Gene Hackman in Superman
John Savage in The Deer Hunter
John Cazale in The Deer Hunter
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 1978 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1978 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1978: Results
Gene Hackman in Superman
John Savage in The Deer Hunter
John Cazale in The Deer Hunter
Best Supporting Actor 1978: Richard Farnsworth in Comes a Horseman
Richard Farnsworth received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Dodger in Comes A Horseman.
Comes a Horseman tells the story of two ranchers (Jane Fonda, James Caan) who fight economic hardship as well as well as the aggression behavior of a land baron (Jason Robards).
Richard Farnsworth although was in many films in various bit parts from the 30's he rarely ever played more than just a nameless role. Farnsworth though after being nominated for Best Supporting Actor for this role never again portrayed a part that was not properly named. Richard Farnsworth is one actor that I can say easily that I have like him in everything that I have ever seen him in as he has such a simple charm, and low key charisma that is just wonderful. Farnsworth entirely unique screen presence certainly works well for the role of Dodger the longtime ranch hand who helps the ranchers.
Farnsworth is absolutely perfect for the role of the ranch hand Dodger as there is never a question of Farnsworth credibility in the role as he shows the history of Dodger without visible effort. He simply has the history of the man within his face, and the way he goes about everything that he does. Farnsworth is able to bring to life the old pasts that is underlying within entire film just by simple having Dodger be an old past himself. When Farnsworth talks about the old times and the long troubles around the land he is able to convey it a lived in history that Dodger went through.
Farnsworth is always a simple delight in any film and his presence is always welcome in every scene he appears in the film. He turns Dodger into a warm very likable old hand that we can't help but sympathize for. My only real problem with the character of Dodger is just how little he is used in the film. One would think he would appear in more scenes with Caan and Fonda but he instead he only comes in from time to time almost like the film did not have the budget for him to be there all the time even though it would make sense for him to be. Farnsworth though is a delight every moment he does appear, only ever making me want more of him actually.
Farnsworth though does have a pivotal scene after Dodger is injured from falling off his horse and no longer can be of help anymore. Farnsworth is completely heartbreaking in the scene as he shows the quiet pain Dodger is going through over no longer being able to do what he can, but Farnsworth never makes it a depressive moment though as his warmth still pulls through. He leaves with encouraging words to both Caan's and Fonda's characters that are genuinely moving as Farnsworth only every brings honest emotion to the scene. It is a terrific final scene as he he leaves on a very sad but also heartwarming moment that could not have been performed better. My only wish though was Farnsworth had been less wasted in the film which never spent enough time with him.
Richard Farnsworth although was in many films in various bit parts from the 30's he rarely ever played more than just a nameless role. Farnsworth though after being nominated for Best Supporting Actor for this role never again portrayed a part that was not properly named. Richard Farnsworth is one actor that I can say easily that I have like him in everything that I have ever seen him in as he has such a simple charm, and low key charisma that is just wonderful. Farnsworth entirely unique screen presence certainly works well for the role of Dodger the longtime ranch hand who helps the ranchers.
Farnsworth is absolutely perfect for the role of the ranch hand Dodger as there is never a question of Farnsworth credibility in the role as he shows the history of Dodger without visible effort. He simply has the history of the man within his face, and the way he goes about everything that he does. Farnsworth is able to bring to life the old pasts that is underlying within entire film just by simple having Dodger be an old past himself. When Farnsworth talks about the old times and the long troubles around the land he is able to convey it a lived in history that Dodger went through.
Farnsworth is always a simple delight in any film and his presence is always welcome in every scene he appears in the film. He turns Dodger into a warm very likable old hand that we can't help but sympathize for. My only real problem with the character of Dodger is just how little he is used in the film. One would think he would appear in more scenes with Caan and Fonda but he instead he only comes in from time to time almost like the film did not have the budget for him to be there all the time even though it would make sense for him to be. Farnsworth though is a delight every moment he does appear, only ever making me want more of him actually.
Farnsworth though does have a pivotal scene after Dodger is injured from falling off his horse and no longer can be of help anymore. Farnsworth is completely heartbreaking in the scene as he shows the quiet pain Dodger is going through over no longer being able to do what he can, but Farnsworth never makes it a depressive moment though as his warmth still pulls through. He leaves with encouraging words to both Caan's and Fonda's characters that are genuinely moving as Farnsworth only every brings honest emotion to the scene. It is a terrific final scene as he he leaves on a very sad but also heartwarming moment that could not have been performed better. My only wish though was Farnsworth had been less wasted in the film which never spent enough time with him.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1978: Bruce Dern in Coming Home
Bruce Dern received his only Oscar nomination so far for portraying Captain Bob Hyde in Coming Home.
I will have to say right off there are many things against Bruce Dern's performance right away. Firstly from his first scene when he is running I understood exactly what his character was going right straight through the film, there was only one surprise in his character's actions which I will get to later. His character simply is a walking talking cliche for most of the film, and unfortunately the film portrayed the character almost exactly I expected him to be portrayed. The second problem for Dern is that when watching his performance as a traumatized Vietnam veteran I can't help think of Christopher Walken's and Robert De Niro's performances in The Deer Hunter.
Early on the film Bob Hyde is a very typical gungho marine who has very little depth to him in any respect of his life including his relationship with his wife Sally played by Jane Fonda. Everything is absolutely standard and by the book about Bob and the same is true for Dern's portrayal of him. There is not a hint in his portrayal of anything more to Hyde at the beginning in any respect not even in his relationship with his wife. It is an entirely unspectacular performance that leaves no impression on you and you pretty much forget about Dern the moment he leaves early in the film. Eventually though Dern does manage to return later on in the film.
Bob is shown on leave where he shows a very changed man from his earlier portrayal of Bob, in that his beliefs of how the war was going to be did not at all match up with the actual realities of his experience. Dern is okay here actually as he shows basically a depression in Bob over being faced with reality. He handles it simply enough but he is effective in showing that Bob really never had his values or idea questioned in such a way before that severely changes his perceptions. His scenes here are quite short, and that don't hold that much power still in the end. When it comes to traumatized vets from 1978 Dern's portrayal just does have anywhere near the same impact as any supporting turn from this year.
Dern's character comes back and again is fine in his portrayal of Bob's disappointments as well as his troubled state. He actually is particularly good in just one scene where he speaks about his injury during the war where he realizes just how much pain and anger Bob has over his experience which so differed from his expectations. The only problem is right after this scene the poor writing involving his character kicks and Dern faces some serious challenges in his role. As I said at the beginning of my review there was only one surprise with Bob to me which was the fact that he told Jon Voight's Luke about the surveillance on him, but unfortunately this contributes to some odd writing where the filmmakers seemed to have no idea how Dern's character should exactly react to his wife's affair.
Bob first seems just sad over it but soon enough he has the far more expected reaction of extreme violent anger. Dern firstly is unable to convincingly convey Bob's random reactions to the affair which leaves his performance in a rather confused place. Dern doesn't really convey a confusion in Bob either, although the film hardly gives him anytime to do much of anything with Bob's feelings since the film seems in a rush to dispose of him. He does get his big scene where he goes crazy and threatens Luke and Sally over the affair. Dern unfortunately seems to be acting it a little too much and frankly tries to hard to sell the scene. Than after that it is simply time for him to go nothing more than that. Dern I must say really isn't bad in the role, and is just fine most of the time, but his performance never really frees himself from being the almost disposable plot element his character is.
Early on the film Bob Hyde is a very typical gungho marine who has very little depth to him in any respect of his life including his relationship with his wife Sally played by Jane Fonda. Everything is absolutely standard and by the book about Bob and the same is true for Dern's portrayal of him. There is not a hint in his portrayal of anything more to Hyde at the beginning in any respect not even in his relationship with his wife. It is an entirely unspectacular performance that leaves no impression on you and you pretty much forget about Dern the moment he leaves early in the film. Eventually though Dern does manage to return later on in the film.
Bob is shown on leave where he shows a very changed man from his earlier portrayal of Bob, in that his beliefs of how the war was going to be did not at all match up with the actual realities of his experience. Dern is okay here actually as he shows basically a depression in Bob over being faced with reality. He handles it simply enough but he is effective in showing that Bob really never had his values or idea questioned in such a way before that severely changes his perceptions. His scenes here are quite short, and that don't hold that much power still in the end. When it comes to traumatized vets from 1978 Dern's portrayal just does have anywhere near the same impact as any supporting turn from this year.
Dern's character comes back and again is fine in his portrayal of Bob's disappointments as well as his troubled state. He actually is particularly good in just one scene where he speaks about his injury during the war where he realizes just how much pain and anger Bob has over his experience which so differed from his expectations. The only problem is right after this scene the poor writing involving his character kicks and Dern faces some serious challenges in his role. As I said at the beginning of my review there was only one surprise with Bob to me which was the fact that he told Jon Voight's Luke about the surveillance on him, but unfortunately this contributes to some odd writing where the filmmakers seemed to have no idea how Dern's character should exactly react to his wife's affair.
Bob first seems just sad over it but soon enough he has the far more expected reaction of extreme violent anger. Dern firstly is unable to convincingly convey Bob's random reactions to the affair which leaves his performance in a rather confused place. Dern doesn't really convey a confusion in Bob either, although the film hardly gives him anytime to do much of anything with Bob's feelings since the film seems in a rush to dispose of him. He does get his big scene where he goes crazy and threatens Luke and Sally over the affair. Dern unfortunately seems to be acting it a little too much and frankly tries to hard to sell the scene. Than after that it is simply time for him to go nothing more than that. Dern I must say really isn't bad in the role, and is just fine most of the time, but his performance never really frees himself from being the almost disposable plot element his character is.
Best Supporting Actor 1978: John Hurt in Midnight Express
John Hurt received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Max in Midnight Express.
Midnight Express details the abuse faced in a Turkish prison by an american drug smuggler Billy Hayes (Brad Davis).
John Hurt portrays a fellow inmate of the prison who befriends Billy, and has been in the prison for quite some time. Hurt really is not given a great deal of time to establish or develop Max as the film really is not interested in him. Hurt there must do it all pretty much in stride in the limited amount of screen time he is given. Hurt from his first scene establishes Max's clear weariness, and a sort of insanity that has developed within Max from his time in the prison.
There is almost an otherworldly quality to Hurt's performance at times in his portrayal of Max that suggests well the way Max has been drifting from his treatment and time in prison. Hurt though doesn't overplay this idea and does still realize Hurt into an honest human being in his situation. He shows the history of Max in the prison with his portrayal of Max's exasperation as well as his quiet intelligence and knowledge Max has of the prison which Hurt effortlessly conveys.
When I said his role was limited though I really should have said he was very limited. He is mostly reactionary and barely makes any lasting effect on the story as written. He is mostly just there as part of the prison atmosphere more or less. There are a few scenes where he is more at the very beginning of his performance, and at the end of it. Near the end of his performance Hurt again we can't help but feel for his character as he makes the pain of Max real.
The only problem is between his beginning and final scenes where he can develop his character more he really is just a part of the environment. Not that this is a problem with Hurt's performance he is as good as anyone could be in the role its just the film cares very little about his character. I most certainly did like seeing Hurt, I almost always like seeing John Hurt in films. I only wish he was given more time as I frankly found the creation of Max Hurt made far more fascinating than the exploits of the "true" story at the center of the film.
John Hurt portrays a fellow inmate of the prison who befriends Billy, and has been in the prison for quite some time. Hurt really is not given a great deal of time to establish or develop Max as the film really is not interested in him. Hurt there must do it all pretty much in stride in the limited amount of screen time he is given. Hurt from his first scene establishes Max's clear weariness, and a sort of insanity that has developed within Max from his time in the prison.
There is almost an otherworldly quality to Hurt's performance at times in his portrayal of Max that suggests well the way Max has been drifting from his treatment and time in prison. Hurt though doesn't overplay this idea and does still realize Hurt into an honest human being in his situation. He shows the history of Max in the prison with his portrayal of Max's exasperation as well as his quiet intelligence and knowledge Max has of the prison which Hurt effortlessly conveys.
When I said his role was limited though I really should have said he was very limited. He is mostly reactionary and barely makes any lasting effect on the story as written. He is mostly just there as part of the prison atmosphere more or less. There are a few scenes where he is more at the very beginning of his performance, and at the end of it. Near the end of his performance Hurt again we can't help but feel for his character as he makes the pain of Max real.
The only problem is between his beginning and final scenes where he can develop his character more he really is just a part of the environment. Not that this is a problem with Hurt's performance he is as good as anyone could be in the role its just the film cares very little about his character. I most certainly did like seeing Hurt, I almost always like seeing John Hurt in films. I only wish he was given more time as I frankly found the creation of Max Hurt made far more fascinating than the exploits of the "true" story at the center of the film.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1978: Jack Warden in Heaven Can Wait
Jack Warden received his second and final Oscar nomination for portraying Max Corkle in Heaven Can Wait.
Heaven Can Wait which is the superior remake of the 1941 original Here Comes Mr. Jordan. The films similarities go further than just their stores and characters. They also received many of the same Oscar nominations such as receiving Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actor nominations for the same roles. Credit must be given to Heaven Can Wait as it is superior in almost every way every character and every performance except one. I would say James Mason and Claude Rains are probably just about equally effective in the role of Mr. Jordan.
Interestingly enough I also believe that another similar aspect between the films is the fact that if a supporting actor should have been nominated from the film it should have been actor portraying Mr. Jordan both times instead of the actor portraying the trainer of the lead character Joe Pendleton, Max Corkle. Nevertheless though Jack Warden is absolutely better in the role than James Gleason was in the original film. Gleason mostly spent the whole 1941 film making overacted surprised look after surprised look Jack Warden actually turns Max Corkle into a believable character.
From what I have seen of Warden's filmography he seemed to specialize in friends/mentors of the main character. Warden probably was found so commonly in the role though because he was certainly good in these sort of roles. As Max Corkle early in the film Warden shows this by just being a nice warm presence in the film as the friend of Warren Beatty's Joe. Warden doesn't overdo it and just actually manages to be the friend Max Corkle should be. He is likable enough as Max in a rather effortless fashion that doesn't try to overplay the part as Gleason did in the same role.
This continues to be true when Corkle is faced with the confusion of finding Joe in another body and being told of the troubles faced on his ways to heaven. Gleason at this point in his performance turned on his face of confusion making the same surprised look over and over again. Warden again is far more effective in the role by not doing this. Warden more realistically reacts to it by just showing Corkle at first being in absolute disbelief at first, and just wanting to basically get away from a man that he finds is insane. Warden makes Corkle reactions simple but far more humorous than Gleason's overblown reactions.
Jack Warden's stays supporting of Beatty's character through the rest of the film trying to help him achieve the dream of being a football quarterback. He is appropriately supportive and warm as well as humorous enough when being confused by the supernatural events transpiring around. Warden stays just fine as he really is not given too much to do, but he stays effective enough in the role as the film continues along.Warden particularly is quite moving at the very end of the film when he shows just how much Joe really meant to Max. This is not an amazing performance by any means, I don't know anyone really could be amazing in the role of Max Corkle but Warden probably is just about as good as anyone could be in the role.
Interestingly enough I also believe that another similar aspect between the films is the fact that if a supporting actor should have been nominated from the film it should have been actor portraying Mr. Jordan both times instead of the actor portraying the trainer of the lead character Joe Pendleton, Max Corkle. Nevertheless though Jack Warden is absolutely better in the role than James Gleason was in the original film. Gleason mostly spent the whole 1941 film making overacted surprised look after surprised look Jack Warden actually turns Max Corkle into a believable character.
From what I have seen of Warden's filmography he seemed to specialize in friends/mentors of the main character. Warden probably was found so commonly in the role though because he was certainly good in these sort of roles. As Max Corkle early in the film Warden shows this by just being a nice warm presence in the film as the friend of Warren Beatty's Joe. Warden doesn't overdo it and just actually manages to be the friend Max Corkle should be. He is likable enough as Max in a rather effortless fashion that doesn't try to overplay the part as Gleason did in the same role.
This continues to be true when Corkle is faced with the confusion of finding Joe in another body and being told of the troubles faced on his ways to heaven. Gleason at this point in his performance turned on his face of confusion making the same surprised look over and over again. Warden again is far more effective in the role by not doing this. Warden more realistically reacts to it by just showing Corkle at first being in absolute disbelief at first, and just wanting to basically get away from a man that he finds is insane. Warden makes Corkle reactions simple but far more humorous than Gleason's overblown reactions.
Jack Warden's stays supporting of Beatty's character through the rest of the film trying to help him achieve the dream of being a football quarterback. He is appropriately supportive and warm as well as humorous enough when being confused by the supernatural events transpiring around. Warden stays just fine as he really is not given too much to do, but he stays effective enough in the role as the film continues along.Warden particularly is quite moving at the very end of the film when he shows just how much Joe really meant to Max. This is not an amazing performance by any means, I don't know anyone really could be amazing in the role of Max Corkle but Warden probably is just about as good as anyone could be in the role.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1978: Christopher Walken in The Deer Hunter
Christopher Walken won his Oscar from his first Oscar nomination for portraying Nikonar 'Nick' Chevotarevich in The Deer Hunter.
Christopher Walken is an actor with an odd reputation as he is seen as a bit of an oddity with his distinct voice and sometimes very bizarre mannerisms that go in many of his performances. The only thing is if one sees a performance of his that is described as his best performance one will see a great actor simple as that. Christopher Walken at first seems to be the heart of the film of the Deer Hunter and although his performance is supporting in terms of screentime it is just as important as Robert De Niro's performance as Nick's friend Michael the sort of leader of the group of friends.
A very important of part in the film is the dynamic between the friends and Walken makes Nick role in the group rather distinct. He is separate from the rest of the guys because he does not fool around nearly as much as they do, and has the respect of Michael because of this. He though is different from Michael because he seems to stand as part of the group more than Michael, and tries to understand and frankly bring more warmth among the group than Michael ever does. Walken realizes this understanding of Nick very well but not overplaying it. Walken achieves Nick point in the group realistically and honestly makes Nick a goodhearted man.
Walken also finds just the right tone in which to portray Nick's two pivotal relationships early within the film. Firstly Nick's relationship with his girlfriend Linda (Meryl Streep). The two actors are effective because they don't lay on the romantic elements two thickly. Instead they show a simpler but believable one between the two. There is clearly a love created between the characters by Walken and Streep. It is a quiet unassuming romance but there is no doubt left through the performances that through this quiet unassuming fashion they most certainly care for each other undoubtedly.
Interestingly enough the second relationship is even more important which is Nick's friendship with Michael. Again Walken and De Niro very much downplay the friendship it is not this overly warm display of love for one another, but there is clearly an unmistakable bond between the two nevertheless. The two show quietly a history between the two men one of understanding between the two and a great deal of mutual respect. There dynamic is realized perfectly by both actors as they are not only friends but also there is a just the right difference between the two shown through Nick's greater degree of empathy.
Walken though truly shines as with De Niro in the gut wrenching Russian Roulette scenes. I said De Niro was incredible in these scenes and Walken matches him every step of the way. When they finally play one on one in the prison camp Walken is absolutely amazing as Nick. He absolutely brings the fear and intensity of the situation to life it is chilling almost unbearable because De Niro and Walken never have a false moment in either of their performances. Walken in one single reaction probably has, and I mean this, one of the greatest single reactions in film.
The moment has him holding the gun to his head with a very good likeliness that it will kill him with a fatal. Walken before he fires shows us the horrible terror Nick has over his chances of death as well as just the sickness and anger over being in the horrendous situation. He has one of the most heartbreaking moments when he finally pulls the trigger, and his reaction of fear to an incredible relief as well as absolute joy could not have possibly have been more powerful. He brings right with Nick in that moment and it is both terrifying and absolutely wonderful moment.
After this scene and a separation from his friends Nick suffers a serious mental breakdown. This is actually in a very fast succession to his breakdown caused by the traumatic stress faced before. Walken though again turns it into a reality. His breakdown scene is terrific, Walken quietly shows the pain absolutely overwhelm Nick that he can't help but continuing to think of the horrors of what he faced and went through that causes him to fall apart an become almost a shell of a man as to avoid the pain of his memories. This is made especially disheartening when compared brighter Nick seen earlier, because Walken absolutely makes them the same person who has undergone far too much pain.
There is a great deal of time when we don't see Walken in the film but we feel his loss almost every moment he is not on screen because of his impact earlier in the film. When we finally do see Walken again Nick is only worse a true shell of a man completely lost, and Walken is absolutely chilling showing Nick's loss of fear of death. Their final scene together De Niro and Walken are again incredible. Walken in the scene stays almost the same throughout as Michael pleads to Nick. When Walken finally does react in just the slightest indication of the old Nick it is an absolutely perfect moment that ends Walken's pitch perfect performance. It really is a role that is only challenges yet Walken never fails to meet every one and turn Nick into an unforgettable tragic character that stays with you long after watching the film.
A very important of part in the film is the dynamic between the friends and Walken makes Nick role in the group rather distinct. He is separate from the rest of the guys because he does not fool around nearly as much as they do, and has the respect of Michael because of this. He though is different from Michael because he seems to stand as part of the group more than Michael, and tries to understand and frankly bring more warmth among the group than Michael ever does. Walken realizes this understanding of Nick very well but not overplaying it. Walken achieves Nick point in the group realistically and honestly makes Nick a goodhearted man.
Walken also finds just the right tone in which to portray Nick's two pivotal relationships early within the film. Firstly Nick's relationship with his girlfriend Linda (Meryl Streep). The two actors are effective because they don't lay on the romantic elements two thickly. Instead they show a simpler but believable one between the two. There is clearly a love created between the characters by Walken and Streep. It is a quiet unassuming romance but there is no doubt left through the performances that through this quiet unassuming fashion they most certainly care for each other undoubtedly.
Interestingly enough the second relationship is even more important which is Nick's friendship with Michael. Again Walken and De Niro very much downplay the friendship it is not this overly warm display of love for one another, but there is clearly an unmistakable bond between the two nevertheless. The two show quietly a history between the two men one of understanding between the two and a great deal of mutual respect. There dynamic is realized perfectly by both actors as they are not only friends but also there is a just the right difference between the two shown through Nick's greater degree of empathy.
Walken though truly shines as with De Niro in the gut wrenching Russian Roulette scenes. I said De Niro was incredible in these scenes and Walken matches him every step of the way. When they finally play one on one in the prison camp Walken is absolutely amazing as Nick. He absolutely brings the fear and intensity of the situation to life it is chilling almost unbearable because De Niro and Walken never have a false moment in either of their performances. Walken in one single reaction probably has, and I mean this, one of the greatest single reactions in film.
The moment has him holding the gun to his head with a very good likeliness that it will kill him with a fatal. Walken before he fires shows us the horrible terror Nick has over his chances of death as well as just the sickness and anger over being in the horrendous situation. He has one of the most heartbreaking moments when he finally pulls the trigger, and his reaction of fear to an incredible relief as well as absolute joy could not have possibly have been more powerful. He brings right with Nick in that moment and it is both terrifying and absolutely wonderful moment.
After this scene and a separation from his friends Nick suffers a serious mental breakdown. This is actually in a very fast succession to his breakdown caused by the traumatic stress faced before. Walken though again turns it into a reality. His breakdown scene is terrific, Walken quietly shows the pain absolutely overwhelm Nick that he can't help but continuing to think of the horrors of what he faced and went through that causes him to fall apart an become almost a shell of a man as to avoid the pain of his memories. This is made especially disheartening when compared brighter Nick seen earlier, because Walken absolutely makes them the same person who has undergone far too much pain.
There is a great deal of time when we don't see Walken in the film but we feel his loss almost every moment he is not on screen because of his impact earlier in the film. When we finally do see Walken again Nick is only worse a true shell of a man completely lost, and Walken is absolutely chilling showing Nick's loss of fear of death. Their final scene together De Niro and Walken are again incredible. Walken in the scene stays almost the same throughout as Michael pleads to Nick. When Walken finally does react in just the slightest indication of the old Nick it is an absolutely perfect moment that ends Walken's pitch perfect performance. It really is a role that is only challenges yet Walken never fails to meet every one and turn Nick into an unforgettable tragic character that stays with you long after watching the film.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1978
Richard Farnsworth in Comes A Horseman
Bruce Dern in Coming Home
Christopher Walken in The Deer Hunter
Jack Warden in Heaven Can Wait
John Hurt in Midnight Express
