Best Supporting Actor 2019

[criddic3]

I was happy to see Pitt win after years of proving himself as a solid actor. Pesci and Pacino are both great in The Irishman, but it's so hard to choose between them. I was also happy to see Hanks nominated after several near-misses. I enjoyed Hopkins, too, but I would replace him with Jonathan Majors in The Last Black Man in San Francisco. The film wasn't in the Oscar conversation but should have been, and Majors is just wonderful in it.

[Reza]

1. Brad Pitt
2. Anthony Hopkins
3. Al Pacino
4. Joe Pesci
5. Tom Hanks

[Sabin]

All five performances are good and largely triumphs of casting. One could make the argument that Al Pacino works the hardest in his role to carve out a memorable portrait of Jimmy Hoffa. Daniel is right that Pacino is louder than Pesci so he seems more dominant in The Irishman but more so than Al Pacino's other middle-aged turns, his loudness is used to inspired effect. It's almost like he's such a annoying middle-aged Al Pacino caricature that everybody wants to whack him.

But without much second thought, I'm going with Joe Pesci. Again: it's a triumph of casting but it's such an inspired one. The greatest pleasure in The Irishman is how Martin Scorsese flips the De Niro/Pesci dynamic we've grown accustomed to for forty years and finds new depth to De Niro as a useful, lunkhead tool and Pesci as his smart and calculated handler. I've never considered myself a huge fan of Joe Pesci's but in retrospect I think I would've given him the Oscar for all of his three nominated performances.

It's odd in retrospect that Brad Pitt won Best Supporting Actor for a performance that doesn't really feel like anything radically different from what he's done in the past. Maybe one could be charitable and say it's a throwback to the kind of roles he took before he became a star like in Thelma and Louise. Maybe voters were moved by seeing Brad Pitt play someone who is so clearly an echo of what could've been: a pretty boy who showed up to town and got chewed up by it and spit out, not even a has-been but a never-was. Maybe it was his LSD trip at the end. Or maybe it took being surrounded by a bunch of old-timers who the Academy had already honored. I don't want to downplay Brad Pitt's effectiveness in the role. He's a lot of fun in the movie. I'm a bit biased because I like his scenes in the film the least. It's just a little surprising because he's just sort of hanging out and having a good time in the role in a category that so frequently goes to tortured souls and psychopaths.

But yes, a good lineup.

[CalWilliam]

I voted for Brad Pitt, who is refreshing and irresistible, making it look the easiest thing on Earth. It's not just charisma or star quality, he conveys a lot of sensitivity within his own shield. I also don't have the same problems of him being in supporting as the ones I have with previous winners Jack Albertson, Timothy Hutton or Haing S. Ngor. I've seen Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood several times, and while I can buy that he's a co-lead, has his own point of view and individual scenes, I ultimately think that the movie is not really about him (not too much of an arc) or is not as interested in him as is in DiCaprio (the same may be applied to Mahershala Ali in relation to Viggo Mortensen the year before), and that his character's function is arguably to support DiCaprio's evolution throughout the film. Of course he's a stunt and maybe that reasoning is derogatory and so on, but I you loved his performance, would you have voted for him in the leading category without the same consideration? He's fantastic, nevertheless.

Great lineup overall, with Pesci and Pacino killing it in the most different of ways, Hanks showing very subtly quite a few of disturbing and intriguing shades of his virtuous character, and Hopkins expertly having some fun with his Pope.

[dws1982]

Pesci, although Hanks and Pitt are both great, and Pacino is as good as as he's been in a very long time. I don't even have a problem with Hopkins. It's a very solid lineup.

Pitt should've been in Lead, in my opinion; he has almost as much screen time as DiCaprio, his storyline is often independent of DiCaprio's and he is not someone who is only seen through the point-of-view of another character the way Hanks and Pacino are. (I would've nominated Pitt in Lead for Ad Astra.) Definitely a co-lead. While the question of leading men getting nominated in Supporting is conversation well worth having, just based on the characters they play and their functions in their films, I think Hanks and Pacino are both definitely supporting; A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is all about Fred Rogers' affect on Lloyd Vogel--it's never actually about Rogers himself; and Pacino isn't really in The Irishman much more than Pesci (and like Pesci, is only framed through DeNiro's POV), I think because he is so loud and Pesci is so quiet, comparatively speaking, it seems like a bigger, more dominant performance. Hopkins could go either way, I think. He definitely has a lot of screen time, but I don't think it's a Once Upon a Time in Hollywood situation where it's two mostly-equal points-of-view being shown. I haven't watched the movie in over a year, but everything seemed filtered through Bergoglio. Benedict, like Hoffa in The Irishman and Rogers in A Beautiful Day doesn't seem to exist outside of the way he's seen through that character.

[Big Magilla]

I voted for Brad Pitt, as did the Academy, but this was one of the strongest group of nominees in this category ever.

I thought it might be the last time we would see any of these actors in serious contention for Oscars, but here we are a year later with Anthony Hopkins an almost certain Best Actor nominee and Tom Hanks a possible one, so the old adage of "never say never" once again applies.

As strong as the nominees were, though, this was a blatant case of category fraud. Pitt, Hopkins, Hanks and arguably Pacino, were playing what were clearly co-leads with their names in conjunction with actors of equal, or in Hanks' case, lesser note, selling their films. On the other hand, I can't think of any truly standout performances from genuine supporting players that were shafted in order to make room for these heavyweights so it's not something I felt strongly about except as a trend. When these things happened in the past they were of one or two nominees out of five. Four out of five was something new but I don't think it will be a one-off.

In order, my preferences were: Pitt, Hopkins, Pacino, Pesci, Hanks.

[CalWilliam]

Who is your pick among these nominees? Share your thoughts.