Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor

[Mister Tee]

My take on '98 supporting actress was that Dench was favored but far from a lock -- Bates and Redgrave, based on the SAG and Globe, were certainly in the race. And I'd agree wholeheartedly that Blethyn's inclusion was an outrage that left Kudrow and Allen cheated.

I want to thank BJ for starting up these threads. I've often done them in the past, but until I at least see Benjamin Button, it's hard for me to make useful comments. Within a week or so, I'll pitch in.

I'm in agreement there was something creepy about the Internet crew calling for a Ledger Oscar seemingly within hours of his death -- and I'm rather amazed it turned out to be prescient. It's in line with "Return of the King will sweep in '03" -- another prediction that came true, and which caused those who made it to assume a higher degree of psychic ability than they in fact possessed. As BJ says, there were all sorts of reasons to think such a win by Ledger was unlikely, but the circumstances of the year --and, it must be said, the singularity of the performance, which doesn't FEEL like a comic book effort -- combined to make it come to pass.

I've seen all five nominees -- one of the few categories where I can say that -- and I don't consider it a bad field, but hardly one to rival, say, the class of '93. For me, Ledger is easily the best, something I believe I'd think even without the pathos surrounding him.

[dylanfan23]

On this years award....i think it would be incredibly awkward for the winner if there is an upset, wether it be downey or brolin, i would not want my oscar to come where everyone is counting on a ledger win. I imagine a very awkward acceptance speech if that happened. Now i don't think there is any chance of that happening. Not because there weren't great supporting performances. I thougth brolin and hoffman were as good as can be with hoffman being a lead performance. Shannon and downey were good but not nomination worthy. Would have loved to see irwin, marsan and either franco or hirsh there instead of shannon, downey and the lead hoffman.

On 1998....i remember that was such a disspointing victory for dench for me. I thought dench was good but it was such a tiny role and kathy bates was so darn good in primary colors. And also redgrave, griffiths and blethyn gave great performances...so i was shocked when they gave it to dench, and very dissappointed. She didn't win a globe or sag, but she was definately a contender...but i didn't think they would give it to her.

[danfrank]

Brolin, Downey, Jr., Ledger, and Shannon all give fairly exceptional performances

I can't agree that there was anything exceptional--other than the blackface--about Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance in Tropic Thunder. It was mildly amusing at first, but then it just grates like the movie itself. I generally like him as an actor, but I think he's being rewarded here because he's the current Hollywood "it boy," the prodigal son come home.

[Sabin]

I agree with every performance cited by Flipp. Allen, Elise, and Kudrow were far superior to any of the others nominated. At the time, I chose Rachel Griffiths though she's clearly a leading actress in Hilary & Jackie. I like Dench very much, but in retrospect I rather wish that Lynn Redgrave had won. Her performance is a very clever piece of caricature that is ultimately a lot more knowing and sweet than initially appears.

Brenda Blethyn was one of the worst nominated performances of the nineties.

[OscarGuy]

I disagree. I don't really think Dench deserved it. I would say that any one of Bates, Redgrave or Griffiths deserved it more than Dench did. I think the combination of Harvey's Oscar whoring and Dench's loss for Mrs. Brown culminated in Dench's victory as I don't think she would have won otherwise. I mean she's solid in Shakespeare in Love, but there's nothing earth shattering, impressive or extraordinary about her performance even if the character has a minimal impact on the story.

[Eric]

Not only is her performance not "inconsequential", I think she's easily the best thing about Shakespeare in Love.

Agreed. It would've probably been the only Oscar even I would've given that movie.

[flipp525]

i think dench's win was still a surprise in the sense that it was such an inconsequential performance. both redgrave and rachel griffiths gave far more award worthy performances. to me dench's win is the ultimate example of the "do over" award -- "sorry about giving best actress to helen hunt over you last year, here is an award for an undeserving performance. we love you!"

I completely disagree. Not only is her performance not "inconsequential", I think she's easily the best thing about Shakespeare in Love. And while three of the women nominated alongside her were superb -- Bates, Redgrave, Griffiths (Blethyn should've been replaced by any one of the non-nominated Lisa Kudrow for The Opposite of Sex, Joan Allen for Pleasantville or Kimberly Elise for Beloved) -- Dench's win is still a satisfying one ten years later.



Edited By flipp525 on 1233346564

[rolotomasi99]

Dench was widely expected to be the winner.

Supporting Actor IS pretty weak this year. I wonder if Ledger were still alive, he'd still win by default, thanks to the guilt over not recognizing him for Brokeback.

1998 was the first year i seriously followed the oscars. i thought/wanted lynn redgrave to win for GODS AND MONSTERS. i knew she had won the golden globe, and i foolishly thought that meant she would win the oscar...i had yet to realize how unimportant the globes are.

i think dench's win was still a surprise in the sense that it was such an inconsequential performance. both redgrave and rachel griffiths gave far more award worthy performances. to me dench's win is the ultimate example of the "do over" award -- "sorry about giving best actress to helen hunt over you last year, here is an award for an undeserving performance. we love you!" even dench in her acceptance speech realized how ridiculous it was for her to win, which is why i love her.

as for this year's supporting actor nominees, i agree with sabin that the line up is solid. ledger probably would have won even if he were still alive. it should not be said that his win only happened because of his death. it was an amazing performance and deserves to be recognized.

*trivia note*
many of you probably already knew this, but i find this type of stuff interesting. if ledger wins, he will be only the second posthumous acting winner ever after peter finch. both ledger and finch had earned only one prior nomination, both earned their previous oscar nominations for playing gay men, and both won/will win their oscar for playing someone who was crazy.



Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1233345503

[Sabin]

I think this year's lineup of supporting actors is ridiculously strong. Not as strong as last year's embarrassment of riches, but Brolin, Downey, Jr., Ledger, and Shannon all give fairly exceptional performances and if Hoffman is ultimately unsuccessful, it's an accomplished unsuccessful performance and makes more sense in his film than Wilkinson last year in Michael Clayton.

2006, 2005...these were weak lineups. This year is perfectedly fine by me.

[Reza]

Dench was widely expected to be the winner.

Supporting Actor IS pretty weak this year. I wonder if Ledger were still alive, he'd still win by default, thanks to the guilt over not recognizing him for Brokeback.

Yes on both counts.

Dench was brilliant.

Ledger would probably still have won by default if he were alive because of the weak and boring competition.

[Penelope]

Dench was widely expected to be the winner.

Supporting Actor IS pretty weak this year. I wonder if Ledger were still alive, he'd still win by default, thanks to the guilt over not recognizing him for Brokeback.

[Reza]

in terms of acting surprises (good or bad), the academy usually reserves them for supporting actress -- dench

I don't recall Dench being a surprise winner. Was she?

[rolotomasi99]

in terms of acting surprises (good or bad), the academy usually reserves them for supporting actress -- sorvino, tomei, swinton, dench, etc.

i, like almost everyone else, believe ledger will win on oscar night. i also feel he completely deserves it, and his being dead has nothing to do with it.

all that being said, i think if someone is going to pull an upset it will be robert downey, jr. like comedic performances which have upset before in the supporting actress category (sorvino and tomei), i could see downey shocking everyone by finding his way in. the fact that he also gave one of the best superhero movie performances this year would probably also factor into people's minds while voting.

i still think the award will go to ledger, but if it is not ledger's name called i think it will be downey.

if downey does win, i hope he gives his acceptanc speech completely in character as drunken bad boy aussie kirk lazarus thanking the academy for awarding his work as sgt. osiris in the war drama TROPIC THUNDER. that would probably go down in history as one of the best oscar speeches ever.

[Okri]

Isn't Ledger still in the Gilliam film? Gilliam mentioned that enough of his role was finished that the actors who took over will be splitting duty.

I'd like to echo BJ. The course of events are pretty unique (and additionally, I'd toss on just the general irritation and unease I felt when people instantly tossed around Ledger as a major candidate immediately after his death. It felt tacky).

[flipp525]

Michelle Pfeiffer, while fantastic in the underrated Love Field, was the best thing about Batman Returns and truly deserved a nomination in support that year. Unfortunately, I have a hard time knocking out any of the supporting women that year (if a gun was held to my head, I'd have to choose Plowright. Even she doesn't deserve to lose her mention in this category though).

Alfre Woodard's performance in Passion Fish also deserved mention. Best Supporting Actress that year was filled with some fantastic performances with the brilliant comic turn by Tomei taking the cake.



Edited By flipp525 on 1233314261