Best Supporting Actor 1991

1927/28 through 1997
Post Reply

Best Supporting Actor 1991

Michael Lerner - Barton Fink
5
19%
Harvey Keitel - Bugsy
11
42%
Ben Kingsley - Bugsy
4
15%
Tommy Lee Jones - JFK
3
12%
Jack Palance - City Slickers
3
12%
 
Total votes: 26

FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Best Supporting Actor 1991

Post by FilmFan720 »

Realized I never voted here. Like most, I find it pretty lackluster, and I wouldn't have nominated any of these five. I voted for Keitel, both for being a fine performance and a career recognition.

My Top 5
1. Samuel L. Jackson, Jungle Fever
2. Donald Sutherland, JFK
3. Joe Pesci, JFK
4. Martin Short, Father of the Bride
5. Rip Torn, Defending Your Life
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Jim20
Temp
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 7:54 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 1991

Post by Jim20 »

My shouldabeen lineup:

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
**Laurence Fishburne, Boyz n the Hood**
John Goodman, Barton Fink
Tommy Lee Jones, JFK
Steve Martin, Grand Canyon
Jack Palance, City Slickers
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Supporting Actor 1991

Post by The Original BJ »

Work demands have caused me to fall WAY behind in this game. Time to play catch up!

Overall, a pretty weak field. I, too, would have included Laurence Fishburne in Boyz N the Hood.

Palance is the least impressive. At best, he's the most amusing thing about a not-terribly-exciting-comedy. He had an honorable career as a character actor, but no one deserves to win acting prizes for this. His part isn't even all that big.

Speaking of small parts...Michael Lerner was certainly funny in a very Coen-esque way in Barton Fink, but his three scenes aren't nearly enough for an Oscar. It's not like the part was all that deep, either.

I can understand where the naysayers are coming from w/r/t Tommy Lee Jones in JFK -- it's definitely BIG acting, from an actor who one wouldn't necessarily think of as the most appropriate for this role. But, on the other hand, such theatricality isn't totally out of place in a movie as hysterical (not an insult) as JFK. And I do admire that this turn feels so far away from the typical Jones persona. In the end, though, this isn't nearly major enough of an achievement to merit an Oscar.

So...I also must choose between the Bugsy guys. I don't think this is the film for which either actor will be most remembered. But both contributed very solid performances -- Keitel's sense of humor provides a lot of Bugsy's buoyancy, and Kingsley's gravitas gives the movie some heft. In the end, I think Kingsley has the more complex, dramatically resonant role, so he gets my vote.

But I'd choose entire slates in the years ahead over anyone nominated this year.
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Best Supporting Actor 1991

Post by Reza »

A very weak year but I'm glad Palance has an Oscar at the end of the day. It was a nod for his long career not unlike the Academy's acknowledgement of the careers of Don Ameche and Alan Arkin amongst others.

My picks for 1991:

1. Anthony Hopkins, The Silence of the Lambs
2. Jack Palance, City Slickers
3. Harvey Keitel, Bugsy
4. Ben Kingsley, Bugsy
5. Tommy Lee Jones, JFK

The 6th Spot: John Goodman, Barton Fink
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 1991

Post by Mister Tee »

Well, I see there's general agreement it was a crap year in the category, even if there's division over who should have won. I can't even come up with fun alternatives -- though U'd maybe advocate for Steve Martin or Danny Glover in Grand Canyon. And I agree that John Goodman was more impressive in Barton Fink that the very brief work of Michael Lerner.

I resisted, all the way to the end, that Jack Palance was going to win for City Slickers. As I mentioned a few years back, such comic relief perfomances were rarely considered. And it seemed extraordinary to me that, after ignoring breakthroughs like John Candy in Splash, voters would fall for what was barely more than a sight gag here. Jack Palance had a long, distinguighed career, but this didn't deserve to be what capped it off. (For the record, I don't that much care for City Slickers overall. I enjoyed Billy Crystal alot in When Harry Met Sally, but I thought his cloying side emerged in City Slickers -- and largely took over his career)

I know there are those who think what Tommy Lee Jones does in JFK is memorable, but I think he's just awful. For me, it's an amateur night caricature of a gay man, played by someone miscast by a million miles.

For me, it came down to the Bugsy boys. In general, I think Bugsy, which opened amid lofty expectations and disappointed them, is now somewhat under-rated. People seem so angry it's not a great movie -- a Godfather or Good Fellas -- that they overlook its general good-ness. For Kingsley, the film was a chance to prove he wasn't a one-hit wonder -- an F. Murray Abraham -- and he acquits himself well with with a very un-Gandhi performance. But I have to go for Harvey Keitel, who, as has been mentioned, had the double-whammy with Thelma and Louise, but was perfectly deserving for this one, quite funny performance. To go back to the original point: it was a weak race. But Keitel deserves it of this bunch.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 1991

Post by Sabin »

One of the more confusing lineups for me. I genuinely have no idea why Laurence Fishburne wasn’t nominated for Boyz N the Hood. It seems like such a gimmee! I have a better idea why Samuel L. Jackson wasn’t nominated for Jungle Fever. The film is a bit meandering and Spike was becoming intolerable in the eyes of the Academy, but it’s an incredible performance that won countless awards. And was John Goodman seen as too much of a television actor to merit recognition for his next door neighbor from hell (literally) in Barton Fink?

All different kinds of weird. Not that this is a bad lineup. Just one that skews mediocre. Like in 2009, the inclusions of Matt Damon for Invictus and Stanley Tucci for The Lovely Bones over Christian McKay, Peter Capaldi, and Anthony Mackie just seem off. The only nominee that I don’t like I do understand the motivation behind nominating. Harvey Keitel had a great year with Thelma & Lousie alongside Bugsy. He is one of those actors who deserves a career nomination somewhere, but at what point? Better opportunities arose the next two years with The Bad Lieutenant (which didn’t have a shot in hell) and The Piano (where conceivably he could have been nominated in Laurence Fishburne’s stead, and I likely would have predicted so). He just plays a bald, unpleasant Mickey Cohen devoid of nuance. He’s done no favors by the fact that Ben Kingsley played a bald gangster so memorably ten years later. He’s out.

Next up is probably Jack Palance who is pretty delightful in City Slickers. He’s very funny in that charming movie, but it’s a sleepwalk performance. Not like that should disqualify him. Tommy Lee Jones does the opposite in JFK. After watching the film again recently, I found a bit more respect for the performance. He lends the role quite a bit of ambiguity, working against Oliver Stone to create in mere frames a man of incredible complexity. He’s very compelling but he’s still working against Oliver Stone and there’s only so much he can bring to every scene. I’d argue that his nomination is one of those “Oh, he got nominated for that?” turns that deserves more recognition than it got, but it still doesn’t merit a win in my mind.

I’m torn between Ben Kingsley (for likely his most forgotten nominated performance) and Michael Lerner (one of the most forgotten nominees). I bet I would have been disappointed by Bugsy back in the day, but today it’s pretty fun. And Kingsley is a very entertaining moral center of this, underplaying as well as he ever has. Considering how much he failed to pull of something similar in Hugo, this ranks as something of a rarity in his oeuvre. And then there’s Michael Lerner in Barton Fink, a movie I really love and a performance I really like. It should have been John Goodman up, no question in my mind. And Lerner’s campaign seemed to have tipped off the voters rather than his performance. But for me, Michael Lerner is doing one of those incredibly Coen-esque caricatures that should receive the attention that they never do. Tony Shalhoub in The Man Who Wasn’t There. John Goodman in The Big Lebowski. Tim Blake Neslon in O’ Brother Where Art Thou?. Anyone in Burn After Reading. I think that’s why I’m going to pick Michael Lerner. While this is the only opportunity I probably have to vote for Ben Kingsley, whether or not Michael Lerner has had the strong career an Oscar nomination should provide, he’s a great “Where do I know that guy from?” actor. And I’ve met him and he’s an incredibly nice guy.

Keitel, Kingsley, and Palance were nominated at the Golden Globes, as were Ned Beatty for Hear My Song (which I've not seen) and John Goodman (which I've spoke about already). Can't imagine many were predicting Lerner and Jones for their spots.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Supporting Actor 1991

Post by Big Magilla »

Probably the weakest year ever in this category.

I didn't like Barton Fink or anyone in it. I thought it was a big disappointment coming from the Coen Brothers after the brilliance of Miller's Crossing.

My choice for Best Supporting Actor was Anthony Hopkins whose role in The Silence of the Lambs really was supporting, followed by the non-nominated Ned Beatty in Hear My Song. Beyond that, everyone was filler.

I remember Jack Palance as always being around, mostly on TV. I liked him more as a personality than as an actor , especially for his self-deprecating comments such as "most of what I do is garbage." He was one of a kind, and even though he didn't deserve his Oscar on performance, I was not displeased that he won. His acceptance antics were the highlight of the evening.

Performance wise, though, I would have to go with either Tommy Lee Jones who is quite good despite his cliched material in JFK or one of the Bugsy gangsters. I think I'll go with Harvey Keitel who also had a memorable supporting turn this year in Thelma & Louise.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Best Supporting Actor 1991

Post by ITALIANO »

Not the strongest line-up ever.

There's not much to say about Bugsy as a movie or about its two nominees, except that it's a pity - but not a surprise, for those who know the Academy - that an edgy, daring actor like Harvey Keitel got his only nomination to date for this safe role (and he really doesn't have much to do) in this safe movie.

I already voted for Tommy Lee Jones in the Best Actor category, and I wouldn't vote for him again. I can't even say that he's bad in JFK, and it's true that he had never played such a role before. But let's face it - his character is your typical, hissable gay villain, sleazy and cliched from start to finish, and I still remember that when I saw the movie in Rome at one point someone in the audience shouted: "That fag!". I'm not saying that this was the kind of reaction that Oliver Stone had in mind when he made the movie, but I certainly found parts of the otherwise brilliant JFK quite disturbing.

As for Jack Palance, I love him. What a face. Unforgettable, really. So unforgettable that by 1991 he had become a sort of screen legend - and being a screen legend led to his winning this Oscar - without probably really deserving it. Oh, of course he had been nominated twice in the distant past, and once for a very famous movie; ha had been good in a number of important movies like The Big Knife and Attack!. But basically, for us Italians, he had been the star of such enjoyable but trashy local sword-and-sandal spectaculars as The Mongols and The Barbarians - not to mention the soft-porn cult movie Eva Nera - and you don't win an Oscar for THOSE (to be fair, during this European period he also made Godard's masterpiece Le Mepris). But again, he had that face and, even when he played bad guys, he had always been a very likable actor. So I certainly wasn't disappointed when he, predictably, won an Oscar for that overlong slight comedy City Slickers.

But if we have to be objective, the best of these five performances is Michael Lerner's in Barton Fink.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 1991

Post by Precious Doll »

A reasonable line up with the weakest link (Jack Palance) taking home the award. From this bunch I selected Tommy Lee Jones who gets to play a role unlike anything he had played before or since. My choices:

1. Anthony Hopkins for Silence of the Lambs
2. Donald Sutherland for JFK
3. Tommy Lee Jones for JFK
4. Joe Pesci for JFK
5. Max von Sydow for A Kiss Before Dying
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Best Supporting Actor 1991

Post by ksrymy »

Probably one of the weakest years in the category. Also the only supporting actor year where I don't agree on a single nominee that the Academy chose.

I really enjoy Barton Fink and I think Michael Lerner is pretty alright as the greasy Hollywood exec. The only problem is that John Goodman was much better in his supporting role.

Jack Palance's win was a sentimental career win and nothing spectacular from a mediocre film.

These last three guys are alright.

Tommy Lee Jones has very little to do with JFK but he does is just fine. He's pompous and haughty in all the right places but not the best part of a fantastic ensemble cast.

So it's between the Bugsy boys and they're both equally great.

I'll vote for Keitel who is criminally under-nominated at these awards.

My picks
_____________________
1) Samuel L. Jackson - Jungle Fever
2) John Goodman - Barton Fink
3) Ted Levine - The Silence of the Lambs
4) Laurence Fishburne - Boyz n the Hood
5) Donald Sutherland - JFK

6) Alan Rickman - Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Post Reply

Return to “The Damien Bona Memorial Oscar History Thread”