The 1988 Best Actor race wasn’t much of a race; Dustin Hoffman sped away from the rest of the pack faster than you can say, "I’m an excellent driver." Really, no one had a chance against his Rain Man performance, a triumph of technique in a big hit movie that was also a lock for Best Picture that year. His only serious contender was his former roommate, Gene Hackman, as the rule-breaking FBI agent in the weighty Mississippi Burning. Hackman was the only other contender whose movie was a Best Picture nominee, though the other three actors all gave career-milestone performances. Tom Hanks earned the first of his many Oscar nods for convincingly playing a boy trapped in a man’s body in Big. Edward James Olmos, in the performance that became his signature role, was also thoroughly believable as real-life math teacher Jaime Escalante in the inspirational drama Stand and Deliver. And Max Von Sydow was majestic in his turn as an immigrant father who struggles to build a better life for himself and his son in Pelle the Conqueror, a portrayal so strong it overcame the Academy’s usual reluctance to nominate foreign-language performances.
But did Hoffman deserve the prize? His performance certainly changed the way Americans thought about autism, and his portrayal was uncanny in its uncompromising otherworldliness, managing to seem honest and even funny without ever trying to be likable or sympathetic. On the other hand, the performance has also been much parodied over the years and has led to the cynical calculation (confirmed just a year later, for example, by Daniel Day-Lewis’ win for My Left Foot) that all you need to do to win an Oscar is play someone with a disability. Then there’s Hanks’ performance (besides Hoffman’s, probably the best remembered of the five), which has lost none of its charm or freshness in 20 years; it did, however, launch Hanks into the Serious Thespian part of his career, and he seems not to have delivered an unselfconscious, fully comic performance in the two decades since.
Looking back from today’s perspective, which of these performances doyou think is the best? Vote in our poll, and list your comments below.(For a refresher, watch the clips embedded after the jump, which may contain some NSFW language — and, in the case of the Mississippi Burning clip, revoltingly bigoted language as well.) Remember, we’ll be running the Recall the Gold surveys every Tuesdayand Thursday until January, so you may go back at any time and vote inthe other polls (click hereto see them all), reexamining the Oscar races of 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25years ago. On Tuesday, Nov. 11, we’ll look at the 1983 Best Directorcompetition. Watch also for commentary and context throughout EW.com,including on Dave Karger’s new Oscar Watch blog.
Gene Hackman in Mississippi Burning
Tom Hanks in Big
Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man
Edward James Olmos in Stand and Deliver
Max Von Sydow in Pelle the Conqueror
Comments (1-26) of 26 Add your comment
Hey look at that, I had never heard of Edward James Olmos before Battlestar Galactica. He looked hilarious in that movie.
The best performance that year wasn’t even nominated. Tom Cruise in Rain Man.
I agree, Dan. Cruise brilliantly contrasted Hoffman’s almost-but-not-quite-too-much performance with probably the best role/performance of his career. It was taut control and subtle nuance, and it was incredibly brave and raw – it was “Tom Cruise, Actor” not “Tom Cruise, Weirdo Megastar.” Hoffman’s challenge was large, but Cruise did the real “coming of age” in that movie. Vastly underrated, overlooked performance…
I agree with all the other commenters, the absolute best performance of that year was Tom Cruise. It is one of Cruise’s best five performances ever and probably number one or two. A real waste.
I prefer Hoffman in Tootsie. In ‘88, Hanks should have won. Susman is right, Hanks “The Serious Actor” was what happened after Big. I can’t imagine that he’ll ever do comedy like that again. I bet after the recall, Hoffman will still retain his votes.
seemed like a slow year. none of the above. zzzzzzzzz
Hoffman was brilliant and deserved the Oscar. However Tom Hanks is one of my favortite actors (along w/ Daniel Day-Lewis and Denzel) and gave such a touching, charming performance in ‘Big’. Love that movie.
I choose Dustin Hoffman because he restrained himself from doing “the full retard”.
I also thought Tom Cruise was overlooked for Rainman. His character showed the most change.
Raymond was a masterpiece of technique, but, pardon the pun, Big grows more and more in my mind as the years pass. But I am willing to consider that the best performance was the one not nominated: Cruise’s.
I love me some Tom Hanks, too. I grew up with him as part of my movie-going teen-hood. And I liked “Big.” Thought it had true heart, and some awesome performances (John Heard as the grasping, weasely office suck-up is STILL funny). But there is something undeniably “squicky” about that movie. When “big” Josh utters the line “Okay, but I get to be on top!” and he has absolutely no clue what that means, it’s funny. When you realize by the end of the movie that a little boy now knows firsthand what that means? It’s sorta gross.
What is all this “tom hanks as serious actor after big” garbage? What, A League of Their Own, Toy Story, Toy Story 2, The Terminal, The Ladykillers, and Catch Me if You Can weren’t comedic performances? What about You’ve Got Mail? Just because a guy does more serious work and wins a couple of oscars doesn’t mean he’s “just a serious actor” now. I think he’s as funny as he ever was. I do agree that Tom Cruise should have been nominated that year as well. Hoffman deserved it but Cruise should have been nominated.
I thought Edward James Olmos was great. He’s my pick.
Edward James Olmos – because I lurve him. Never saw the movie though…
YES!! I agree that Dustin Hoffman should have won for RAINMAN.
I STILL watch that movie from time to time. He was AMAZING in that movie!
Of the choices given, the winner is definitely Dustin Hoffman; but if ever a co-Oscar was deserved, this year was it! Like so many of the other folks, it is hard to understand why Cruise was overlooked for his nuanced and evolving performance as younger brother in “Rain Man”. As for the others, Hackman and Hanks both were worthy of nominations; but there were two glaring omissions that year: Tom Hulce as the mentally retarded brother in “Dominick and Eugene” and especially Michael Keaton in a devastating performance as the addict in “Clean and Sober”, his best performance ever, one recognized only by the National Society of Film Critics as Best Actor.
I am the mother of a little boy with autism, and because of him, I also work assessing children for him. Nicholas is probably higher functioning than the character of Raymond, but trust me when I tell you that Dustin Hoffman had to have done his homework. He had the repetitive body movements, the prosody, the flat affect, and the self-abusive behavior that can manifest when they become scared or anxious. He also managed to maintain an undeniable sense of dignity and wonder, which many people with autism do have. I respect Hoffman’s performance immensely. The fact that it spawned Hollywood’s tendency to try to exploit these things for their own gain is not his fault. For me, Hoffman keeps that Oscar. He is one of the few that I have voted for to do so.
Once again, there was nothing wrong with Hoffman’s win. The Academy got it totally right
It’s unfortunate that Tom Cruise will be the Paul Newman of his Oscar generation. Starting in 1986 with “The Color of Money” (the movie that incidentally gave Newman his one and only Academy Award), Cruise has given some of the finest performances of the last twenty years. I completely agree with the other posters – while Hoffman has the great technical deliverance of an autistic, it’s Cruise who does the real ‘acting’ in “Rain Man” – becoming more self-aware while at the same time a loving brother.
As for the rest of Cruise’s career, he just kept getting beat by more likeable competition. I mean, do we really think Michael Caine in “Cider House Rules” was better than Cruise’s misogynistic brute in “Magnolia”? Daniel Day-Lewis better than the crusty yet sincere Ron Kovic in “Born on the Fourth of July”? The sign of a true artist is taking challenging roles regardless of if they are likeable. In my book, Tom Cruise is a wonderful actor (though an utter religious nut off screen)
YES, DD-L definetly deserved the Oscar over Cruise for his work in ‘My Left Foot’ vs. Cruise’s in ‘Born on the 4th of July’. I’ve seen both films and DD-L’s is transcendent, whereas anyone could have played Kovic as well as Cruise did. Cruise did a great job, but DD-L was magnificent.
I went with Tom Hanks in Big, I consider Big to be one of those few perfect films I can’t say the same about the other four films. Its a shame that the Academy didn’t acknowledge comedies
1980 – 9to5
1981 – Arthur
1982 – Tootsie
1983 – Trading Places
1984 – Ghostbusters
1985 – The Goonies
1986 – Little Shop of Horrors
1987 – The Princess Bride
1988 – Big
1989 – Back to the Future II
I’d rather watch those films then Driving Miss Daisy, Rain Man, The Last Emperor, Platoon, Out of Africa, Amadeus, Terms of Endearment, Ghandi, Chariots of Fire, and Ordinary People.
Tom Cruise was good in BIT4OJ but as has already been said DDL was Amazing! I have to agree though about Magnolia. Its his best performance to date. As for the topic, Hoffman deserved it.
No question Hoffman deserved it…but speaking of comedies…and forgetting the forgotten film…Michael Keaton should have been nominated for Beetlejuice!! And no, Cruise was just playing himself.
I agree with everyone who thought that TOm Cruise should have been at least nominated for this movie, he displayed superb acting talent. I Don’t know if Dustin Hoffman deserved it, he did do fine in this film, but for me Tom Cruise had the best role
Max Von Sydow. Not much question, though Gene Hackman was very VERY good as well.
I don’t understand AT ALL the love for ‘Rain Man’. It’s mushy and manipulative, and so SO cheesy. Tom Cruise hands down gives the best performance of the film. There is nothing subtle about Hoffman’s performance.
But the real question is how could so many better performances not even get nominated that year?
Von Sydow and Hackman deserved their nominations but the outrageously snubbed performances were:
-John Cleese in ‘A Fish Called Wanda’ (who should have won, in my opinion)
-Willem Dafoe in ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’
-Jeremy Irons in ‘Dead Ringers’
Great performances. Recall Hoffman’s Oscar (and nomination!)
How Hoffman got a nod (much less the Oscar) when it was Cruise in Rain Man that really shined still stuns me. Hoffman has no arc in the film, whereas Cruise shows an amazing range.
Since Cruise was snubbed, I think it is Olmos whose performance was the best and remains so.