Worst Oscar Winners: The Case of the Leading Men Who Won for the Wrong Roles

After a little bit of a hiatus, I'm back! The past week has been something of a roller coaster (for more than one reason). I wanted to take the time to just soak in the post-Oscar time; as anyone who keeps up with the Academy Awards knows, it's a lot of posting, all the time, which doesn't sound tiring but when you're the one doing it, trust me, it can be. 

Today also marks the start of my Spring Break, so I wanted to get something worthwhile out just in case I don't post for a few more days. I haven't been home really at all this semester, so I have a lot of people I need to catch up with, which doesn't leave me a whole lot of time to write or cover much (who am I kidding, I'm sure I'll find some time to post over break, I'm not that popular). 

So while I enjoy a school free week (and hopefully you are too, unless you had your Spring Break last week) enjoy my penultimate post in the Worst Oscar Winners series: with Best Actor in A Leading Role. Next month, the final category will be Best Supporting Actor. 

Enjoy! 

#10.) Jamie Foxx in Ray over Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda 

I'll be the first to say that Jamie Foxx is a damn good Ray Charles impersonator. If acting hadn't worked out, my first advice would be that he should impersonate Ray for money or something. Outside of the mannerisms and and physical similarities, however, Foxx never really makes Ray seem more than an impersonation. It's a hollow effort, coasting on the physical aesthetics rather than anything below the surface. However, as we all know, sometimes that's all that matters to Oscar, which explains how he nabbed a trophy for the role. 

Don Cheadle is an actor that had never impressed me before Hotel Rwanda, nor after, but he gave a hell of a performance in the film. The similarities to Schindler's List are inevitable (both films deal with genocide and the similarities between Liam Neeson's Oskar Schindler and Cheadles' Paul Rusabagina are plentiful), but Hotel Rwanda, and Cheadle's performance, are memorable in their own right. As Paul, Cheadle is a iron willed force, doing anything and everything he can to protect his wife and children and keep the family together. What's brilliant about his performance, is that Cheadle clues us into Paul's inner thoughts without saying a word; the magic is in his eyes. Even when he's negotiating peace with a rebel soldier, projecting confidence, we can see that he's not sure of himself or the outcome awaiting him. Paul may be project strength, but we can see the vulnerability beneath that tough exterior. 

#9.) Colin Firth in The King's Speech over Jesse Eisenberg in The Social Network 

2010 was one of the most disappointing Oscar years in recent history; the year The King's Speech trumped The Social Network, Black Swan and Inception. One win that stings a little more for me than others, is Colin Firth's performance as the troubled King George VI. Playing right into the Academy's sweet spot (they certainly love when actors play real people don't they) for Oscar bait, and coasting on goodwill from his (undeserved) loss to Jeff "the Dude" Bridges the year before, this was an easy win for Firth. It's just disappointing, given what we know Firth is capable of (I mean COME ON he was incredible in A Single Man) that he had to win for this redundant performance. It also doesn't help that Firth's best moments are shared with Geoffrey Rush, who is a much more interesting character to watch on screen.

Jesse Eisenberg, on the other hand, is never boring. His Mark Zuckerberg could have easily been a B-grade imitation, or an asshole caricature. What Eisenberg manages to do, is out Sorkin Aaron Sorkin. The fast paced dialogue jumps off of Eisenberg's tongue like daggers; he's cold, calculating, and yes, an asshole. However, what's more interesting to watch is the little flickers of humanity Eisenberg injects beneath the cold exterior, in the moments before Mark upgrades his asshole status to super asshole. It's a performance I certainly wasn't expecting from the young actor, and one the film relies on, but more importantly, it's a performance I can't imagine anyone else giving, which is more than I can say than Firth's King George. 

#8.) Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart over Colin Firth in A Single Man

For one reason or another, 2009 was the year that Jeff Bridges was going to win an Oscar. After giving us iconic (more deserving) performances in The Big Lebowski and The Fabulous Baker Boys, it was decided he would win for his half-hearted and uneven effort in Crazy Heart. Though a "credible" performance (largely benefitting to Bridges' powerful star charisma), it's one that really isn't deserving of an Oscar. Even less so when you compare it to the tour de force given by Colin Firth in A Single Man. 

It wasn't until A Single Man I started really noticing Firth as a true actor. What he does in the film is nothing short of amazing. As a man grieving over the death of his longtime (male) lover on his last day alive in 1962 (during the Cuban Missile Crisis) Firth acts circles around Bridges, painting a whole pallet full of emotions and complexities that make him (and the film) worth watching. His (largely) internal work is powerfully highlighted in the way he plays his character's secret personality, and the personality he shows the world. He never over sells either side of his character, nor does he overplay the moments that require him to grieve. He is powerfully refined. 

#7.) Denzel Washington in Training Day over Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind

Denzel's performance in Training Day was disappointing in that I truly think he could've been better than he actually was. As the film's antagonist, the character played right into the (many) strengths Washington has an actor. We had seen how incredibly explosive he was as Malcom X, never overplaying the key moments. Here, it's as if he took his performance from Malcom X only making it less refined. What could've been a subtle, nuanced turn became something else altogether, something I'm not sure I liked. 

Compare that to Russell Crowe's John Nash, who could have easily been played the same way that Washington played his character, only to do so would be to take away from the complexities of Nash. Crowe's deliberate understanding of the character is obvious, especially in the way he makes his obtuse characteristics very realistic. It's the perfect example of when an actor portraying a real person was done right. Though A Beautiful Mind as a film was a bit hammy and over indulgent, I found Crowe's performance to be the film's true highlight. 

#6.) Russell Crowe in Gladiator over Tom Hanks in Cast Away

2000 remains one of the tightest Best Picture races ever, with 3 films (Gladiator, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and Traffic) all fighting for the gold. Sound familiar?

 -- 2013 saw 12 Years A Slave, Gravity, and American Hustle duking it out till the very end-Ultimately, the Academy went with Gladiator, and decided to award leading man Russell Crowe as well. Crowe's win would bar him from winning from his career best performance as John Nash in 2001's A Beautiful Mind the following year, and what a depressing fact that is. Never have I seen such a dull performance (not even Hanks' bland turn in Forrest Gump [also on this list] is devoid of this much emotion. I give Crowe major points for being able to carry this action-epic on his shoulders, but he doesn't over much in terms of characterization. If they gave an Oscar for brooding, I would've given it to him no questions asked.  

Hanks, on the other hand already had 2 Oscars and 5 overall nominations by this time (this remains the last time he was honored with a nomination by the Academy), however it's his harrowing turn as a man stranded on an island that should have won (in a perfect world, Hanks would have won for Philadelphia and Cast Away, not Forrest Gump). Think of Sandra Bullock in Gravity, and multiply it by 100; Hanks makes the film a one man show, commanding the screen, throwing his entire body into it. He takes that movie star vanity/power and sheds it for the first time, allowing himself to be emotionally rawer and naked than he had ever been in his career, a feat he wouldn't duplicate until last year's Captain Phillips. Not many actors could have pulled this off, and based on what Hanks had done before this, I would've never guessed he had it in him. Give it to him for the performance, throw it at him for breaking through his limits as an actor.

#5.) Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump over Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption and John Travolta in Pulp Fiction

1994 was a rich year in the Best Actor category, with 5 high profile leading men duking it out for the Oscar; it was a rich category that year. However, the Academy chose to give it to Tom Hanks, who had just won the same award the year before for his performance in the movie Philadelphia. Now, don't get me wrong, I love Tom Hanks, in fact, I think he gave his best performance this year in Captain Phillips (for which he was unjustly left out of the final 5 in favor of Christian Bale). However, a second Oscar is a big statement. When Meryl Streep won her second trophy, she had to literally give the performance of a lifetime in Sophie's Choice, one that outshone her first winning performance in Kramer vs. Kramer. Tom Hanks' work in Forrest Gump, though credible, is not a performance I would have awarded, and especially not in the context of a second win. Though Hanks guides us through the almost epic Forrest Gump, he's merely a blank slate for the other actors' performances to reflect off of. It's almost too internalized to call nuance; cc: Glenn Close in Albert Nobbs, another performance that's simply too bland, too quiet. I believe it was not only Hanks' popularity as an actor, but the overwhelming popularity of Forrest Gump that drove him to win. It's a shame because it's this very win that kept him from being rewarded from the true deserving performance in 2000's Cast Away.

Needless to say, John Travolta gave his nearly dead career second life with his iconic turn as Vincent Vega in Quentin Tarrantino's acclaimed Pulp Fiction (which also unfairly lost the Best Picture prize to Forrest Gump). As Vega, Travolta takes all of the suave that made him a teen heartthrob and translates that into a mature, commanding lead performance. His Vega is, dare I say, more iconic than his turn as Danny in Grease, and his performance in Saturday Night Fever. Even Morgan Freeman's near legendary turn as "Red" Redding was more of a deserving performance, and an example that being the film's narrator doesn't mean you must forgo an actual performance. No performance Freeman has given (not even his winning, but entertaining, turn in Million Dollar Baby) comes close to this one; it's his innate honest portrayal of a man on death row that not only sketched a memorable and sympathetic character, but one that helped land his film to be one of the best remembered movies of all time.

#4.) Sean Penn in Mystic River over Bill Murry in Lost in Translation

Sean Penn is an actor that, in my humble opinion, have never given a performance that warrants an Oscar. Nomination? Sure. But to receive an award for giving a performance considered the 'Best' of its year is saying a lot, and Penn has never achieved that (he appears on this list again a little further up). In Mystic River, his first Oscar win after 2 nominations, Penn plays a longtime sufferer of child abuse. The role itself is rich with great opportunities to find both nuance and showy moments, however Penn opted for the opportunity to chew the scenery; his famous Oscar clip of him being restrained by police officers is a hard sit for a number of reasons, one being Penn's serious over acting.

Bill Murray, on the other hand, gave the performance of his already iconic career by playing a role completely different from anything he had previously done before. Director/Screenwriter Sofia Coppola wrote the role specifically for Murray, and has been quoted as saying she wouldn't have done the film without him... which is easy to see why. The picture hinges on Murray's quiet, nuanced but masterful performance. Though he owns the film, he has less opportunities to have big, loud moments like Penn does in Mystic River, which play to his favor. He's constantly believable as the mysterious Bob Harris. It's a thrill to watch Murray disappear into the role without having to do much at all. Though effortless, it's an achievement that truly was the best of its year.

#3.) Al Pocino in Scent of A Woman over Denzel Washington in Malcom X

HOO-AH, the sound bite quoted round the world from an otherwise unremarkable performance from Al Pocino that somehow won an Oscar. It's easy to see why given that he had been (unfairly) passed over on other occasions. As Oscar often does, they decided to give him an Oscar for turning in an "alright" performance as a reward for all of the other times he had been snubbed (The Godfather I & II, he should have won for the latter). The only problem with this logic, is that Pocino's performance is so lazy and bombastic, it's almost as if he was sleep walking through it while making the conscious decision to overact throughout the whole picture. The film's excessive running time doesn't help the performance either, in fact, it only magnifies the hammyness and overall schtick induced work Pocino does here. By honoring this performance, the Academy unwittingly tarnished Pocino's more worthy performances; this is the one you choose to honor?

While I have often begrudged Oscar for rewarding "mimicry" performances, it's refreshing when an actor takes their portrayal of a famous or public figure, and builds upon that. We've seen it Marion Cotillard's Edith Piaf and Phillip Seymour Hoffman's Truman Copote. But before any of those performances, we had Denzel Washington's Malcom X. In what remains his greatest performance (Flight and Glory come closest to rivaling, but never surpass his work here), Denzel transcends sheer impersonation, and becomes the personification of fiery charisma. He is utterly captivating, I dare you to try and take your eyes off of him. It's no secret that Denzel himself believes he should have won that year (The New York Film Critics were right in choosing him as their pick for Best Actor), and he's absolutely right. Denzel not only played the legendary Malcom X with integrity, but he delivered the performance of his career, and a performance that challenged many of his contemporaries.

#2.) Sean Penn in Milk over Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler

Sean Penn is an actor that appears twice on this list, and for good reason. 2 different times he's won Leading Actor Oscars over more deserving actors doing more complicated and less baity work. His performance in the Harvey Milk biopic (aptly titled "Milk") was certainly the heart of the film, which was one of the best of its year. However, Penn's sheer mimicry doesn't leave a whole lot for much to do besides... well mimic. The Academy is drawn to actors playing famous people though, like a moth to the flame. For some reason, Penn is an actor that they embrace with very open arms. These 2 factors paired with Milk's overall critical acclaim carried Penn to his second Oscar.

Mickey Rourke, by comparison, takes a wholly original character and builds him from the ground up. Before The Wrestler came along, Mickey Rourke's career was barely alive. Director Darren Aronofsky had originally hired Nicholas Cage to play Randy "The Ram" Robinson, but let him go to let his first choice, Rourke, take the role, and what a great choice that was. It's hard to imagine anyone but him as Randy; the performance is filled with so much of Rourke's own heart, blood, sweat and tears it's impossible to differentiate actor from character. Biopic performance come around once every year it seems. However, it's truly special when a performance feels so personal and intimately connected to the actor; they aren't just being, they are truly living within the confines of their work. While the usually cold and unwelcoming Penn may have disappeared into the sunny and friendly Harvey Milk, it was Rourke's quietly heartbreaking transformation of lifetime experience into the performance of a lifetime that should have taken the gold that year.

#1.) Roberto Bengini in Life is Beautiful over Edward Norton in American History X

One of the worst injustices committed in Oscar history: Italian comedian Roberto Bengini's slapstick performance in the Holocaust film "Life Is Beautiful" winning over Edward Norton's tour de force in the widely praised "American History X". Though Norton is my choice (and the most deserving) among the contenders, literally anyone else could have won and the stigma would never have reached the levels of Bengini's horribly legendary win. The power of Harvey Weinstein was at it's height during this point; Miramax Films was an Oscar magnet (This was the same company that campaigned the Chocolat to 5 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture). So it's easy to see why the overly sentimental Holocaust film won 3 Oscars; not only was the film right in the Academy's wheelhouse, but it had a powerful Oscar campaign behind it. Bengini was also the film's director, and the chance to reward him was irresistible to voters, especially since his botched English always made for an interesting awards speech.

Edward Norton, on the other hand, did not play the awards game as well as Roberto Bengini did, nor did he have a film that catered to voters or a powerhouse campaign behind him. Norton had a very public falling out with his film's director, and his portrayal of a former Nazi skinhead was not easy to watch. However, the fact it was a difficult sit does not take away from the sheer magnitude of his work. He manages to take his character through the whole gamut of emotions, from being a deplorable neurotic cult leader to a reformed and sympathetic man seeking to make things right for his family. It mystifies me that Norton could have lost this one; it remains his best performance and one of the great performances ever given by an actor. It's a true revelation.