Best Supporting Actor 1995

[The Original BJ]

James Cromwell is a solid actor, and Babe is a pleasant movie, but I don't really think he has all that much to do in this role. "That'll do, pig" is a nice moment, but not the stuff that Oscars are made of.

I like the fact that Tim Roth doesn't overplay his villain in Rob Roy -- there's a tendency among even good actors to push this type of role too far into foppish, cartoonish behavior. But Roth remains believably human throughout, though I don't think his part is terribly dominant. And I find Roby Roy, on the whole, to be a rather dreary thing.

Was Ed Harris the favorite going in to Oscar night? I'd have to imagine, given his SAG win, his film's slew of nominations, and his solid resume up until that point, that I probably would have bet on him. Harris is an actor I like a lot, and he's solid in a very typical Harris role -- a tough but human authority figure -- but I don't think this work inches into "special" territory.

Looking back at 12 Monkeys, it's easy to see the beginnings of the compelling actor (in very interesting mainstream movies) that Brad Pitt would become. He's clearly having a ton of fun with his role in this movie -- I guess I never felt his tics and twitches tipped too far into annoying territory -- and he just commands the screen any time his character pops up in the story. But I'm of the mind that Pitt's best work is still ahead of him, and I'm actually really looking forward to seeing his screen contributions in the coming years.

Kevin Spacey, on the other hand, is NOT an actor who I think has his best work ahead of him. But The Usual Suspects came along during a (too-short) period when he was doing consistently excellent work, year after year. His Verbal Kint is an extreme creation, from the limpy leg to the motor-mouth dialogue, but Spacey finds the humanity in him and keeps him consistently exciting, up until the film's surprise ending. And I'd say this is a pretty solidly supporting role -- he might narrate the movie, but he's clearly just one member of an ensemble in the flashback sequences. So, I join with the majority and endorse Spacey's win here during his late-90's creative peak.

[Bruce_Lavigne]

I would've accepted, for example, a lead actress campaign for Andie MacDowell in Short Cuts based on not much more than the fact that her charcater just feels like a dominant role.

I have to admit, I've occasionally come up with category placement for my personal awards based on little more than this.

[koook160]

Oh, and koook160, you have a really cunty tone for someone so new to the board.

I admit, my tone was too harsh, and I should probably establish myself before I start a debate. But I don't think that gives you the right to call my tone "cunty". So I ask you; Where do YOU get of? You're really not much better than me. In fact, I didn't resort to insulting like you just did. I didn't curse either. If you want to call me out for poor behavior, do so in a more professinal manner.

[flipp525]

It is not John Travolta's story. It's a tapestry. There is no lead in Short Cuts or Magnolia either.

This too much of a blanket statement. Even in ensemble films, certain roles and performances can naturally feel more dominant and "Lead"-like. I would've accepted, for example, a lead actress campaign for Andie MacDowell in Short Cuts based on not much more than the fact that her charcater just feels like a dominant role.

Oh, and koook160, you have a really cunty tone for someone so new to the board.

[Sabin]

I haven't seen the film. I'm not saying he's not good. I'm just saying it would at least to me (from the outside) seem odd that John Leguazamo as in the running for a nomination for To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar. I've seen him good in a few movies in the past like in Spike Lee's underrated Summer of Sam and he might end up being better than some of the actual nominees. Just seems kinda weird that he was a Golden Globe nominee and some thought he would be nominated.

[OscarGuy]

I would have had no qualms listing Leguizamo for To Wong Foo. He was quite good. There were probably five better performances in the year, but I don't think his name would be anathema.

[Sabin]

This lineup while fairly lackluster has always been kind of a strange one to me. James Cromwell was a surprise nominee at the time, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it. It always happens when there's a small vacuum in a category. Someone gets swept along into Supporting, and there weren't going to be two nominees from Apollo 13 and there wasn't going to be one from Braveheart. That leaves Phillipe Noiret from Il Postino, Alan Rickman for Sense and Sensibility. Rickman makes more sense as a nominee, but I'm thrilled they went for Cromwell.

The Golden Globes nominated Harris, Pitt, Roth, Spacey, and John Leguazamo for To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar. Now, I haven't seen that film, but I don't think there's a chance in hell anyone could place down in their predictions John Leguazamo for To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar. So that means Ed Harris, Brad Pitt, and Kevin Spacey are solidly in the running, as is Tim Roth whose performance in Rob Roy - again! - seems like the kind of film that would never get noticed because it was overshadowed by a bigger one and it was a flop. But the Golden Globe at least must have pushed it to the forefront. Then in their second year, the Screen Actor's Guild Awards nominated only Harris and Spacey from the Globes lineup and threw in Kevin Bacon for Murder in the First, Kenneth Branagh for Othello, and Don Cheadle for Devil in a Blue Dress. I think I remember predicting Devil in a Blue Dress at the time. As I look now, I see that Cheadle was the only one who made any dent in Spacey's critic's sweep. Not just a dent! He won Best Supporting Actor from the Los Angeles Film Critic's Association and The National Society of Film Critics. Branagh's nomination is the most confusing to me. He certainly tears it up Othello, but it's not a particularly deep Iago. And the film stiffed. Murder in the First was just arriving into theaters and Bacon had a showy role, but it wasn't particularly well-received. Then again, if Primal Fear would end up an Oscar nominee, why wouldn't Murder in the First? And then of course, Devil in a Blue Dress failed to make any impact at the box office.

So, you've got a race where only Ed Harris, Brad Pitt (with his Golden Globe win and high visibility), and Kevin Spacey are standing on solid ground, and a bunch of actors in films either not seen or liked hovering. It's kind of surprising that Cromwell AND Rickman weren't nominated.

[ITALIANO]

Easy year: impossible not to pick Kevin Spacey, who not only WAS Supporting in the ensemble piece The Usual Suspects, but also had a great character and played it to technical perfection. Plus, he plays essentially an actor in the movie, and as Pirandello knew so well, these are always the best roles - for any performer. Of course, except for Luise Rainer, Spacey is the two-Oscars-winner who has profited least from this. Intentionally, I guess.

Of the others, both James Crowell and Ed Harris didn't have much to do in their movies, but at least Harris did project a certain quiet charisma which was perfect for his role. Tim Roth and Brad Pitt were better, and Pitt was actually a surprise for those - including me - who had always thought of him as little more than a pretty face. We still considered this an exception - the character was, after all, so showy and extreme - and only years later we had to realize that that "pretty face" had grown into a relaxed, mature presence, one which American cinema now can certainly count on.

As for category fraud... it DOES happen, of course, but not as often as some here keep complaining.

[ksrymy]

It is not John Travolta's story. It's a tapestry. There is no lead in Short Cuts or Magnolia either.

I would agree. He's more like Brittany Murphy's character in Sin City: he's not a definitive lead, but he is the only character to appear in all the stories in the film. Now, Travolta has at least ninety more minutes of screen time than Murphy.

I myself would put Travolta as a lead for the same reason listed below: he has maybe one-and-a-half to two maximum times the amount of screentime as Jackson does because of the Thurman and Stoltz scenes. The only time we don't see Travolta with Jackson on-screen is at the end in the diner when Ringo and Honey Bunny are robbing the place.

In fact, the only time Travolta is not on-screen during his segments is when he's in the bathroom. Funny enough, whenever Travolta is in the bathroom in the film, everything goes to Hell in a handbasket really quickly (his death, Mia's overdose, and the diner robbery).

[Mister Tee]

It is not John Travolta's story. It's a tapestry. There is no lead in Short Cuts or Magnolia either.

I can certainly go along with the idea that no one is lead in Pulp Fiction. But Greg is right, that people who advocate for Samuel L. Jackson as co-leading actor in the film don't seem to take into account the huge disparity in screen time between him and Travolta. That Jackson is more dynamic, makes more of an impression, is a good reason to maybe vote for him...but it doesn't make his role any bigger. Maybe they're both supporting. But if one of these two actors is lead, it sure ain't Jackson.

The fact that someone has the most screen time in a film doesn't make him/her a lead, any more than being the least unattractive family member makes one automatically a beauty. I'm sort of startled by koook's (hope I had enough o's in there) mad insistence we bow to his take on this particular issue; it's clear people have given this thought, and opinion leans the other direction. And I definitely reject the idea that this board in general is oblivious to category fraud (though there might be individsual exceptions). I've in fact observed plenty of leaning the other way: at times it seems anyone with more than 15 minutes screen time is pushed for lead here. I remember Penelope arguing that, in No Country for Old Men, Brolin, Jones and Bardem (maybe even Harrelson) were all leads, which I thought was absurd.

The Academy has of course helped create this issue by allowing people like Tatum O'Neal and Hailee Steinfeld to blatantly carpretbag. But I think the fraud police occasionally bend too far in the other direction, screaming in outrage about perfectly defensible cases.

[Sabin]

It is not John Travolta's story. It's a tapestry. There is no lead in Short Cuts or Magnolia either.

[flipp525]

I'm one of the Board's biggest prosecutors of category fraud. Pulp Fiction? There are either two leads (John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson) or they're all supporting.

Well, I have always thought of Travolta as lead and Jackson as supporting; because, Travolta is in all of Jackson's scenes plus he is also in all those scenes with Uma Thurman.

He also, if you'll recall, briefly pops up in "The Gold Watch" section (only to be killed).

[koook160]

Also, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at in the last statement. Care to clarify?

I think he's mentioning that William H. Macy is much more a case of fraud in Fargo than Kevin Spacey is here.

Yes, yes it is. Sigh...

[Greg]

I'm one of the Board's biggest prosecutors of category fraud. Pulp Fiction? There are either two leads (John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson) or they're all supporting.

Well, I have always thought of Travolta as lead and Jackson as supporting; because, Travolta is in all of Jackson's scenes plus he is also in all those scenes with Uma Thurman.

[ksrymy]

Also, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at in the last statement. Care to clarify?

I think he's mentioning that William H. Macy is much more a case of fraud in Fargo than Kevin Spacey is here.