• More
Back to PopWatch Home
EW Home

Recall the Gold: The 1998 Best Actor race

Dec 9, 2008, 01:44 PM | by Adam B. Vary

Categories: Oscars 2009, Recall the Gold

Robertobenigni_l And the winner is...Roberto Benigni? Before the 1998 Academy Awards became infamous for Shakespeare in Love's upset Best Picture win over Saving Private Ryan, it had already solidified its place in Oscar history for the double shock of Benigni taking Best Actor for his performance in Life is Beautiful. First, Benigni -- an Italian writer/actor/director who'd made his career in his native country as, well, a daffy cinema clown -- beat out far more seasoned actors with his performance as a Jewish-Italian father during WWII so desperate to shield his young son from the Holocaust that he pretends it's all a massive game. And secondly, as you can see in the photo, Benigni celebrated his victory by standing on his seat and generally acting like, well, a daffy Italian clown. It remains to this day a moment that causes many cinema buffs and Oscar fans to cringe with embarrassment.

In fact, of all the categories in Entertainment Weekly's ongoing Recall the Gold survey asking Hollywood to revote on the major Oscars from 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years ago, this could be the one most likely to go to one of the other nominees, namely Ian McKellen (Gods and Monsters), Tom Hanks (Saving Private Ryan), Nick Nolte (Affliction), or Edward Norton (American History X). Hanks, of course, had won back-to-back Oscars in 1993 and 1994 for Philadelphia and Forrest Gump respectively, and while his performance in Saving Private Ryan as the grounded, heartbreaking Capt. Miller was arguably the best of his career to that point, the Academy wasn't about to hand yet another Oscar to him so soon. Nolte earned the best reviews of his career for his portrayal of an alcoholic, small-town cop psychologically crippled by the abuse of his black-hearted father, played by fellow nominee James Coburn. But the film is so bleak that perhaps voters could only bring themselves to vote for one of the deeply troubled men, and the Oscar went to Hollywood vet Coburn for Best Supporting Actor. Norton landed his second nomination for a performance as a neo-Nazi racist prone to rants so articulate, so seemingly reasoned, that they were that much more dismaying -- probably too dismaying for the Academy to honor with an Oscar, given that Norton's nomination was something of a surprise itself.

McKellan, meanwhile, was the favorite to win for his deeply affecting portrait of openly gay Frankenstein director James Whale. He'd won a slew of critics' awards (including Chicago, Los Angeles, and the Broadcast Association), and although still relatively new to Hollywood -- he was less than a year from beginning production on The Lord of the Rings -- McKellan was already well respected as probably the finest Shakespearean actor alive. But at that time, Life is Beautiful was a sentimental powerhouse hitting the peak of its popularity (it also easily won Best Foreign Language Film), and Benigni became the first man ever to win Best Actor for a non-English-speaking role.

So, PopWatchers, do you think Benigni still deserves his Oscar? Or would you give it to someone else? Vote in our poll below; if you need a reminder of each performance, check out clips from each film after the jump (although some of the language is definitely NSFW). While you're at it, if you haven't already, vote in all the other polls from our ongoing walk down Oscar's memory lane. On Thursday, Dec. 11, we'll take a look at the 2003 Best Director race, and you can check out coverage of this year's awards contenders in Dave Karger's Oscar Watch blog.

   

Roberto Bengini, Life is Beautiful


Nick Nolte, Affliction (Trailer)


Edward Norton, American History X (Warning: NSFW)


Ian McKellen, Gods and Monsters


Tom Hanks, Saving Private Ryan (Warning: NSFW)


chriono Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:16 AM EST

EDWARD NORTON Off course!!!!
He didn't get the oscar for "Primal Fear"
He deserved that one

Callie Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:21 PM EST

Ian McKellan should've had this by a MILE.

patrizia Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 02:18 AM EST

sicuramente Edward Norton!

patrizia Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 02:17 AM EST

sicuramente Edward Norton!

Patrick Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 06:15 PM EST

Benigni over Norton is so ridiculous. I would love to hear from any real actor who actually voted for RB.

Ron Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 05:55 PM EST

I would have voted for Hanks, but the Academy isn't going to give him a third Oscar. Nolte has never been a favorite in Hollywood, and American History X had so much baggage with the bad publicity behind the scenes, not to metion Norton's character in the film.
The subject matter of Gods and Monsters probably didn't do McKellan any favors. So perhaps it was a process of elimination.
With that said Bengini was very good, and Life is Beautiful was a very moving film.

Ken A. Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:51 PM EST

Absolutely Ed Norton gets the Gold, one of today's great actors in the best performance of his life so far. His performance was chilling, and his change so moving and believable. What an incredible performance! As for Benigni, I have tried watching this film again and still find it hard to accept a comedy about concentration camps; besides, his performance was often over the top (just like he seems to be) and not all that impressive. Hanks, McKellan, and Nolte were all more than deserving of their nominations; I would have given Benigni's nomination to Fiennes for "Shakespeare" or even to Robert Redford for "The Horse Whisperer". Recall the Roberto clown!

Joe Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:10 PM EST

This race clearly exhibited the emotional immediacy that the Oscar race ends up being. Of course, in hindsight Benigni's performance looks silly. But at the time, he was still likable; and people really did like "Life is Beautiful". So don't hold "Pinocchio" or his recent career against him. He deservedly won - not because of his performance, but because of his personality (keep in mind, at the time the audience liked the fact that he was jumping over them on the way to the podium).
That being said, I find "Life is Beautiful" to be misguided at best, reprehensible at worst. There may be some tragic events you can make a comedy about; I don't think the Holocaust is one of them. And his performance, which was basically one-note frivolity, was completely out of place at the Oscars.
I haven't seen "Affliction" or "American History X" yet, but "The Truman Show" really did blow the other three out of the water, and Jim Carrey was great. (Danny, I completely agree with you.)

Henry Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:13 AM EST

Ugh. You know, you think the Academy's predictable enough. I just don't like the untold rule that if you've won an Oscar before, you basically shouldn't get another Oscar in your lifetime. Might as well just disqualify everyone who has a role in a nominating year who's won an Oscar before. Make things more competitive. As if losing to Shakespeare in Love wasn't enough. Captain Miller is arguably one of Tom Hanks' greatest performances in a career littered with them. Yet, of course, the Academy wants to remain unpredictable and gave Daniel Day-Lewis another Oscar just this past year. The AMPAS infuriate me sometimes.

Jason Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:11 AM EST

Dave, why didn't you discuss Benigni's performance at all? Do his antics necessarily mean the performance wasn't good?

Ackerman Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:33 AM EST

I think Norton's performance as the fanatic was amazing, brutal and very effective. BUT people are forgetting that the movie had him 'change' while in prison, and come out and try and prevent his brother from going down the same part. The 'cured' part of the movie was a script issue in itself, but I can honestly say that Norton in that part of the movie was not nearly as affecting as the previous incarnation. Perhaps because the first part was that good. If we go by a whole performance and not just the scenes that stick out, I don't mind as much today that he didn't win as I did then.

Hanks gave what I still consider (as opposed to 'at that point of time') his career-best performance. But over Ian Mckellen's mesmerizing performance and Nick Nolte's painful-to-watch turn? Not that year.

But Begnini did something extremely difficult in his performance, and did it with such seamless precision that I think people are dismissing too easily. All brilliant ones - a good race.

davw Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:25 AM EST

Had Hanks not won previously he would unduobtedly have won here, that's all you really need to say. What about Marissa Tomei winning for My Cousin Vinny, are you kidding me?

Jennifer Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 03:50 AM EST

Definitely Edward Norton in American History X. His part was so crucial to the movie, and if he hadn't been up to it, I don't think the movie would remain the powerful film it is today. I only watched it once, but so many of the images are burned into my brain, most courtesy of Mr. Norton.

Earl Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 02:49 AM EST

98...very interesting Oscar year!
I liked Roberto and Life Is Beautiful, but found it all rather overrated.

My actor nominations for 98:
Ian McKellan
Tom Hanks
Nolte
Norton
Sean Penn, Hurlyburly

Penn was overlooked by the major awards, which was a shame. Norton was stunningly good in History X, but my pick was McKellan. Just an amazing performance, in an amazing movie.
I was very happy to see Bill Condon get that screenplay award on Oscar night...and I was touched by the way McKellan, Lynn Redgrave and Brendon Fraser were all smiling with pride, with Frasers arms wrapped around McKellan's neck. Clearly, it was a real labor of love for that cast and crew, and it paid off.

My the way...best picture...Shakespeare In Love? Private Ryan? Nah...it's The Truman Show all the way! A nomination in that catergory would have been nice though....

aaron Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:47 AM EST

There is a difference between "joyous reaction" and and completely dishonoring the other nominees and rubbing it in their faces, as Roberto clearly did. When you win something as prestigious as an oscar you're supposed to accept the award with dignity and respect for the other nominees. He sure did not. I mean c'mon, standing on top of the seats and throwing your hands up is like pointing your finger at the other nominees and saying "HA!". Shameful. And as far as all this crap goes about Tom Hanks not deserving it because he won back to back best actor oscars in 1993 and 1994 is ludicrus. Does that mean he should never win again? NO! He shouldn't be penalized because he's that good.

Pamela Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:53 PM EST

It makes me sick how you industry types degrade the art of the comedic actor. Every actor in this category was deserving & it's very hard to say why one was better than the other when they were all so different. I loved LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL & was thrilled to see Roberto win & his spontaneous, joyful reaction. Tom tore my heart out & Ed was mesmerizing, but Roberto's win was just as deserved as theirs would have been. That film was his career best - he wrote, directed & starred in it - & he was rewarded appropriately for the achievement. Still one of my personal favorite films. Now, the monotoned "Nurse Ratched" beating Carol Kane's wonderful performance in HESTER STREET... that was an embarrassment for the Academy that I as a film buff have never gotten over.

ely Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:25 PM EST

Roberto Benigni, all the way. I laughed and cried at Life is Beautiful as never before, it was an amazing way to look at a famous period with new eyes, the tragedy of a man and his sacrifice for his son's innocence.
I didn't find his reaction to the award embarrassing at all, I think it was one of the most onest reaction that we'll ever see on that stage. It was joyful, moving, it radiated happiness. And I think most of the emotion come from the fact that no one would have give him a chance at winning, because usually only american/english actors win in that category, so it was a surprise, and a big one. The same goes for Marion Cotillard last year, a great surprise and a beautiful honest happy speech

irene Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:53 PM EST

I remember this race and it was the first time I agreed with all 5 nominees actually being nominated. I either loved or was moved by all the performances but when I voted in the above poll I gave my vote to Norton. To this day I find that character creepy, intriging and I still think it's one of the most brillant acting performances on film.

Rob Grizzly Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:25 PM EST

Finally, a mildly debatable question. Edward Norton's transformation for his role in American History X should be studied in universities. Phenomenal. And scarily convincing. Benigni and Hanks were both quite good though

jenny Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 09:47 PM EST

i can still remember Sophia Loren shouting "Roberto!" when he won. I recall it as one of the few honest,joyous Oscar moments. I'm happy he won, and I wouldn't ever want to take it away from him. Beautiful movie.

Rahul Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 09:11 PM EST

I haven't see 'Affliction', so of the remaining nominees, I'd recall the award and give it to Edward Norton. He was scary as hell.

totallydude Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 08:32 PM EST

Nick Nolte shut it down in Affliction!

Danny Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 08:03 PM EST

How bout Jim Carrey not even getting the nom for The Truman Show? There was a reason he won the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Drama. Robbed of the nom and Oscar IMO

Ann Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 07:46 PM EST

"Life Is Beautiful" is still my favorite movie of all time. Roberto Benigni did an excellent job and deserved the win. "Life Is Beautiful" simply could not have been a great movie without his performance. Norton comes a close second for me. I have yet to find a movie so endearing and beautiful - pun intended.

John Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 06:34 PM EST

I love Ian McKellan, and I love Tom Hanks, but I voted Edward Norton. For me the entire film is supported by Norton's performance, and unlike the many other actors who have played Nazi's Norton's Nazi is the one I think of first. Norton hit on something rare and amazing in his performance for people to understand or apprechiate it then, I hope they do now, I hope they will 10 years from now.

Brendan Clifford Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 06:34 PM EST

I hardly think it's true that Bengini's acceptance clowning "remains to this day a moment that causes many cinema buffs and Oscar fans to cringe with embarrassment".

I am pretty sure it was/is widely regarded and a joyful moment in Oscar history when a truly deserving underdog was suprisingly awarded for his acclaimed performance in an acclaimed movie (which was also an enormous box office hit) that he also wrote and directed. Why on earth would anyone be embarrassed?

Now, Julia Roberts winning of Ellen Burstyn... that's something to cringe about.

kim in kentucky Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 06:33 PM EST

hard to say on this one -- they were all great -- American History X was so powerful, I could only watch it once. And hey, if I EVER win an Oscar, you can bet I'm gonna prob make a clown out of my self too!!!

elena Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 06:33 PM EST

Benigni all the way. I recently watched "Life Is Beautiful" for one of my classes, and the way Benigni portrays a father trying everything to keep his son and wife safe is gorgeous. Plus, it's a new way to tell a story that's been told many times. That movie was his baby. (Although I agree that McKellan was beyond brilliant)

Jessica Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 06:32 PM EST

McKellen, hands down. This is one of the ones that has always burned me up. Benigni and Life is Beautiful were both totally overrated. They were fine, but McKellen (as well as the other actors in the category) was breathtaking. Benigni would have been my last choice out of those five.

Nathan Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 06:01 PM EST

Solid year for Best Actor, I'm fine with Benigni winning, though it could have easily gone to McKellan or Hanks (had he not already won twice a couple years before) Life is Beautiful was an incredible film, and just like 3 other Best Picture nominees, infinitely better than the cruddy Shakespeare in Love.

Aseem Garg Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 05:50 PM EST

I understand McKellan's appeal from Gods and Monsters, but this award belongs to Tom Hanks. I would consider myself an unbiased observer, yet this is the one race that I would truly "Recall the Gold," for; Hanks was absolutely brilliant in Saving Private Ryan, but his brilliance wasn't merely in the way he delivered his lines or even the memorable qualities of those lines ("Earn this..." anyone?) but in the overall quality of his acting. I was thoroughly distraught at the announcement (and subsequent embarrassment) of Begnini as the winner, and will defend Hanks to this day as the true best actor of 1998.

Janet Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 05:12 PM EST

Ian McKellen was brilliant in Gods and Monsters. It was one of my favorite movies that year.

Benjh Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 04:01 PM EST

@ Otis Jeferson: Whatever your opinion of Begnini and his career, you can not, repeat, can not use the holocaust to make a metaphore, comparisons, or anything of the sort. Nothing compares to it, and the lightness with which you use it to make your point is not only wrong, it's hurtful. As for whether Benigni was right or not to make this movie, the debate goes on. I think he was, because it was done with tact, and found a way to "tell" the holocaust to a new generation, and sensible minds who would have hidden themselves away from it.

Otis Jefferson Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 03:23 PM EST

Using the term "daffy Italian clown" to describe the fermenting excrement that is Roberto Benigni's career (let alone his entire life and public image) is as understated as Hanks' performance itself that year. Benigni found a way to make the Holocaust that much more devastating by bringing his lack of dignity to such a harrowing subject. Benigni is a holocaust in and of himself; his “Pinnochio” debacle is the cinematic equivalent of Auschwitz – the horror, indeed. I forego the option of stating an opinion in favor of announcing facts: poetic justice would be served best if Benigni were stripped of this honor, and had it handed to Edward Norton for his brutal and honest portrayal of a skinhead in sharp contrast to Benigni’s black hole of “talent.” Simply because the screenwriters were able to create an eloquent neo-Nazi does not preclude the honor due to Norton. Benigni belongs in an oven to fully repay holocaust victims and survivors for his crimes against cinema – and humanity.

Cara King Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 02:58 PM EST

I'd vote for Ian McKellen all the way, though Edward Norton was also fantastic. Benigni's performance was excellent, but I don't think it can compare to the other two.

pai Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 02:48 PM EST

I would give it to all five for Benigni, but he was certainly entertaining at the ceremony. I thought McKellen was amazing on every possible level, so I'll go with him. But Joseph Fiennes was scammed out of a nomination, he was better than Gwyneth.

Martin Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 02:48 PM EST

Ian McKellan should have won that year. The story was very egrossing and he was outstanding in the role. Everyone involved, including Brendan Frasor, was superb.

paige Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 02:44 PM EST

I said it before and I will say it again, Ian Mckellan was robbed for Gods & Monsters...

Drew Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 02:36 PM EST

I would vote for McKellan, and did. But I will remind all those who have seen Life is Beautiful and liked it, that major part of everyone's affinity for the film lies in the extremely charming performance of Roberto Benigni. McKellan yes, brilliant, robbed of course, but Benigni is very good as well. I wish he could have followed up that sucess with something as touching.

Lee Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 02:32 PM EST

Why can't people accept the fact that Bengini won that year? Because he didn't just stand at the microphone and stoically accept his award? He was truly surprised and exuberant and just did what he felt in the moment. I thought his performance in LIB was brilliant, as was the film itself. He totally earned and deserved that Oscar. Shame on you, EW, for trying to take that away from him!

ia Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 02:31 PM EST

No recall vote for 1998 Best Actor Oscar...Mr.Bengini was so deserving. And besides, if someone else won, we would have never seen Roberto on Oscar nite leap over Steven Spielberg to claim his Oscar. Way to go, Roberto!!

Kat Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 02:17 PM EST

Hard choice between Tom Hanks and Ed Norton. But I have to give it to Ed. That movie was so powerfull, and he gave the performance of a lifetime in it as well.

t.g. pierson Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 02:00 PM EST

The five nominees were all wonderful, but Ian McKellan gave such a poetic performance that is reamins the most memerable, and most affecting.


advertisement

Add Your Comments

The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject — or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.



  • 1000 characters remaining
    • When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.
Latest Comments
Top Categories

All Categories

Blog Roll
Top Authors
Recent Posts
PopWatch Archive
July 2009
S M T W T F S
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Complete Archive