In the years since we voted on this, Steve Buscemi remains my choice for the win, but Jude Law has replaced Brian Cox as my runner-up.
Cox's film, L.I.E. is virtually unwatchable but A.I.: Artificial Intelligence is probably the film from this year that I've rewatched the most. Law's performance in it is almost as memorable as Haley Joel Osment's. Kingsley and McKellen are fine also-rans as is Broadbent, albeit in Moulin Rouge! more so than in Iris, but, yeah, it feels like the Academy membership focused on a narrow group of films.
Buscemi, in addition to giving the year's best supporting actor performance, was also very much in the news for his support of the firefighters who perished in 9/11. A.I. was criminally undervalued by awards bodies of the day but some of them did manage to single out Osment and Law even if they bypassed the film for Best Picture consideration. Not the Academy, though.
Best Supporting Actor 2001
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19337
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Best Supporting Actor 2001
Just looking back over the years… why was this category so barren? 2001 was a pretty stellar year for movies and this lineup stands out for just being disappointing. Tee’s formula explains it a bit.
First up, is McKellan who was the only nominee prominently featured in a Best Picture nominee. Next was Broadbent. It was his year. He was in a Best Picture nominee (Moulin Rouge!) but also paired with two Best Actress nominees (Dench, Zellweger). Consensus was firmly around his Iris role, which is a bit of a cheat because he’s really a second lead. Kingsley was previous winner/sole nominee. His spot was never in doubt.
Beyond them, Hawke and Voight’s nominations over Buscemi make sense despite their inverse statures in their respective films: Hawke is the lead and Voight is a cameo. But they were both paired with Best Actor nominees. I suppose had Kevin Kline (a SAG nominee for Life as a House which I still haven’t seen) gotten in, then Hayden Christensen would’ve made the cut instead. By that logic, the fact that there was no room for Thora Birch’s excellent work in Ghost World might have been the end of Buscemi’s candidacy. But I look around to other possibilities and I’m coming up pretty thin. I never considered Jude Law for A.I. Artificial Intelligence. He’s great but it’s not an Academy-friendly role. Beyond him, who is there? Pretty much everyone from the Best Picture five is perfunctory ensemble players like Ed Harris, Clive Owen, and Nick Stahl. Had the Academy expanded their roster out to tenn-ish, I’d imagine we’d see some combination of Amelie, Black Hawk Down, Memento, Monster’s Ball, Mulholland Drive, and Shrek. Of those films, the only contenders I can pull are Eddie Murphy and Joe Pantaliano. Murphy got a BAFTA nomination (so did Robbie Coltrane and Colin Firth) but it’s hard to see Donkey getting what Genie couldn’t. I’m a little surprised Joe Pantaliano didn’t pick up any traction. His role is a bit smaller than I remember but he’s certainly memorable.
A quick scan of other, more off the beaten path lists feature tons of memorable performances that I can’t even really fathom being in the race. As I write this, the same is true for Best Supporting Actress. There’s a “this is it?” quality to the contenders that can only be explained by Best Picture nominee (Connelly, Mirren, Smith, Tomei), paired with a lead (Connelly, Tomei, Winslet), and previous winner (Smith, Tomei). The only other acting contender that remotely meets this criteria that I can see is Dakota Fanning for I Am Sam on the basis of Penn’s candidacy. Or I suppose a third Gosford Park actress (Kelly Macdonald or Emily Watson).
Just musing on two categories and a general limitation of the voting process that has been going on for longer than I realized. Every year with the Oscars, there's a significant pool of contenders that don't connect with voters. This is one where it really feels like everything outside their field of vision just failed to exist.
First up, is McKellan who was the only nominee prominently featured in a Best Picture nominee. Next was Broadbent. It was his year. He was in a Best Picture nominee (Moulin Rouge!) but also paired with two Best Actress nominees (Dench, Zellweger). Consensus was firmly around his Iris role, which is a bit of a cheat because he’s really a second lead. Kingsley was previous winner/sole nominee. His spot was never in doubt.
Beyond them, Hawke and Voight’s nominations over Buscemi make sense despite their inverse statures in their respective films: Hawke is the lead and Voight is a cameo. But they were both paired with Best Actor nominees. I suppose had Kevin Kline (a SAG nominee for Life as a House which I still haven’t seen) gotten in, then Hayden Christensen would’ve made the cut instead. By that logic, the fact that there was no room for Thora Birch’s excellent work in Ghost World might have been the end of Buscemi’s candidacy. But I look around to other possibilities and I’m coming up pretty thin. I never considered Jude Law for A.I. Artificial Intelligence. He’s great but it’s not an Academy-friendly role. Beyond him, who is there? Pretty much everyone from the Best Picture five is perfunctory ensemble players like Ed Harris, Clive Owen, and Nick Stahl. Had the Academy expanded their roster out to tenn-ish, I’d imagine we’d see some combination of Amelie, Black Hawk Down, Memento, Monster’s Ball, Mulholland Drive, and Shrek. Of those films, the only contenders I can pull are Eddie Murphy and Joe Pantaliano. Murphy got a BAFTA nomination (so did Robbie Coltrane and Colin Firth) but it’s hard to see Donkey getting what Genie couldn’t. I’m a little surprised Joe Pantaliano didn’t pick up any traction. His role is a bit smaller than I remember but he’s certainly memorable.
A quick scan of other, more off the beaten path lists feature tons of memorable performances that I can’t even really fathom being in the race. As I write this, the same is true for Best Supporting Actress. There’s a “this is it?” quality to the contenders that can only be explained by Best Picture nominee (Connelly, Mirren, Smith, Tomei), paired with a lead (Connelly, Tomei, Winslet), and previous winner (Smith, Tomei). The only other acting contender that remotely meets this criteria that I can see is Dakota Fanning for I Am Sam on the basis of Penn’s candidacy. Or I suppose a third Gosford Park actress (Kelly Macdonald or Emily Watson).
Just musing on two categories and a general limitation of the voting process that has been going on for longer than I realized. Every year with the Oscars, there's a significant pool of contenders that don't connect with voters. This is one where it really feels like everything outside their field of vision just failed to exist.
"How's the despair?"
Re: Best Supporting Actor 2001
Quaid and Sarsgaard, I presume...not to ruin any surprises upcoming.The Original BJ wrote: Sadly, this was the beginning of a three-year run of unforgivable snubs for indie guys in this category.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Re: Best Supporting Actor 2001
Ghost World had a huge effect on my fifteen-year-old self; my choice for best of the year in this category would be Steve Buscemi for his absolutely lovely and funny work. I was absolutely heartbroken when he was omitted from this lineup. Sadly, this was the beginning of a three-year run of unforgivable snubs for indie guys in this category.
I'd also cite Tony Shalhoub's scene-stealing lawyer in The Man Who Wasn't There as worthy of mention as well.
In the context of Buscemi's snub, I really hated Jon Voight's nomination. He appeared in Ali for, what, all of ten minutes? His performance consisted of pretty much an affected accent underneath a major makeup job. I'm young enough that I couldn't really tell you whether or not Voight "captured" the real Howard Cosell, but I don't really care either. A pointless nomination.
I went into Training Day based on the Best Actor buzz for Denzel Washington, and while watching it I thought, hey, Ethan Hawke is pretty good too -- the gun in the bathroom scene, especially, was memorable, but so's the scene in which Washington forces him to smoke. Hawke effectively portrays his character's gradual disillusionment with his boss's tactics in a performance that's a nice complement to Washington's showboating. All of that said...until Hawke showed up at SAG, I didn't even remotely consider him as even a possibility for a nomination, mostly because, DUH! Not supporting! Looking back, Hawke's nod was in some ways the beginning of our current anything-goes era of almost annual category fraud. A solid performance, but not enough a standout for me to reject the category fraud and pick him over the other three guys, all of whom I like.
Ian McKellen brings great wit and humanity to the role of Gandalf in Rings -- I think he's splendid, and would have been perfectly happy to see him win, especially after his Gods and Monster's loss. I think McKellen is one of the reasons Rings is such an emotionally affecting epic, because the actor grounds the fantasy in something very real -- the scene when it appears his character dies has such poignancy because McKellen has made such a warm and wise impression throughout the earlier portion of the film. And yet, I'm not bothered that he lost, mainly for the Alec Guinness/Star Wars reason -- the film and the character aren't first and foremost an acting showcase.
I think Jim Broadbent was nominated for the right film and in the right category. Certainly he was fun in Moulin Rouge, but I prefer his Iris performance, which operated at a far more human level. I love the "You wrote novels...wonderful novels" scene, when you can just see his heart breaking over the fact that his wife can't remember even her most fundamental accomplishments anymore. And on the lead/supporting debate, I think he COULD have been promoted as a lead...but he was gone from ALL of the flashback Winslet/Bonneville scenes (not an insignificant part of the movie), and a number of the contemporary sequences were more solidly focused on Dench. Using Mister Tee's logic, would I vote for him for Best Actor (in a bountiful year for the category), or would I think the part weren't large enough when stacked up against the competition? Probably the latter. Oh...and I think he and Bonneville both do a SPLENDID job of making their performances feel like the same character at different ages, not an easy thing to do. His semi-surprising win on Oscar night made for a perfectly pleasing moment.
But I'm going to go with Ben Kingsley. It's rare that Mister Tee and I land on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum around here, but I guess on Sir Ben we'll just have to disagree. I think he's a very fine actor, and I find his Sexy Beast work just electric, a blast of volcanic energy that blazes on-screen. It's rare for a screen villain role to be so lacking in humor -- usually these types of characters are played with some wit and playfulness -- but Kingsley's intense coldness brought its own form of amusement to the proceedings. The actor is so focused, his character so perpetually irritated, that scenes like Don Logan getting kicked off the plane after refusing to put out his cigarette come off as darkly humorous regardless. I guess I don't see just a lot of loud yelling here -- to me, this is a case of an actor committing intensely to his role and completely owning his movie. On the whole, I was fairly mixed on Sexy Beast as a movie, but Kingsley was a real standout and gets my vote.
I'd also cite Tony Shalhoub's scene-stealing lawyer in The Man Who Wasn't There as worthy of mention as well.
In the context of Buscemi's snub, I really hated Jon Voight's nomination. He appeared in Ali for, what, all of ten minutes? His performance consisted of pretty much an affected accent underneath a major makeup job. I'm young enough that I couldn't really tell you whether or not Voight "captured" the real Howard Cosell, but I don't really care either. A pointless nomination.
I went into Training Day based on the Best Actor buzz for Denzel Washington, and while watching it I thought, hey, Ethan Hawke is pretty good too -- the gun in the bathroom scene, especially, was memorable, but so's the scene in which Washington forces him to smoke. Hawke effectively portrays his character's gradual disillusionment with his boss's tactics in a performance that's a nice complement to Washington's showboating. All of that said...until Hawke showed up at SAG, I didn't even remotely consider him as even a possibility for a nomination, mostly because, DUH! Not supporting! Looking back, Hawke's nod was in some ways the beginning of our current anything-goes era of almost annual category fraud. A solid performance, but not enough a standout for me to reject the category fraud and pick him over the other three guys, all of whom I like.
Ian McKellen brings great wit and humanity to the role of Gandalf in Rings -- I think he's splendid, and would have been perfectly happy to see him win, especially after his Gods and Monster's loss. I think McKellen is one of the reasons Rings is such an emotionally affecting epic, because the actor grounds the fantasy in something very real -- the scene when it appears his character dies has such poignancy because McKellen has made such a warm and wise impression throughout the earlier portion of the film. And yet, I'm not bothered that he lost, mainly for the Alec Guinness/Star Wars reason -- the film and the character aren't first and foremost an acting showcase.
I think Jim Broadbent was nominated for the right film and in the right category. Certainly he was fun in Moulin Rouge, but I prefer his Iris performance, which operated at a far more human level. I love the "You wrote novels...wonderful novels" scene, when you can just see his heart breaking over the fact that his wife can't remember even her most fundamental accomplishments anymore. And on the lead/supporting debate, I think he COULD have been promoted as a lead...but he was gone from ALL of the flashback Winslet/Bonneville scenes (not an insignificant part of the movie), and a number of the contemporary sequences were more solidly focused on Dench. Using Mister Tee's logic, would I vote for him for Best Actor (in a bountiful year for the category), or would I think the part weren't large enough when stacked up against the competition? Probably the latter. Oh...and I think he and Bonneville both do a SPLENDID job of making their performances feel like the same character at different ages, not an easy thing to do. His semi-surprising win on Oscar night made for a perfectly pleasing moment.
But I'm going to go with Ben Kingsley. It's rare that Mister Tee and I land on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum around here, but I guess on Sir Ben we'll just have to disagree. I think he's a very fine actor, and I find his Sexy Beast work just electric, a blast of volcanic energy that blazes on-screen. It's rare for a screen villain role to be so lacking in humor -- usually these types of characters are played with some wit and playfulness -- but Kingsley's intense coldness brought its own form of amusement to the proceedings. The actor is so focused, his character so perpetually irritated, that scenes like Don Logan getting kicked off the plane after refusing to put out his cigarette come off as darkly humorous regardless. I guess I don't see just a lot of loud yelling here -- to me, this is a case of an actor committing intensely to his role and completely owning his movie. On the whole, I was fairly mixed on Sexy Beast as a movie, but Kingsley was a real standout and gets my vote.
-
Cinemanolis
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1188
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 9:27 am
- Location: Greece
Re: Best Supporting Actor 2001
I voted for Kingsley
my top5
Hugh Bonneville - Iris *
Jim Broadbent - Iris
Billy Crudup - Charlotte Grey
Ben Kingsley - Sexy Beast
Jude Law - A.I.
I actually liked Hugh Bonneville more than Broadbent in Iris.
my top5
Hugh Bonneville - Iris *
Jim Broadbent - Iris
Billy Crudup - Charlotte Grey
Ben Kingsley - Sexy Beast
Jude Law - A.I.
I actually liked Hugh Bonneville more than Broadbent in Iris.
Re: Best Supporting Actor 2001
I know.Big Magilla wrote:They are not required to reveal themselves.Sabin wrote:
Who are the five people who voted for McKellan?
Last edited by Sabin on Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"How's the despair?"
-
Bruce_Lavigne
- Graduate
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:47 pm
- Location: Boston
Re: Best Supporting Actor 2001
Broadbent definitely gives a touching, award-caliber performance, but he's a lead, and in a film I don't much care for.
I don't see how anyone could argue that either of the Oscar-nominated Training Day actors was a supporting player. Washington may have been the "star," in the truer sense of the word, but Hawke was certainly playing the story's protagonist -- and not in such a special way that I can see anything nomination-worthy about him.
I was stunned by the outstanding job Voight and Ali's makeup team did transforming him, physically and vocally, into Howard Cosell. In fact, not until he received the nomination did I realize that Jon Voight had been the actor playing Cosell. Unfortunately, I didn't think whoever that actor was did anything particularly noteworthy outside of the impression, either watching the movie or after the nominations.
I'll echo Sabin's sentiments on McKellen -- a lovely, lived-in performance, in a role that probably could have been solidly played with just presence, in a film that I adore. The way in which he makes Gandalf a very specific person, when playing him as just A Wise Wizard probably would have been perfectly acceptable, deserves kudos, and even if I think Sean Bean and Viggo Mortensen deliver better performances in Fellowship, I have no problem with his nomination.
But I'm voting for Kingsley. He's definitely had more complex roles than his relatively one-note part in Sexy Beast, but I don't think he's invested many of them with this kind of power and magnetic energy. It's certainly not a quiet or subtle role, but a fascinating, full-bodied performance nonetheless, and gets my vote easily.
I don't see how anyone could argue that either of the Oscar-nominated Training Day actors was a supporting player. Washington may have been the "star," in the truer sense of the word, but Hawke was certainly playing the story's protagonist -- and not in such a special way that I can see anything nomination-worthy about him.
I was stunned by the outstanding job Voight and Ali's makeup team did transforming him, physically and vocally, into Howard Cosell. In fact, not until he received the nomination did I realize that Jon Voight had been the actor playing Cosell. Unfortunately, I didn't think whoever that actor was did anything particularly noteworthy outside of the impression, either watching the movie or after the nominations.
I'll echo Sabin's sentiments on McKellen -- a lovely, lived-in performance, in a role that probably could have been solidly played with just presence, in a film that I adore. The way in which he makes Gandalf a very specific person, when playing him as just A Wise Wizard probably would have been perfectly acceptable, deserves kudos, and even if I think Sean Bean and Viggo Mortensen deliver better performances in Fellowship, I have no problem with his nomination.
But I'm voting for Kingsley. He's definitely had more complex roles than his relatively one-note part in Sexy Beast, but I don't think he's invested many of them with this kind of power and magnetic energy. It's certainly not a quiet or subtle role, but a fascinating, full-bodied performance nonetheless, and gets my vote easily.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19337
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Best Supporting Actor 2001
They are not required to reveal themselves.Sabin wrote:Who are the five people who voted for McKellan.
I thought McKellen and Kingsley were the only two who deserved nominations for their performances, though neither were all that great. Non-nominees Steve Buscemi in Ghost World and Brian Cox in L.I.E. were my top picks this year.
Ethan Hawke didn't impress me in Training Day and more than Denzel Wshington did. Jon Voight made Howard Cosell "speaking of sports" look almost human in Ali, but it was still odd casting.
Even though I didn't particualrly care for Moulin Rouge! I thought Broadbent should have been nominated for his lively rendition of Madonna's "Like a Virgin" if for nothing else in the film. His devoted husband in Iris was that film's best performance but the film was such a depressing downer I can't really vote for his performance.
Between McKellen and Kingsley, I have to go with McKellen making it 6 and a two-way tie with Broadbent for the win. Now all we need is someone to vote for Sir Ben to make it a 3-way tie.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Best Supporting Actor 2001
Steve Buscemi's cantankerous loner was easly the most moving work of the year, and his omission -- after the Globe nomination -- was really a crusher. I think it remains very hard for Oscar neophytes to get on the ballot for films otherwise unconnected to the main races. Obviously it can happen (as for Amy Ryan in '07), but you're always vulnerable to actors connected to best picture contenders (McKellen), lead acting nominees (Voight, Broadbent, Hawke), or previous nominees/winners (Kingsley).
I also endorse the missing Tony Shalhoub and Brian Cox, and would further throw in Jude Law's Gigolo Joe in A.I. All would be superior to most of the actual nominees.
Jon Voight isn't quite an embarrassment, but he's yet another in the recent string of nominees who seem to be doing impressions rather than giving performances.
Ian McKellen became the populist favorite after his win at SAG. I was heartsick as anyone over McKellen's lead loss in '98, but giving him a make-up for something so trivial as this is not how I like to see the game played.
Ethan Hawke is indeed at least co-lead in Training Day, and may be more fully authenitic than Washington throughout. But he doesn't have a very demonstrative part, and is only along for the ride.
I guess I'm part of Sabin's small brigade (I seen to recall Sonic was, as well): I actively hated Ben Kingsley's performance. It was all unmodulated barking, boring as bat-shit. I'm not overall much a fan of Mr. Sir Ben's acting -- I find him cold as ice -- and was relieved he wasn't much considered for the win here.
The general dreariness of this list of nominees had one silver lining: it opened the way for Jim Broadbent, by far the best of the five, to win despite his film's commercially anemic performance. Broadbent was no doubt helped by his sudden ubiquity that year, in Bridget Jones and Mouln Rouge. But I think the Academy singled out his most deserving performance. His devotion, his utter attunedness to his wife's needs were beautiful to behold -- touching without slopping over into sentimentality. For me, he's the only choice here.
I also endorse the missing Tony Shalhoub and Brian Cox, and would further throw in Jude Law's Gigolo Joe in A.I. All would be superior to most of the actual nominees.
Jon Voight isn't quite an embarrassment, but he's yet another in the recent string of nominees who seem to be doing impressions rather than giving performances.
Ian McKellen became the populist favorite after his win at SAG. I was heartsick as anyone over McKellen's lead loss in '98, but giving him a make-up for something so trivial as this is not how I like to see the game played.
Ethan Hawke is indeed at least co-lead in Training Day, and may be more fully authenitic than Washington throughout. But he doesn't have a very demonstrative part, and is only along for the ride.
I guess I'm part of Sabin's small brigade (I seen to recall Sonic was, as well): I actively hated Ben Kingsley's performance. It was all unmodulated barking, boring as bat-shit. I'm not overall much a fan of Mr. Sir Ben's acting -- I find him cold as ice -- and was relieved he wasn't much considered for the win here.
The general dreariness of this list of nominees had one silver lining: it opened the way for Jim Broadbent, by far the best of the five, to win despite his film's commercially anemic performance. Broadbent was no doubt helped by his sudden ubiquity that year, in Bridget Jones and Mouln Rouge. But I think the Academy singled out his most deserving performance. His devotion, his utter attunedness to his wife's needs were beautiful to behold -- touching without slopping over into sentimentality. For me, he's the only choice here.
Re: Best Supporting Actor 2001
Voted for Broadbent.
My picks for 2001:
1. Steve Buscemi, Ghost World
2. Jim Broadbent, Iris
3. Ben Kingsley, Sexy Beast
4. Ian McKellan, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
5. Ian McShane, Sexy Beast
The 6th Spot: Ethan Hawke, Training Day
My picks for 2001:
1. Steve Buscemi, Ghost World
2. Jim Broadbent, Iris
3. Ben Kingsley, Sexy Beast
4. Ian McKellan, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
5. Ian McShane, Sexy Beast
The 6th Spot: Ethan Hawke, Training Day
Re: Best Supporting Actor 2001
Aside from the fact that zero people piped in and it's a three-way run-off, no. He's my second behind Hawke. I mean, I have a problem with anybody being wrong!
"How's the despair?"
Re: Best Supporting Actor 2001
I did. Problem?Sabin wrote:Who are the five people who voted for McKellan.
Re: Best Supporting Actor 2001
Jim Broadbent - Iris
Re: Best Supporting Actor 2001
Iris may not be a masterpiece, but Jim Broadbent's warm, tender performance is by far the best in this rather undistinguished group. (And of course much better than the one he gave in Moulin Rouge).
None of the others deserved even just a nomination - let alone the prize itself. Ethan Hawke doesn't actually do anything wrong in Training Day, and he's never been a bad actor... but his isn't an "Oscar" role. Ben Kingsley's is what one can conventionally call an "Oscar" role - but then both his movie and his acting left me cold - definitely not scared, which I guess was the point of the whole thing.
Voight and McKellen are absolutely forgettable.
What a disappointing line-up.
None of the others deserved even just a nomination - let alone the prize itself. Ethan Hawke doesn't actually do anything wrong in Training Day, and he's never been a bad actor... but his isn't an "Oscar" role. Ben Kingsley's is what one can conventionally call an "Oscar" role - but then both his movie and his acting left me cold - definitely not scared, which I guess was the point of the whole thing.
Voight and McKellen are absolutely forgettable.
What a disappointing line-up.