Best Supporting Actor 1981

[Reza]

Voted for Gielgud.

My picks for 1981:

1. John Gielgud, Arthur
2. Robert Preston, S.O.B.
3. Jack Nicholson, Reds
4. James Coco, Only When I Laugh
5. Howard E. Rollins Jr., Ragtime

The 6th Spot: Ian Holm, Chariots of Fire

[ITALIANO]

Noble, yes, but it was the Nobel Prize he won

Of course

[Mister Tee]

I was generally fond of James Coco as an actor, but Only When I Laugh was such a vile vehicle I can't support his being cited for it. As replacements, I'd advocate most sharply for Robert Preston in S.O.B. (wher I find him more genuinely funny than in the film that will likely win him next year's prize), Jerry Ohrbach in Prince of the City, or Charles Durning in True Confessions. (Durning sort of made up for missing here by getting relatively undeserved nods the following two years)

I think Ian Holm is a bit more of a standout in Chariots of Fire than some are implying. Not that he was at his most impressive, but it was a noticeable role. (A friend of mine said he was sure he'd get a nomination when he saw the trailer where Holm punched his fist through his hat)

Coalhouse Walker on paper was clearly the plum role in Ragtime, and buzz about Howard Rollins' performance started spreading well before the film opened. It was a little surprising, then, finally watching the film, to see how un-firebrandy a performance it was -- closer to Sidney Poitier than Samuel L. Jackson. Not that I'm a foe of restrained acting, but it seemed to me Coalhouse needed a little more of a wild-hair to make the character work. Rollins, like a lot of Ragtime, shows commendable, dogged effort, but doesn't ignite the way one would have hoped.

Jack Nicholson does give one of his less demonstrative performances as O'Neill, and is very effective throughout. (My favorite moment comes in the latter half, when Keaton/Louise visits him brimming over with Communist fervor, and he dryly offers, "I hear all this, I say to myself, Eugene, another Irish Catholicism") But I've voted for Jack four times for best actor, and there isn't much alternative to voting for him two years from now, so I'm giving someone else a chance this time.

I agree that Arthur starts off funnier than it ends, but for me the cut-off point is considerably further into the film -- maybe an hour. And the laughs provided in that hour -- by Moore, by Gielgud, even a few by Minnelli -- are enough to make me remember the film fondly. Above all, I recall Gielgud's dry-ice delivery of one zinger after another. Yes, it's hardly the role for which Gielgud should be remembered. But Oscar doesn't offer us a whole lot of choices where he's concerned, so I'm taking what's on offer, endorsing the Academy choice for the 4th year in a row.

[Big Magilla]

Jack Nicholson's dark, pensive Eugene O'Neill is just another proof of how talented this actor is, even - especially? - when he's in a restrained mood. Gielgud may be, even today, the sentimental favorite in this race; but Nicholson had the more complex role, and played it wonderfully (being, by the way, very believable as a famous intellectual and a future Noble prize winner, something that honestly not many actors can do). He gets my vote.

Noble, yes, but it was the Nobel Prize he won along with four Pultizers.

[ITALIANO]

There's no doubt that John Gielgud was one of the greatest actors ever, and that he should have an Oscar - for Providence, for example, one of the very few movies where he got a role worthy of his talent. The problem is that Arthur just isn't very good. It didn't seem very good even back in 1981 - it just seemed funnier, and for some reason became a big box-office hit. Gielgud had a nice role, but one he could have played in his sleep - he had played it before actually, and would play it again countless times. So, while I'm glad that he has an Oscar, here I'm free to vote for someone else without gult feelings. He'll probably win here too, anyway.

Ian Holm has been great both in supporting (Dance with a Stranger) and leading (The Sweet Hereafter) roles, but he doesn't really have much to do in Chariots of Fire. James Coco is probably the best of the Only When I Laugh cast, and he had been a reliable character actor for years, but his movie is a very minor one. As for Howard Rollins, he was a very handsome, potentially charismatic man who had been lucky enough to get a "big" role in an important film. He's good in Ragtime, certainly deserving of a nomination - but the important career some predicted for him unfortunately never actually happened.

Jack Nicholson's dark, pensive Eugene O'Neill is just another proof of how talented this actor is, even - especially? - when he's in a restrained mood. Gielgud may be, even today, the sentimental favorite in this race; but Nicholson had the more complex role, and played it wonderfully (being, by the way, very believable as a famous intellectual and a future Noble prize winner, something that honestly not many actors can do). He gets my vote.

[Precious Doll]

Reasonable line-up though I can barely remember Ian Holm.

My choices:

1. David Warner for Time Bandits
2. Vittorio Mezzogiorno for Three Brothers
3. Eric Roberts for Raggedy Man
4. Michele Placido for Three Brothers
5. James Coco for Only When I Laugh

[Sabin]

I haven't seen Only When I Laugh, Ragtime, or Chariots of Fire, so I'm obviously not voting.

Arthur is a baffling comedy. The first twenty minutes or so are just wonderful, very amusing. And then it becomes a strangely dry affair. The screenplay is a mess and ends on a note of completely unearned mega-success. I remember speaking to Damien about how only the 80s could produce a comedy that finishes in such a self-congratulatory fashion. But John Gielgud is delightful. I wouldn't call it great acting and I once read a screenwriting book that likened a supporting surrogate father figure to "The Hobson", a character who exists to move the lead character's journey along, and bat him on the head but with love. Gielgud is a great "Hobson", but the character really is just a plot function with some very droll lines.

As Jack Nicholson's career sunsets towards the great Lakers' Box Seats in the sky, it seems as though he won Oscars for roles that exemplify some of the worst in his habits. A performance like the one he gives in Reds is something we only see intermittently from this point out in his career. It's nice that John Gielgud has an Oscar and there are plenty of other opportunities to vote for Nicholson, but were I to choose between the two I'd go with Nicholson.

[OscarGoesTwo]

Rollins.

I fee just like Elizabeth McGovern in Ragtime, Rollins gave the best performance and lost unfortunately

[Big Magilla]

Gilegud with Nicolson the only other oen I'd vote for.

Coco had the odd distinction of being nominated for an Oscar and a Razzie for the same role. He's an OK nominee in a rather disappointing year in this category. Rollins was OK, but Ragtime is such a missed opportunity I can't in good conscience consider anyone from that film as award-worthy. Holm is also OK but not really award worthy either.

My cadnidates for Rollins' and Holm's slots are Charles Durning in True Confessions and Jerry Orbach in Prince of the City with Robert Preston in S.O.B. in sixth place.

[MovieFan]

I think Nicholson gave his best supporting performance in this film, far better than his others like A Few Good Men and Terms of Endearment, he gets my vote here.

[Greg]

I will not vote as I have not seen Reds or Ragtime; but, I must say that Gielgud has one of my all-time favorite line deliveries in, "Genreally, one must go to a bowling alley to meet a woman of your stature."

[ksrymy]

I haven't seen Coco's performance so I won't vote because I have access to this film through my campus. I'll post my vote later.

Gielgud has my vote at the moment with Nicholson trailing ever so closely behind.