Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner
Charles Durning in Tootsie
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 1982 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1982 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Friday, January 20, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1982: Results
Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner
Charles Durning in Tootsie
Best Supporting Actor 1982: John Lithgow in The World According to Garp
John Lithgow received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Roberta Muldoon in The World According to Garp.
The World According to Garp is a very unique film about the life of a writer T.S. Garp (Robin Williams), and his feminist mother (Glenn Close).
John Lithgow portrays a transsexual former football player Roberta Muldoon. In playing a transsexual Lithgow actually tries not to bring that much more attention to it with his actual performance. All of his mannerisms for the part are rather low key and really very handled because of that reason. Lithgow's voice and mannerisms are all fairly simple but realistically portrayed that naturally realize his character. Lithgow's performance never becomes actory which is very important to his character presence in the film.
Roberta's role in the film is that of a completely supporting character, in the sense that Roberta literally provides emotional support to the other character in the film. Yes there are moments where Roberta doesn't just discuss someone else's problems but these scenes are always short and usually just a sentence or two at the beginning or the end of a scene. Lithgow although given very little time in these moments does succeed in showing Roberta to be a fairly average person actually who is seeking happiness. Lithgow though always shows Roberta to be one of the less troubled characters in the film.
Lithgow's although shows that although Roberta does not have perfect happiness, that does not stop Roberta from having a very bright outlook on life that is rather endearing, and provides a nice contrast from some of the more troubled characters in the film. Roberta is always there is offer a kind helping hand throughout the film, and although this is somewhat limited, Lithgow does manage to make the most of it. Everything time Roberta is on screen things do seem to either brighten or ease up a little bit due to Lithgow's charming presence.
I will say after watching the film the first I was a bit surprised to find out Roberta's exact role in the film, as in it was far more limited than I thought it would be. Still Lithgow takes a role that easily could have been very much overacted or very well could been a rather exploitative type of performance, and instead turns Roberta in a very human character. Lithgow as well succeeds in making Roberta add a great deal of heart to the film that was certainly needed.
John Lithgow portrays a transsexual former football player Roberta Muldoon. In playing a transsexual Lithgow actually tries not to bring that much more attention to it with his actual performance. All of his mannerisms for the part are rather low key and really very handled because of that reason. Lithgow's voice and mannerisms are all fairly simple but realistically portrayed that naturally realize his character. Lithgow's performance never becomes actory which is very important to his character presence in the film.
Roberta's role in the film is that of a completely supporting character, in the sense that Roberta literally provides emotional support to the other character in the film. Yes there are moments where Roberta doesn't just discuss someone else's problems but these scenes are always short and usually just a sentence or two at the beginning or the end of a scene. Lithgow although given very little time in these moments does succeed in showing Roberta to be a fairly average person actually who is seeking happiness. Lithgow though always shows Roberta to be one of the less troubled characters in the film.
Lithgow's although shows that although Roberta does not have perfect happiness, that does not stop Roberta from having a very bright outlook on life that is rather endearing, and provides a nice contrast from some of the more troubled characters in the film. Roberta is always there is offer a kind helping hand throughout the film, and although this is somewhat limited, Lithgow does manage to make the most of it. Everything time Roberta is on screen things do seem to either brighten or ease up a little bit due to Lithgow's charming presence.
I will say after watching the film the first I was a bit surprised to find out Roberta's exact role in the film, as in it was far more limited than I thought it would be. Still Lithgow takes a role that easily could have been very much overacted or very well could been a rather exploitative type of performance, and instead turns Roberta in a very human character. Lithgow as well succeeds in making Roberta add a great deal of heart to the film that was certainly needed.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1982: Lou Gossett Jr. in An Officer and a Gentleman
Lou Gossett Jr. won his Oscar from his only nomination so far for portraying Gunnery Sergeant Emil Foley in An Officer and a Gentleman.
An Officer and a Gentleman depicts Zack Mayo(Richard Gere)'s attempt to get through a naval training program.
One of Zack's seemingly largest obstacles, although in actuality is trying to get him through the course, is his drill Sergeant played by Gossett. In all truth there really is not too many ways to play a drill Sergeant, particularly in their opening scenes where they ridicule everyone. I really must say I was not surprised to learn that Gossett was coached by R. Lee Ermy a real drill Sergeant, who also later portrayed one in Full Metal Jacket. Gossett portrayal Sergeant Foley is not nearly as intense or brutal as Ermy's was in that film, but his performance clearly shows he took a few pointers from Ermy.
As the Sergeant Gossett is appropriately intense, and dominates most scenes he is in with his presence. He quick witted loud, swift, and properly rough in proper drill Sergeant method. The question is, is this amazing acting the drill sergeant role is technically a standard role where there is not much play to it except on just how intense they and Gossett is not the most intense, that would be Ermy, but he does manage to make a far greater impact than most other drill sergeant performances I have seen.
What specifically separates Gossett as a drill Sergeant is that he always hints at the fact that really Sergeant Foley wants to bring what is best out of the recruits, and does in fact feel proud when they achieve. Gossett handles these moments in very very small reactions in a few scenes, and actually they are just about brilliantly handled by Gossett. This is because Gossett handles them with such subtly that the audience can notice it but also only enough that it never compromises what his character is suppose to be.
Although I cannot really say this quite an amazing performance by Gossett it is easy for me to say it is a good one. He is completely up to being the overwhelming presence of the Sergeant as well as does add some well laced hidden human characteristics as well. It is a very well handled performance that could have been a wholly standard performance that made absolutely no impact whatsoever, or it could have failed to find the right balance between the rough and the humane, but Gossett manages to find both this balance and leave a mark on the film.
One of Zack's seemingly largest obstacles, although in actuality is trying to get him through the course, is his drill Sergeant played by Gossett. In all truth there really is not too many ways to play a drill Sergeant, particularly in their opening scenes where they ridicule everyone. I really must say I was not surprised to learn that Gossett was coached by R. Lee Ermy a real drill Sergeant, who also later portrayed one in Full Metal Jacket. Gossett portrayal Sergeant Foley is not nearly as intense or brutal as Ermy's was in that film, but his performance clearly shows he took a few pointers from Ermy.
As the Sergeant Gossett is appropriately intense, and dominates most scenes he is in with his presence. He quick witted loud, swift, and properly rough in proper drill Sergeant method. The question is, is this amazing acting the drill sergeant role is technically a standard role where there is not much play to it except on just how intense they and Gossett is not the most intense, that would be Ermy, but he does manage to make a far greater impact than most other drill sergeant performances I have seen.
What specifically separates Gossett as a drill Sergeant is that he always hints at the fact that really Sergeant Foley wants to bring what is best out of the recruits, and does in fact feel proud when they achieve. Gossett handles these moments in very very small reactions in a few scenes, and actually they are just about brilliantly handled by Gossett. This is because Gossett handles them with such subtly that the audience can notice it but also only enough that it never compromises what his character is suppose to be.
Although I cannot really say this quite an amazing performance by Gossett it is easy for me to say it is a good one. He is completely up to being the overwhelming presence of the Sergeant as well as does add some well laced hidden human characteristics as well. It is a very well handled performance that could have been a wholly standard performance that made absolutely no impact whatsoever, or it could have failed to find the right balance between the rough and the humane, but Gossett manages to find both this balance and leave a mark on the film.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1982: Robert Preston in Victor Victoria
Robert Preston received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Carole "Toddy" Todd in Victor Victoria.
Victor Victoria tells of the "comedic" problems that arise after a struggling female soprano Victoria Grant (Julie Andrews) pretends to be a man who performs drag.
When it comes to portraying a gay character many actors use certain mannerisms sometimes very effectively William Hurt, sometimes not so much Ed Harris, one who is only aware of Preston's performance here might think Preston puts on mannerisms, but from what I have seen from Preston acts just as he always does here, and really does not technically play his character as visibly gay. He instead plays him as Preston seems to play just about all his roles as a fairly flamboyant witty energetic shyster of some sort.
I really do not see any sort of play in his performance as the gay friend of Andrews' character who helps her with his charade as a man pretending being woman. He is fairly flamboyant in his Robert Preston sort of fashion with his distinct voice, and way of speaking. He is Preston all the way which is fitting of his character, and also is charming as it just about always is but I can't really say this is any sort of great performance either. It really is just standard Robert Preston, and not even standard Preston at his best.
Robert Preston also never made me really convinced of his character at all times particularly in his scenes where he is in bed with men, to be honest it never looks like Preston had much of an association with them in any way. He honestly did not seem honestly gay to me, since to me he really just was doing Preston. Preston does indeed says all his lines about his character's sexuality with the utmost conviction, yet I was never convinced, because Preston was just being Preston the entire time.
Although Robert Preston is indeed the male lead of the film he undergoes no changes throughout the film just acting as someone to make insert a clever line from time to time in usual Robert Preston fashion. Preston's performance is enjoyable to a degree since Preston is an enjoyable to watch, but I don't think this is best I frankly thought he was more entertaining and effective in the Last Starfighter actually. Still this is most certainly not a bad performance, but one that frankly left me underwhelmed.
When it comes to portraying a gay character many actors use certain mannerisms sometimes very effectively William Hurt, sometimes not so much Ed Harris, one who is only aware of Preston's performance here might think Preston puts on mannerisms, but from what I have seen from Preston acts just as he always does here, and really does not technically play his character as visibly gay. He instead plays him as Preston seems to play just about all his roles as a fairly flamboyant witty energetic shyster of some sort.
I really do not see any sort of play in his performance as the gay friend of Andrews' character who helps her with his charade as a man pretending being woman. He is fairly flamboyant in his Robert Preston sort of fashion with his distinct voice, and way of speaking. He is Preston all the way which is fitting of his character, and also is charming as it just about always is but I can't really say this is any sort of great performance either. It really is just standard Robert Preston, and not even standard Preston at his best.
Robert Preston also never made me really convinced of his character at all times particularly in his scenes where he is in bed with men, to be honest it never looks like Preston had much of an association with them in any way. He honestly did not seem honestly gay to me, since to me he really just was doing Preston. Preston does indeed says all his lines about his character's sexuality with the utmost conviction, yet I was never convinced, because Preston was just being Preston the entire time.
Although Robert Preston is indeed the male lead of the film he undergoes no changes throughout the film just acting as someone to make insert a clever line from time to time in usual Robert Preston fashion. Preston's performance is enjoyable to a degree since Preston is an enjoyable to watch, but I don't think this is best I frankly thought he was more entertaining and effective in the Last Starfighter actually. Still this is most certainly not a bad performance, but one that frankly left me underwhelmed.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1982: James Mason in The Verdict
James Mason received his third and final Oscar nomination for portraying Ed Concannon in The Verdict.
In the supporting actor category Mason was not the first actor to be nominated for portraying an the adversary attorney in a court room drama as George C. Scott was also nominated for a similar role in 1959 for Anatomy of a Murder a performance that earned my win for that particular year. What I like is to see these two talented actors taken such different approaches to what are very similar character in that they are both there just to win their case, there really is not a personal life mentioned or anything else, yet they still managed to be Oscar nominated.
Well it is most certainly true that one can be nominated for an entirely unimpressive and unsubstantial performance, Mason though as with Scott managed to show how a great actor can make the most out of just about any sort of role if they actually bother to try. It is just interesting to look at the differences and similarities between Scott and Mason in the ways they both managed to succeed in their roles, and make a substantial impact in their film despite the technical limitations of their part.
Where Scott was more demanding, and intense as his prosecutor, Mason portrays his slick attorney as a relatively quite man but one who like Scott's character is absolutely always in control of his situation. Mason though always presents Ed Concannon as an always prepared man who examines every situation so he doesn't need to get loud or angry, he is in charge because he has determined that he is in charge. Mason always shows with cold efficiency that there is a calculated procedure Concannon takes to everything involved with a case.
Mason has such a great ease in his performance that it makes him a more than just a rival to Paul Newman's Frank Galvin, but in fact makes him seem like his legal superior. Mason for most of the film has complete control in his scenes, and so calmly lays down plan and actions in every scene with just the right degree of smug superiority. Mason never shows Concannon to be an idiot when it comes to his superior manner and tone, but rather something he has earned his right to use from his long standing history as a lawyer.
Mason is particularly excellent in his scenes of cross examination, since he really does not have a harsh intense attitude, but rather is always polite, even though Mason shows almost a fiendish quality in this calm approach that through his slowly but eloquently put questions he is always carefully tearing into them. I particularly like when Concannon basically harasses a witness, and accuses her of lying, yet he does it with such calm reserve he actually seems even more piercing because of this.
Mason is terrific in every moment he needs to show just how smart, and effective Ed Concannon is creating an almost overwhelming obstacle for Galvin to fight, but my favorite moment in his performance is when he is at a loss for words in a single scene. Mason's reaction is absolutely perfect when Concannon finally is truly surprised by something he hadn't planned for, and Mason shows a vulnerability in this single scene where it Concannon can barely understand that there something has occurred that he has not planned for, simply a terrific moment that perfectly shows a sign of weakness in Concannon.
This is a great performance by Mason who takes what he has an makes the absolute most of it. It would have been very easy to actually have had Concannon be an nonentity in the film, but instead just like George C. Scott in Anatomy of Murder he turns Concannon into a formidable court room villain. His performance here puts to shame other performances that just settle in their roles and never attempt bring more life to the part. This is a brilliant realization of what an actor can do with a character even when the character is limited.
Well it is most certainly true that one can be nominated for an entirely unimpressive and unsubstantial performance, Mason though as with Scott managed to show how a great actor can make the most out of just about any sort of role if they actually bother to try. It is just interesting to look at the differences and similarities between Scott and Mason in the ways they both managed to succeed in their roles, and make a substantial impact in their film despite the technical limitations of their part.
Where Scott was more demanding, and intense as his prosecutor, Mason portrays his slick attorney as a relatively quite man but one who like Scott's character is absolutely always in control of his situation. Mason though always presents Ed Concannon as an always prepared man who examines every situation so he doesn't need to get loud or angry, he is in charge because he has determined that he is in charge. Mason always shows with cold efficiency that there is a calculated procedure Concannon takes to everything involved with a case.
Mason has such a great ease in his performance that it makes him a more than just a rival to Paul Newman's Frank Galvin, but in fact makes him seem like his legal superior. Mason for most of the film has complete control in his scenes, and so calmly lays down plan and actions in every scene with just the right degree of smug superiority. Mason never shows Concannon to be an idiot when it comes to his superior manner and tone, but rather something he has earned his right to use from his long standing history as a lawyer.
Mason is particularly excellent in his scenes of cross examination, since he really does not have a harsh intense attitude, but rather is always polite, even though Mason shows almost a fiendish quality in this calm approach that through his slowly but eloquently put questions he is always carefully tearing into them. I particularly like when Concannon basically harasses a witness, and accuses her of lying, yet he does it with such calm reserve he actually seems even more piercing because of this.
Mason is terrific in every moment he needs to show just how smart, and effective Ed Concannon is creating an almost overwhelming obstacle for Galvin to fight, but my favorite moment in his performance is when he is at a loss for words in a single scene. Mason's reaction is absolutely perfect when Concannon finally is truly surprised by something he hadn't planned for, and Mason shows a vulnerability in this single scene where it Concannon can barely understand that there something has occurred that he has not planned for, simply a terrific moment that perfectly shows a sign of weakness in Concannon.
This is a great performance by Mason who takes what he has an makes the absolute most of it. It would have been very easy to actually have had Concannon be an nonentity in the film, but instead just like George C. Scott in Anatomy of Murder he turns Concannon into a formidable court room villain. His performance here puts to shame other performances that just settle in their roles and never attempt bring more life to the part. This is a brilliant realization of what an actor can do with a character even when the character is limited.
Best Supporting Actor 1982: Charles Durning in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas
Charles Durning received his first Oscar nomination for portraying the Governor in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.
The Best Little Whorehouse is a rather hard to sit through musical about a long standing Whorehouse's problems with people who are against it.
Charles Durning portrays the governor of Texas who aside from a few very short and quite unremarkable reaction shots really does not do anything in the film until way past half way through the film he finally does something because the governor of Texas is the person left with the decision to close the Whorehouse down or not, even though he really does not want to be the person left with the decision. Durning despite how little he is in the film is often described as the best part of this film, although that may be true it really says more about the quality of the film than the quality of his performance.
He really does not do anything till he is asked to make a decision on the Whorehouse something he does not really want to do since it gives him any sort of responsibility. So he says all of that in a musical number about side stepping the issue, in which he joyfully sings about his love of doing so, with short moments of saying absolutely nothing through just saying some random good politician type statements. I can't say the number is particularly well written or well directed but Durning does have some energy into the number but never enough that it makes the number at all memorable.
Other than the number he just is a southern inconsistent politician. Durning attempts to be comedic in his character's indecisiveness, but his material is frankly never good enough for Durning to do anything even slightly amusing with it. Durning does try though, and I will give him credit for that but even at his best his performance is nothing special. It never overcomes his material, and his performance is never anything that needed to be awarded. How he was nominated is a bit perplexing especially since they could have nominated him for Tootsie and it would have been far more deserving.
Charles Durning portrays the governor of Texas who aside from a few very short and quite unremarkable reaction shots really does not do anything in the film until way past half way through the film he finally does something because the governor of Texas is the person left with the decision to close the Whorehouse down or not, even though he really does not want to be the person left with the decision. Durning despite how little he is in the film is often described as the best part of this film, although that may be true it really says more about the quality of the film than the quality of his performance.
He really does not do anything till he is asked to make a decision on the Whorehouse something he does not really want to do since it gives him any sort of responsibility. So he says all of that in a musical number about side stepping the issue, in which he joyfully sings about his love of doing so, with short moments of saying absolutely nothing through just saying some random good politician type statements. I can't say the number is particularly well written or well directed but Durning does have some energy into the number but never enough that it makes the number at all memorable.
Other than the number he just is a southern inconsistent politician. Durning attempts to be comedic in his character's indecisiveness, but his material is frankly never good enough for Durning to do anything even slightly amusing with it. Durning does try though, and I will give him credit for that but even at his best his performance is nothing special. It never overcomes his material, and his performance is never anything that needed to be awarded. How he was nominated is a bit perplexing especially since they could have nominated him for Tootsie and it would have been far more deserving.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1982
James Mason in The Verdict
Robert Preston in Victor Victoria
Lou Gossett Jr. in An Officer and A Gentleman
Charles Durning in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas
John Lithgow in The World According to Garp
