As with many of the Oscars, the question with this award is, "Does the Academy really pick the best actor?" Ultimately, it usually does (or can at least make an excellent case for its choice), but the nominations are a different story.
This year, out of Russell Crowe, Richard Farnsworth, Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey and Denzel Washington, only three have a reasonable chance the award.
Penn is the easiest to eliminate. He was lucky to be nominated for his role as Emmet Ray, the "second-best jazz guitarist in the world," in "Sweet and Lowdown." The nod gave some unexpected attention to Penn and the little-known Woody Allen movie, but the press for "Sweet and Lowdown" was overshadowed by pundits crying foul over yet another Oscar snub of Jim Carrey.
I'm baffled by this Carrey fiasco. Last year, a few people (the most vocal one being Carrey himself) were irritated at the Academy's supposed oversight of Carrey's performance in "The Truman Show."
But the nominees, which included Roberto Benigni ("Life is Beautiful"), Tom Hanks ("Saving Private Ryan") and Edward Norton ("American History X") were a solid crew that wouldn't have been enhanced by the addition of Carrey.
This year's uproar is even more ridiculous. Certainly, Carrey did a fine job of impersonating Andy Kaufman, but that's what it was -- an impersonation. Carrey added little to the late comic that we didn't already know, which was also the film's fatal flaw.
The real reason for the general dissatisfaction with Carrey's treatment is the Golden Globes. He wins there, but the Oscars don't reward mass appeal like the Globes do. If Carrey didn't put on a good show at the Globes, nobody would consider his snubs at the Oscars an injustice.
But I digress. Sean Penn won't win. His nomination is the obligatory "unique" role -- the niche performance that the Academy has no intention of awarding but feels it must acknowledge to show that it has a heart for independent films (which it doesn't).
Farnsworth is a similar case. Substitute "charming" for "unique" in the previous paragraph to get the idea. The age factor was also on Farnsworth's side in snagging a nod -- he's one of the oldest Best Actor nominees in Oscar history.
It's not unprecedented for seniors to go home with a trophy, but when it happens, the winner is usually a respected Hollywood figure who's never won before. In these cases, the industry gives the award out of guilt and an uneasy feeling that this might be their last chance to pay their respects. For Farnsworth, more a veteran of television than of cinema, the nomination will be enough.
Between the remaining three, it's a very difficult race to call. Crowe is compelling in "The Insider" as tobacco industry whistle-blower Jeffrey Wigand. As a former executive who is manipulated and cajoled into confessing big tobacco's sins to "60 Minutes," Crowe must play a man struggling against an internal conflict while also facing the pressures of the journalists and the tobacco companies.
I believe Crowe's role was the most difficult of the Best Actor nominees, and he does an admirable job. But my hunch is that he won't win because he's a newcomer to the Academy, and he's competing against two Oscar veterans in their prime. His performance isn't spectacular enough to overcome such handicaps.
Washington's turn as suspected murderer Rubin Carter in "The Hurricane" generated controversy, as the infamous case has done in the past. Upon the movie's release, there were complaints that the producers had gone too far in glorifying Carter by exaggerating or omitting aspects of his life.
To be fair, such accusations could be made about films "based on a true story." Best Picture nominee "The Insider" was also liberal with the truth, but because "The Hurricane" dealt with a particularly inflammatory issue, it inevitably faced an unusual amount of public scrutiny. It remains to be seen if the Academy will be influenced by this controversy.
Political debates aside, Washington is at his best in "The Hurricane," showing us Carter when he's young and when he's old; fiery and mellow; determined and dejected. It's certainly on par with his performance in "Glory," for which he won Best Supporting Actor in 1990.
Kevin Spacey has also won Supporting Actor (for "The Usual Suspects" in 1996), but like Washington, he has yet to take a trophy home for a leading role. This year marks his first chance at Best Actor, for his portrayal of frustrated suburbanite Lester Burnham.
This is the performance that should win the Oscar. Spacey tops the poignancy of Farnsworth, the humor of Penn, and at least matches the emotional impact of Washington. Spacey masterfully shows Lester's transformation from submissive suburbanite to hardened rebel to contented father.
Not only do I believe that Spacey should win, I believe he will win. What makes Spacey's realization of Lester Burnham a more likely vote-getter than Washington's Rubin Carter is the fact that more audiences can relate to Lester.
When Lester becomes weary of bureaucratized corporate America, we can relate. When he gnashes his teeth at the insincere small talk of a cocktail party, we can relate. Lester carries out the secret desires of every man living in suburban America today.
And Spacey should carry out the gold statuette on March 26.
