OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2012)
The Nominees Were...
Alan Arkin, Argo
Robert de Niro, Silver Linings Playbook
Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master
Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln
Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained
My Thoughts: Part of the reason that I write "Snap" Judgment on my reviews is that on occasion (and let's be honest, with some regularity), my opinions of a film will shift over time. Granted, films that I give great reviews to I generally remain on the positive side of, but after time passes, the things that I judge about a movie on the critical side or that I really enjoy start to weigh against each other.
So it's a little weird to write this after writing all five of my reviews on this blog, as some of the performances have lost quite a bit of their gusto. This is perhaps appropriate (we have the most positive experiences with a film immediately after we view them, as the film is vivid in our mind, and we're also running off of the endorphins of going to the movies, something that, regardless of how terrible a film may be, is always an enjoyable time), and it's also worth noting that when it comes to giving out an Oscar, arguably the highest honor that a filmmaker can receive, the stakes are appropriately higher. So, with apologies to some of the most accomplished actors of their generations (this is the first Academy acting lineup to have all previous winners in it), here we go.
I should start right off with Robert de Niro, who is goofily staring me in the face right now (I love that picture). De Niro has been one of those great filmic conundrums for the past twenty years or so. Ever since his critically-acclaimed turns in GoodFellas and Cape Fear, the man who redefined acting in the 1970's (he is probably my favorite actor of that era) has been coasting off of goodwill he got from decades of fine acting. Granted, some actors do tend to sluff off in their old age, when the parts aren't as plum, and it's impossible for almost any actor to duplicate the Scorsese-fueled run that de Niro enjoyed in his heyday.
So I was excited to see Bob actually get rid of the Taxi Driver impersonations and try to create a unique character. On occasion, that greatness showed through, and I standby that this is his best performance in the past decade, possibly the past twenty years (I've missed a couple of his more critically-recognized films of the 1990's, including Analyze This and Heat, both of which just got added to the Netflix queue out of shame).
That being said, I can't help but feel that if this were "Random Character Actor" we wouldn't have seen de Niro here (or maybe we would have-Harvey was behind this film, after all). The performance, while strong, never has that key moment that locks you in for the rest of the movie. De Niro, clearly suffering from OCD, gets a more respectful ending to his story arch than Lawrence or Cooper, but he never quite hits the same heights those two actors (particularly Lawrence) hit, and while this is good, it's not Oscar-worthy.
I also feel, a bit more controversially, the same about Tommy Lee Jones work in Lincoln. Jones is a good actor (not quite the actor that de Niro is, but let's not quibble). His work in, say, last year's Hope Springs was really remarkable and still actually sits more with me than this particular piece. The film allows him some wonderful "actorly" work, but his role never grabbed me in the way that Day-Lewis's did (a high bar, to be sure, but a bar nonetheless). His story also seems a bit cheapened, in my opinion, by the stunt toward the end of the film (the twist where the love of his life is a black woman, thus providing the catalyst for his wanting freedom for all)-I think that it would have been better had they either left that out, or even better, driven that as a major part of his plot line, as it would have added another human story behind the bigotry that was on display in the congress. This is not, of course, Jones's fault (he doesn't have unilateral control over the script), but I feel that it hurts his performance as it leaves too many questions and not enough answers from his work.
Christoph Waltz is one of two men on this list who really have no business on this list, regardless of performance quality. I know that category fraud is a hot topic amongst awards aficionados and the Academy rarely seems to care about such things, but Waltz is in almost every scene of this movie. There is absolutely nothing "supporting" about his work, and I have to imagine that people like Leo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson, both of whom had supporting roles in the film that got some press, were royally pissed that Waltz got to be a supporting with twice the screen time.
Waltz's work and one-liners are admittedly fun, but it's hard to see this as anything but a shadow of Hans Landa, his previous Oscar-winning role. Here, though, we have an even murkier set of background morals (I know this is somewhat explained with the plot and his stories of his younger years, but his character never quite compromises what he's doing with his sense of right, and that is a fault of both the writers and Waltz). The best parts of his performance have already been done before, in an oddly similar film. I know I'm not supposed to judge outside factors within the OVP, but on occasion I do that (think of Visual Effects of sequels) because it has such an impact on the work, and Waltz's performance here is borrowing a lot of Landa's mannerisms and quips without actually having them apply to the character in the same way. Landa's craziness and evil makes sense within the confines of his performance; Dr. King Schultz's character needs a different set of tools, and Waltz doesn't give him any.
I remember after people initially saw Argo they thought that Alan Arkin was a shoo-in for the Oscar (this was pretty deafening, so let's not pretend this didn't happen). Some complained about how Eddie Murphy must be pissed that Arkin got an "old age" Oscar a few years back and suddenly he'll win a second one just six years later. I saw the film, and the thing that stood out to me was how small and overrated the performance was. Arkin gets some good one-liners, admittedly (and he gets the "Argo fuck yourself" line, which was clever and well-timed), but his story arch goes nowhere. There's no great scene in this film with Arkin, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about the film. If Arkin had never won an Oscar nomination in the past, I could see this as an appropriate, even if unearned, way of acknowledging his work as a character actor for the past fifty years or so, but he's an Oscar-winner already, and has two other nominations from his heyday. This wasn't necessary, and he wasn't even better than his costar John Goodman (who also didn't deserve a nomination, but had a banner year at the movies and would have been easier to forgive). All-in-all, perhaps the most throwaway nomination of the bunch, and even in an admittedly weak year for the category, Oscar nominations should never be thrown away as there's always something worth noting out there.
Finally, we have the other category fraud contender, Philip Seymour Hoffman. Forget that he is possibly the title character (I know some say it's Adams or even Phoenix that is in that position, but I've always sided with the obvious here). He's also in most of the film, and along with Phoenix, is the main character (a film can have two leads of the same gender, despite what Oscar may say).
So while I discount some points for the category fraud (if there were an equally good performance, that would break the tie), this is far-and-away the best performance of the bunch. Hoffman is an actor that I generally have no patience for, with his scenery-chewing and hammery, particularly in past work with Paul Thomas Anderson. The best way to describe his work, and why he does better in the lead than in supporting is, to quote someone I frequently cite about Hoffman but can never remember who it was (if you know, please tell me as I would love to give them credit), "Hoffman is a movie star trapped in a character actor's body." This is why he works so much better on the stage-he can be the center, drawing the audience in, rather than having to sit on the sidelines, wanting to project when he should hold back.
As Lancaster Dodd, though, he gets to be the center-of-attention, he gets to be the man who controls and is loud and the energy onscreen. Think of how well he chastises poor Laura Dern when she matter-of-factly points out inconsistencies in his work, despite being one of his most fervent admirers. The film is a great acting duet between Phoenix and Hoffman, and while I will admit that Phoenix, with the showier role, is the better of the two, that's like comparing two great Baroque masters-who wants to judge amidst all the flourishes?
So it's a little weird to write this after writing all five of my reviews on this blog, as some of the performances have lost quite a bit of their gusto. This is perhaps appropriate (we have the most positive experiences with a film immediately after we view them, as the film is vivid in our mind, and we're also running off of the endorphins of going to the movies, something that, regardless of how terrible a film may be, is always an enjoyable time), and it's also worth noting that when it comes to giving out an Oscar, arguably the highest honor that a filmmaker can receive, the stakes are appropriately higher. So, with apologies to some of the most accomplished actors of their generations (this is the first Academy acting lineup to have all previous winners in it), here we go.
I should start right off with Robert de Niro, who is goofily staring me in the face right now (I love that picture). De Niro has been one of those great filmic conundrums for the past twenty years or so. Ever since his critically-acclaimed turns in GoodFellas and Cape Fear, the man who redefined acting in the 1970's (he is probably my favorite actor of that era) has been coasting off of goodwill he got from decades of fine acting. Granted, some actors do tend to sluff off in their old age, when the parts aren't as plum, and it's impossible for almost any actor to duplicate the Scorsese-fueled run that de Niro enjoyed in his heyday.
So I was excited to see Bob actually get rid of the Taxi Driver impersonations and try to create a unique character. On occasion, that greatness showed through, and I standby that this is his best performance in the past decade, possibly the past twenty years (I've missed a couple of his more critically-recognized films of the 1990's, including Analyze This and Heat, both of which just got added to the Netflix queue out of shame).
That being said, I can't help but feel that if this were "Random Character Actor" we wouldn't have seen de Niro here (or maybe we would have-Harvey was behind this film, after all). The performance, while strong, never has that key moment that locks you in for the rest of the movie. De Niro, clearly suffering from OCD, gets a more respectful ending to his story arch than Lawrence or Cooper, but he never quite hits the same heights those two actors (particularly Lawrence) hit, and while this is good, it's not Oscar-worthy.
I also feel, a bit more controversially, the same about Tommy Lee Jones work in Lincoln. Jones is a good actor (not quite the actor that de Niro is, but let's not quibble). His work in, say, last year's Hope Springs was really remarkable and still actually sits more with me than this particular piece. The film allows him some wonderful "actorly" work, but his role never grabbed me in the way that Day-Lewis's did (a high bar, to be sure, but a bar nonetheless). His story also seems a bit cheapened, in my opinion, by the stunt toward the end of the film (the twist where the love of his life is a black woman, thus providing the catalyst for his wanting freedom for all)-I think that it would have been better had they either left that out, or even better, driven that as a major part of his plot line, as it would have added another human story behind the bigotry that was on display in the congress. This is not, of course, Jones's fault (he doesn't have unilateral control over the script), but I feel that it hurts his performance as it leaves too many questions and not enough answers from his work.
Christoph Waltz is one of two men on this list who really have no business on this list, regardless of performance quality. I know that category fraud is a hot topic amongst awards aficionados and the Academy rarely seems to care about such things, but Waltz is in almost every scene of this movie. There is absolutely nothing "supporting" about his work, and I have to imagine that people like Leo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson, both of whom had supporting roles in the film that got some press, were royally pissed that Waltz got to be a supporting with twice the screen time.
Waltz's work and one-liners are admittedly fun, but it's hard to see this as anything but a shadow of Hans Landa, his previous Oscar-winning role. Here, though, we have an even murkier set of background morals (I know this is somewhat explained with the plot and his stories of his younger years, but his character never quite compromises what he's doing with his sense of right, and that is a fault of both the writers and Waltz). The best parts of his performance have already been done before, in an oddly similar film. I know I'm not supposed to judge outside factors within the OVP, but on occasion I do that (think of Visual Effects of sequels) because it has such an impact on the work, and Waltz's performance here is borrowing a lot of Landa's mannerisms and quips without actually having them apply to the character in the same way. Landa's craziness and evil makes sense within the confines of his performance; Dr. King Schultz's character needs a different set of tools, and Waltz doesn't give him any.
I remember after people initially saw Argo they thought that Alan Arkin was a shoo-in for the Oscar (this was pretty deafening, so let's not pretend this didn't happen). Some complained about how Eddie Murphy must be pissed that Arkin got an "old age" Oscar a few years back and suddenly he'll win a second one just six years later. I saw the film, and the thing that stood out to me was how small and overrated the performance was. Arkin gets some good one-liners, admittedly (and he gets the "Argo fuck yourself" line, which was clever and well-timed), but his story arch goes nowhere. There's no great scene in this film with Arkin, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about the film. If Arkin had never won an Oscar nomination in the past, I could see this as an appropriate, even if unearned, way of acknowledging his work as a character actor for the past fifty years or so, but he's an Oscar-winner already, and has two other nominations from his heyday. This wasn't necessary, and he wasn't even better than his costar John Goodman (who also didn't deserve a nomination, but had a banner year at the movies and would have been easier to forgive). All-in-all, perhaps the most throwaway nomination of the bunch, and even in an admittedly weak year for the category, Oscar nominations should never be thrown away as there's always something worth noting out there.
Finally, we have the other category fraud contender, Philip Seymour Hoffman. Forget that he is possibly the title character (I know some say it's Adams or even Phoenix that is in that position, but I've always sided with the obvious here). He's also in most of the film, and along with Phoenix, is the main character (a film can have two leads of the same gender, despite what Oscar may say).
So while I discount some points for the category fraud (if there were an equally good performance, that would break the tie), this is far-and-away the best performance of the bunch. Hoffman is an actor that I generally have no patience for, with his scenery-chewing and hammery, particularly in past work with Paul Thomas Anderson. The best way to describe his work, and why he does better in the lead than in supporting is, to quote someone I frequently cite about Hoffman but can never remember who it was (if you know, please tell me as I would love to give them credit), "Hoffman is a movie star trapped in a character actor's body." This is why he works so much better on the stage-he can be the center, drawing the audience in, rather than having to sit on the sidelines, wanting to project when he should hold back.
As Lancaster Dodd, though, he gets to be the center-of-attention, he gets to be the man who controls and is loud and the energy onscreen. Think of how well he chastises poor Laura Dern when she matter-of-factly points out inconsistencies in his work, despite being one of his most fervent admirers. The film is a great acting duet between Phoenix and Hoffman, and while I will admit that Phoenix, with the showier role, is the better of the two, that's like comparing two great Baroque masters-who wants to judge amidst all the flourishes?
Other Precursor Contenders: If you'll recall correctly, there was actually a bit of talk in this race of competition, and thanks to Christoph Waltz missing at the SAG Awards, this resulted in some variety amongst the nominees in all of the precursors. At the Globes, while Waltz was victorious, we skipped de Niro and instead got Leo DiCaprio (my hunch for sixth place, and since Waltz may well have been in fifth place amongst the nominations, he might have won the award had he been nominated). The SAG Awards skipped Waltz, with Javier Bardem in Skyfall actually making the cut (another legit contender for the sixth place, and wouldn't a James Bond film getting an acting nomination have been a hoot?), and Jones pulled off the trophy. And finally, there were the BAFTA Awards, where Waltz was also victorious, but they found room for Bardem over de Niro.
Films I Would Have Nominated: Since I would have put Hoffman as a lead (I would have nominated him, though), none of these men (or DiCaprio or Bardem) would have made my cut. Amongst my nominees would be Matthew McConaughey, who did a gangbusters job in Magic Mike, a film that gets better on repeat viewing. I also would have included Ezra Miller, who gets beautifully inside the mind of an early 1990's gay teenager, and adds his own spin on a stock character. And finally, I would have given the trophy to the brilliant work that Garrett Hedlund did in On the Road, a performance so much better than any of the work here (save, perhaps, Hoffman) that I'm stunned he didn't get more critical support. I blame an idiotic release schedule for this lack of support (it stars a major box office draw in Kristen Stewart-why didn't it go wider, sooner?), and am still wondering why no one is noticing that Hedlund is turning into a surprisingly fine actor.
Oscar’s Choice: Despite what was clearly a close race, the frontrunner won (I remember hoping for almost anyone else on Oscar night, not because of quality, but because I wanted a surprise), with Waltz taking out Jones and de Niro, in roughly that order, for the trophy.
My Choice: You throw Miller, McConaughey, or Hedlund into this race, and they easily win it, as I don't like giving this trophy to lead work. But I can't in good faith skip Hoffman when there's nothing in the same league as him down the ballot. I'd follow him with de Niro, Jones, Waltz, and Arkin.
There's the first of our four acting races-we'll head into the supporting ladies later today, but first, what do you think of these gentlemen? Did you like the five winners race, or were you hoping for a little more wealth to be spread? And did you appreciate Waltz as the victor of the five (getting a second trophy three years after his first), or were you hoping for a different actor? Share in the comments!
No comments:
Post a Comment