Best Actor?

My obsessive fair-mindedness keeps me from being too critical of the Oscar winners, since I have not seen all of the movies which were nominated for Best Picture.  Also, I did not see all the performances which were nominated in the acting categories.  Of the 9 nominated films this year, I have only seen 3: "Lincoln", "Les Miserables" and "Zero Dark Thirty."  The other 6 films will be on my Netflix queue, and I look forward to seeing all of them.

There was one oversight, however, about which I have an opinion, and I have shared it with my wife constantly since Sunday night.  My vote for best actor would have gone to Hugh Jackman over Daniel Day Lewis in a heart beat.  I say this for two main reasons.  First, since we all know that there is no objective measurement of acting greatness, the Oscar sometimes becomes symbolic, or a way to honor certain kinds of work.  In that light, since Daniel Day Lewis has already won two Oscars for best actor, the academy passed up an opportunity to honor a special kind of performance.  They missed this opportunity when they gave Daniel Day Lewis an Oscar for his fine work in "Lincoln."  Now, I have not seen the other 3 performances that were nominated.  Bradley Cooper, Joaquin Phoenix and Denzel Washington are all fine actors, and I am sure that their work was worthy of an award as well.  However, my question to Academy voters would be this...why does Daniel Day Lewis automatically win this award?  He has now won an Oscar for his last two performances...should we simply assume that he will win each time he makes a film, or did the cool beard and stove pipe hat hypnotize the voters into such a trance that an unprecedented third best Oscar simply was the only choice?

Second, it is my contention that Hugh Jackman's work deserved the award because his was the harder performance, and it was more uniquely suited to him.  Another way to put it would be this: Hugh Jackman could have played Lincoln, but Daniel Day Lewis could not have played Jean Valjean.  The unique achievement of Hugh Jackman in "Les Miserables"should not have been overlooked as it was.  Daniel Day Lewis' work was outstanding, but it was not unique.  Many actors have been enveloped by an historic figure.  This has required them to change their appearance, voice, and "become" that figure.  To be fair, there is no question that when I saw "Lincoln", I felt that I was watching Abraham Lincoln.  Day Lewis' true gift in the role was somehow to take what I would have imagined Lincoln to be like and somehow capture that on screen.  This is great work.  But Hugh Jackman not only does the same thing with his role, but his entire role is sung!  I once heard a writer say that one can never compare Babe Ruth to anyone else in baseball history because he was not only one of the greatest hitters of all time, but also one of the all time great pitchers.  As such, his talents are unique in baseball history.  In the best actor category this year, there is simply no comparison to the work that Hugh Jackman did.  Not only did he sing his entire role, but he sang it all live.  None of the performances seen on screen (save one) were prerecorded, and every moment of the performance feels fresh and as if Jackman had never spoken the words before.

Sometimes one gets the feeling that the voters have already made up their mind, based either on preconceived notions of greatness or on the desire to hear certain someone's acceptance speech.  It was a lapse in judgement on the academy's part to overlook a performance this year that was not only great, but also completely unique in the history of movie making.  "Les Miserables" as a whole was a unique experiment in movie making, and I don't think it got the accolades it deserved.  Maybe once I see the other 6 movies on the Best Picture list, I will feel differently.  However, even if I feel differently about the film as a whole, Jackman's performance outshone Daniel Day Lewis, and I was disappointed to not see that reflected on Oscar night.