The fact that I gave him a win for, means I liked his performance in the second part. Did I like him in the first part? I'm going to say very soon, but what needs to be said is the fact that though he plays the same character in the film, he portrays it very differently than in the second film. The reason of that is the change of his character. From a 'normal' innocent person he becomes a typical mafioso.
At the beginning of the film he plays some kind of a black sheep of the family. He is the only member of it that didn't do anything illegal. I really liked Pacino's scenes at the beginning of the film. Especially the ones at the wedding. He really wonderfully shows the innocence of his character.
Then later, after his father is stricken, he has to take the responsibility for the family and the change of his character is perfectly showed by Pacino. I really like to think of (and compare) his first and his last scene. It's an incredible difference, and yet it's still the same character, deep down.
He has got great moments, of course, but there are also a few scenes he has nothing to play in. He just is there and though I can imagine that moment been played more memorably. But there are just few of them and I can easily forgive him.
Here is the moment I should point out the best scene of him, but I can't decide from the two of them. The first is in the hospital, where he finds out that his father is not guarded and how he solves this situation. Pacino greatly portrays the nervosity that he feels, but he has to hide it. The same emotion he has to do in the second scene, which is the one in the restaurant (if you've seen the film, you know which one I'm talking about and if you haven't, shame on you).
The chances of winning an Oscar: I think he was the second along with Duvall...
Great performance. Although a lead performance.
ReplyDelete