Best Supporting Actor 1951: Results

5. Leo Genn in Quo Vadis- Genn gives a dull performance that just goes through the motions of a part that in better hands could have stolen a few scenes.

4. Kevin McCarthy in Death of a Salesman- Although McCarthy is not helped by his co-stars or his film he still manages to give a convincing portrayal of a troubled young man.

3. Gig Young in Come Fill The Cup- Young gives an effective performance as a rich drunk who tries to sober up.

2. Peter Ustinov in Quo Vadis- Ustinov is wildly broad in his portrayal of the mad Nero and it works. He creates an entertaining portrait of this mad man while being an effective villain as well.

1. Karl Malden in A Streetcar Named Desire- Good Prediction RatedRStar especially since you even guessed Young's placement, and Michael Patison. Where Ustinov is greatness surrounded by dullness Malden is greatness within greatness. Rather than being swallowed whole by the power house performances around him Malden not only perfectly supports these performances, but also makes his character stand on his own as well.

Deserving Performances:
Mervyn Johns in Scrooge
Michael Hordern in Scrooge

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1951: Gig Young in Come Fill Cup

Gig Young received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Boyd Copeland in Come Fill The Cup.

Come Fill The Cup tells about a news paper editor Lew Marsh (James Cagney) who after hitting rock bottom as an alcoholic comes back, and later is called on to help another alcoholic do the same. Also since it is a James Cagney film I guess he also needs to take down a couple of gangsters.

Gig Young portrays the alcoholic Lew is sent to help, since Boyd is the nephew one of his higher ups in his newspaper. The only problem is Boyd happens to be married to Cagney's character's former girlfriend. Young as usual for him is good in the role of the rich man with a drinking problem. What works about Young's performance is that early in his performance he actually does not stress that his character is a drinker to that great of a degree. At a time when many actors who played drunk absolutely overplayed them, Young actually mostly focuses on the fact that he is rich drunkard more than just a drunkard.

All of his behavior early on Young treats Boyd problem fairly casually, since unlike when Lew was drunk he never once has to worry about his drink actually ever running out. Boyd can simply afford to be a drunk in a way, even if he is not living anywhere near his potential he can't quite hit rock bottom since he can always afford more drink. Young shows Boyd really never takes his drinking seriously, and even when he is heavily drinking he always acts as if hew just sort of having his own little party at all times. Young makes through this shows Boyd's history as a drinker, and why he really has been one for as long as he has.

In Young's portrayal of Boyd as a heavy drinker, who is always acting as if he is just a casual drinker shows exactly why it is difficult for anyone to get him to quit as it seems to be. Eventually though due to a tragedy that Boyd feels responsible for he does hit rock bottom, and faces going through withdrawal as well as suicidal feelings. Although there is not a transition to this place in Young's performance there really should not be since he is faced with the results of his drinking in such a severe and sudden fashion. In his scene of withdrawal and suicide combined Young nails it.

In this scene that is quite a challenge, Young brings to life all of the emotions Boyd is going through. Young appropriately brings to life the intense pain, and guilt into the moment. Young effortlessly conveys just how much the tragedy has weighed upon him. What is amazing though is in the same moment he also brings to life the horrible physical ramifications from his withdrawal as well. Scenes like this are easy to get quite wrong but luckily Young successfully brings all of the horrendous effects of this to life without once resorting to overacting. Young is terrific here because he effectively brings everything involved in Boyd's state alive here.

After this scene it jumps to Boyd having found his way towards recovering, and this is technically rushed a bit by the fact that it is told rather than shown by Young. Nevertheless when we do see Boyd again Young is convincing in presenting a recovered Boyd. Young is good here because he still shows that Boyd is not suddenly fixed. There is still just the right amount of hesitation in his performance showing that Boyd certainly has not forgotten his past, but Young as well does show a much stronger and more confidant man that before. Although somewhat limited by the film this is most certainly a good performance by Young that successfully fulfills his role. (Special thanks to Derek Bowman for helping me see this performance) 

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1951: Kevin McCarthy in Death of a Salesman

Kevin McCarthy received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Biff Loman in Death of a Salesman.

Kevin McCarthy portrays the son of the titular salesman Willy Loman (Fredric March). I will admit there is plenty against McCarthy here. The film is directed is an excessively dreary fashion, and is lead by a preposterous performance by March, and McCarthy himself shares many scenes with Mildred Dunnock as Biff's mother who gives an excessively overbearing performance. It also does not help that the structure of the picture certainly does not give McCarthy a great deal of focus to really showing the transition of  just exactly how Biff came into his current state. There is the initial cause that is shown, but the film never of course leaves his character out of somehow connected with his father.

Although McCarthy is surrounded by some excessively theatrical acting that wants to get there character's point across like they are trying to reach the back row of a theater rather than someone seeing every inch of their face right there on the film, McCarthy actually does stand apart from most of his co-stars by giving a far more realistic and a far less overblown of a performance. McCarthy manages to keep his performance dialed back, and does attempt to draw a believable character out of the material. This is in itself a challenge because the film always seems to be making the character's simply representative symbolic types, rather than a stand alone person, luckily McCarthy does actually try to be a real person as Biff.

Kevin McCarthy is good in the flashbacks scenes as the ideal son of the period. In these scenes McCarthy effectively has a carefree quality in his performance that shows that Biff is not having any sort of deep thinking about his father or his own future at this point in his life. McCarthy is believable as the happy son who gets along well with his father, and he makes the relationship properly ideal, even though March still seems off even in these scenes. Nevertheless McCarthy properly sets up the fall of his character after Biff loses all of the pride he had in regard to his father after he catches his father with a woman. McCarthy actually is great in this scene quietly bringing to life just how shattered Biff is over losing his respect he had.

McCarthy in that scene shows so well Biff's pain over his loss of his connection with his father that McCarthy effectively explains how Biff came to the point where he is during the scenes of the film that take place during the present. In most of his present scenes McCarthy does one of two things talk about Biff's own inability to make something of himself or fight with his father over his father's narrow minded views that have driven him mad. McCarthy actually again handles both of these types of scenes well, and does his very best to turn Biff's struggles to life despite being around March and Dunnock's theatrics.

McCarthy manages to bring to life the confused state Biff well. Biff is unable to keep a job one way or another, and has no idea what he wants to do with himself. McCarthy portrays this confusion well he never shows exactly what makes Biff the way he is, but rather there is always a lack of confidence he shows within Biff that defies him. McCarthy is equally effective in his scenes where he confronts Willy. McCarthy again is strong here because he shows that there is indeed love in Biff for his father, but rather his problems with his father almost come entirely from knowing his father's rigid philosophy leads to nothing worth while. Even in his more frustrated scenes McCarthy properly shows that there is no hatred for his father, but only disappointment and pain over what his father is. Kevin McCarthy is quite effective in the role, but I will say this effectiveness is quite muted by the mediocrity of the film on a whole. McCarthy has no equal here, and his scenes do not have the power they possibly could have had if the film had simply been better. Still McCarthy makes the most out of his part given the situation and deserves to recognized for doing so.

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1951: Karl Malden in A Streetcar Named Desire

Karl Malden won his Oscar from his first nomination for portraying Harold "Mitch" Mitchum in A Streetcar Named Desire.

Karl Malden portrays one of Stanley Kowalski (Marlon Brando)'s Poker buddies who attempts to court Stanley seriously troubled sister in-law Blanche DuBois (Vivien Leigh). Mitch is different than Stanley and his friends in that he dresses and acts much more properly and lives with his sick mother whom he takes care of. Malden is perfect in the role being an excellent foil against Marlon Brando's Stanley. Malden portrays Mitch as calmly, and as reserved just as Brando portrays Stanley as loud, and outrageous. Malden makes Mitch almost the opposite of Brando in his quiet portrayal, but he is always careful to show that Mitch still is from the same exact world as the other men as well.

Mitch certainly is proper, and dresses in fine clothing, and tries to treat women in a gentlemanly fashion as well. Malden though carefully portrays the idea of how much of a true gentleman Mitch is. Malden is effective because he does leave it just enough of a mystery of Mitch. Yes it does seem Mitch genuinely does want to try to be a better sort of man than his friends, but there is always a undercurrent that puts just the right degree of doubt on this as well. There is just the right indication in Malden performance to suggest that part of this might be a bit of a put on caused by his mother's influence. Malden though perfectly makes it so you can't call Mitch a true gentleman, nor just putting on a facade he is something in between.

The most important part of his character though is Mitch's relationship with Blanche DuBois. Malden of course needs to stand along with Vivien Leigh's towering performance, and he keeps up with her every step of the way. Malden though not only stays with Leigh he also avoid being just a supporting man to her. While Leigh has some of her biggest scenes in Malden's presence, Malden never lets himself or Mitch become overshadowed. Even in some of her most dramatic moments Malden still has a prescne in these scenes. He makes Mitch his own man, who never becomes simply just the possible suitor of Blanche DuBois but rather is in his own right an interesting character.

Malden has an interesting and unique chemistry with Leigh that works well in the film. Malden shows that Mitch is honestly quite taken with Blanche, but he also shows that he is almost out of his element when it comes to relating to the woman. Malden shows that Mitch is always trying to be the proper gentleman with her, as much of one as he possibly can be, but Malden always has a shade in his performance reflecting Mitch's inability to truly understand the woman. Malden does not portray it as if Mitch is stupid, but rather Mitch just in reality is simply not able to fully comprehend the past of Blanche, even though Malden shows that Mitch struggles hard to do so.

Karl Malden is excellent in his later scene where after Mitch had discovered the truth behind Blanche, and confronts her over the truth. Malden although is not as outwardly cruel as Brando, there is a certainly almost more painful cruelty employed by Malden in this scene. Malden shows that Mitch is not trying to purposefully destructive toward Blanche, but rather it is almost a gut reaction from Mitch. Malden has that Mitch still does not fully understand, and does not know how really to deal with it so he takes it out on Blanche. Malden is excellent here because he not only brings to life his blunt attack on Blanche, but that it all comes from his own pain and distress from his loss.

Malden does not have a false moment during the film. It is an excellent portrait of this man, and even though Mitch never is the exact focus of any scene Malden nevertheless realizes a complex characterization. There is not a wasted moment in his performance. Mitch frankly could have been little more than just part of the background, but Malden never lets himself to be forgotten. In just the smallest glances, or reactions he says so much. His small little look over the mention of his mother is perfectly amazing in that single expression shows that Mitch in fact hates his mother. Moments like that perpetuate through his performance, and creates a powerful depiction that does far more than simply help Vivien Leigh's performance. Malden makes his work stand alone as well as truly great work from a great actor.

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1951: Peter Ustinov in Quo Vadis

Peter Ustinov received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Roman Emperor Nero in Quo Vadis.

Peter Ustinov portrays the mad Emperor Nero, and this is not a moment in his performance where he tries to underplay the role for a moment. This approach certainly makes sense for the deranged Nero, but also because it is best to avoid the blandness of much of the rest of the film. Ustinov actually seems like he is from an entirely different movie than the rest of Quo Vadis, which is a good thing since it seems like Ustinov is from a much better movie. No one else in the film is on the same wavelength here as Peter Ustinov who is out on his own limb for the entire film.

Ustinov plays up just how absurd of a ruler Nero is the entire film, he is always just one big man child who wants his ways and his whims, and wants everyone to appreciate how great he is. Ustinov is very entertaining in the role, always sitting in some off kilter fashion, always making broad gestures and making very distinct facial expressions. It is one big broad portrait of a complete lunatic, that really works well. He performance could easily be characterized as insane, and it is. This style absolutely works for Nero, and even though insanity can be played in a subtle fashion that probably would not have been the right approach for Nero.

The reason that this broad portrayal is perfect for Nero is because Nero is not only insane, but he is the ruler of a whole country who is completely off his rocker. Ustinov does not hesitate to show that not only is this many crazy by nature but his power he has from his position only serves to amplify it all the more greatly. After all Nero is the man who killed his own mother, and even sets the whole city of Rome on fire. He sets his own capital on fire for nothing more than just to fulfill his own pipe dream of a greater palace. Ustinov brings to life the absolutely deranged man who could have done these almost unbelievable actions.

Ustinov is an excellent villain here, and does absolutely control every scene he is in, in fact even when he is not on screen his whole character is the driving force of the film. Ustinov is terrific here because he both has fun with his portrayal of Nero, while still does keep him threatening as a villain as well. Ustinov shows that Nero is not overly smart in fact in many he ways he is quite a bumbler, and is actually quite amusing in showing just how much of a spoiled brat he is. He certainly plays these as "big" but never overplays them these too much and does bring the humor out of the scenes whether he is complaining about his people, or singing one of his terrible songs.

Ustinov though also manages to be an appropriately chilling villain, and he is particularly amazing though because he always shows it as one and the same as in his more humorous moments. Ustinov effectively shows that although Nero can be entertaining in his behavior he can be equally a dangerous one because the exact same tendencies can bring death. In his scenes where he watches people being brutally murdered, or orders the death of many it is all in the same exact way. Ustinov shows that Nero is so deranged and has been so in that way his whole life he really cannot understand even that he is being immoral.

Ustinov gives a great performance here, and is without question the best part of the film. I frankly think it would have been a far far better film if it had only been solely about Nero since really Ustinov's performance is the only performance that is at all interesting. I would say that in fact Ustinov almost makes the film worth watching, but he is not quite in this three hour film enough to make the film enjoyable. Nevertheless when ever he is on screen he instantly makes those scenes worth watching. This is certainly not a subtle turn for Ustinov but it is an incredibly effective performance that made me wish the film actually had been about his character.

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1951: Leo Genn in Quo Vadis

Leo Genn received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Petronius in Quo Vadis.

Quo Vadis is an overly long biblical epic about the persecution of Christians in Rome.

Leo Genn portrays one of the advisers of the depraved Roman Emperor Nero (Peter Ustinov). Although he always stays by Nero he is very critical of him, but rather than outright show it he only indicates it through small critiques and suggestion he gives the Emperor. Here is a performance that I almost felt like I should go easy on as if the character just is not that complicated, but really this is in all actuality a wasted opportunity. To say how this is a wasted opportunity I suppose I should say how Genn plays the part, and than say how someone else could have portrayed the part.

Leo Genn plays the part as quite a dull supporting turn as a man who is just basically part of the background most of the time. In his scenes when he is advising Nero there is not a moment where you taken attention away from Ustinov and give it to him. There really is not a passion in his performance, and he most just seems to be going through the motions. The same is true in his scenes with Robert Taylor's Roman soldier who is having a clash of conscience. Genn again just plays in a far too standard of a fashion he says his lines he needs to say in his intellectual, but boring intellectual sort of way, and that is it.

His character is suppose to have a transition of sorts but even this is all one scene, and Genn keeps it quite underwhelming. When he comes to his realization that he must do something he merely, comes to realization there is not a struggle that Genn brings to life. His character eventually commits suicide in a scene that is so nonchalant it almost feels like a scene from a black comedy, but not quite so I still can't even give it credit for that. There certainly is no emotions that really come from this scene even though not just one but two people kill themselves slowly. Genn just is plainly dull in the scene which is quite amazing.

I could put this all up that this is just a simple character or something like that, but no I think this could have been a great character. Reportedly Claude Rains was considered for this part, and I must say I would have loved to see him in this role. Really the constantly criticizing Petronius could have been a wonderful sardonic scene stealing presence. If the actor had really fun in the role in just showing how much Petronius is the smartest man in the role he perhaps could have tried to be as interesting as Nero in their scenes together. He could have sly comedic touch that really could have brought life to the part.

In many ways this character is very similar to Charles Laughton's character in Spartacus who is another character carefully working around a crazed dictator, and how Laughton was in that film shows exactly how another actor like Claude Rains could have been in this film. As it is Genn depiction of Pertronius adds nothing to the film there is not a single moment in his performance that is even interesting. He does nothing with the role past just read his lines in a technically acceptable, but also quite boring fashion. His whole performance is just a dull performance which is a real shame since the role could have been a true scene stealing in better hands.

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1951

And the Nominees Were:

Gig Young in Come Fill the Cup 

Kevin McCarthy in Death of a Salesman

Karl Malden in A Streetcar Named Desire 

Peter Ustinov in Quo Vadis

Leo Genn in Quo Vadis

Read More