Categories One-by-One: Best Supporting Actor

Post Reply
rudeboy
Adjunct
Posts: 1323
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:00 am
Location: Singapore

Post by rudeboy »

Its only hearsay, which I never put much stock in, but a good friend of mine knows someone in the costume department on Chris Nolan’s Batman movies, who claims Christian Bale’s reputation as a dick is completely deserved. That said, I’ve always liked him as an actor – his performance in Empire of the Sun really should have seen him in contention all those years ago. Not having seen The Fighter yet (hoping to catch it tomorrow afternoon before the Oscars) I can't comment on this particular performance, but I'm sure he's terrific.

I like Rush, Ruffalo and Renner’s work an awful lot here. I’d rate Renner below the other two, but that’s more down to my general indifference to the film. Hawkes was the strongest thing in a film I really didn't care for - not award-worthy at al, but I can't deny its nice to see an unknown character actor sitting among the stars. Would love to see a win for Ruffalo, but as that clearly aint gonna happen I’ll pick Rush as my favourite. I never thought I’d see such a smart, witty, thoroughly enjoyable performance from the old ham.

That said, it seems Bale has enough momentum – and he has done very well on the speech circuit so far – to seal his win.




Edited By rudeboy on 1298720018
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

OscarGuy wrote:Typo.

And I would consider Editing and Cinematography dubious awards...I guess the question is what you mean by dubious. Is it "undeserved" or "unexpected"?
The visual flash and the cross-cutting through time put the cinematography and editing well within normal Oscar standards, and each won his respective Guild award (the cinematography also did well in critics' voting). That neither would be everyone's choice is inevitable, but they weren't off the beaten path.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Typo.

And I would consider Editing and Cinematography dubious awards...I guess the question is what you mean by dubious. Is it "undeserved" or "unexpected"?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

I think Million Dollar Baby won 4 awards.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

I wasn't so much taling about numbers as the ability to pull in dubious wins as part of the haul. In Slumdog's case, the sound win was the only one that fit that criterion.

I specifically mentioned Ben-Hur because that was a case of (to my mind) two questionable performances unexpectedly taking honors, largely because of the film to which they were attached. Apart from maybe Crowe in Gladiator, I can't think of many recent such instances.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Tee, Slumdog Millionaire did the same sweep kind of thing just two years ago and while Hurt Locker didn't quite get that high, 6 is a rather large number for a "modern-set" film.

Maybe we're slowly creeping back up again suggesting an emergence from the '70s mentality of "reward sporadically" to the "reward exuberantly". The '80s and '90s saw a larger number of 7+ victories, which then got stamped out for most of the '00s.


1970: 7 - Patton
1971: 4 - French Connection
1972: 3 - The Godfather (with Cabaret at 8)
1973: 7 - The Sting
1974: 6 - The Godfather, Part II
1975: 5 - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
1976: 3 - Rocky (with 4 for both Network and All the President's Men)
1977: 4 - Annie Hall (with Star Wars at 6)
1978: 5 - The Deer Hunter
1979: 5 - Kramer vs. Kramer
1980: 4 - Ordinary People
1981: 4 - Chariots of Fire (with Raiders of the Lost Ark at 4)
1982: 8 - Gandhi
1983: 5 - Terms of Endearment
1984: 8 - Amadeus
1985: 7 - Out of Africa
1986: 4 - Platoon
1987: 9 - The Last Emperor
1988: 4 - Rain Man
1989: 4 - Driving Miss Daisy
1990: 7 - Dances With Wolves
1991: 5 - The Silence of the Lambs
1992: 4 - Unforgiven
1993: 7 - Schindler's List
1994: 6 - Forrest Gump
1995: 5 - Braveheart
1996: 9 - The English Patient
1997: 11 - Titanic
1998: 7 - Shakespeare in Love
1999: 5 - American Beauty
2000: 5 - Gladiator
2001: 4 - A Beautiful Mind (with Fellowship of the Ring at 4)
2002: 6 - Chicago
2003: 11 - Return of the King
2004: 3 - Million Dollar Baby (with Aviator at 5)
2005: 3 - Crash (with Brokeback Mountain at 3)
2006: 4 - The Departed
2007: 4 - No Country for Old Men
2008: 8 - Slumdog Millionaire
2009: 6 - The Hurt Locker
2010: ? - The King's Speech (could be 6 or more)
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Sabin wrote:Rather than directly point, counterpoint with you, Magilla, I'll just say that I think the greater problem is not that they vote for whoever they choose for any number of reasons, but rather they nominate whomever based on an ongoing year-long running prognostication commentary, endless precursors, and ultimately who they're told to.
That may very well be, but my point is once the nominations are announced, all that falls by the wayside as far as the voters are concerned.

I do feel that Hailee Steinfeld is the lead in her movie, but if I were an AMPAS voter and I thought she was better than Adams, Bonham Carter, Leo and Weaver, I would have no problem voting for her in the wrong category - but I don't think she is, so it's not an issue for me. If she wins, I may have an "aw, shucks" moment like I did when Tatum O'Neal and Anna Paquin won, but it won't convince me to give her performance a closer look.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

I would argue that Geoffrey Rush is a lead in The King's Speech in the same way that Tom Courtenay is a lead in The Dresser -- the film is primarily about the relationship between two people, and while Geoffrey Rush is absent from some scenes, Colin Firth is gone from about that same amount. I think their screen time is about equal. When the film isn't focusing on one of these actors, it's focusing on the other.

I agree, though, with Mister Tee that The Fighter is pretty clearly Wahlberg's story, and about his relationships with Bale, Adams, Leo, etc. If Sabin and others see it as a two-hander, that's fine, but I just don't think the movie is structured in a way that gives Bale equal focus -- I think there are too many other characters jockeying for Wahlberg's attention to see it as a two-lead story.

As for HaiLead, well...that's just imbecilic.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

Rather than directly point, counterpoint with you, Magilla, I'll just say that I think the greater problem is not that they vote for whoever they choose for any number of reasons, but rather they nominate whomever based on an ongoing year-long running prognostication commentary, endless precursors, and ultimately who they're told to. I would love to stop complaining but every year there are ample opportunities to bitch and where else am I going to do it? This was the first year where my parents brought it up without me having to do so first. They thought that Christian Bale wasn't nominated this year because they didn't see him alongside Jesse Eisenberg and Colin Firth.

This is not a case of Bale simply getting more than twenty minutes of screen time. I think this is very much the story of the both of them. Mark Wahlberg's character is incredibly passive and his brother has just as vibrant and independent of a storyline. Is he ultimately somewhat subordinate to the hopes and dreams of Mickey Ward? Possibly. I just think this is the story of both of them. I think we can all agree that Hailee Steinfled is a lead. Bale is a little trickier, but I think Geoffrey Rush is definitely a lead. It's the story of their friendship on equal grounds. If Geoffrey Rush was played by a woman, there wouldn't be any question that s/he was a co-lead.




Edited By Sabin on 1298491062
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

I'll always resent Renner here for cock-blocking Andrew Garfield. For me, Renner in The Town is a just a road-company Johnny Boy, and wouldn't have crossed my mind as a contender.

I have to say none of these jump out at me as being The One. But I think it's pretty clear Hollywood has decided it's Bale's time. The standing ovation at SAG told me whatever PR problems he had aren't on the radar screen this season.

Rush is very solid; if he didn't have the earlier win under his belt, he'd probably be in strong contention. But he irrevocably does, and the only reason I think he remains a possibility is the idea that his film might have Ben-Hur-like centrifugal force. I don't think such sweeps really exist anymore...but then again, I never thought Return of the King could win for screenplay.

I think, whatever AMPAS' absurdities in terms of accepting clear leads as supporting players, many on this site are the Bizarro version: it feels like any performance with more than 20 minutes screen-time gets labelled lead here. Rush, maybe yeah. But I think the Fighter is clearly Mark wahlberg's story, and I have no issue with thinking of Bale's role as a very strong supporting one.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

It's time people got over this lead vs. supporting thing. It's going to happen whether we like it or not. We can discount those we ourselves consider leads in our personal choices, but make no mistake about it - AMPAS voters don't care. They'll vote for who among the nominees they think gave the best performance; who they think is owed; who they're friends with, or whatever else it is that floats their boat. No one ever lost an Oscar because they thought he or she was nominated in the wrong category.

Fair? Maybe not, but as we all know, life isn't fair.

Bale gave the most intriguing performance. Rush has an Oscar. Bale has won the lion's share of the precursors. He''s been a star since the age of 13. Despite his bad boy rep he is charming and engaging and respectful. No one is going to vote against him because he is/was? a bad boy.

On the other hand, a vote against Leo for all the reasons that have been discussed in the supporting actress thread could carry over to a vote against Bale with Rush and Bonham Carter being the beneficiaries. Or the purported love for Rush's film could spill over to him. In the end it could be either, but I think it will be Bale. In either case, I'd be perfectly fine with the choice.

I'd also be happy with a surprise win for Mark Ruffalo. I like Jeremy Renner, but I think he's a marginal nominee this year. John Hawkes I'm totally unfamiliar with outside of his nominated performance, which I didn't find all that special. A win for either Renner or Hawkes would be a WTF moment for me.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

This late "surge" by Geoffrey Rush is as mystifying as that for the film itself. On a second viewing, yes, Rush gives a lovely, understated performance, and it is surprising to watch him graciously share the screen for a bit. Like Carter, I will concede that he is slightly better than I had originally thought within the confines of the role. But there's the rub. The King's Speech only really allows for so much emotion in the role. It's a very stately performance that never entirely connected with me.

I've seen lots of footage of Dicky Eklund, and it's not a case of bland obnoxious mimicry. This isn't like Geoffrey Rush in Shine. It never would have crossed my mind I'd become one of the lowly Christian Bale defenders. I very much enjoyed him in The Fighter, a film I've admittedly only seen once. The entire film is cued to his energy in a very entertaining way. I certainly hope he wins, although once again the two major competitors in this film are leads. Both Christian Bale and Geoffrey Rush have leading roles in their films.

Jeremy Renner is fun in The Town. He invests a sly observational menace into his role that the film could have used more of. Postlethwaite is fantastic, absolutely fantastic in his role. And just as good is Chris Cooper. Ben Affleck should absolutely restrain from casting himself and focus more on envisioning similarly off-beat choices (like, weirdly, his brother) in the future. I can't say Renner deserves to win. Nor can I say Ruffalo does either. He's as charming as he usually is. He's not doing any kind of spin on his persona for benefit of the ensemble like in Eternal Sunshine... or Zodiac, and this isn't You Can Count on Me by a longshot. But The Kids Are All Right is impossible to think about without him. I've mentioned my shortcomings with the film as a whole, and how the film abandons him near the end. I won't go into it again, but he certainly is very good at creating a character we sympathize with more than his writer/director.

That brings us to the year's best supporting performance, John Hawkes. Teardrop is chilling as hell. He commands every shot he's in with utter stillness, uncompromising badassery. I don't think he was overshadowed by the ladies at all. This is my favorite kind of nomination: a character actor whose name nobody remembers but whose face nobody forgets in a change of pace supporting role. I would be tempted (as I was with Michael Shannon) to vote for him simply on principle. That he does give the Best Supporting Male Performance of the year makes it all the more easy.

At least the Academy only nominated two leading roles this year. Last year, they nommed Christopher Plummer, and I guess Waltz and Harrelson straddled the line. The year before, Hoffman was a lead and Ledger straddled the line. The year before, Affleck and Bardem.
"How's the despair?"
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

John Hawkes gives a solid performance as Teardrop in Winter's Bone (and his un-nominated work as Sol Starr on the HBO series Deadwood was incredibly perceptive). However, I think he is overshadowed by the dominant women in his film. This is a nice "welcome to the club" nomination and not much more.

Jeremy Renner has been on my radar since his chilling lead work in Dahmer and I'm glad that the Academy has finally picked up on his undeniable talent. He puts his renegade persona to good use in The Town. But I think the real supporting male stand-out in that film was the late Pete Postlewaite.

The success of The Kids Are All Right hinges on the audience falling in love with Mark Ruffalo. Never before has his easy-going charm been so effortlessly parlayed into a film role. This is a nice nod that has been a long time coming.

But I am really hoping for a surprise Geoffrey Rush win in this category. After seeing Christian Bale's transformation in The Fighter (that first shot of his gangly, emaciated body is truly shocking), I was ready to throw all my support to him. That is, until I saw The King's Speech. With his quiet, unwavering dedication to his new pupil, yet steely wherewithal, Rush as Lionel Logue effectively walks away with the film (yes, I think his performance is the best in show here). He never backs down from overcoming the challenges of Firth's character, yet straddles that fine line of showing respect to the future King without sacrificing his own selfhood in the process. It's a beautiful, master class of a performance.
The Academy will most likely go with the more showy, baity performance (and Bale is not totally undeserving), but Rush's classy work would be a welcome surprise.

Will Win: Christian Bale
Should Win: Geoffrey Rush
Should've Been Nominated: Pete Postlewaite




Edited By flipp525 on 1298489012
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Post by anonymous1980 »

Is it really a slamdunk for Christian Bale? Or is his reputation for being a hot-tempered asshole and the apparent lovefest for The King's Speech going to swing this prize over to Geoffrey Rush?

I'll say the former.
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Post by anonymous1980 »

Christian Bale, The Fighter
John Hawkes, Winter's Bone
Jeremy Renner, The Town
Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are All Right
Geoffrey Rush, The King's Speech
Post Reply

Return to “83rd Predictions and Precursors”