappearing into his roles, the nomination is the award (and it’s certainly been a long time in coming). He has a chance to win, of course. They all do. They’re nominated. If he pulled it off, I’d be very pleased (less by his victory than by the unlikely Oscar upset). (Major shocks so rarely happen these days.)

Brad Pitt

Age: 48
Film: Moneyball
Role: Billy Beane, the real life general manager of the Oakland Athletics baseball team who decides to change the game by using statistical trends to put together a winning team on a shoestring budget.

Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actor for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

Previously nominated for Best Supporting actor for Twelve Monkeys (1996)

Also nominated this year as producer of Best Picture nominee Moneyball (2011)

Why He Should Win

Brad Pitt has been a handsome superstar for a long time. He’s been a talented actor for even longer (than he’s been a superstar, that is. I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was always handsome). Still he’s gotten relatively little recognition from the Academy. (His supporting nod for an extremely showy performance in Twelve Monkeys was his only nomination for twelve years, years when he starred in movies like Sleepers, Fight Club, Babel, and The Assassination of Jesse James.) Let’s assume that his considerable talent was once eclipsed by his stunning face. Now that he’s a little older (and in my sister’s estimation a bit less handsome), the Academy is finally paying attention to his acting skills. Like Gary Oldman, Pitt deserves to be nominated not simply for this particular performance but also for a largely overlooked body of work.

That said, he gives a strong performance in Moneyball, making Billy Beane charismatic enough to carry the movie single-handedly. His character always seems to be on screen, and even though he doesn’t do anything particularly theatrical, we still feel (and, to some degree, feel intoxicated by) his presence. Pitt’s best scene comes when he decides to arrange a number of trades and juggles several phone calls at once, all the while maintaining the focus and charm necessary to facilitate these power-play transactions.

Why He Might Not Win

He’s not that good. I’m not saying that he’s bad. Pitt definitely deserves the nomination. Reflecting on Moneyball after the credits rolled, I suddenly realized, You know, Billy Beane’s a pretty boring guy. But realizations like that never creep in while Brad Pitt is still playing him on the screen. You don’t want to look away from Pitt’s performance. Maintaining that level of charisma while playing a real, living person takes talent.

The thing is, the performance doesn’t go much beyond that. Pitt’s talented, but he’s no Meryl Streep. After watching youtube clips of the actual Billy Beane, I can report that Pitt nails his mannerisms. I’m not just talking about how he walks and gestures. I mean Pitt really nails the way Beane uses his facial expressions to convey energy and attentiveness.

(Hmm. You know what? Maybe Pitt should win, after all. But now, what was my point again?)

Oh yes. The voice. Pitt gets the voice all wrong. Pitt sounds just exactly like someone, all right, but it’s not Billy Beane, it’s himself playing Lieutenant Aldo Raine in Inglorious Basterds. Also the part doesn’t give him the opportunity to show as much emotional range as say, George Clooney in The Descendants. Brad Pitt’s good, but he’s not the best this year. Despite that, however, I’d say that a win for him would be a big surprise but not a total shock. He is Brad Pitt, after all.

Back to Top