Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor

For the films of 2012
User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor

Postby criddic3 » Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:07 pm

I recall the 1998 race when Anthony Hopkins was nominated for Amistad. Siskel & Ebert were doing their annual "If We Picked the Winners" show, and Gene Siskel said that he felt that people shouldn't fault Hopkins for being great as always. Just because you expect an actor to be that good, it doesn't mean they don't deserve praise for the performance. I agree with this. So Jones and Waltz would be worthy. My thought also is that when an actor returns to giving a real peformance, as opposed to coasting in mediocrity like Mr. De Niro, he would be equally deserving. As a way of showing that they appreciate his not "phoning it in," I think De Niro will get a lot of votes from people who never were able to vote for him before or who might have voted for someone else the last time he was nominated.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12575
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:58 pm

I'm sorry. I can't keep quiet on this one. Complaining about Tommy Lee Jones giving a performance that he could do in his sleep and then in the same paragraph saying that one of the most impressive turns was by Christoph Waltz defeats much of your argument. What part of Waltz's performance in Django Unchained was that far removed from every single performance he's given most comparably his Oscar-winning performance in Inglourious Basterds. An actor delivering a good performance, regardless of whether they could do it in their sleep or not is still delivering a good performance. You may not have LIKED Tommy Lee Jones in Lincoln, but critiquing him for doing nothing special with a role he could easily play while simultaneously celebrating an actor who gives a performance that he could also give in his sleep is a terrible argument.

And for the record, I think Waltz is wonderful in Django. I also think Tommy Lee Jones is terrific in Lincoln. Neither of these actors do something outside of their wheelhouses and that's ok. If either of them were accustomed to giving bad performances and then slept through a role with the same bad performance, then i could support such a claim; however, that is not the case here, nor is it the argument that was made.

If I were to vote, I would vote Jones ahead of Waltz and fault neither for doing what they do best.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

MovieFan
Graduate
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:40 am

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor

Postby MovieFan » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:46 pm

I don't think Tommy Lee Jones deserves to win this at all, he could do this role in his sleep and I found Spader to be the most impressive. The most impressive turns were easily by Waltz and Hoffman. I still expect Jones to win yet another undeserved Oscar, but im hoping for a Waltz upset.

mlrg
Adjunct
Posts: 1117
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor

Postby mlrg » Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:40 am

After seeing Lincoln yesterday, I completed viewing all best Picture and acting nominees for this year.

Although he has great screen presence in the film, I was quite unimpressed by Tommy Lee Jones (and by the film as a whole).

If I could vote, my vote would go without a doubt to Philip Seymour Hoffman, although I find him co-lead.

As for the Oscar winner, this is probably the most unpredictable acting race since I’ve been following the Oscars (1992). As for today, my money is on Robert De Niro, but I can switch to Waltz

For those of live in the US, was Waltz hosting SNL any good? Do you think it might help his chances?

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15830
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:49 am

On performance it should go to Tommy Lee Jones. His first Oscar was undeserved, but he's made up for it by doing splendid work in much of what he's done since, and his is the strongest performance of the lot. Philip Seymour Hoffman also gives a strong performance, and had he not won previously might have a stronger shot despite the polarizing aspect of his film, but voters will deem him young enough to have many more chances at a second Oscar.

I don't see the Argo extending to Alan Arkin's lightweight performance and although I wouldn't be shocked by a Christoph Waltz repeat, I don't see that as likely as Jones or Harvey Weinstein's latest push, Robert De Niro. He hasn't won an Oscar in thirty-two years, a mantra that helped Meryl Streep win her third after a 29 years, but unlike Streep, who had a host of award worthy roles in the interim, De Niro has done nothing but coast for the last twenty years or so. Hopefully the Academy won't fall inline like sheep for Harvey this year.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

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

Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor

Postby rudeboy » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:01 am

I think this one deserves a few days of discussion before the big day. I honestly don't remember an acting race in many years that was quite this wide-open - one where ANY of the contenders has an argument in their favour and could potentially win it.

I've only seen two of the contenders so far - Lincoln and Django Unchained are yet to open in Singapore, and I haven't had the chance to see The Master due to minimal screenings at crazy times of day.

Tommy Lee Jones was seemingly the presumed frontrunner in the early days of the season but was hobbled by the fact that he didn't actually win anything up until the Screen Actors Guild. As has been said before he's certainly one of those hugely-respected, prolific veterans who could be seen as fully worthy of a second Oscar but by many accounts he also has a reputation as something of a sourpuss. I'm not sure whether that would harm his chances, but in a tight race it could cost him a few votes here and there.

It seemed unlikely three years ago that Christoph Waltz would rapidly return to the nominees roster, but in hindsight it's not such a shock. His win was a VERY popular one, his character instantly iconic and a true star-making season for him. It's a little odd that his return is for another Tarantino movie, and for - from what I've heard - a vaguely similar character. But his polite, slightly odd (if somewhat grating) acceptance speeches at the Golden Globes and BAFTAs have doubtless warmed him to some on-the-fence voters. It seems he's in a co-lead role, which can help too I guess. He could win again but he'd be one of the oddest two-timers.

Philip Seymour Hoffman IS a more plausible (on paper) repeat, and a supporting win seems far more likely than another in lead. In fact, I suspect he quite likely WILL take another Oscar one of these days. Whether it's for such a polarising movie is yet to be seen. All I have to go on are clips and reports but it does seem to be an eye-catching, very dominant performance and while I'm sure many members failed to make it through the film, it seems to have enough passionate supporters to make him a possibility.

De Niro's 'comeback' didn't do much for me. He had some funny moments, and gets to cry which is a plus, but I don't think this is particularly worthy stuff. In all honesty I liked him more in Meet the Parents. But on his first nomination in over twenty years - thinking about it, it's downright weird (not to mention making me feel awfully old) that De Niro's nomination for Cape Fear is closer in years to Godfather II than it is to Silver Linings Playbook - and in such a widely-beloved movie, he could certainly triumph here.

If Alan Arkin needs a late-career Oscar I'd rather they'd have given it him this year for being lightweight but funny in Argo than for simply being lightweight in Little Miss Sunshine. But this is not Oscar-level work. Bryan Cranston did more for me. If he wins, with no career-tribute pressure remaining, it will be due to love for his film. Which is very possible.

Seriously, any of these five could win it and none would be a shock. I'm going with Tommy Lee Jones, but this is going to be a nail-biter.


Return to “85th Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest