John Goodman in Barton Fink
Ted Levine in The Silence of the Lambs
Gary Oldman in JFK
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 1991 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1991 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Best Supporting Actor 1991: Results
John Goodman in Barton Fink
Ted Levine in The Silence of the Lambs
Gary Oldman in JFK
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Best Supporting Actor 1991: Jack Palance in City Slickers
Jack Palance won his Oscar from his third and final nomination for portraying Curly Washburn in City Slickers.
City Slickers is a comedy about a literal group of city slickers who go on a cattle drive.
Jack Palance portrays the trial boss Curly who heads the cattle drive. He is rough tough, and with a glint of a philosophical side as well, an all around old fashioned cowboy. Jack Palance plays him rough and tough well enough most certainly with the strong screen presence he usually was able to bring in his better performances. Also he does have an occasional enjoyable reaction or two as well when he sees the city slickers act stupidly.
Palance as well handles the philosophical side of Curly with an ease and grace that is entirely appropriate for his old dying race demeanor and fits the rest of his character. My problem with this Oscar winning performance though comes from his screentime, and the amount asked of Palance from his performance. This just is not too much of a challenge really in the end especially compared to say his performance in Sudden Fear, or even his performance in Shane.
Firstly he is only required to do exactly what he does no more, which in the end is surprisingly little. Secondly though I was surprised with just how little that was total, I had seen the film before but not in a long while, and I forgot just how little Palance was actually in the film. This still is not a bad performance by any means, but it just never amounts to anywhere near one would expect from what was named the best supporting performance of the year.
Jack Palance portrays the trial boss Curly who heads the cattle drive. He is rough tough, and with a glint of a philosophical side as well, an all around old fashioned cowboy. Jack Palance plays him rough and tough well enough most certainly with the strong screen presence he usually was able to bring in his better performances. Also he does have an occasional enjoyable reaction or two as well when he sees the city slickers act stupidly.
Palance as well handles the philosophical side of Curly with an ease and grace that is entirely appropriate for his old dying race demeanor and fits the rest of his character. My problem with this Oscar winning performance though comes from his screentime, and the amount asked of Palance from his performance. This just is not too much of a challenge really in the end especially compared to say his performance in Sudden Fear, or even his performance in Shane.
Firstly he is only required to do exactly what he does no more, which in the end is surprisingly little. Secondly though I was surprised with just how little that was total, I had seen the film before but not in a long while, and I forgot just how little Palance was actually in the film. This still is not a bad performance by any means, but it just never amounts to anywhere near one would expect from what was named the best supporting performance of the year.
Best Supporting Actor 1991: Tommy Lee Jones in JFK
Tommy Lee Jones received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Clay Shaw in JFK.
JFK is Oliver Stone's inaccuracy and conspiracy filled depiction of District Attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) investigation into the JFK's assassination.
Tommy Lee Jones portrays the very elusive and mysterious businessman Clay Shaw who in the film seems to have some involvement with the assassination of JFK although it never says precisely what his association is. Tommy Lee Jones portrays Shaw in an equally mysterious fashion, and although Stone is not a subtle director by any means there is most certainly subtly laced within Jones' work in this film.
Jones role is in the end quite small really. Much of his appearances in scenes are only very very short moments that merely indicate his presence more than anything else. Nevertheless Jones still creates compelling character within these short scenes. Jones never for a moment exactly says who Shaw is in but rather creates him into a fascinating enigma that is basically impossible to fully understand.
An enigma is actually quite a difficult role to find the right balance as it is easy to give away too much of the character or too little that it just seems like thin characterization. Jones though manages to find the perfect balance of the known and unknown in his performance. There is an underlying sinister quality to Jones' portrayal that is always clear and chilling in an understated way but mysterious by the way Jones never exactly say what makes Shaw so sinister.
Jones gives a careful but concise performance that always seems to suggest the Shaw is hiding something, but Jones is good enough that he is able to convey in small indications that he is hiding something, but at the same he is able to show that Shaw is exceedingly good at hiding his secrets. This again something that is very difficult to convey but Jones is masterful in portraying that here.
Jones' role is quite short but you do actually feel his presence almost throughout the film from the his short time. I really do not like to use that overused phrase with performances, but it is true of Jones' work here that absolutely creates fascinating character who acts as the incarnation basically of the conspiracy in the film.
Tommy Lee Jones portrays the very elusive and mysterious businessman Clay Shaw who in the film seems to have some involvement with the assassination of JFK although it never says precisely what his association is. Tommy Lee Jones portrays Shaw in an equally mysterious fashion, and although Stone is not a subtle director by any means there is most certainly subtly laced within Jones' work in this film.
Jones role is in the end quite small really. Much of his appearances in scenes are only very very short moments that merely indicate his presence more than anything else. Nevertheless Jones still creates compelling character within these short scenes. Jones never for a moment exactly says who Shaw is in but rather creates him into a fascinating enigma that is basically impossible to fully understand.
An enigma is actually quite a difficult role to find the right balance as it is easy to give away too much of the character or too little that it just seems like thin characterization. Jones though manages to find the perfect balance of the known and unknown in his performance. There is an underlying sinister quality to Jones' portrayal that is always clear and chilling in an understated way but mysterious by the way Jones never exactly say what makes Shaw so sinister.
Jones gives a careful but concise performance that always seems to suggest the Shaw is hiding something, but Jones is good enough that he is able to convey in small indications that he is hiding something, but at the same he is able to show that Shaw is exceedingly good at hiding his secrets. This again something that is very difficult to convey but Jones is masterful in portraying that here.
Jones' role is quite short but you do actually feel his presence almost throughout the film from the his short time. I really do not like to use that overused phrase with performances, but it is true of Jones' work here that absolutely creates fascinating character who acts as the incarnation basically of the conspiracy in the film.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Best Supporting Actor 1991: Michael Lerner in Barton Fink
Michael Lerner received his only Oscar nomination so far for portraying Jack Lipnick in Barton Fink.
Barton Fink depicts the strange story of a playwright hired for the movies to write a wrestling picture but suffers from writer's block well living in a bizarre hotel.
This is a strange nomination since after the watching the film I would think that anyone would most likely say the standout supporting performance in the film was by John Goodman as the strange neighbor of Barton's, but I guess maybe Goodman's character was a little too strange for them maybe his whole plot line so perhaps they decided to go with the character they could more fully understand the imposing studio boss played by Michael Lerner Jack Lipnick who hires Fink to write a wrestling picture that is to star Wallace Beery.
Lerner appears in only three scenes total as Lipnick although he is the domineering presence in all three of them. Jack Lipnick is forceful fast talking studio head who knows his business and talks fast, and is unpredictable in his way he praises Fink and ridicules his assistant. Lerner actually is quite good in these scenes and does bring all of these qualities to life. He dominates his scenes just as Jack Lipnick should dominate everything around him.
Lerner appropriately has humorous overtones to his performance which he includes in his performance without any sort of visible performance. It is a performance that more than simply fufills his roles because how effective he is in his scenes. Lerner role though is limited, and he does not make for the most memorable part of a film. Lerner's performance though is of course quite good though yet I can say he is that good really. Lerner is enjoyable presence in the film, but there isn't anything he does in the film that is absolutely amazing in the film though. He is a good few scenes wonder, but not one of the truly great ones.
This is a strange nomination since after the watching the film I would think that anyone would most likely say the standout supporting performance in the film was by John Goodman as the strange neighbor of Barton's, but I guess maybe Goodman's character was a little too strange for them maybe his whole plot line so perhaps they decided to go with the character they could more fully understand the imposing studio boss played by Michael Lerner Jack Lipnick who hires Fink to write a wrestling picture that is to star Wallace Beery.
Lerner appears in only three scenes total as Lipnick although he is the domineering presence in all three of them. Jack Lipnick is forceful fast talking studio head who knows his business and talks fast, and is unpredictable in his way he praises Fink and ridicules his assistant. Lerner actually is quite good in these scenes and does bring all of these qualities to life. He dominates his scenes just as Jack Lipnick should dominate everything around him.
Lerner appropriately has humorous overtones to his performance which he includes in his performance without any sort of visible performance. It is a performance that more than simply fufills his roles because how effective he is in his scenes. Lerner role though is limited, and he does not make for the most memorable part of a film. Lerner's performance though is of course quite good though yet I can say he is that good really. Lerner is enjoyable presence in the film, but there isn't anything he does in the film that is absolutely amazing in the film though. He is a good few scenes wonder, but not one of the truly great ones.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Best Supporting Actor 1991: Ben Kingsley in Bugsy
Ben Kingsley received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Meyer Lansky in Bugsy.
Kingsley portrays Meyer Lansky Bugsy Segal(Warren Beatty)'s old friend from childhood as well as fellow gangster. He is the more sensible one who sees the big picture, and understands crime in more terms of money refusing to take things too emotionally or personally. Kingsley really is not in the film very often but he has a few scenes that are important for his character.
Kingsley unlike his fellow nominee Harvey Keitel is not nearly as comfortable as a gangster. He tries the same trick as Keitel from the voice to his physical demeanor. Kingsley never seems to be completely natural with his gangster voice or his gangster style and it frankly seems a little too much like a performance rather than really being an embodiment of Meyer Lansky.
Unlike Mickey Cohen played by Keitel though the materials did seem to be there to make Meyer Lansky into a memorable or compelling character. The problem is though Kingsley is never able to convey any sort of inner killer, or power one would think would be in a character like this, something that Lee Starsberg was able to very well in the Godfather Part II as Hyman Roth who was based on Meyer Lansky.
Kingsley never gives more than a rather paper thin characterization of Meyer Lansky focusing far too much on the mannerisms of the character, which he does not even do well, without ever achieving any sort of deeper complexity to the character. It is is all around a rather unimpressive performance by Kingsley that never seizes any of the opportunities the role does indeed offer.
Kingsley unlike his fellow nominee Harvey Keitel is not nearly as comfortable as a gangster. He tries the same trick as Keitel from the voice to his physical demeanor. Kingsley never seems to be completely natural with his gangster voice or his gangster style and it frankly seems a little too much like a performance rather than really being an embodiment of Meyer Lansky.
Unlike Mickey Cohen played by Keitel though the materials did seem to be there to make Meyer Lansky into a memorable or compelling character. The problem is though Kingsley is never able to convey any sort of inner killer, or power one would think would be in a character like this, something that Lee Starsberg was able to very well in the Godfather Part II as Hyman Roth who was based on Meyer Lansky.
Kingsley never gives more than a rather paper thin characterization of Meyer Lansky focusing far too much on the mannerisms of the character, which he does not even do well, without ever achieving any sort of deeper complexity to the character. It is is all around a rather unimpressive performance by Kingsley that never seizes any of the opportunities the role does indeed offer.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Best Supporting Actor 1991: Harvey Keitel in Bugsy
Harvey Keitel received his only Oscar nomination so far for portraying Mickey Cohen in Bugsy.
Harvey Keitel portrays gangster Mickey Cohen who is a bit of renegade gangster at first but eventually he comes to work for Bugsy Segal (Warren Beatty). This is another odd career nomination for Keitel that is his only nomination he has received so far but for very unsubstantial work. He does have an intensity in the role though in his first scene where he yells at Bugsy for awhile, but than he quiets down in his very next scene where he makes a deal with Bugsy and really quiets down for the rest of the film.
After his first scene he barely is on screen and when he is on screen he really is just in the background making the occasional comment that is in no way remarkable. Cohen as a character in this film just simply has little to no impact on the film. Aside from his first scene there is never a scene that even focuses on him for more than a few minor moments. This really is a character as written that it would have been impossible for any actor to make anything special out of it.
Keitel though does really portray the part of Mickey Cohen as well as anyone could. He talks tough he has the right demeanor for the typical gangster. He really is just as he should be but the problem of course is the fact that Cohen is such an undemanding role that there post certianly is nothing about Keitel performance that comes across as memorable or even particularly interesting.
After his first scene he barely is on screen and when he is on screen he really is just in the background making the occasional comment that is in no way remarkable. Cohen as a character in this film just simply has little to no impact on the film. Aside from his first scene there is never a scene that even focuses on him for more than a few minor moments. This really is a character as written that it would have been impossible for any actor to make anything special out of it.
Keitel though does really portray the part of Mickey Cohen as well as anyone could. He talks tough he has the right demeanor for the typical gangster. He really is just as he should be but the problem of course is the fact that Cohen is such an undemanding role that there post certianly is nothing about Keitel performance that comes across as memorable or even particularly interesting.
Best Supporting Actor 1991
Ben Kingsley in Bugsy
Harvey Keitel in Bugsy
Jack Palance in City Slickers
Michael Lerner in Barton Fink
Tommy Lee Jones in JFK
