Sabin wrote:For all the talk of Rourke being due, I ask myself: what of Jenkins? No actor in the lineup has toiled more in film than Jenkins
I know a great deal about movies but before The Visitor was released, I had never heard of Richard Jenkins. And not having seen The Visitor, I still have no idea who he is. But the fact that he was in an Allan Ball TV show certainly lessens my interest in him.
Edited By Damien on 1233902769
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
I won't begrudge Penn his second Oscar, but damned if it won't be the second time he won it away from a performance that I liked way better - first Bill Murray, now Mickey Rourke. I still think Penn's histrionics winning over Murray's understated befuddlement and charm is the most egregious Actor win of this decade. What Penn really deserved his first Oscar for was mentioned here: Dead Man Walking. He was fantastic in Milk, utterly captivating, but Rourke...just that much more so. It'll be a shame.
For all the talk of Rourke being due, I ask myself: what of Jenkins? No actor in the lineup has toiled more in film than Jenkins and watching him on Letterman wanted me to desperately watch him win even though I don't think he's remotely deserving of a win for The Visitor. His speech would be gracious and beautiful. I much prefer him this year in Burn After Reading.
Richard Jenkins was on Letterman last night and told a cute story about his son recently graduating and getting a job with Price Waterhouse: "I've been in this business forty years and nothing; he gets a job there and suddenly I'm nominated".
He also admitted he didn't have a chance in hell of winning.
Big Magilla wrote:Rourke might have had sentiment on his side, especially after playing homage to his dogs at the SAG awards, but his constant acting the fool like challenging that wrestling champion and then backing off pretty much kills that. He's still a possibility, but looks less and less so as the days go on.
What an ass....to ruin his chances for a win.
I just felt that it would have been nice if Rourke got it as Penn already has one. Obviously with Rourke's continuing antics The Wrestler is probably going to be his only acting high and he is going to slip into oblivion again. So Penn getting a second Oscar would be, after all, well deserved. Hell, if Hanks can win two, Penn certainly deserves it more.
This is the first time since 1982 that I've agreed with all five nominees in this category. Granted, Pitt's cipher and Jenkins' low-key characterization probably wouldn't be nominated in more competitive years, but they deserved those nods this year.
Langella's is largely a career recognition performance that with less competition might win, but against the bravura work of Penn and Rourke doesn't stand a chance.
On performance, Penn is the clear front-runner. Rourke might have had sentiment on his side, especially after playing homage to his dogs at the SAG awards, but his constant acting the fool like challenging that wrestling champion and then backing off pretty much kills that. He's still a possibility, but looks less and less so as the days go on.
I was really taken by how lovely Mickey Rourke's performance is. I was expecting some hideous histrionics like Daniel Day-Lewis's last year, but Rourke gives an understated and surprisingly sweet performance, onein which the actor and the character seem as one. However, Sean Penn completely BECAME Harvey Milk, and did so seamlessly -- it's an astonishing piece of work, and, as was the case with Dead Man Walking, when this guy is on, I simply don't know how he does it.
Milk is more liked in Hollywood than The Wrestler (and is a much better picture), and there is the Proposition 8 spill-over, as well. I think people will feel that the nomination -- and the movie itself -- is enough acknowledgment of Mickey Rourke's comeback, and I don't think sentiment for someone who's so "out there" runs too deep.
Langella seems to be this year's David Straithairn -- terrific, well-respected actor in a political film overshadowed by showier performances.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
I like Brad Pitt and Richard Jenkins a lot, but it's a little bit disappointing that they got nominated for these performances. Hiam Abbas was the only one in The Vistor who deserved a mention, and Brad Pitt The Star is more the focus of Benjamin Button than Brad Pitt the actor. (Which makes for an interesting film, but not for an amazing piece of acting.)
I liked Langella a lot in Frost/Nixon. Not as complex as Hopkins's take, maybe, but he captures Nixon's social awkwardness and his odd charm very well. And his reading of that one line towards the end (in his final encounter with Frost, where he says, about Frost's outgoing personality: "You have no idea how fortunate that makes you: Liking people...and being liked") is just perfect. He's an excellent actor, and last year he was probably even better in Starting Out in the Evening, where, depending on the day, he would be in my top five. He's third for me right now for 2008, behind Andrew Garfield and Clint Eastwood.
Have been putting off The Wrestler and Milk due to lack of interest.
Quite frankly, I'm a little surprised Frank Langella never made more of a dent in this race. After seeing Frost/Nixon, a film liked much more by the Academy than me, I'd have thought him a fairly strong candidate.
Like most, I think Penn is the likely victor (and who I'd root for), but Rourke wouldn't surprise me either, and wouldn't be undeserving.
A fairly competitive category this year, although I think that it is being made to look more competitive than it really is.
Brad Pitt and Richard Jenkins should both be happy with their hard won nominations. Jenkins' film is too little seen and he is too subtle to really garner much attention awards-wise. He is the journeyman actor who may have been able to squeak out a win in supporting, but should take a lead nomination as reward itself. Pitt barely got into a nomination, and it is for a performance that is less praised than the makeup and visual effects that support it. Like Taraji P. Henson, he could have a fighting chance if his film were doing alright but he will go down with the sinking ship.
Frank Langella is the sort of nomination that should be a strong competitor on paper: well-respected actor, recreating Tony winning role as famous personality, brings depth to an imitation. It is a chance to award an actor and a performance together. However, he has not gained any steam this year and will have to settle for his nod.
The race is really between Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke. Penn has the SAG win, plus the benefit of playing a real life person in a Best Picture nominee and being one of our most respected actors in Hollywood. He just won 5 years ago, but no one would begrudge him a second Oscar, especially for what most call his greatest work and a performance that is vastly different than anything in his oeuvre before. Rourke has the Globe win and the comeback story of the year. He has been kicking around Hollywood for years, and voters could look at this as him finally paying off on his promise of the early 1980s. However, his film is difficult to watch (especially for squeamish voters who may not get beyond the staple gun) which may turn off some voters.
In the end, I think you also have to look at their film's nomination tally. Milk is a best picture nominee that got 8 nods, more than many predicted. The Wrestler got 2 nods, fewer than many predicted. Add in the political spotlight on gay rights, particularly in California, and I think this is the chance to reward Milk and Penn. I say Sean Penn takes it.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
