Ed Harris in A History of Violence
Mickey Rourke in Sin City
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 2005 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2005 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 2005: Results
Ed Harris in A History of Violence
Mickey Rourke in Sin City
Best Supporting Actor 2005: Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain
Jake Gyllenhaal received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain.
Jake Gyllenhaal really is co-lead with Heath Ledger in this film. It tells the story of both men and he should have been in the lead category. It seem though we will never have two nominees from the same film in lead category as if there is any reason to put them in supporting they will, in this case I would say what landed Gyllenhaal in supporting is Ledger gets to reflect at the end where Gyllenhall does not. Nevertheless his role does have just as much importance as Ledger's as it follows both Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar through both their own relationship together and what they do when they are apart.
Watching the film again I must say I was quite disappointed by Gyllenhaal's performance as Jack Twist early in the film when Jack and Ennis first are given their job shepherding. Early on when Jack is rather aggressively trying to pursue a relationship with Ennis, while Ennis is rather confused about it. Gyllenhaal almost tries to be too stoic in the role as Jack early on. He wants to make him a man who is all about what lies beneath, but really is conveying of what lies beneath is a bit lacking early on. Frankly for these early scenes Ledger consistently stays far more interesting and effective than Gyllenhaal who seems a little confused on how to portray his character at first.
I say confused because in between his moments of stoicism he throws in some moments of rather wild extroversion. This could be taken as a more wild of a man on the inside of stoicism, but it never plays this way. There is a most certainly a disconnect in these moments and Gyllenhaal really does not meld them together in an effective fashion. He does not really find exactly the way he should portray Jack, he tries several different ways to try to find his way for Jack but none of them really work here. Also except for a few longing looks Gyllenhaal frankly could have done much more to really show that to Jack that his relationship with Ennis must happen, but Gyllenhaal does not find the right way to get it across.
After these shaky early scenes, actually more of the early half of the picture Gyllenhaal finds his ways with Jack Twist after Jack has gotten married himself into to a life that he hates. Gyllenhaal does become effective when he brings out the bitterness in Jack over his life. In his married life scenes Gyllenhaal effectively conveys the facade his character puts on at all times. Gyllenhaal though shows that really Jack is not the best at it showing a constant anger that is always clearly underneath from his frustrations over never getting what he really wants. Gyllenhaal always shows a constant pain within Jack during these scenes even when the occasion should be pleasant there is always an unpleasantness in Jack.
The pivotal moments of his performance are with Heath Ledger though. There later scenes are very well handled by both actors as they find the right sort of dynamic between the two. Although these scenes certainly can be categorized as romantic they are defined as the problems between the two as much as the love between them. With Ennis more of confused by the whole matter, and completely unsure of what to do exactly, where as Gyllenhaal shows a passion in Jack that desperately wants them to be together always, and with that there is always a bitterness in Gyllenhaal portrayal over just the pain Jack feels whenever he is not with Ennis frankly.
The path of his character really is a negative one. Where Ledger's Ennis moves further and further to try to understand the relationship all Jack does is become increasingly tired, and almost hate filled over not getting what he wants. Gyllenhaal is quite strong in showing this path of Jack's as he slowly moves along it through almost the entire film. Gyllenhaal shows it something that takes time but does make Jack into far less of a man than his former self, into a brooding and almost cold man in some regards. This transformation is what really makes his performance. This is not a perfect performance by any means it is far too shaky early on, but Gyllenhaal does create a compelling character in the end.
Watching the film again I must say I was quite disappointed by Gyllenhaal's performance as Jack Twist early in the film when Jack and Ennis first are given their job shepherding. Early on when Jack is rather aggressively trying to pursue a relationship with Ennis, while Ennis is rather confused about it. Gyllenhaal almost tries to be too stoic in the role as Jack early on. He wants to make him a man who is all about what lies beneath, but really is conveying of what lies beneath is a bit lacking early on. Frankly for these early scenes Ledger consistently stays far more interesting and effective than Gyllenhaal who seems a little confused on how to portray his character at first.
I say confused because in between his moments of stoicism he throws in some moments of rather wild extroversion. This could be taken as a more wild of a man on the inside of stoicism, but it never plays this way. There is a most certainly a disconnect in these moments and Gyllenhaal really does not meld them together in an effective fashion. He does not really find exactly the way he should portray Jack, he tries several different ways to try to find his way for Jack but none of them really work here. Also except for a few longing looks Gyllenhaal frankly could have done much more to really show that to Jack that his relationship with Ennis must happen, but Gyllenhaal does not find the right way to get it across.
After these shaky early scenes, actually more of the early half of the picture Gyllenhaal finds his ways with Jack Twist after Jack has gotten married himself into to a life that he hates. Gyllenhaal does become effective when he brings out the bitterness in Jack over his life. In his married life scenes Gyllenhaal effectively conveys the facade his character puts on at all times. Gyllenhaal though shows that really Jack is not the best at it showing a constant anger that is always clearly underneath from his frustrations over never getting what he really wants. Gyllenhaal always shows a constant pain within Jack during these scenes even when the occasion should be pleasant there is always an unpleasantness in Jack.
The pivotal moments of his performance are with Heath Ledger though. There later scenes are very well handled by both actors as they find the right sort of dynamic between the two. Although these scenes certainly can be categorized as romantic they are defined as the problems between the two as much as the love between them. With Ennis more of confused by the whole matter, and completely unsure of what to do exactly, where as Gyllenhaal shows a passion in Jack that desperately wants them to be together always, and with that there is always a bitterness in Gyllenhaal portrayal over just the pain Jack feels whenever he is not with Ennis frankly.
The path of his character really is a negative one. Where Ledger's Ennis moves further and further to try to understand the relationship all Jack does is become increasingly tired, and almost hate filled over not getting what he wants. Gyllenhaal is quite strong in showing this path of Jack's as he slowly moves along it through almost the entire film. Gyllenhaal shows it something that takes time but does make Jack into far less of a man than his former self, into a brooding and almost cold man in some regards. This transformation is what really makes his performance. This is not a perfect performance by any means it is far too shaky early on, but Gyllenhaal does create a compelling character in the end.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 2005: Paul Giamatti in Cinderella Man
Paul Giamatti received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Joe Gould in Cinderella Man.
Cinderella Man tells of the the fall as well as unexpected comeback of boxer James J. Braddock (Russell Crowe).
Paul Giamatti after being snubbed for his well praised performance in Sideways, he was finally nominated for his supporting role as Jimmy Braddock's manager Joe Gould. Joe Gould is a lively manager and friend to Braddock who not only does his best to find him matches puts his all into the matches staying right along with Braddock during his fights. Gould though always stays as a friend to Braddock throughout even as they are both facing the troubles of the Great Depression.
Giamatti is fine in the role of the two roles Gould has in the film, the loyal friend, and the energetic manager. Giamatii underplays the friendship with Braddock as he never tries to act like Joe and James are the absolutely best friends to the end sort of friends. He instead more realistically shows that although they are always on good terms with one another it is in the end a strong working relationship more than a personal one. In creating this specific sort of relationship Giamatti realistically portrays dynamic between he and Braddock.
Much of Giamatti performance though is in his portrayal of the way Gould tries to work both around the ring and in the back stage dealings of boxing. Giamatti knows these are the scenes for him to shine and he tries his absolute hardest to make an impact in these moments. In his back stage dealings Giamatti shows a sly and somewhat cunning man who always comes with with a quick clever barb to try to get a deal in a way that is best for him and Braddock.
In the actual boxing scenes Giamatti shows that Gould pretty much takes over the showmanship for Braddock. Giamatti does have an appropriate degree of energy in these scenes as he is either tradings insults with Braddock's opponent, or he is furiously motivating Braddock and offering advice. Giamatti is consistently effective here as he realizes the manner and technique of Joe Gould quite well.
The only problem I would say about the role itself is its limits. There is a little bit of Joe at home, but it is very limited at best. Giamatti puts every once of himself into the role, and makes a great effort at all times. The role itself though is never substantial enough for Giamatti to truly take off. It is most certainly a good performance but the the very nature of the role leave Giamatti little to do, and little material to make a truly memorable impact with his character.
Paul Giamatti after being snubbed for his well praised performance in Sideways, he was finally nominated for his supporting role as Jimmy Braddock's manager Joe Gould. Joe Gould is a lively manager and friend to Braddock who not only does his best to find him matches puts his all into the matches staying right along with Braddock during his fights. Gould though always stays as a friend to Braddock throughout even as they are both facing the troubles of the Great Depression.
Giamatti is fine in the role of the two roles Gould has in the film, the loyal friend, and the energetic manager. Giamatii underplays the friendship with Braddock as he never tries to act like Joe and James are the absolutely best friends to the end sort of friends. He instead more realistically shows that although they are always on good terms with one another it is in the end a strong working relationship more than a personal one. In creating this specific sort of relationship Giamatti realistically portrays dynamic between he and Braddock.
Much of Giamatti performance though is in his portrayal of the way Gould tries to work both around the ring and in the back stage dealings of boxing. Giamatti knows these are the scenes for him to shine and he tries his absolute hardest to make an impact in these moments. In his back stage dealings Giamatti shows a sly and somewhat cunning man who always comes with with a quick clever barb to try to get a deal in a way that is best for him and Braddock.
In the actual boxing scenes Giamatti shows that Gould pretty much takes over the showmanship for Braddock. Giamatti does have an appropriate degree of energy in these scenes as he is either tradings insults with Braddock's opponent, or he is furiously motivating Braddock and offering advice. Giamatti is consistently effective here as he realizes the manner and technique of Joe Gould quite well.
The only problem I would say about the role itself is its limits. There is a little bit of Joe at home, but it is very limited at best. Giamatti puts every once of himself into the role, and makes a great effort at all times. The role itself though is never substantial enough for Giamatti to truly take off. It is most certainly a good performance but the the very nature of the role leave Giamatti little to do, and little material to make a truly memorable impact with his character.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 2005: George Clooney in Syriana
George Clooney won his Oscar from his first acting nomination for portraying Bob Barnes in Syriana.
Syriana details a group of intersecting stories involving the U.S.'s associations and complications with foreign oil.
George Clooney is an actor who is sometimes criticized for not really investing in his characters and sometimes very bluntly for playing himself. Well here is an attempt by Clooney to completely reject himself and attempt to portray Bob Barnes an over the hill worn out CIA operative. Well even though I will give credit to Clooney for trying I won't give him credit for succeeding. He never becomes believable as the CIA operative who has been working too many different sides for too long, he is no Richard Burton in The Spy Who Came in From the Cold for example.
Clooney doesn't ever really establish the history of his character, he never seems a like a man who has seen too much or been through too many things. He just never conveys the past of the character in his performance. Instead Clooney gives the same slightly frustrated slight sad face throughout the film to attempt to indicate the state of mine of Barnes. Unfortunately he never shows anything underneath the surface with his performance it is always just basically same expression for his entire performance which is very dull to watch, and does not make Bob Barnes into an interesting character.
The problem is Clooney really did not even need to make Barnes into the that much of an intriguing character, he really could have been just an anchor for the audience in the film. Unfortunately Clooney does not even act as a good anchor he never brings us into his world or into his character's troubles. He instead just makes that same old face again that really does not contribute to the effort of making us empathize with Barnes. Clooney never seems to realize that to underplay one must strive hard to find the complexities of their performances inside subtle reactions like say Robert Duvall in Tender Mercies or Gary Oldman in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but Clooney simply is no Oldman or Duvall.
What amazes me is how Clooney stays in his depressed dull manner all the way throughout it does not matter what the context of the scene is whether it is talking with his son, or threatening an oil man he goes about in almost the exact same way. Clooney also shows no development as Barnes uncovers more and more of the film's plot instead he just makes that same old expression again as if he feels he must spends all his time trying to ensure the audience that he is not George Clooney but a downtrodden CIA agent. Clooney though doesn't do the downtrodden part right. There was not a moment in his performance that I cared about his character or his character's story which Clooney failed to ever bring me into it. There is a serious problem with a performance when the thing I remember most about is that his character has the same name as previous nominee Tom Berenger's Sergeant in Platoon.
Syriana details a group of intersecting stories involving the U.S.'s associations and complications with foreign oil.George Clooney is an actor who is sometimes criticized for not really investing in his characters and sometimes very bluntly for playing himself. Well here is an attempt by Clooney to completely reject himself and attempt to portray Bob Barnes an over the hill worn out CIA operative. Well even though I will give credit to Clooney for trying I won't give him credit for succeeding. He never becomes believable as the CIA operative who has been working too many different sides for too long, he is no Richard Burton in The Spy Who Came in From the Cold for example.
Clooney doesn't ever really establish the history of his character, he never seems a like a man who has seen too much or been through too many things. He just never conveys the past of the character in his performance. Instead Clooney gives the same slightly frustrated slight sad face throughout the film to attempt to indicate the state of mine of Barnes. Unfortunately he never shows anything underneath the surface with his performance it is always just basically same expression for his entire performance which is very dull to watch, and does not make Bob Barnes into an interesting character.
The problem is Clooney really did not even need to make Barnes into the that much of an intriguing character, he really could have been just an anchor for the audience in the film. Unfortunately Clooney does not even act as a good anchor he never brings us into his world or into his character's troubles. He instead just makes that same old face again that really does not contribute to the effort of making us empathize with Barnes. Clooney never seems to realize that to underplay one must strive hard to find the complexities of their performances inside subtle reactions like say Robert Duvall in Tender Mercies or Gary Oldman in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but Clooney simply is no Oldman or Duvall.
What amazes me is how Clooney stays in his depressed dull manner all the way throughout it does not matter what the context of the scene is whether it is talking with his son, or threatening an oil man he goes about in almost the exact same way. Clooney also shows no development as Barnes uncovers more and more of the film's plot instead he just makes that same old expression again as if he feels he must spends all his time trying to ensure the audience that he is not George Clooney but a downtrodden CIA agent. Clooney though doesn't do the downtrodden part right. There was not a moment in his performance that I cared about his character or his character's story which Clooney failed to ever bring me into it. There is a serious problem with a performance when the thing I remember most about is that his character has the same name as previous nominee Tom Berenger's Sergeant in Platoon.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 2005: William Hurt in A History of Violence
William Hurt received his fourth Oscar nomination for portraying Richie Cusack in A History of Violence.
A History of Violence tells the story of Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) a small town family man who becomes a hero by killing to violent men. After killing the men and gaining media attention he finds men looking for him who believe him to be someone else a man involved with violence and crime Joey Cusack.
I must say it is interesting that William Hurt was the actor recognized for this film. After all Ed Harris gives his career best work as a crime boss who is one of the first men who comes looking for Tom. He has a good deal of screen time whereas William Hurt has a slim amount of screen time that makes up only a scene worth of material as Richie the brother of Joey who also is involved with organized crime. Hurt and Harris both had been nominated several times before, perhaps they felt they wanted to see Hurt again after his long absence, or perhaps it is because the academy honestly thought he was just that good in his short single scene performance.
William Hurt I do feel is a bit of an underrated actor these days as he really is one of the best when given the right role. This is not to say Hurt can't give a bad performance as he most certainly can, but in my experience with Hurt performances he really tends to be bad only when he honestly doesn't put very much effort into his performance like his performance in Lost in Space. Nevertheless I am always interested somewhat in a William Hurt performance especially if he really throws himself into a role and he most certainly does in this role as Richie Cusack. Richie is only on screen for a few minutes, Hurt certainly knows this and does his best to make the most of it.
Hurt never for moments tries not to make an impact with his performance as a character who is built quite a bit actually. We know he exists and is another threat to Tom's life that forces him to directly face his past. Hurt really was the perfect choice to portray the single scene character that is Richie since Hurt knows how to make an impact with a single scene. Hurt doesn't waste a moment of his screen time instantly driving hard into turning Richie into a full fledged character as well as creating a memorable visceral performance that will standout despite being very very brief.
Hurt most certainly does not underplay the role in the least, but I never said an actor can't go for a broader and bigger approach in a performance in some of those performances that I have criticized before. If an actor is talented enough and knows just how and when and how to do it they can succeed exceedingly well by taking such a risk with their performance. For me this is most certainly true for William Hurt as Richie here he frankly does not have time to underplay as Richie, Hurt knows this and instead strikes hard and fast with his performance and always tries to be the center of attention.
Hurt is excellent actually as he shows from just his first moment a certain relationship with Mortensen as Richie's brother. Hurt does convey a certain warmness and understanding with his brother that effectively gives a hint into their history together. Hurt plays the scene well as a demented older brother the whole time. it works because Hurt always talks to Mortensen like any older brother disappointed in his younger brother, although certainly to an extreme, but Hurt always shows Richie having a certain familiarity with his brother even if he does not fully understand him.
When the mobster comes out in Richie Hurt is at first quite chilling in the way he coldly indicates to kill Tom without much hesitation, but there is always the sense that he does not exactly love the idea of killing his brother. Afterward though when nothing goes as planned Hurt is darkly comic and effectively so in showing almost that as a mobster everything has been pretty easy. Hurt humorously shows the complete disblief in Richie at his men's utter incompetence. I particularly love his last reaction where he almost tries to shrug after his murder attempt as just being an older brother. This is a short performance by Hurt but a memorable and enjoyable one. In his one scene he holds the screen and surprisingly realizes Richie into a character of his very own not just a simple one scene antagonist.
I must say it is interesting that William Hurt was the actor recognized for this film. After all Ed Harris gives his career best work as a crime boss who is one of the first men who comes looking for Tom. He has a good deal of screen time whereas William Hurt has a slim amount of screen time that makes up only a scene worth of material as Richie the brother of Joey who also is involved with organized crime. Hurt and Harris both had been nominated several times before, perhaps they felt they wanted to see Hurt again after his long absence, or perhaps it is because the academy honestly thought he was just that good in his short single scene performance.
William Hurt I do feel is a bit of an underrated actor these days as he really is one of the best when given the right role. This is not to say Hurt can't give a bad performance as he most certainly can, but in my experience with Hurt performances he really tends to be bad only when he honestly doesn't put very much effort into his performance like his performance in Lost in Space. Nevertheless I am always interested somewhat in a William Hurt performance especially if he really throws himself into a role and he most certainly does in this role as Richie Cusack. Richie is only on screen for a few minutes, Hurt certainly knows this and does his best to make the most of it.
Hurt never for moments tries not to make an impact with his performance as a character who is built quite a bit actually. We know he exists and is another threat to Tom's life that forces him to directly face his past. Hurt really was the perfect choice to portray the single scene character that is Richie since Hurt knows how to make an impact with a single scene. Hurt doesn't waste a moment of his screen time instantly driving hard into turning Richie into a full fledged character as well as creating a memorable visceral performance that will standout despite being very very brief.
Hurt most certainly does not underplay the role in the least, but I never said an actor can't go for a broader and bigger approach in a performance in some of those performances that I have criticized before. If an actor is talented enough and knows just how and when and how to do it they can succeed exceedingly well by taking such a risk with their performance. For me this is most certainly true for William Hurt as Richie here he frankly does not have time to underplay as Richie, Hurt knows this and instead strikes hard and fast with his performance and always tries to be the center of attention.
Hurt is excellent actually as he shows from just his first moment a certain relationship with Mortensen as Richie's brother. Hurt does convey a certain warmness and understanding with his brother that effectively gives a hint into their history together. Hurt plays the scene well as a demented older brother the whole time. it works because Hurt always talks to Mortensen like any older brother disappointed in his younger brother, although certainly to an extreme, but Hurt always shows Richie having a certain familiarity with his brother even if he does not fully understand him.
When the mobster comes out in Richie Hurt is at first quite chilling in the way he coldly indicates to kill Tom without much hesitation, but there is always the sense that he does not exactly love the idea of killing his brother. Afterward though when nothing goes as planned Hurt is darkly comic and effectively so in showing almost that as a mobster everything has been pretty easy. Hurt humorously shows the complete disblief in Richie at his men's utter incompetence. I particularly love his last reaction where he almost tries to shrug after his murder attempt as just being an older brother. This is a short performance by Hurt but a memorable and enjoyable one. In his one scene he holds the screen and surprisingly realizes Richie into a character of his very own not just a simple one scene antagonist.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Best Supporting Actor 2005: Matt Dillon in Crash
Matt Dillon received his first Oscar nominations for portraying Sergeant John Ryan in Crash.
Crash tells about a group of intersecting stories in Los Angeles where racial tensions cause various problems.
Crash really is a film that is always controlled by the writer and the director not the actors. The reason for this is that the film is set up almost entirely to show to sides of most of the character and both sides are of extremes. Most if not all the scenes in the film are suppose to tension filled due to race relations resulting in many actors yelling at the top of their lungs since most conversations in the film quickly devolve into yelling and name calling much faster than one would think. The character's really do not have arcs in the traditional sense they move very quickly to their different positions set by writer like a chess board.
The very nature of the film prevents any of the performances from being all that good sense they are not given the time for natural transitions. This is not to say all of the actors do not evolve to more than just a simple one dimensional characterizations set by the film, as some of the actors do far better with the limited material of the film than others. Dillon's performance certainly is one of the actors on the more positive side of the performances in the film since with his very limited screen time he does try his best to realize his character, he even attempts to try to make his character's sudden transition believable.
Dillon portrays a racist L.A.P.D police officer who has a sick father. He quickly harasses an upper class black couple even sexually molesting one of them. Dillon in his first scene plays it rather straight forward that he is merely doing what he is doing and has not real problems doing so. Dillon here actually does not really try to explain his actions and really presents John Ryan as a racist jerk. Dillon is effective here because he does play it as matter of fact reaction by Ryan, he does not turn into an obvious over the top racist, and rather portrays his character's cruelty rather realistically.
After this scene there is mainly a series of short scenes that show his frustrations over his father's illness. Dillon is fine enough here as he shows his frustrations basically amplify his racism and hatred. The only problem is there is not anything special about his portrayal of his relationship with his father. It is paper thin as written and Dillon is unfortunately held by back by it. Dillon certainly indicates his intent to make something truly meaningful out of his character's sadness of his father's problem, but really the script just does not allow him to explore enough.
The final action of Dillon's character is to save the woman he had previously molested. Dillon actually is terrific in this scene because firstly he did not make his character one dimensional earlier, making it believable that he would and could be a good man when he is called into action. As contrived of a scene as it is, and it is very contrived, Dillon is very effective in bringing it to life bringing the challenging emotions of the moment to life. He makes it believable all throughout the he would risk his life to save someone he had previously mistreated. After this scene though he does very little and his character really is not given sufficient closure and it is a shame. Dillon does his very best in the role realizing his character unfortunately the nature and weaknesses of the film always hold his performance back.
Crash really is a film that is always controlled by the writer and the director not the actors. The reason for this is that the film is set up almost entirely to show to sides of most of the character and both sides are of extremes. Most if not all the scenes in the film are suppose to tension filled due to race relations resulting in many actors yelling at the top of their lungs since most conversations in the film quickly devolve into yelling and name calling much faster than one would think. The character's really do not have arcs in the traditional sense they move very quickly to their different positions set by writer like a chess board.
The very nature of the film prevents any of the performances from being all that good sense they are not given the time for natural transitions. This is not to say all of the actors do not evolve to more than just a simple one dimensional characterizations set by the film, as some of the actors do far better with the limited material of the film than others. Dillon's performance certainly is one of the actors on the more positive side of the performances in the film since with his very limited screen time he does try his best to realize his character, he even attempts to try to make his character's sudden transition believable.
Dillon portrays a racist L.A.P.D police officer who has a sick father. He quickly harasses an upper class black couple even sexually molesting one of them. Dillon in his first scene plays it rather straight forward that he is merely doing what he is doing and has not real problems doing so. Dillon here actually does not really try to explain his actions and really presents John Ryan as a racist jerk. Dillon is effective here because he does play it as matter of fact reaction by Ryan, he does not turn into an obvious over the top racist, and rather portrays his character's cruelty rather realistically.
After this scene there is mainly a series of short scenes that show his frustrations over his father's illness. Dillon is fine enough here as he shows his frustrations basically amplify his racism and hatred. The only problem is there is not anything special about his portrayal of his relationship with his father. It is paper thin as written and Dillon is unfortunately held by back by it. Dillon certainly indicates his intent to make something truly meaningful out of his character's sadness of his father's problem, but really the script just does not allow him to explore enough.
The final action of Dillon's character is to save the woman he had previously molested. Dillon actually is terrific in this scene because firstly he did not make his character one dimensional earlier, making it believable that he would and could be a good man when he is called into action. As contrived of a scene as it is, and it is very contrived, Dillon is very effective in bringing it to life bringing the challenging emotions of the moment to life. He makes it believable all throughout the he would risk his life to save someone he had previously mistreated. After this scene though he does very little and his character really is not given sufficient closure and it is a shame. Dillon does his very best in the role realizing his character unfortunately the nature and weaknesses of the film always hold his performance back.
Best Supporting Actor 2005
William Hurt in A History of Violence
Jack Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain
George Clooney in Syriana
Paul Giamatti in Cinderella Man
Matt Dillon in Crash
