Best Supporting Actor 1988

[mlrg]

For anyone interested in watching Little Dorrit, it is streaming on Tubi in the US. Better than nothing!

It’s also available on YouTube

[dws1982]

For anyone interested in watching Little Dorrit, it is streaming on Tubi in the US. Better than nothing!

[Reza]

Alec Guinness's performance was also cited by quite a few of the Critics that year. He won at the LA Film Critics and was nominated for the New York Film Critics, the National Society of Film Critics, and the Golden Globe. Oddly enough he was ignored on his home turf by the Baftas and the Evening Standard Awards.

[mlrg]

Sometimes being an Oscar completist feels like a job. That’s how I felt after the chore of sitting trough the entirety of Little Dorrit. I admit it took me two weeks to get through it (watched like a one hour tv show episode).

Nonetheless, Alec Guiness is absolutely spectacular, as is Derek Jacobi.

This might be one of the cases of a nomination on name alone. I highly doubt the average academy member sat trough this film.

[mayukh]

Well I'll deviate from consensus here and champion Dean Stockwell's fluid, endlessly funny performance. Tee is right to single out Michelle Pfeiffer – I'd say it's her best performance – but Stockwell is crazily dynamic, managing to make his character's repulsive attributes seem attractive. (I also think that Married to the Mob is Jonathan Demme's best, most sensitive film. Pauline Kael was very right when she said that he seems a director who is genuinely interested in every character his camera meets.)

I'm not sure that Kevin Kline is supporting, but he does what he has to do so well that you forget that the character isn't especially deep. It's a very effective performance.

Phoenix was sensitive, mature, and all that, but truth be told I've never felt the kind of electric attraction to him that others have. And I think this angsty, potentially rich role was in need of an actor who was a bit more explosive than Phoenix, whose performance was too subdued for me to really connect (this may have had more to do with his director, though, than Phoenix himself).

[Okri]

Of course, vote splitting is an easy way to rationalize victories we don't care for, even if it's just wishful thinking.

[Big Magilla]

Taking a look at 1950, vote splitting does not explain why Judy Holliday beat out Bette Davis or Gloria Swanson. Why? Because All About Eve and Sunset Blvd. won a boatload of awards, and in instances where the two went head-to-head one of them came out victorious 5 times -- four of which All About Eve won, so there was definitely a consensus. So voters were able do decide that George Sanders was better than Erich von Stroheim, or that Joseph L. Mankiewicz was better than Billy Wilder, or even that Franz Waxman was better than Alfred Newman, but couldn't on Best Actress? That doesn't make sense.

Or some could have thought Daviss was better than Swanson but since she already had two Oscars and Swanson had none, that they would vote for Swanson.

Good point on why Guinness or Phoenix didn't emerge as the winner in 1988 instead of Kline. Probably because Guinness' film was not seen by a lot of voters and Phoenix was perceived to have many more chances. That plus the fact that there was stronger support for A Fish Called Wanda than may have origianlly been apparent. It was also nominated for Best Director and Screenplay. On the other hand, had either Laundau or Stockwell not bene nominated, I still think the other would have had a stronger likleihood of winning.

[ITALIANO]

Magilla, the thing about vote splitting, though, is that it only really works i a 3-man race (such as many American Presidential elections). For example, in 1992 when H. Ross Perot entered the race, there was a fear of vote splitting from conservative voters that would lead to Bill Clinton's victory. Conservative voters would have solidified behind the more conservative voter with maybe 55% of the vote (enough to win), but with a split among who they wanted, then Bush would end up with 42% and Perot with 13% and Clinton would win with 45%. No, this didn't happen this way (although Clinton still won), but that is the theory of how vote splitting works. It seems like we all agree with this.

There are two fundamental problems with using vote splitting to explain the Oscars. The first is that there are 5 nominees. If Landau and Stockwell truly split the vote, then the question should be why did Kline emerge the victor and not Guinness (who could be in the "vote splitting" category) or Phoenix. If the veterans are splitting the vote, shouldn't the young guy sneak in? There are still a lot of other factors to look at that there is no magic solution of "vote splitting."

Taking a look at 1950, vote splitting does not explain why Judy Holliday beat out Bette Davis or Gloria Swanson. Why? Because All About Eve and Sunset Blvd. won a boatload of awards, and in instances where the two went head-to-head one of them came out victorious 5 times -- four of which All About Eve won, so there was definitely a consensus. So voters were able do decide that George Sanders was better than Erich von Stroheim, or that Joseph L. Mankiewicz was better than Billy Wilder, or even that Franz Waxman was better than Alfred Newman, but couldn't on Best Actress? That doesn't make sense.

The second reason that it doesn't work is that unlike election voters, Oscar voters don't vote on a spectrum or to fill a certain set of values. When you vote on an election, you vote for the person who falls in your section of the political spectrum, so that if you are more of a liberal, you vote for the more liberal of the candidates. For "swing voters" you still have to fall in a certain part of the spectrum for them to go for you, so a third-party, conservative candidate could split votes from a Republican candidate. In the Oscars, though, voters do not vote on this spectrum. They are voting for the Best Performance, and even if politics play a huge part in that vote, it is not to fill some need. Christopher Plummer may have won this year on veteran status, because voters wanted him to have an Oscar more than they loved his work in Beginners, but no voters set out to give Supporting Actor this year to an octogenarian veteran who never won an Oscar. Otherwise, wouldn't he have split with Max von Sydow? It was more that of the options to vote for, he was the best of the bunch (for whatever reason) for the majority of voters. Plain and simple.

Lookin at 1988, you could have Stockwell and Kline splitting the comedy vote, or Kline and Phoenix splitting the "young" vote, or Stockwell and Guiness splitting the "once starred in a World War II movie" vote, or any series of combinations. It becomes a cover-all solution that doesn't explain anything.

I wish I could have written this post - and in such a good English.

[FilmFan720]

Magilla, the thing about vote splitting, though, is that it only really works i a 3-man race (such as many American Presidential elections). For example, in 1992 when H. Ross Perot entered the race, there was a fear of vote splitting from conservative voters that would lead to Bill Clinton's victory. Conservative voters would have solidified behind the more conservative voter with maybe 55% of the vote (enough to win), but with a split among who they wanted, then Bush would end up with 42% and Perot with 13% and Clinton would win with 45%. No, this didn't happen this way (although Clinton still won), but that is the theory of how vote splitting works. It seems like we all agree with this.

There are two fundamental problems with using vote splitting to explain the Oscars. The first is that there are 5 nominees. If Landau and Stockwell truly split the vote, then the question should be why did Kline emerge the victor and not Guinness (who could be in the "vote splitting" category) or Phoenix. If the veterans are splitting the vote, shouldn't the young guy sneak in? There are still a lot of other factors to look at that there is no magic solution of "vote splitting."

Taking a look at 1950, vote splitting does not explain why Judy Holliday beat out Bette Davis or Gloria Swanson. Why? Because All About Eve and Sunset Blvd. won a boatload of awards, and in instances where the two went head-to-head one of them came out victorious 5 times -- four of which All About Eve won, so there was definitely a consensus. So voters were able do decide that George Sanders was better than Erich von Stroheim, or that Joseph L. Mankiewicz was better than Billy Wilder, or even that Franz Waxman was better than Alfred Newman, but couldn't on Best Actress? That doesn't make sense.

The second reason that it doesn't work is that unlike election voters, Oscar voters don't vote on a spectrum or to fill a certain set of values. When you vote on an election, you vote for the person who falls in your section of the political spectrum, so that if you are more of a liberal, you vote for the more liberal of the candidates. For "swing voters" you still have to fall in a certain part of the spectrum for them to go for you, so a third-party, conservative candidate could split votes from a Republican candidate. In the Oscars, though, voters do not vote on this spectrum. They are voting for the Best Performance, and even if politics play a huge part in that vote, it is not to fill some need. Christopher Plummer may have won this year on veteran status, because voters wanted him to have an Oscar more than they loved his work in Beginners, but no voters set out to give Supporting Actor this year to an octogenarian veteran who never won an Oscar. Otherwise, wouldn't he have split with Max von Sydow? It was more that of the options to vote for, he was the best of the bunch (for whatever reason) for the majority of voters. Plain and simple.

Lookin at 1988, you could have Stockwell and Kline splitting the comedy vote, or Kline and Phoenix splitting the "young" vote, or Stockwell and Guiness splitting the "once starred in a World War II movie" vote, or any series of combinations. It becomes a cover-all solution that doesn't explain anything.

[ITALIANO]

It would be interesting to see statistical results of the Oscar races to know which winners received absolute majorities (more than 50% of the votes cast) vs. those who received relative majorities (a number less than 50%, but more than any of the others in competition). Without that, all we can do is specualte.

Vote splitting may be an American term but it did not begin with Oscar races. It is a term used to describe political races in which similar candidates split the majority vote and a candidate liked by a minority emerges as the winner. A similar term is spoiler effect in which a supposed less popular candidate pulls enough support away from the the supposed front-runner to allow another candidate to win. This term was first used to explain John Adams' 1800 loss of the Presidency to Thomas Jefferson.

Examples of the spoiler effect in Oscar races might be Anne Baxter in All About Eve and MIchael Caine in Sleuth, both good performances but neither a serious threat to either Bette Davis or Laurence Olivier, yet perhaps strong enough to syphon a few votes away from their co-stars. Davis, of course, also had to contend with Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard and Olivier with Marlon Brando in The Godfather. In Davis' case, she and Swanson, both making major comebacks, were the clear front-runners, purportedly liked by a majority of the voters, either one of whom could/would likely have won if the other hadn't been in the race. This is what likely caused the upset that resulted in Judy Holliday's unexpected win for Born Yesterday. In the Olivier/Brando match-up, Brando was the clear favorite and was probably an easy winner.

In other situations where two or more actors are nominated for the same film, such as Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole in Becket, there may be vote splitting involved, but in that particular case, Rex Harrison was the odds-on favorite for My Fair Lady anyway.

Marisa Tomei's win for My cousin Vinny, which is the one most often attributed to vote splitting is perhaps the easist to understand. She was up against four well-respected actresses in strong dramatic roles, each of whom were equally well-liked. A win by any of them would have been well-deserved, but Tomei's unexpected win was so delightful no one except Rex Reed, who claimed Jack Palance read the wrong name, could get upset.

Most races, however, are not won or lost because of vote splitting even in situations where the winner is a surprise. Juliette Binoche's unexpected win over Lauren Bacall, for example, is attributed to three things: the popularity of The English Patient, the general dislike of The Mirror Has Two Faces and in some measure to Lauren Bacall's somewhat frosty reputation within the industry.

I love you

Seriously, you are the living proof that America will always win. What material are you made of? I admire that, really. So I give up: vote-splitting does exist.

Nah, I'm joking, it doesn't, but from now on I will pretend it does - I want to be part of a majority group.

It's true though that when you are the only American among the nominees you have more chances of winning - especially considering that it's mostly Americans who do the voting. But this doesn't have anything to do with vote-splitting - it's a cultural thing.

And at least being nominated with someone from your same movie means that there's something objectively in common between you and your co-nominee, and something more solid than, say, both being veterans or both having red hair. This may be a slight problem, though, as we know, not an insurmountable one. It still doesn't have anything to do with vote-splitting in a field of five (five which are all number 1 choices from a percentage of voters), mathematically I mean, and it's certainly something which can't be proved (actually the opposite CAN and HAS BEEN proved: one can easily win even in such a situation). But ok, since we are talking about the Oscars and not the future of mankind, let's say that I can understand if emotionally one feels that it's a big obstacle.

From now on, I swear that I will enthusiastically agree with anyone who brings vote-splitting as an excuse for his favorite having lost. Americans are stronger than just one Italiano.

[rudeboy]

I haven’t seen Little Dorrit – surely one of the more obscure films to receive major nominations in the modern era. I’m sure Guinness is marvellous but will vote anyway.
The 80s were a decade of mediocre slates in this category; but this is an unusually strong line-up.

I like Kline’s performance, perhaps (correct me if I’m wrong) the only out and out zany comic role ever to win an Oscar. He’s an actor I don’t always care for (for every wonderful performance he’s given, notably in The Ice Storm, there’s one I despise. He pretty much killed Sophie’s Choice for me every moment he was on screen). But here his timing is spot-on and the role plays to his strengths. I wouldn’t consider him for the win myself, but I have no problem with the win.

Landau gives a lovely performance in the underrated Tucker, but – of course – there are two much stronger showcases for him coming soon.

Stockwell is a joy in Married to the Mob. Shame his screen partner Mercedes Ruehl – much better and funnier here than in The Fisher King – was overlooked. Much more than a career tribute nomination, this is a rich, original and very funny comic character.

River Phoenix's positioning is blatant category fraud, of course, but he’s just riveting in Running on Empty. Its not a perfect movie (Judd Hirsch is badly miscast, and the kid playing the younger brother is awful) but it is a lovely one, with a quartet of pitch-perfect performances. Martha Plimpton is wonderful, her chemistry with Phoenix is clear. If the film had been a bigger hit I’m pretty sure Steven Hill would have been in the conversation for his shattering one-scene role with the (superb) Christine Lahti. Phoenix is the centre of the film, not a supporting role by any stretch, and the best performance of this bunch. I'm sure many people felt this would be the first of multiple nominations for this sensitive and talented young actor, but of course it was not to be. But he gets my vote easily here.

[Big Magilla]

It would be interesting to see statistical results of the Oscar races to know which winners received absolute majorities (more than 50% of the votes cast) vs. those who received relative majorities (a number less than 50%, but more than any of the others in competition). Without that, all we can do is specualte.

Vote splitting may be an American term but it did not begin with Oscar races. It is a term used to describe political races in which similar candidates split the majority vote and a candidate liked by a minority emerges as the winner. A similar term is spoiler effect in which a supposed less popular candidate pulls enough support away from the the supposed front-runner to allow another candidate to win. This term was first used to explain John Adams' 1800 loss of the Presidency to Thomas Jefferson.

Examples of the spoiler effect in Oscar races might be Anne Baxter in All About Eve and MIchael Caine in Sleuth, both good performances but neither a serious threat to either Bette Davis or Laurence Olivier, yet perhaps strong enough to syphon a few votes away from their co-stars. Davis, of course, also had to contend with Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard and Olivier with Marlon Brando in The Godfather. In Davis' case, she and Swanson, both making major comebacks, were the clear front-runners, purportedly liked by a majority of the voters, either one of whom could/would likely have won if the other hadn't been in the race. This is what likely caused the upset that resulted in Judy Holliday's unexpected win for Born Yesterday. In the Olivier/Brando match-up, Brando was the clear favorite and was probably an easy winner.

In other situations where two or more actors are nominated for the same film, such as Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole in Becket, there may be vote splitting involved, but in that particular case, Rex Harrison was the odds-on favorite for My Fair Lady anyway.

Marisa Tomei's win for My cousin Vinny, which is the one most often attributed to vote splitting is perhaps the easist to understand. She was up against four well-respected actresses in strong dramatic roles, each of whom were equally well-liked. A win by any of them would have been well-deserved, but Tomei's unexpected win was so delightful no one except Rex Reed, who claimed Jack Palance read the wrong name, could get upset.

Most races, however, are not won or lost because of vote splitting even in situations where the winner is a surprise. Juliette Binoche's unexpected win over Lauren Bacall, for example, is attributed to three things: the popularity of The English Patient, the general dislike of The Mirror Has Two Faces and in some measure to Lauren Bacall's somewhat frosty reputation within the industry.

[Reza]

flipp525.......Sidney and Dennis, both wonderful choices.

In fact Another Woman had many superb performances......Rowlands, Hackman and Ian Holm too.

[ITALIANO]

I think the reaason Italiano gets upset when we talk about vote splitting is that it sounds like sour grapes, but it really isn't. Sometimes the winner is actually the better choice. I don't think that was the case here, but I seem to be in the minority.

No, sorry, Big Magilla, I know that you are joking but let me be clear - I get upset because vote-splitting is an American invention, it doesn't have any kind of psychological, rational, and most importantly MATHEMATICAL basis, and it's only used - again: by Americans - to explain Oscar wins they don't agree with (as is the case here), but conveniently forgotten in the 1000 other times it could have happened but didn't (for example when two actors are nominated for the same movie and one wins - shouldn't vote-splitting apply in a case when two nominees at least REALLY have something objective in common?). And a theory, a scientific theory, must be proven, and proven often, to be actually TRUE.

Two actors are, say, tall, or have red hair - and here comes, according to Americans, vote-splitting. Two actors are front-runners, and they can be damaged by vote-splitting JUST FOR THIS REASON - an American paradox: one shouldn't be the front-runner in order to emerge as the front-runner. (It's a bit like saying, as someone did on this board, that since the majority of Americans think that Iran is an Arab country then it's not wrong to consider it an Arab country. Again: an American paradox. But paradoxes can be very dangerous, as is ignorance.)

The way this vote-splitting theory is so often repeated, not on this board anymore thank God, but in so many other Oscar boards, and used as the easiest, most convenient explanation for wins and losses we don't agree with, is, personal opinion of course, the ultimate proof of another widespread theory (believe me: very widespread around the world), not scientific either but probably more realistic: Americans just aren't very intelligent. Americans in general, of course. Great, democratic country - but can I say it finally after years on this board? Not the most intelligent people in the world. And in case you find this offensive, take it as just another paradox. You should be used to them.

(I'm not talking about those on this board, otherwise I wouldn't be here of course. But check other Oscar boards and you will agree with me).

Plus, I mean, ok, Landau and Stockwell are both veterans, but for example Stockwell and Kline both played over-the-top characters in broad comedies - so shouldn't vote-splitting apply, for some voters, even in THEIR case? And so on... One can always find the vote-splitting combination he or she chooses, but then all these vote-splits would cancel each other out, EVEN if this theory were rational from a mathematical point of view (which, in a field of five - because the nominees are five, not three - it isn't).

The truth is - and this is mathematical - the one who is liked the most by the majority of voters win. Deservedly or undeservedly.

[Big Magilla]

Michael Keaton had the title role in Beetlejuice but the film itself was an ensemble piece in which Alec Baldwin and Genna Davis could be perceived to be the stars much as Cary Grant and Constance Bennett were considered the stars of Topper even though Roland Young had the title role.

In any event, Keaton's National Society of film critis award ws for both this and Clean and Sober in whcih he was the clear lead. He was nominated for a Saturn award in the supporting category, losing to Robert Loggia in Big. He couldfit in eitehr category, which might explain his lack of a nomination in either one.