Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor

For the films of 2015
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7592
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor

Postby Sabin » Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:41 pm

What's interesting about Stallone's front-runner status is that yes, he's won pretty much everything he's been nominated for -- but that's only half. He wasn't up for the SAG and he isn't up for the Bafta. I have no idea the last time that happened. What I wonder is if honestly that many voters saw the film or just checked his name off accordingly. Because had they seen Creed, perhaps the film would have placed in more categories.

Had I not seen Mark Ruffalo in Spotlight, I would be predicting Mark Ruffalo in Spotlight. But I have and I'm just not sure if he has enough to do.

I would say that Tom Hardy is probably the least likely to win. His character is wildly unsympathetic, cowardly, and at odds with the rest of the film. Which is probably why he's my personal favorite of the bunch.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

The Original BJ
Posts: 4292
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor

Postby The Original BJ » Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:17 pm

Front-runner Sylvester Stallone has definite strengths in his corner -- the Golden Globe, a sizable part with some emotional scenes, the sentimental pull of honoring a vet for the part that defined his career. If he wins the Oscar, I don't think anyone would be surprised.

But I also maintain that his candidacy has some obvious limitations many people just aren't willing to acknowledge. The first is the simple fact that his movie is by a wide margin the least well-liked on this list. (Jack Palance won a similar Oscar against a number of guys from top Best Picture candidates, but Lauren Bacall was tripped up in a similar situation.) But even beyond the fact that Creed only has the one nomination is the fact that Stallone's career is mostly crud; unlike DiCaprio, who has made a career out of headlining interesting projects by world-class filmmakers, and thus seemed destined for an Oscar eventually, I really question whether there's a sense of desperation out there to make Stallone an Oscar winner. He's hardly anyone's idea of "overdue."

Plus, there's his iffy precursor run. One argument I keep reading is that because Elba won the SAG, that means Stallone is DEFINITELY winning the Oscar -- I have no idea how that's a theory based on logic. (I, for instance, would have voted Elba of the SAG lineup, but would rank Stallone dead last of the Oscar nominees. So even if the SAME PEOPLE were voting -- which they aren't -- there's no logical reason why the SAG vote would clearly lead to that Oscar result.) It's also worth just reiterating that Stallone wasn't even nominated for the SAG or BAFTA -- I don't know why those aren't viewed more as signs of weakness than as irrelevancies that won't matter to any race when he actually is on the ballot.

Of course, it's not as if anyone else jumps out as being the strongest candidate to dethrone him, and that fact could very well be what puts Stallone over the top. But it's certainly worth examining the chances of the other competitors.

I'd probably rank Bale least likely to be the winner, mostly due to the fact that he won an Oscar recently. He's typically strong in The Big Short, and even though his section of the movie is mostly a one-man show, it doesn't feel like enough of a revelation for a second Oscar so soon.

Tom Hardy was probably the biggest surprise acting nominee this year, though that mainly had to do with his absence from the precursors -- while watching The Revenant in early December, I thought HE was the dominant performer. It's worth noting that he actually had a year to rival Alicia Vikander's, starring in both of the Best Picture nominees with double-digit tallies, as well as receiving individual praise for his Legend dual role. This seems like more of a "welcome to the club" nomination than a winner, but I guess you never know.

Rylance stormed through the early precursors, but has faded a bit in recent weeks. I still rate him a pretty decent candidate to win the BAFTA, partly due to hometown support, which is the only televised prize Tilda Swinton picked up prior to her Oscar win in a similarly all-over-the-place category. He's very much the kind of actor -- a respected theater professional -- who does win the Supporting Actor Oscar, and his film is a success both with the Academy and (relatively) commercially. And if he's not super famous, I don't know that Jim Broadbent necessarily was either, in a way more low-profile movie.

Ruffalo's nomination was also a surprise to many, but as I said in the other thread, I think he merits a bit more consideration as a winner possibility than most seem to be acknowledging. This is his third nomination in twice as many years, he's attached to one of the Best Picture candidates at least in the running to win, and his part is very sizable. Plus, he's amassed the kind of career a lot of people would want to honor, repeatedly delivering acclaimed performances in serious dramas while appearing in a string of blockbusters as part of the Marvel universe. If he were to win, it might SEEM shocking, but in retrospect, it would actually make a lot of sense.

I'm not making a prediction yet, and I'm definitely not saying I think Stallone isn't a strong possibility. But, much the way some of us wondered if Eddie Murphy's lame filmography would hurt him when he was the favorite, I'm wondering if Stallone isn't vulnerable to an upset from, as in Murphy's case, someone clearly viewed as a much stronger actor with a much more award-level career.

Return to “88th Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests