Richard Attenborough in The Sand Pebbles
Richard Crenna in The Sand Pebbles
Lee Van Cleef in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
John Hurt in A Man for All Seasons
Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2005: Ed Harris in A History of Violence
Ed Harris did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Carl Fogarty in A History of Violence.Ed Harris portrays the Philadelphia gangster who comes looking for diner owner Tom Stall who recently killed two men trying to rob his diner..
Best Supporting Actor 2011: Nick Nolte in Warrior
Nick Nolte received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Paddy Conlon in Warrior.Warrior details a winner take all mixed martial art tournament whose two main combatants are estranged brothers (Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton) fighting for their own difficult reasons.
Alternate Best Actor 2011
And the Nominees Were Not:Ryan Gosling in DriveRobert Wieckiewicz in In DarknessMichael Fassbender in ShameMichael Shannon in Take ShelterBrendan Gleeson in The Guard..
Showing posts with label 1966 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1966 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Friday, April 27, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1966: Results
Richard Attenborough in The Sand Pebbles
Richard Crenna in The Sand Pebbles
Lee Van Cleef in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
John Hurt in A Man for All Seasons
Best Supporting Actor 1966: Robert Shaw in A Man For All Seasons
Robert Shaw received his only Oscar nomination for portraying King Henry VIII in A Man for All Seasons.
I should get it out of the way that Robert Shaw is one of my favorite actors. I have loved him in every performance of his that I have seen so far. It is one of the biggest mistakes by the academy that Shaw was only nominated once, frankly he should have been nominated at least for 73 for the Sting, 74 for The Taking Pelham One Two Three, and 75 for Jaws. If Shaw had won for any of those three great performances of his than he would have been a terrific winner. Unfortunately Shaw was only nominated once for portraying the most popular Oscar character ever King Henry VIII.
Henry was previously portrayed by Charles Laughton, and later by Richard Burton who both were nominated in the lead category for their performances as the English King. Although Burton and Shaw both portray Henry at the same time in his life, when he took over the church to marry Anne Boleyn, his portrayal has more in common with Laughton's work than Burton's excessively over the top and sometimes unconvincing performance in Anne of the Thousand Days. Shaw like Laughton focuses on the sort of the spoiled brat personality one can develop over having been given anything he has ever wanted in life as well as being able to do anything he has ever wanted to do.
Unlike Laughton though Shaw is supporting and only has three scenes in which he appears one very very briefly from far away, but his second scene certainly is his most important. The moment comes as Henry unexpectedly comes to visit his new chancellor Thomas Moore (Paul Scofield) to see if Moore has changed his mind over Henry's decision to marry Anne Boleyn. Shaw knows how to portray Henry and from his first moment coming in through the shine of the sun you know that this man is King. Shaw has an undeniable presence on screen which he exploits perfectly as Henry. There is no question this man is charge his voice his broad manner, Shaw makes Henry a man of absolute sway.
Shaw has a childlike enthusiasm in the role which absolutely represents his portrayal of Henry. He is always childish which Shaw turns into a believable trait of Henry that suggests his history as always a man of wealth and power. Shaw always shows Henry always showing his power pretty much just for fun at times, of course he can act loud, even obnoxious whenever he wants. Shaw shows that Henry is always aware of the fact that he can act this way and no one can say anything about it. Shaw has a constant fun loving quality that is perfect for the immaturity in Henry. Interestingly though Shaw successfully always brings an undercurrent of threatening instability in Henry.
Shaw is terrific in his scene with Scofield as the two men talk over the pressing issue of the marriage and the troubles with church. Shaw is great as he constantly tries to stay friendly as Henry in the scene. He always has a certain smile and warmth toward Thomas that shows that they certainly are friends, but Shaw has just the right degree of uncertainty in his performance to show that Henry knows his friend might not be on his side for once. Shaw is particularly great when he goes on the attack, but it is fast and almost unexpected as his look goes from the of friendship to hatred just from the mentioning of the former chancellor who Henry feels betrayed him. It is a careful simple threat to Thomas which he darts in the middle of the conversation between the warmth, Shaw pulls this off flawlessly.
After this Shaw has one more scene at the wedding with he and Anne Boleyn. Again Shaw is superb in showing the lust in Henry's eyes he has for his eyes. There is passion, and an obvious expectations of much pleasure for himself in just this short moment, which Shaw pulls of brilliantly. Frankly Shaw shows more depth for this relationship with Anne in his single scene than Richard Burton did in the whole of Anne of the Thousand Days. At the end of the scene though he is interrupted as he thinks he sees Thomas. A short moment but an effective one showing that really Henry really did believe Thomas was a friend, and desperately wanted his friend to see things his way.
Shaw is truly quite great in this basically two scene performance. He completely realizes Henry VIII as a character in the film. In his two scenes he seizes control and shows the power of Henry creating the proper impact on the film he needs to. In his few moments he flawlessly creates the antagonist of the film who is almost always working his will off screen and through other men. I actually with there had been more of his Henry VIII. After watching his performance here I actually wish Shaw had gotten a film where he had been the lead as Henry VIII because of what he does with the character despite his extremely limited time. In any case this is a terrific supporting turn that more than fulfills his duties as King Henry.
Henry was previously portrayed by Charles Laughton, and later by Richard Burton who both were nominated in the lead category for their performances as the English King. Although Burton and Shaw both portray Henry at the same time in his life, when he took over the church to marry Anne Boleyn, his portrayal has more in common with Laughton's work than Burton's excessively over the top and sometimes unconvincing performance in Anne of the Thousand Days. Shaw like Laughton focuses on the sort of the spoiled brat personality one can develop over having been given anything he has ever wanted in life as well as being able to do anything he has ever wanted to do.
Unlike Laughton though Shaw is supporting and only has three scenes in which he appears one very very briefly from far away, but his second scene certainly is his most important. The moment comes as Henry unexpectedly comes to visit his new chancellor Thomas Moore (Paul Scofield) to see if Moore has changed his mind over Henry's decision to marry Anne Boleyn. Shaw knows how to portray Henry and from his first moment coming in through the shine of the sun you know that this man is King. Shaw has an undeniable presence on screen which he exploits perfectly as Henry. There is no question this man is charge his voice his broad manner, Shaw makes Henry a man of absolute sway.
Shaw has a childlike enthusiasm in the role which absolutely represents his portrayal of Henry. He is always childish which Shaw turns into a believable trait of Henry that suggests his history as always a man of wealth and power. Shaw always shows Henry always showing his power pretty much just for fun at times, of course he can act loud, even obnoxious whenever he wants. Shaw shows that Henry is always aware of the fact that he can act this way and no one can say anything about it. Shaw has a constant fun loving quality that is perfect for the immaturity in Henry. Interestingly though Shaw successfully always brings an undercurrent of threatening instability in Henry.
Shaw is terrific in his scene with Scofield as the two men talk over the pressing issue of the marriage and the troubles with church. Shaw is great as he constantly tries to stay friendly as Henry in the scene. He always has a certain smile and warmth toward Thomas that shows that they certainly are friends, but Shaw has just the right degree of uncertainty in his performance to show that Henry knows his friend might not be on his side for once. Shaw is particularly great when he goes on the attack, but it is fast and almost unexpected as his look goes from the of friendship to hatred just from the mentioning of the former chancellor who Henry feels betrayed him. It is a careful simple threat to Thomas which he darts in the middle of the conversation between the warmth, Shaw pulls this off flawlessly.
After this Shaw has one more scene at the wedding with he and Anne Boleyn. Again Shaw is superb in showing the lust in Henry's eyes he has for his eyes. There is passion, and an obvious expectations of much pleasure for himself in just this short moment, which Shaw pulls of brilliantly. Frankly Shaw shows more depth for this relationship with Anne in his single scene than Richard Burton did in the whole of Anne of the Thousand Days. At the end of the scene though he is interrupted as he thinks he sees Thomas. A short moment but an effective one showing that really Henry really did believe Thomas was a friend, and desperately wanted his friend to see things his way.
Shaw is truly quite great in this basically two scene performance. He completely realizes Henry VIII as a character in the film. In his two scenes he seizes control and shows the power of Henry creating the proper impact on the film he needs to. In his few moments he flawlessly creates the antagonist of the film who is almost always working his will off screen and through other men. I actually with there had been more of his Henry VIII. After watching his performance here I actually wish Shaw had gotten a film where he had been the lead as Henry VIII because of what he does with the character despite his extremely limited time. In any case this is a terrific supporting turn that more than fulfills his duties as King Henry.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1966: Walter Matthau in The Fortune Cookie
Walter Matthau won his Oscar from his first nomination for portraying William 'Whiplash Willie' Gingrinch in The Fortune Cookie.
The Fortune Cookie tells about a football cameraman Harry Hinkle (Jack Lemmon) who is tackled on the field, and reluctantly agrees to fake severe injury to make money from a liability suit started by his shyster lawyer brother in law.
I do not want to be misunderstood from my first two reviews of Walter Matthau's lead performances that were nominated. One which I really did not care for and the other I thought was only okay. I like Walter Matthau, but he strangely was only nominated in the lead when he played a character much much older than himself for whatever reason, and I am not crazy about Matthau old man mannerisms which strangely drove both of those performances. Walter Matthau though here portrays a character that is suppose to be basically his actual age, and there are no unneeded mannerisms to be seen.
Matthau portrays the brother in law shyster lawyer who pushes hard for the lawsuit. Walter Matthau has sometimes been argued as a lead in this film, and there certainly can be a case for that as he is the driving force of the film, and there are plenty of scenes where he is the central character. I do not mind this placement though as there is another identifiable lead in Jack Lemmon, and there are certainly many scenes where Matthau does not appear. He could really be placed in either category and I really would not mind. I really do not mind though because part of the reason Matthau even stands out the most in scenes where he is not even the focus is because just how good he is as Whiplash Willie.
Matthau is another Oscar winning performance that disputes the idea that the academy never rewards comedic performance, or at least never rewards straightly comedic performances. As with the likes of Peter Ustinov's second win, and Kevin Kline's win, Matthau is another winner who never stops going for laughs with his performance. Matthau absolutely makes the film with his performances as the lawyer who comes up with the trumped up lawsuit to make himself rich. Matthau never tries for a moment to show that old Willie is anything more than a shyster, he wants to make a buck and that is all there is to right down the line.
Matthau simply is hilarious in the role from beginning to end. From his first scene Matthau is comedic gold as the rather amoral lawyer. Much of the humor that comes from his performance are some of his small reactions especially his brilliant look he makes after hearing that Lemmon's character had a previous injury that he could use for his own purposes in a new lawsuit. Matthau has a perfect devilish smile here as Willie that shows Willie's way of finding someway to benefit and exploit just about anything that comes his way anyway that he can. Even though Willie is completely amoral Matthau can't help but make Willie likable, there is just something absolutely endearing about Matthau's portrayal.
Matthau has a constant energy in the role that makes him the best part of every scene, even when has only a couple of lines Matthau still steals the scene, that is simply how enjoyable he is as Willie. Every moment Matthau is an enthusiastic presence and coming out with a terrific line, or reaction every chance he gets. Matthau is hilarious in his whole realization of every part of Willie's plan in every advance and set back Matthau never stops being funny in showing every trick that Willie has up his sleeve. What I like about Matthau's performance is that he always shows that Willie is the smartest man always in the room, even if he uses his intelligence so poorly.
I must say actually that I don't know if Matthau are a great pair actually since in both this and the Odd Couple Matthau absolutely steals the show, not that Lemmon is bad he is good as well actually, but Matthau definitely is the one that you remember from their scenes together. I suppose it really is not Lemmon's fault so much here because Matthau absolutely controls their scenes together, and I suppose one could attest it to Matthau just being absolutely on in his performance here. Matthau never has a wasted scene, or moment in his performance every scene he brings the humor he needs to in the role. As I watched the film I only wanted more of Matthau as Willie he just that entertaining in the role. It is a great performance that always succeeds.
I do not want to be misunderstood from my first two reviews of Walter Matthau's lead performances that were nominated. One which I really did not care for and the other I thought was only okay. I like Walter Matthau, but he strangely was only nominated in the lead when he played a character much much older than himself for whatever reason, and I am not crazy about Matthau old man mannerisms which strangely drove both of those performances. Walter Matthau though here portrays a character that is suppose to be basically his actual age, and there are no unneeded mannerisms to be seen.
Matthau portrays the brother in law shyster lawyer who pushes hard for the lawsuit. Walter Matthau has sometimes been argued as a lead in this film, and there certainly can be a case for that as he is the driving force of the film, and there are plenty of scenes where he is the central character. I do not mind this placement though as there is another identifiable lead in Jack Lemmon, and there are certainly many scenes where Matthau does not appear. He could really be placed in either category and I really would not mind. I really do not mind though because part of the reason Matthau even stands out the most in scenes where he is not even the focus is because just how good he is as Whiplash Willie.
Matthau is another Oscar winning performance that disputes the idea that the academy never rewards comedic performance, or at least never rewards straightly comedic performances. As with the likes of Peter Ustinov's second win, and Kevin Kline's win, Matthau is another winner who never stops going for laughs with his performance. Matthau absolutely makes the film with his performances as the lawyer who comes up with the trumped up lawsuit to make himself rich. Matthau never tries for a moment to show that old Willie is anything more than a shyster, he wants to make a buck and that is all there is to right down the line.
Matthau simply is hilarious in the role from beginning to end. From his first scene Matthau is comedic gold as the rather amoral lawyer. Much of the humor that comes from his performance are some of his small reactions especially his brilliant look he makes after hearing that Lemmon's character had a previous injury that he could use for his own purposes in a new lawsuit. Matthau has a perfect devilish smile here as Willie that shows Willie's way of finding someway to benefit and exploit just about anything that comes his way anyway that he can. Even though Willie is completely amoral Matthau can't help but make Willie likable, there is just something absolutely endearing about Matthau's portrayal.
Matthau has a constant energy in the role that makes him the best part of every scene, even when has only a couple of lines Matthau still steals the scene, that is simply how enjoyable he is as Willie. Every moment Matthau is an enthusiastic presence and coming out with a terrific line, or reaction every chance he gets. Matthau is hilarious in his whole realization of every part of Willie's plan in every advance and set back Matthau never stops being funny in showing every trick that Willie has up his sleeve. What I like about Matthau's performance is that he always shows that Willie is the smartest man always in the room, even if he uses his intelligence so poorly.
I must say actually that I don't know if Matthau are a great pair actually since in both this and the Odd Couple Matthau absolutely steals the show, not that Lemmon is bad he is good as well actually, but Matthau definitely is the one that you remember from their scenes together. I suppose it really is not Lemmon's fault so much here because Matthau absolutely controls their scenes together, and I suppose one could attest it to Matthau just being absolutely on in his performance here. Matthau never has a wasted scene, or moment in his performance every scene he brings the humor he needs to in the role. As I watched the film I only wanted more of Matthau as Willie he just that entertaining in the role. It is a great performance that always succeeds.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1966: George Segal in Who Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
George Segal received his only Oscar nomination so far for portraying Nick in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?.
George Segal has really the thankless role of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. There are the two bickering alcoholic, and pratically certifiably insane Martha (Elizabeth Taylor), and George (Richard Burton), than there is Nick's wife Honey (Sandy Dennis) who gets to go quite off her rocker after she drinks too much. All three of those get to constantly show off and attempt to upstage each other at every turn, George Segal as Nick though is calmest and the sanest of them all. He never becomes raving drunk, or just plain raving. Segal has to be the straight man of the film, he always stays as the most sensible of the four even though he gets deep into the dark web created by Martha and George.
Nick is a new professor of the college where George has long been, and Martha is the daughter of the president of the University. He and his wife visit Martha and George after a faculty party for a night of drinking and some terrible games. In these early scenes, particularly when he first walks in, Segal shows what would probably be the reaction of any normal person witnessing Martha and George first hand. He perfectly conveys the very awkward feelings Nick has over the entire situation. He has the whole embarrassment, discomfort as one would expect, but as well an attempt to pleasant and outgoing with his college, and the daughter of his new boss.
Segal shows that Nick is in just one unpleasant situation from beginning to end and really does not know exactly how to respond to Martha and George. Early on Segal has Nick desperately trying to be a pleasant guest joking at Martha's jokes at George's expense as well as trying to be friendly at the same time with George as they have a "pleasant" conversation with one another. Segal never tries to upstage Burton as George, nor should he since Nick is really in way over his head with the man. Instead Segal portrays a entirely realistic portrait of a man dealing with an intellectual lunatic. Segal in his own way does match Burton's performance not by trying to be his equal but instead properly keep Nick as the rather confused man he should be.
His and Burton's scenes together are quite effective because Segal shows Nick really trying to have some sort of friendship or camaraderie with this man by telling about his personal story particularly about he and his wife. Segal shows Nick trying desperately to be casual with George, and the two do have a particular dynamic that works well. Segal always acts the fool in a completely realistic fashion, and not by showing that Nick is dumb, but that he simply is not George. He honestly shows a man just trying to be friendly never even suspecting the fact that the man he is talking to is only measuring and looking for weaknesses in him to exploit later if needed.
Another pivotal aspect of his performance though in his depiction of Nick's relationship with his wife. He and Dennis really do not have a great chemistry so to speak, it is not obvious that they should be together, instead the two actors show that it is obvious that they are have been forced to be together. There actually interactions are always short and always take a backseat to Martha and George but the two actors do realize Nick, and Honey's troubled history incredibly well. Segal does show that Nick does have affection for his wife, but there is always a constant frustrations within his portrayal. Segal shows that these frustrations perfectly represent the pains Nick feels over the lack of a strong basis for their marriage. Segal never overplays the trouble in the marriage instead, again, realistically presents an undercurrent of regret in Nick over his imperfect marriage.
Segal actually is quite good throughout the film as Nick is slowly worn down by night with Martha and George, and by drink. Segal is effective in portraying Nick drunkenness. He really is perfect actually because he honestly portrays through the night the way the drink wears down on Nick. He never for a moment overplays this instead going all the way through showing a man becoming sick by drink. Segal is always excellent in showing Nick's frustrations with the night as he recognizes he is basically being used by Martha and George. He again acts a beacon of reality in the film emphasizes the complete distress of learning the truth of the two as well as having had to be used by both of them as well. At the end of the film Nick is his own sort of mess that Segal realizes. Nick is over his head the entire film, and it has its very own effect on his that ends well in depression and frustration. This is strong work by George Segal, Nick is the least flashy part, but Segal still makes his own memorable impression in the film, by being the only person who seems to keep his head on his shoulders, and even he comes close to losing it. It is his down the line realistic performance that absolutely has the right dynamic within the group and really makes the film work.
Nick is a new professor of the college where George has long been, and Martha is the daughter of the president of the University. He and his wife visit Martha and George after a faculty party for a night of drinking and some terrible games. In these early scenes, particularly when he first walks in, Segal shows what would probably be the reaction of any normal person witnessing Martha and George first hand. He perfectly conveys the very awkward feelings Nick has over the entire situation. He has the whole embarrassment, discomfort as one would expect, but as well an attempt to pleasant and outgoing with his college, and the daughter of his new boss.
Segal shows that Nick is in just one unpleasant situation from beginning to end and really does not know exactly how to respond to Martha and George. Early on Segal has Nick desperately trying to be a pleasant guest joking at Martha's jokes at George's expense as well as trying to be friendly at the same time with George as they have a "pleasant" conversation with one another. Segal never tries to upstage Burton as George, nor should he since Nick is really in way over his head with the man. Instead Segal portrays a entirely realistic portrait of a man dealing with an intellectual lunatic. Segal in his own way does match Burton's performance not by trying to be his equal but instead properly keep Nick as the rather confused man he should be.
His and Burton's scenes together are quite effective because Segal shows Nick really trying to have some sort of friendship or camaraderie with this man by telling about his personal story particularly about he and his wife. Segal shows Nick trying desperately to be casual with George, and the two do have a particular dynamic that works well. Segal always acts the fool in a completely realistic fashion, and not by showing that Nick is dumb, but that he simply is not George. He honestly shows a man just trying to be friendly never even suspecting the fact that the man he is talking to is only measuring and looking for weaknesses in him to exploit later if needed.
Another pivotal aspect of his performance though in his depiction of Nick's relationship with his wife. He and Dennis really do not have a great chemistry so to speak, it is not obvious that they should be together, instead the two actors show that it is obvious that they are have been forced to be together. There actually interactions are always short and always take a backseat to Martha and George but the two actors do realize Nick, and Honey's troubled history incredibly well. Segal does show that Nick does have affection for his wife, but there is always a constant frustrations within his portrayal. Segal shows that these frustrations perfectly represent the pains Nick feels over the lack of a strong basis for their marriage. Segal never overplays the trouble in the marriage instead, again, realistically presents an undercurrent of regret in Nick over his imperfect marriage.
Segal actually is quite good throughout the film as Nick is slowly worn down by night with Martha and George, and by drink. Segal is effective in portraying Nick drunkenness. He really is perfect actually because he honestly portrays through the night the way the drink wears down on Nick. He never for a moment overplays this instead going all the way through showing a man becoming sick by drink. Segal is always excellent in showing Nick's frustrations with the night as he recognizes he is basically being used by Martha and George. He again acts a beacon of reality in the film emphasizes the complete distress of learning the truth of the two as well as having had to be used by both of them as well. At the end of the film Nick is his own sort of mess that Segal realizes. Nick is over his head the entire film, and it has its very own effect on his that ends well in depression and frustration. This is strong work by George Segal, Nick is the least flashy part, but Segal still makes his own memorable impression in the film, by being the only person who seems to keep his head on his shoulders, and even he comes close to losing it. It is his down the line realistic performance that absolutely has the right dynamic within the group and really makes the film work.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1966: Mako in The Sand Pebbles
Mako received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Po-han in The Sand Pebbles.
It is strange that Mako was the one who received the nomination for this film and not Richard Attenborough who gives a very memorable performance as a U.S. Navy mate who begins a tragic relationship with a native woman in China, and even won the golden globe for his performance. I suppose the academy just has never cared for Attenborough as an actor for some strange reason. Instead they chose to nominate Mako in his role as Po-han one of the Chinese who work in the engine room on the ship.
Po-han is just one of the Chinese who work on the ship until Steve McQueen's machinist Holman takes him under his wing. Mako is fine early on showing a sympathetic face to Holman. He just wants to help Holman unlike some of the other Chinese who like to do things their way. Most of his early scenes make of just small reactions of concern, and surprise while dealing with Holman. Mako is entirely realistic, but really he does not make too much of an impression either.
After Holman brings him under his wing Mako gets some more substantial scenes such as when Holman teaches him to run the ship's engine. Mako again is appropriately realistic, and is actually quite effective in showing Po-han's learning. He also has a low key charm in his performance that does make Po-han endearing in his own small way. This is still not incredible work by Mako but it is absolutely solid since it fulfills the role completely.
Mako continues his portrayal in the same fashion as Po-han boxes one of the racist men on the ship. He is again good, properly realistic, and we can easily sympathize with him through Mako's likable portrayal. Again it is not a whole lot but it also is all that the film asks of him. Po-han is not a tremendous role, but Mako really is perfect in the role.
He does his very best to be a character not just a stereotype as he easily could have been, and we most certainly feel for him all too well in his final scene. It is a good supporting performance not the best in the film, and certainly not the most memorable. After all Mako gets cut off just as his character is really becoming interesting, nevertheless Mako does absolutely fulfill his role, and deserves credit for doing so.
Po-han is just one of the Chinese who work on the ship until Steve McQueen's machinist Holman takes him under his wing. Mako is fine early on showing a sympathetic face to Holman. He just wants to help Holman unlike some of the other Chinese who like to do things their way. Most of his early scenes make of just small reactions of concern, and surprise while dealing with Holman. Mako is entirely realistic, but really he does not make too much of an impression either.
After Holman brings him under his wing Mako gets some more substantial scenes such as when Holman teaches him to run the ship's engine. Mako again is appropriately realistic, and is actually quite effective in showing Po-han's learning. He also has a low key charm in his performance that does make Po-han endearing in his own small way. This is still not incredible work by Mako but it is absolutely solid since it fulfills the role completely.
Mako continues his portrayal in the same fashion as Po-han boxes one of the racist men on the ship. He is again good, properly realistic, and we can easily sympathize with him through Mako's likable portrayal. Again it is not a whole lot but it also is all that the film asks of him. Po-han is not a tremendous role, but Mako really is perfect in the role.
He does his very best to be a character not just a stereotype as he easily could have been, and we most certainly feel for him all too well in his final scene. It is a good supporting performance not the best in the film, and certainly not the most memorable. After all Mako gets cut off just as his character is really becoming interesting, nevertheless Mako does absolutely fulfill his role, and deserves credit for doing so.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1966: James Mason in Georgy Girl
James Mason received his second Oscar nomination for portraying James Leamington in Georgy Girl.
Georgy Girl is about a young woman Georgy (Lynn Redgrave) who tries to avoid the romantic intentions of her father's employer as well as be part of the swinging life of her selfish roommate (Charlotte Rampling).
James Mason is one actor I have yet to see a performance by him that I did not like. Mason perhaps since he took almost any role he was offered genuinely loved acting, and maybe it is that joy of performance that comes through in his performances aids in this. Mason just has a unique charming presence, and something wonderful I find about him is that despite the fact he is well spoken especially classy this could easily come off as just acting superior, but Mason always has a certain likability which works perfectly for his performance as James Leamington in Georgy Girl.
James Leamington is a rich man who constantly is trying to convince his employee's daughter, who he has supported and believes she owes him, to become his mistress. Leamington certainly as written is very much a creep especially sense he considers Georgy almost as a daughter before he wishes to have a relationship with her. Mason though with his unique style some how manages avoid this and some how manages to make Leamington likable. Mason manages to show that, even in his scenes where he is upset with Georgy, that his character really has an honest enthusiasm love for her, and even more importantly he never forgets to find the humor in his character.
Mason never lets a moment slip to bring in a little dry humor into his portrayal. There is something almost endearing about Leamington simply because of the way Mason always pokes fun at his character. Mason though is perfect at this because he never winks toward the audience in any way he is invested in his character at all times, yet he finds just the right way to make fun of him at the same time. He is always very serious in all his scene, yet he stays so serious throughout everything it is actually quite funny. This is especially true when he offers his affair agreement to Georgy. He takes such a business like approach to the whole affair that i could be taken as excessively cold, but Mason brings humor to the scene because he never once shows that Leamington has the slightest sense of what he is doing and how he is doing it.
Mason's part though mostly are these short scenes of repetition with Leamington always looking for Georgy even though she is trying her best to avoid him. Later in the film though he does have a dramatic moment. The moment actually comes a little out of nowhere, but it does force Leamington to face the effects of his strange decisions. The scene is rather quick, but Mason nails it. His reaction could not be a better reaction of complete shock, as well as some grief. Yet magically Mason still even has a bit of humor in this scene as his surprised look still suggests his character naivety, as Mason's face seems to suggest that Leamington only just realized that anyone even really existed in his world beside him.
Mason only real problem is the fact that the film does not really care much for his character in the least. He is only a side character at first, and that he almost seems dispensable later on in the film when the film becomes far far more interested in Georgy's dealing with her roommate and her boyfriend. If it weren't for the ending one would wonder why it continued to cut to Leamington during the latter half of the film. Mason is always good, his best scene comes from this cutaway, but the way the film is set up it makes his character almost seem superfluous. The reason for Leamington comes in the end though in a quick scene where fulfills his role in the story. Mason is good in the very short final scene as he shows a changed man, sort of. Mason does convey enough that Leamington seems to have finally seen a way not to be completely selfish, it is quick change but naturally handled by Mason.
This is actually technically speaking a very good performance by Mason it could have been an utter failure in so many ways, but Mason does find the right way to portray the part to make the character of Leamington work, as well as actually make the ending sort of work. If Leamington had been portrayed completely without humor he would have been an awful character, and would have hurt the film and certainly would have ruined the ending. Luckily Mason does not fail with the part, and even though it is far from his greatest performance it is a challenged fulfilled.
James Mason is one actor I have yet to see a performance by him that I did not like. Mason perhaps since he took almost any role he was offered genuinely loved acting, and maybe it is that joy of performance that comes through in his performances aids in this. Mason just has a unique charming presence, and something wonderful I find about him is that despite the fact he is well spoken especially classy this could easily come off as just acting superior, but Mason always has a certain likability which works perfectly for his performance as James Leamington in Georgy Girl.
James Leamington is a rich man who constantly is trying to convince his employee's daughter, who he has supported and believes she owes him, to become his mistress. Leamington certainly as written is very much a creep especially sense he considers Georgy almost as a daughter before he wishes to have a relationship with her. Mason though with his unique style some how manages avoid this and some how manages to make Leamington likable. Mason manages to show that, even in his scenes where he is upset with Georgy, that his character really has an honest enthusiasm love for her, and even more importantly he never forgets to find the humor in his character.
Mason never lets a moment slip to bring in a little dry humor into his portrayal. There is something almost endearing about Leamington simply because of the way Mason always pokes fun at his character. Mason though is perfect at this because he never winks toward the audience in any way he is invested in his character at all times, yet he finds just the right way to make fun of him at the same time. He is always very serious in all his scene, yet he stays so serious throughout everything it is actually quite funny. This is especially true when he offers his affair agreement to Georgy. He takes such a business like approach to the whole affair that i could be taken as excessively cold, but Mason brings humor to the scene because he never once shows that Leamington has the slightest sense of what he is doing and how he is doing it.
Mason's part though mostly are these short scenes of repetition with Leamington always looking for Georgy even though she is trying her best to avoid him. Later in the film though he does have a dramatic moment. The moment actually comes a little out of nowhere, but it does force Leamington to face the effects of his strange decisions. The scene is rather quick, but Mason nails it. His reaction could not be a better reaction of complete shock, as well as some grief. Yet magically Mason still even has a bit of humor in this scene as his surprised look still suggests his character naivety, as Mason's face seems to suggest that Leamington only just realized that anyone even really existed in his world beside him.
Mason only real problem is the fact that the film does not really care much for his character in the least. He is only a side character at first, and that he almost seems dispensable later on in the film when the film becomes far far more interested in Georgy's dealing with her roommate and her boyfriend. If it weren't for the ending one would wonder why it continued to cut to Leamington during the latter half of the film. Mason is always good, his best scene comes from this cutaway, but the way the film is set up it makes his character almost seem superfluous. The reason for Leamington comes in the end though in a quick scene where fulfills his role in the story. Mason is good in the very short final scene as he shows a changed man, sort of. Mason does convey enough that Leamington seems to have finally seen a way not to be completely selfish, it is quick change but naturally handled by Mason.
This is actually technically speaking a very good performance by Mason it could have been an utter failure in so many ways, but Mason does find the right way to portray the part to make the character of Leamington work, as well as actually make the ending sort of work. If Leamington had been portrayed completely without humor he would have been an awful character, and would have hurt the film and certainly would have ruined the ending. Luckily Mason does not fail with the part, and even though it is far from his greatest performance it is a challenged fulfilled.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1966
Robert Shaw in A Man For All Seasons
James Mason in Georgy Girl
Walter Matthau in The Fortune Cookie
George Segal in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Mako in The Sand Pebbles
