|
|
Post by JangoB on Oct 27, 2019 12:25:22 GMT
For years this performance has been very divisive with some calling it yet another great Pacino turn and others considering it to be an overcooked piece of acting ham. Plenty of folks think of Pacino's Oscar win for it to be a career one first and foremost. But what do you truly think of him in it? I personally regard it as a wonderful performance. I always admire actors who can create a character that sticks in my mind, that stands out and that I can't imagine being any other way. This might be weird to say in this particular case since the movie is a remake but I really do think that the two films are quite different and Pacino's approach to Slade is nothing like Gassman's Fausto. Pacino goes his own way and yes, it's definitely a big performance, but I completely believed in him as human being. No matter how many times the lame self-appointed comedians repeated the 'Hoo-ah' thing, unfortunately turning it into a joke for many, each time Pacino pronounces it in the film I completely believe in this phrase being an essential part of him and I feel like it's organic with him as a person. Of course I also think that he portrays an entirely convincing blind man. Seeing the movie, I lose myself in his performance and I don't see Pacino playing a blind guy - I see a blind guy. The mixture of a certain harshness with a passion for life and genuine affection for certain people is something that also elevates the performance to greatness for me. My personal pick for 1992 is Denzel Washington in "Malcolm X" but Pacino is a truly worthy runner-up. And I'm very glad he won an Oscar for it - not only a career achievement, in my view, but also a fully deserving win in its own right. I suspects there will be those who think the opposite  Btw, this post is not meant to start some shit. I started thinking about this performance after reading some crap about it somewhere and immediately wondered what folks on here thought about it. So hopefully this ain't gonna turn into a big fight! |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 27, 2019 12:44:58 GMT
I personally have it in his top 10 - at ~9 or 10 - ahead of some more widely praised performances and some that are similarly divisive (Scarface etc). No actor has as deep a list of good/great performances as him and no actor has a list that causes more argument than him too - that's specifically the reason I rank him as the post-Brando best - with him it's not just the "what" it's the "why" in the work.
He had never given that performance before (Although he repeated some of it unfortunately), he had never been that open, that warm with feeling, just on a technical level it's a tour de force and he has many tour de force level performances.
It can be parodied and that always affects how performances are remembered among middle brow movie fans (ie Brando in The Godfather say is remembered for the parody and then they see it and think it's you know, f'n great).
As for the Oscar, it's remembered incorrectly and falsely - the race was always between him and Washington (my winner that year too) but Washington never had a real shot to win, that's an often repeated myth - not only was Pacino way overdue, but he was a double nominee (the first male ever to do it), in a hit film (Washington wasn't), in a BP nominee (Washington wasn't)....if Pacino already had an Oscar he'd STILL have won, that race was over when he won the Golden Globe tbh.
As a side note, it's sad that Pacino/Washington always gets listed as "the" two in '92 since Harvey Keitel arguably gave a better performance than both imo and like Pacino had an amazing year.....but that's a different thread ......
|
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Oct 27, 2019 12:51:16 GMT
I love his performance. Of course I'm a Pacino fan and this is the only performance that gave him an Oscar so I couldn't be very objective.
He was more than convincing playing a blind man. Yes, he was a bit over the top in some scenes (so was Gassman in the original film) but he had 4-5 great dramatic scenes in which he showed his acting skills (when he tried to kill himself, the family dinner, after the Ferrari driving etc).
If he had already gotten an Oscar before (he should), maybe he wouldn't have won for SOAW but imo this performance is one of his best ever. Surely not in the top-3 of his carrer but maybe in the top-10.
Underrated performance by film fans, not necessarily because it was not a great one, but because Denzel didn't won.
|
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Oct 27, 2019 13:07:53 GMT
Fun as hell but there is genuine depth there. He always carries this shadow of sadness with him and his redemption doesn't feel like it wasn't well earned. I do think GGR was his best performance that year but he is great.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 27, 2019 13:08:45 GMT
Ehh...it's an entertaining performance. Kinda shallow and hambone, but fun to watch. Left alone and far away from any awards or Oscars, it'd probably be better regarded. But the Academy had robbed Pacino often enough at that point, that they probably figured he was owed. And in doing that, they robbed Denzel Washington in Malcolm X, one of the greatest film performances ever given. And that's pretty much it's legacy. It is what it is. They gave Paul Newman his Oscar for one of his less special performances as well. It happens.
I probably have Pacino fourth in the Oscar line-up that year. Robert Downey jr did some of his best work in Chaplin. And Stephen Rea in The Crying Game was excellent. I feel like Eastwood and Pacino were behind those guys.
The Academy really fucked up here. If they'd have waited another year for Carlito's Way, they could have rewarded him with a much more elegiac and elegant performance. Better yet, they could have given him the 2 or 3 Oscars he should have won in the 1970's and avoided the mess that came to pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Oct 27, 2019 13:29:57 GMT
The Academy really fucked up here. If they'd have waited another year for Carlito's Way, they could have rewarded him with a much more elegiac and elegant performance. Better yet, they could have given him the 2 or 3 Oscars he should have won in the 1970's and avoided the mess that came to pass. Not a real mess actually. Was robbed before (arguably), Denzel was robbed in 1993 (arguably). It's not a mess, it's how the Oscars work. It happens very often, just ask Glenn Close. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 27, 2019 13:35:51 GMT
The Academy really fucked up here. If they'd have waited another year for Carlito's Way, they could have rewarded him with a much more elegiac and elegant performance. Better yet, they could have given him the 2 or 3 Oscars he should have won in the 1970's and avoided the mess that came to pass. Not a real mess actually. Was robbed before (arguably), Denzel was robbed in 1993 (arguably). It's not a mess, it's how the Oscars work. It happens very often, just ask Glenn Close. Aye, I know. Don't get me started on Close....that woman has been mugged on multiple occasions. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Oct 27, 2019 14:56:59 GMT
It's a fantastic performance, I'd maybe rank it within his Top 5 or just outside.
Probably the most convincing acting of a blind guy I've seen cause as you say I just don't find myself watching an actor, Pacino is totally "lost" in his character. And that's usually the biggest compliment I can make to an actor.
He also builds up the character that fine and consistent that even in his most extroverted moments I never think he overacts. Pacinos whole range works here from silent and sad moments to the funny and aggressive ones.
I don't know why exactly some people complain about his win, but probably because of 2 reasons: 1) many would call it an "oscar baity" role. I don't like this wording anyway. In any case. It's just an interesting story a fascinating character. 2) because many people always love to complain about anything...
To me it's the best performance of the year by an leading actor and a well deserved oscar.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 27, 2019 16:09:22 GMT
It's a solid performance, with some legitimately entertaining moments and it does have an emotional crux to it . . . but Pacino is definitely the odd man out when judging the quality of the nominees, the other whom are working at their career peaks in astonishing ways. Swap Pacino out for Jack Lemmon or Joe Pesci and you've got an iron-clad murderer's row.
|
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Oct 27, 2019 17:08:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Jan 22, 2020 18:02:19 GMT
Thought I would post this scene which is my favorite in the film:
|
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jan 22, 2020 19:20:02 GMT
Thought I would post this scene which is my favorite in the film: Powerful scene but my favorite of the movie is the following, when he gets emotional... "Where do I go from here, Charlie?" |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 22, 2020 19:52:55 GMT
I haven't seen the film in a long time but I remember two things I loved in the performance is when he acts things out in a different way so perspectives shift, for example:
In the Thanksgiving dinner scene with Bradley Whitford he says "Hoo-ah" differently multiple times as Whitford insults him - like he's absorbing body punches because the words are so painful to him - it represents something else here.
In the scene after he drives the car, he is down and depressed in bed and Charlie says to him "you're not driving any more" and he responds in the quietest and most heartbreaking way "I'm not driving....anymore" as the gravity is sinking in......I may be remembering this wrong when it comes up in the film (?)
|
|
