Steve Buscemi in Fargo
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 1996 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1996 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Best Supporting Actor 1996: Results
Steve Buscemi in Fargo
Best Supporting Actor 1996: Armin Mueller-Stahl in Shine
Armin Mueller-Stahl received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Peter Helfgott in Shine.
Mueller-Stahl plays the father of the troubled pianist David Helfgott. This is the sort of performance that only unfortunely seems to be held back by the somewhat lacking script in the film. Peter is just basically a tyrant in the film who wants just what he wants out of the children. He believes that they should all work as hard as possible as well as be tough in order to survive. He harsh toward his children but insists on them particularly David recognizing how lucky they are since he lets them (forces them) to play music, something his own father never allowed.
Mueller-Stahl does his best being the tyrant father of his children. He does not overplay this even though the script really does. Stahl effectively shows a strange combination of coldness and warmth that Peter has for his children. Coldness in the way he refuses to ever give his children any sort of slack or really honest show of love toward them. There is a warmness technically though in Stahl does effectively show that Peter does believe what he is doing is only for the good of his children.
The problem with the performance comes with the film's refusal for Peter to be anything but the tyrant. He is almost always the tyrannical father at all moments, he only lets up ever for the briefest of moments. When he does let up Stahl does not show it as ever being easy, but only being a difficult choice, becuase he has basically no other option. This is a performance that I do like, but I only wish that he has been written as more than basically just an advisory to David's independence but rather a little fuller of a character on his own terms. This is a good performance but helped back by the limits of his part.
Mueller-Stahl does his best being the tyrant father of his children. He does not overplay this even though the script really does. Stahl effectively shows a strange combination of coldness and warmth that Peter has for his children. Coldness in the way he refuses to ever give his children any sort of slack or really honest show of love toward them. There is a warmness technically though in Stahl does effectively show that Peter does believe what he is doing is only for the good of his children.
The problem with the performance comes with the film's refusal for Peter to be anything but the tyrant. He is almost always the tyrannical father at all moments, he only lets up ever for the briefest of moments. When he does let up Stahl does not show it as ever being easy, but only being a difficult choice, becuase he has basically no other option. This is a performance that I do like, but I only wish that he has been written as more than basically just an advisory to David's independence but rather a little fuller of a character on his own terms. This is a good performance but helped back by the limits of his part.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Best Supporting Actor 1996: William H. Macy in Fargo
William H. Macy received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Jerry Lundergaard in Fargo.
Fargo depicts a scheme of a used car salesman to have his own wife kidnapped to receive money from his father in law, but things get out of hand very quickly.
William H. Macy really is not at all supporting in this film and is indeed the lead of the film. After all it is Jerry's plan that sets everything in motion in the film. I imagine he was placed was Macy is a character actor not a leading man as well as the fact that he plays a real weasel of a character. Everything that Jerry really is doing in the film is completely for his own personal gain, and he does it all in a very modest and incredibly pathetic fashion.
Macy really is just perfect in the role of Jerry Lundergaard, and is great casting because Macy usually comes across as some sort of likable any man. There is nothing special about Lundergaard except for his ability to go ahead with is not so foolproof plan. Macy is great because he never tries to hide the modest and downright pathetic nature of his character, instead he flaunts it fully in his performance.
Macy completely makes the most out of the pathetic Jerry. He makes him into an actual person from this place, who really just has no idea what he is getting himself into. It is a very effective portrayal though because although Jerry really is the villain of the film Macy never plays him as such. He shows him just to really be a man with a very very bad idea, not some sort of evil mastermind. Macy managed to handle this so well, I never really hated him in this, but more just felt sorry for him.
Macy though never for a moment though never brings to life the lowlife elements with just the normal man elements. He particularly does this well in his scene at the car dealership he works at where he is ripping a man off over a car. Macy shows that there is no regret for what he is doing, there is certainly a regret there but only for being caught in the act. Macy is just great in the way he tries to talk out of everything with just basically nonsensical back talk. He shows that this is just a normal routine that comes easy to Jerry, although that does not mean he really is good at it either.
What I love about this performance is Macy pitch perfect way he shows Jerry completely unable to handle the results of his own plan. The problems in the plan get to Jerry instantly so that he can barely even understand that his plan could have such negative effects. From the first problem Macy shows that Jerry is completely nervous and unable to deal with what has happened, because he is not only not a mastermind but completely not cut out for this sort of thing.
Macy's performance never falters once. He gets everything right about Jerry from his appropriately modest sounding Minnesota accent, to his awkward pauses in his speech, his increasingly nervous demeanor, and just his sheer inability to do really anything right. Macy manages to give an entertaining, enjoyable, and effective portrait of the very pathetic man. There is not a single missed opportunity in his terrific performance.
William H. Macy really is not at all supporting in this film and is indeed the lead of the film. After all it is Jerry's plan that sets everything in motion in the film. I imagine he was placed was Macy is a character actor not a leading man as well as the fact that he plays a real weasel of a character. Everything that Jerry really is doing in the film is completely for his own personal gain, and he does it all in a very modest and incredibly pathetic fashion.
Macy really is just perfect in the role of Jerry Lundergaard, and is great casting because Macy usually comes across as some sort of likable any man. There is nothing special about Lundergaard except for his ability to go ahead with is not so foolproof plan. Macy is great because he never tries to hide the modest and downright pathetic nature of his character, instead he flaunts it fully in his performance.
Macy completely makes the most out of the pathetic Jerry. He makes him into an actual person from this place, who really just has no idea what he is getting himself into. It is a very effective portrayal though because although Jerry really is the villain of the film Macy never plays him as such. He shows him just to really be a man with a very very bad idea, not some sort of evil mastermind. Macy managed to handle this so well, I never really hated him in this, but more just felt sorry for him.
Macy though never for a moment though never brings to life the lowlife elements with just the normal man elements. He particularly does this well in his scene at the car dealership he works at where he is ripping a man off over a car. Macy shows that there is no regret for what he is doing, there is certainly a regret there but only for being caught in the act. Macy is just great in the way he tries to talk out of everything with just basically nonsensical back talk. He shows that this is just a normal routine that comes easy to Jerry, although that does not mean he really is good at it either.
What I love about this performance is Macy pitch perfect way he shows Jerry completely unable to handle the results of his own plan. The problems in the plan get to Jerry instantly so that he can barely even understand that his plan could have such negative effects. From the first problem Macy shows that Jerry is completely nervous and unable to deal with what has happened, because he is not only not a mastermind but completely not cut out for this sort of thing.
Macy's performance never falters once. He gets everything right about Jerry from his appropriately modest sounding Minnesota accent, to his awkward pauses in his speech, his increasingly nervous demeanor, and just his sheer inability to do really anything right. Macy manages to give an entertaining, enjoyable, and effective portrait of the very pathetic man. There is not a single missed opportunity in his terrific performance.
Best Supporting Actor 1996: Cuba Gooding Jr. in Jerry Maguire
Cuba Gooding Jr. won his Oscar from his first nomination for portraying Rod Tidwell in Jerry Maguire.
Cuba Gooding Jr.'s win is quite an infamous one usually being stated the worst win in this category. Well why is that I am sure it is helped by the fact that his career went off to not so memorable performances in some rather awful films. Also it is the case that he defeated some far more deserving Oscar less actors like Edward Norton, but the really the real reason is that Gooding's performance is not a good performance.
He plays the one sports star that Jerry Maguire (Tom Cruise) is able to stay the agent for after his falling out with the large agency he worked for. Gooding plays his part with a constant energy I will give him credit there as he technically is always into the part, and this is not one of those performances that the actor seems disinterested in, but that does not make it a good performance either.
Gooding behavior as the obnoxious Rod Tidwell is very obnoxious. Gooding yells almost all of his lines with a big smile on his face, and a wide eyed expression to go along with it. This is just overacting really by Gooding as he repeats this throughout his performance, which becomes tiresome from the first instance of it.Yes Tidwell is suppose to be fairly loud but he could have been endearing or funny instead of just obnoxious.
There is not anything special about this performance, and there is no reason it should have ever been nominated. It is just overacting from a chronic over actor. The character perhaps could have worked with a better comedian behind it. Tidwell though just is an excruciating presence in this film, when he should have been the opposite of that.
He plays the one sports star that Jerry Maguire (Tom Cruise) is able to stay the agent for after his falling out with the large agency he worked for. Gooding plays his part with a constant energy I will give him credit there as he technically is always into the part, and this is not one of those performances that the actor seems disinterested in, but that does not make it a good performance either.
Gooding behavior as the obnoxious Rod Tidwell is very obnoxious. Gooding yells almost all of his lines with a big smile on his face, and a wide eyed expression to go along with it. This is just overacting really by Gooding as he repeats this throughout his performance, which becomes tiresome from the first instance of it.Yes Tidwell is suppose to be fairly loud but he could have been endearing or funny instead of just obnoxious.
There is not anything special about this performance, and there is no reason it should have ever been nominated. It is just overacting from a chronic over actor. The character perhaps could have worked with a better comedian behind it. Tidwell though just is an excruciating presence in this film, when he should have been the opposite of that.
Best Supporting Actor 1996: James Woods in Ghosts Of Mississippi
James Woods received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Byron De La Beckwith in Ghosts of Mississippi.
Ghosts of Mississippi depicts the attempt to convict the murderer of civil rights leader Medger Evers over 25 years after the assassination.
James Woods plays the murderer of Medger Evers Byran De La Beckwith, and attempts to bring some energy into a film that sorely needs it. The only problem is though Woods is mostly reduced to reaction shots of being smugly confidant that he will not be convicted. The only other thing he seems to do is make racist statements with absolutely no shame at all.
Woods is an actor who always seems to try hard in his roles even when the films are very much lacking. I will give him his due credit he tries he tries hard to make something compelling out of his material. The problem is though he mostly is at the mercy of his character. Woods is technically good at being De La Beckwith, he manages the southern accent, as well as his old age mannerisms with ease.
Woods shows that De La Beckwith has absolutely no doubt over his racist philosophy he believes or his complete lack of empathy for the man he killed. Woods is energetic with the part his scene late in the film where he espouses his confidant he won't be found guilty despite basically admitting his guilt is well acted. His performance overall is good, but it is never amazing always being held back by his part and his film.
James Woods plays the murderer of Medger Evers Byran De La Beckwith, and attempts to bring some energy into a film that sorely needs it. The only problem is though Woods is mostly reduced to reaction shots of being smugly confidant that he will not be convicted. The only other thing he seems to do is make racist statements with absolutely no shame at all.
Woods is an actor who always seems to try hard in his roles even when the films are very much lacking. I will give him his due credit he tries he tries hard to make something compelling out of his material. The problem is though he mostly is at the mercy of his character. Woods is technically good at being De La Beckwith, he manages the southern accent, as well as his old age mannerisms with ease.
Woods shows that De La Beckwith has absolutely no doubt over his racist philosophy he believes or his complete lack of empathy for the man he killed. Woods is energetic with the part his scene late in the film where he espouses his confidant he won't be found guilty despite basically admitting his guilt is well acted. His performance overall is good, but it is never amazing always being held back by his part and his film.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Best Supporting Actor 1996: Edward Norton in Primal Fear
Edward Norton received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Aaron Stampler in Primal Fear.
Primal Fear depicts the murder trial of an altar/choir boy who is accused of murdering an Archbishop and is defended by a hot shot lawyer Martin Vail (Richard Gere).
For me to describe and review this performance I must reveal the spoilers around this performance as the revelations in this performance are pivotal to the performance. Edward Norton actually is not a favorite actor of mine, but I must admit when he is good he is really good which is the case in this film. Although you can say what you want about the film it most certainly is worth watching for Edward Norton's performance as the altar boy accused of murder.
When we first see him Aaron is nothing but a scared boy who seems in a very bad situation that he barely seems understand. Norton has the apparent innocence down perfectly. He has a small little stutter, and such a modest demeanor that it simply seems impossible that he could possibly have murdered anyone. When he says that he did not murder the Archbishop he allows you to believe him because of the genuine innocence that Norton portrays in his performance.
The thing though is Aaron is not innocent at all. He is in fact a very much troubled young man as seen when he is being analyzed by a psychologist. In these scenes Norton cleverly portrays Aaron's reactions. He answers most of the questions with his normal boyish innocence, putting up the right degree of reluctance to talk about darker more personal aspects of himself, but when pressured he shows an entirely different side of Aaron that he basically inserts at the right question.
The truth seems to come out when it is revealed that Aaron not only murdered the Archbishop but he has a split personality one being the modest unknowing innocent Aaron and the other being the brutal and vicious Roy. Norton is absolutely believable as both personalities which makes this revelation believable. When Roy Norton shows a chilling psychopathic man who do whatever it takes for self preservation as well as personal gain.
The thing is though there is no split personality after all there is only one person Aaron who's true personality is that of the violent Roy. This final twist really could have been unbelievable but Norton completely sells it. It is amazingly effective becuase of how believable he was as the altar boy, and even in his portrayal of split personality, but what really makes it effective is his final scene where he makes the revelation. Norton brilliant in how he shows the complete egotistical glee of the psychopath he has in his accomplishment. The absolute control he has in this scene succeeds in creating the entire path of the character, as well as making Aaron one very memorable villain.
For me to describe and review this performance I must reveal the spoilers around this performance as the revelations in this performance are pivotal to the performance. Edward Norton actually is not a favorite actor of mine, but I must admit when he is good he is really good which is the case in this film. Although you can say what you want about the film it most certainly is worth watching for Edward Norton's performance as the altar boy accused of murder.
When we first see him Aaron is nothing but a scared boy who seems in a very bad situation that he barely seems understand. Norton has the apparent innocence down perfectly. He has a small little stutter, and such a modest demeanor that it simply seems impossible that he could possibly have murdered anyone. When he says that he did not murder the Archbishop he allows you to believe him because of the genuine innocence that Norton portrays in his performance.
The thing though is Aaron is not innocent at all. He is in fact a very much troubled young man as seen when he is being analyzed by a psychologist. In these scenes Norton cleverly portrays Aaron's reactions. He answers most of the questions with his normal boyish innocence, putting up the right degree of reluctance to talk about darker more personal aspects of himself, but when pressured he shows an entirely different side of Aaron that he basically inserts at the right question.
The truth seems to come out when it is revealed that Aaron not only murdered the Archbishop but he has a split personality one being the modest unknowing innocent Aaron and the other being the brutal and vicious Roy. Norton is absolutely believable as both personalities which makes this revelation believable. When Roy Norton shows a chilling psychopathic man who do whatever it takes for self preservation as well as personal gain.
The thing is though there is no split personality after all there is only one person Aaron who's true personality is that of the violent Roy. This final twist really could have been unbelievable but Norton completely sells it. It is amazingly effective becuase of how believable he was as the altar boy, and even in his portrayal of split personality, but what really makes it effective is his final scene where he makes the revelation. Norton brilliant in how he shows the complete egotistical glee of the psychopath he has in his accomplishment. The absolute control he has in this scene succeeds in creating the entire path of the character, as well as making Aaron one very memorable villain.
Best Supporting Actor 1996
William H. Macy in Fargo
James Woods in Ghosts of Mississippi
Cuba Gooding Jr. in Jerry Maguire
Edward Norton in Primal Fear
Armin Mueller-Stahl in Shine
