Best Supporting Actor 2011: Results

5. Jonah Hill in Moneyball- Jonah Hill's performance is functional enough, but it never really stands out as anything that needed to be awarded.

4. Nick Nolte in Warrior- Nolte tries hard and gives a descent performance, but as with all of his performances, he never completely realizes the potential of his part.

3. Christopher Plummer in Beginners- Plummer's performance almost seems misused in the course of the film muting his emotional impact, when Plummer is on screen though he gives an effective enough of a performance.

2. Max von Sydow in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close- Although he is in a very bad film, and must support an awful actor in the lead, Sydow's performance is the best part of the film creating a moving and mysterious portrait of a man who refuses to speak due to his past.

1. Kenneth Branagh in My Week With Marilyn- Branagh tops this weak year, although there were plenty of not nominated supporting performances. Interesting enough the order of the nominees is almost the reverse order of how I would rank the films the nominees, something that rarely happens I must say. Branagh stands as my choice with his good but not perfect impersonation of Laurence Olivier. What really gives him the win though is his ability to actually turn Olivier into a compelling character despite the sever limitations of the script, as well as have the potential problem of getting caught trying to make just an impression.

Deserving Performances:
Albert Brooks in Drive
Bryan Cranston in Drive
Mark Strong in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Brad Pitt in The Tree of Life

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 2011: Kenneth Branagh in My Week With Marilyn

Kenneth Branagh received his second acting Oscar nomination for portraying Laurence Olivier in My Week With Marilyn.

My Week With Marilyn tells of the story of the troubles of the production of the Prince and the Showgirl, and Marilyn Monroe relationship with one of the assistant directors the rather dull Colin Clark. The film takes too much of a scatter shot approach to the subject matter, and the director never has a distinct statement or opinion on the subject matter really to make the film work.

This performance is one that I really have to almost take a step back to examine for a moment as Branagh attempts to portray Laurence Olivier who is one of the greatest actors ever in my opinion with his performance, after all I think he deserved six acting Oscar victories. Kenneth Branagh and I would probably have something to discuss though as it is pretty clear that he probably likes Olivier as much as I do, since his early career seemed almost to try to replicate Olivier's, and now he in fact gets to portray Laurence Olivier.

Kenneth Branagh portrays Olivier and does try to imitate Olivier's distinct mannerisms both when he is a just being Olivier, as well as Olivier's acting style. I must say unlike some imitation where I have not seen a great deal of the person Branagh is at a disadvantage as I have a great deal of Olivier's films, as well as some his interviews. Branagh although maybe thinks he looks just like a Olivier he honestly does not look all that much like him. Kenneth Branagh again has just a natural disadvantage in this case once again.

Branagh certainly tries extremely hard to attempt to be Olivier, but he just cannot do it even if he gives his honest best shot. The truth is though I do not know if anyone could really completely be Olivier, for me, so again I really don't think I should be too hard on him for this alone. I will say I still did like his mannerisms he used and really they were very much like Olivier from his soft tender voice when quietly whispering, but still keeping the fineness of it even when he is angry and yelling. It is not a perfect realization of Olivier's voice but it is a very good one.

Branagh is as well competent at portraying the classic Olivier sort of glances, and expressions of both joy and annoyance. He even does do a technically fine job of replicating the sort of accents Olivier would use in the film, although I must admit The Prince and the Showgirl is one Olivier film I have not seen surprising enough, but still Branagh most certainly is satisfactory. He never achieves what is the purpose to become Olivier but to be honest few performances of this sort can really do that. One example is Martin Landau in Ed Wood, but than again that is also the best performance ever nominated in this category.

Well past the imitation Branagh has other challenges though. As I said the film takes a scatter shot approach to the material, which is especially true when it comes to Laurence Olivier's role in the film. There are times where he seems to be an important part of the film, and than he is quickly forgotten as well. He also unfortunately is strapped with poorly handled subplot such as wanting to have an affair with Marilyn himself, which they might well not have had considering how it is so quickly forgotten, his relationship with his troubled wife Vivien Leigh, and his supposed animosity toward method acting.

I won't argue with the film on specific points about Olivier's history even if it is all far too simplified or just inaccurate, but the problem is nothing is focused upon to really be very well developed. This though is all the more reason to give Branagh just credit in his role, for actually developing a character within the mess of one he is actually is given. He does manage to bring life to Olivier's struggle with the whole production of the film. He realizes the frustrations of Olivier's well as it slowly increases in each scene, and that part of his response almost is to find anyway to deter the problems of  his co-star.

Branagh's Olivier is going through every sort of emotion in each scene, while still having to jump into acting character from time to time as well. Branagh actually is convincing in portraying the constant downpour of emotions that Olivier must deal with, and even though the script offers little help Branagh manages to move from each emotion with a great deal of clarity and realism. In fact in his final scene Branagh really is terrific as he shows exactly what Olivier's learned from the experience in a fairly poignant moment, where he feels the most truly Olivier.

This performance is not perfect as the script, and the feat of being Olivier makes that quite difficult. It turned out to me though quite an enjoyable one, as Branagh managed to bring what he could to life despite the limitations and challenges of the part. Also I will admit freely I enjoyed seeing an Olivier depiction, and my ability to spot a few subtle moments in the script, even if anachronistic. As Olivier in the film quotes the Entertainer, the line about dead behind theses eyes, before he apparently even read the play. Although Branagh rendition of that line is good it is of course, it is not the absolute astonishing moment as it is in Olivier's performance in The Entertainer. That really sums up this performance for me Branagh managed to be good in the part of Olivier, but never able to truly become the acting greatness of Olivier.

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 2011: Albert Brooks in Drive

Albert Brooks should have received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Bernie Rose in Drive. (Well since it might be a bit before I get a chance to see Branagh, I am reviewing him here anyway)

Drive is a great thriller about an unnamed stunt driver (Ryan Gosling) who also moonlights as a getaway driver for criminals which inadvertently causes him serious problems.

Albert Brooks really should have gone down with the likes of Robert Montgomery for portraying the most different of character between his first and second nomination, since his great performance as Aaron Altman in Broadcast News has basically nothing in common with his performance here. Bernie and Aaron basically have nothing in common other than the fact that it shows off that Albert Brooks is an incredible actor if given the chance to be. From beginning to end Brooks gives a completely uncompromising performance as Bernie Rose that proves just what he is capable of.

Albert Brooks makes the absolute most out of Bernie Rose who is a mobster who is not exactly on the top of the heap, but still he does not answer to anyone. He has his specific place, and specific spot in the crime world that he is relatively happy in. Brooks is terrific from his first moment on screen as he establishes Bernie. In his earlier scenes he does not seem to be an entirely unreasonable man, there is always the sense that you definitely do not want to tick him off, but there is a certain degree of a strange sort of friendliness.

Brooks has a perfect matter of fact quality in Bernie that he uses effectively throughout. Brooks shows that is almost is that Bernie reached this place in his life by cutting through the crap and always saying things are exactly how sees them. There is a dominance Brooks has that suggests exactly where Bernie came from, and how he became exactly the way he is now. Brooks is excellent though because he never shows Bernie as a bad man exactly rather a man firstly, who does bad things only when he is forced to.

When Bernie's violent side finally appears Brooks is terrifying aided greatly by the fact that he didn't overplay Rose's negative side early on. Brooks makes Bernie moments of violence especially disconcerting and intense because of the way he brings it out. What I love about his two killing scene is how he actually shows a great deal of who Bernie is when he does this. Brooks does not simple kill them as a completely dissociative reaction that he has no emotional attachment to.

Brooks shows that Rose kills because of business entirely, but it is a very personal thing when he does it. The first person he kills he clearly has not respect for in the least, and does basically consider it pretty much taking out the trash, yet Brooks still shows Bernie disgusted to so almost blaming the his cause for disgust on the man he is killing. Brooks creates a fascinating killer who doesn't like to do it, but will do it when he needs to even though he doesn't mind blaming the victim for why he must do it.

The second person he kills though Brooks again shows a very different side of Rose, although it still reflects the idea that Rose only does it when needed and takes no joy in it. The second person he kills though is different because he actually likes the man, and really never had any desire to murder the man. It is of course a brutal violent moment, but Brooks inserts a degree of humanity in the scene. During the killing and afterwards he actually makes it sad necessity for Bernie that he most certainly feels very regretful and guilty of. The killing itself even Brooks portrays it as Bernie trying to kill a man in the nicest way he knows how.

Brooks is absolutely brilliant in his ability to suggest Bernie's small humane side while still staying absolutely imposing as well. Brooks is amazing in his final threatening speech to the Driver. It actually is very easy to overact a scene like this, or simply seem just nonthreatening as well, but Brooks is outstanding. Albert Brooks doesn't overplay the scene but lays it out on the line in the scene in a realistic and fierce manner. It is an incredible performance that turns what could have been a forgettable part, into a powerful memorable villain.

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 2011: Max von Sydow in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Max von Sydow received his second Oscar nomination for portraying The Renter in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close about a boy Oskar trying to find the purpose of a key his father had after his father died in the September 11 attacks maybe could have been okay if it were not the way the lead character is written, directed, and portrayed. Thomas Horn gives an obnoxious inconsistent characterization that pretty much sinks the film. He just gives an awful performance that does not make you care about this kid or his journey in the least in fact you wish something bad would happen to him he is that intolerable. Now some have defended this performance saying his character is suppose to have aspergers, and that is why he is insufferable.

First of all Thomas Horn seems to have confused aspergers with HAMbergers (Yes I know that pun was worthy of Fozzie Bear). Secondly just because is suppose to be annoying doesn't mean that makes the character a good character, or any less intolerable to spend the film with. Thirdly there are performances that can make likable characters even if they are suppose to be insufferable, Albert Brooks in Broadcast News for example (See I didn't mention his film this year), but Thomas Horn is just an awful far too self aware actor to accomplish something like that.

Now I should probably get off Horn as this review is about Max von Sydow who is the mystery renter who rents a room from Oskar's grandmother, but Horn comes into play with Sydow's performance, not since Tom Cruise annoyed Paul Newman in The Color of Money, has a Oscar nominated performance had to deal with such a cloying obnoxious one. Max von Sydow deserves all the credit he can get though for putting up with this lesser performer, and actually managing to come out on top despite his lackluster co-star.

As the mysterious renter Max von Sydow never speaks a single word, and simply refuses to speak. He rather chooses to communicate with a note pad and a yes and a no that is written upon his hands. Sydow performance than relies completely in the aged actor's face, which Sydow certainly makes the most of. Sydow effectively creates a mysterious portrait of the man, carefully letting us in on some knowledge of his past. Sydow is able to show a rather sad man who clearly has had a troubling past solely through physical reactions.

Sydow who comes into the film about an hour in actually acts as a breath of fresh air, and the film which was becoming intolerable in Horn's hands at least finally has something good in it. Sydow actually brings emotional weight to his role, therefore bringing a little bit of emotional weight to the journey at the center of the film. Sydow interactions throughout his journey actually are quite moving realizing the joy and sadness in his performance, something the film on a whole is unable to achieve almost anywhere besides with Sydow's performance.

The film mostly made me cringe than anything else, but Sydow's few moments in the film actually made something for to enjoy. He created a warm presence very much needed for the film, and he has some very strong moments even though they are shared with Horn. I think particularly in one scene where Horn's character plays the messages left by his father to the renter. The scene is very poorly directed, and played by Horn since it seems like the kid is trying to torture the renter frankly, but Sydow stays above the problems of the scene giving honestly devastating reaction to what he hears.

I liked the entirety of what Sydow did in the film actually creating an emotionally convincing performance of this sad man. Although it is true he has to deal with a frankly terrible co-star Sydow overcomes those problems with his honestly moving performance. He makes the Renter likable as well as as one of the few character's whose point isn't bashed over your head. Sydow instead uses subtly to actually make the tenter into the right sort of enigma who is also quite endearing in the end. Although considering Sydow's filmography this is not his greatest performance it is a good one even if the film is not.

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 2011: Christopher Plummer in Beginners

Christopher Plummer won his Oscar from his second Oscar nomination for portraying Hal Fields in Beginners.

Beginners tells of Oliver (Ewan McGregor) who deals with his current relationship with woman, and remembering his deceased mother, and father the latter who came out as gay after the death of his wife.

Christopher Plummer has been described often as overdue surrounding his awards potential for this Oscar year, although I personally would call that a bit of an overstatement. He was only nominated once before for his unremarkable work in The Last Station, and really how many performances has he been snubbed for. He certainly was not for the Sound of Music, in fact besides that his earlier work is rarely ever mentioned. His only performance anyone really considers to be is his fine work in the Insider, but even that performance does not come up with the greatest performances not nominated for an Oscar.

This is not to say Plummer isn't a fine character actor, and a great narrator, but he is not Peter O'Toole when it comes to being overdue. In the end though the Oscar should go to the actual best performance, so how is he actually in Beginners. Plummer certainly has an especially Oscar baiting role here portraying a man who comes out as gay as well as you see through the course of the film dying from cancer, as well as it is very much against Plummer's usual type. This as well does not mean this is a good or bad performance, but it most certainly is a very different type of role for Plummer.

Plummer's has the initial challenge in this role for portraying a gay man which can easily be trouble for any actor, since overacting can certainly be the first option taken. Plummer actually handles his character very well in this respect since he doesn't devolve into obvious mannerisms. That is not to say he does not use mannerisms, but Plummer actually shows that his character of Hal actually tries to sort of create these mannerisms to join in with the gay community. Plummer is actually pretty good in showing a subtle awkwardness Hal has in trying to become part of this group.

Plummer certainly establishes his character well, but I must say the way the film is setup hinders the strength of his performance. It never simply tell his story, but rather the way McGregor's character reacts to him. Plummer does not even get his part of the film all at once but rather drifts in and out of that tale that really mutes emotional impact of the performance. We only are elements of the man, and the full portrait is not establishes as well as it really could have been.

Due to the way Hal is used in the film much of Plummer's performance is unfortunately a repetitive. We see him with his sort of mannerisms as well as a genuine joy that isn't as moving as it could be due the film's editing. We also see plenty of moments of him being tired, and sickly looking, these expressions and reactions are also repeated throughout the film. They are well enough portrayed by Plummer once again, but done in a fashion that never becomes much more than that.

Christopher Plummer performance also rides on two key relationships in the film. One with Hal's boyfriend played rather oddly by Goran Visnjic. This relationship never quite works because of bizarre nature of Visnjic's performance. Plummer tries to make something out of it, but again it never amounts to much. His other pivotal relationship stands with Ewan McGregor's as his son. This is also limited by the film more than it should be, but their few pivotal moments together are Plummer's standout moments in his performance.

Plummer portrays these moments well as he does not make it into an overly warm performance as although they have a good enough relationship, they are not that close. The two actors create just the right amount of distance between each other to make a believable relationship that also establishes their history, since McGregor's Oliver was suppose to have been closer to his mother than his father. Plummer is quite strong though in a single scene where he tells about Hal's the difficult relationship to his wife. It is a moving moment where Plummer shows the pain from Hal's situation very well, and he almost creates this into a great moment, if even this moment seems a little cut short.

This stands as a good performance surely, but not quite a great one. It lacks enough moments where Plummer really stands out with a truly emotionally powerful moment. He has a few strong moments, but overall the effect of his performance is less than it should have been. Plummer is fine throughout of course, but the performance is used in a repetitive fashion that makes even his stronger moments seem less than could have been. Plummer is of course never bad, and does realize Hal's character quite well, but there is not the drive that really brings right into his character's life.

Read More

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.

Nolte is not an actor I can ever finding myself really liking. His performances usually can be functional but for me he is always lacking that extra quality that really brings you into his character making his performance into something special. Nick Nolte here portrays the formally drunken father of the two brothers, who has a strained relationship with both of them. I suppose his role sort of has Oscar all written over it, as well as seems to have Nolte all written over it as seems certainly cast correctly for the former drunk Paddy Conlon.

Nick Nolte certainly fits the haggard history of his character with his aged face, and his raspy voice that you can almost barely hear at times. Nolte though shows mostly a man who trying to be a reformed man, and is trying to get back what he lost in his bad years. This certainly could have been an extremely flashy role, but for the most part Nolte actually downplays his performance for the most part. He shows mostly his pain rather quietly, but in way to show that Paddy has in a way accepted what he has done.

A great deal of Paddy's character though is shown in his attempts to reconnect with his sons, which he never fully does throughout the course of the film. In scenes with both sons he is always at a distance in their scenes together. Nolte is good in these scenes but I am hard pressed to say he is amazing. He puts a great deal of effort into his performance, but as always with his performances his emotions are right but his performance never becomes as heartbreaking as it should be frankly.

Nolte simply never quite has the emotional impact one would want from a performance like this even in what should be the moving scenes such as when he wants to see his grand children. In this scene Nolte is good enough in that he realistic in his depiction of the scene, but it just never has the extra quality that would have made the scene something truly special. This is really how I felt about the performance as a whole, not bad, even good , but never special.

The film also throws in an Oscar scene unfortunately where Paddy gets drunk again after a troubling scene with his son. Firstly Nolte really did not show Paddy to be that upset after his talk with his son to cause him to have such a break down, secondly the break down seemed unneeded really in the end, and almost seemed to be there to let Nolte show off. Again Nolte isn't bad in this scene though, but it rather just satisfactory enough, but not more than that.

Nolte tries to be the heart of the film, and does give a great deal of effort in his attempt at this, but in the end it he just never comes alive to the extent I would want from a performance like this. It is an entirely descent performance from Nolte, he never has a bad scene or even really bad moment. His performance never really had an especially memorable scene or moment either though.

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 2011: Jonah Hill in Moneyball

Jonah Hill received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Peter Brand in Moneyball.

Jonah Hill's nomination as the meek numbers cruncher who works for Brad Pitt's General Manger Billy Beane in Moneyball is one of those confusing sort of nominations. It could be looked upon as simply a bonus nomination for the film which was nominated for Best Picture as well as Hill sort of tagged along with Brad Pitt's lead nomination. The only problem is somehow he was recognized multiple places and ended being nominated over the far superior performance by Albert Brooks in Drive. All I can say is simply what do they see in this performance that is so special? Well all I can say is there isn't anything special about it.

This is not to say he is bad though, but it is not a particularly remarkable performance. He plays the number cruncher as one would expect the number cruncher he has rather unimpressive presence all throughout and Pitt dominates every scene they are in together. Hill basically keeps Peter Brand as the fairly unassuming individual of the two who tells Beane what he needs to know, but never really does more than that. Hill remains functional most certainly, and is as Brand should be what that is is not anything notable. He only ever offers ammunition to the overall plot, and to Pitt, but never really takes a shot himself.

I suppose most of the performance really is what his chemistry with Pitt is but really their relationship is not really two sided in the film. As I said Pitt dominates every scene, Hill just does as he needs to for Brand nothing more. His scenes with Pitt I never found to be the standout in the scene, and if they were effective scenes that was really all do to Pitt. Hill performance simply is pretty much repetition of Peter Brand's simple manner of telling what he knows and nothing more. Really though I think Peter Brand actually could have been more under different hands than Hill's, as he could have stood out more if he actually took a scene from the film's leading actor but Hill never does.

Hill does have two scenes where he is suppose could have been used to show a different side other than the solely number crunching side of Brand. One he makes a deal over the phone for Beane and has a reaction when he succeeds. I have to say Hill again is very standard with this moment, and reacts as one would expect but he really does not show any particularly special joy, or passion in this scene to make it of note. His other scene is his final scene where he basically tries to cheer up Beane, but again Hill does not do anything special here. It might have been a little more meaningful if he showed Brand to be more supportive, of a character throughout, or perhaps showed growth of some really passion for Beane's cause, but the simple truth is Hill never does this.

In the end I really did not feel like Hill's performance ever gave Peter Brand much of a purpose other than to just set up the plot of the film. I suppose Peter Brand could have been a far more humorous and frankly more interesting if he had been portrayed by a stronger performer, but as is it just a standard standard part as portrayed by Hill. I still won't say that Hill is awful really, but this is not a strong performance by any means in anyway. I am just amazed really that anyone could find this performance to be something substantial, and something that just has to be awarded over far superior from far better actors, particularly one funnier comedian who also is a far more talented actor. Also I should note I promise not to bring up Brooks' snub in any more of my reviews of the other performances.

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 2011

And the Nominees Are:

Max Von Sydow in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Kenneth Branagh in My Week With Marilyn

Christopher Plummer in Beginners

Jonah Hill in Moneyball

Nick Nolte in Warrior

Read More