OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2019)
The Nominees Were...
Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
Anthony Hopkins, The Two Popes
Al Pacino, The Irishman
Joe Pesci, The Irishman
Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
My Thoughts: Conversations about category fraud are rampant if you follow blogs, podcasts, or social media about the Oscars (and I suspect if you're reading this article you probably do). In general, I tend to side with those that take a firm stance against it, even if I'm aware that this is a losing battle (principles are hard to hold intact when you feel they're caving, but I like to stand my ground as long as I can). As a result, I knock down a point from an overall performance for the OVP if I feel it is a lead work masquerading as a supporting (I don't do the same if it's supporting in lead as I think they are already at a disadvantage, and also because that's less common). That determination is subjective, though, as we'll see here-four of these performances are bordering on leads, and I could see the argument for them being actual leads, but I don't consider all of them actual lead performances (even if they take up much of their movies).
The one indisputably supporting performance in the bunch is Joe Pesci, so we'll start there. Pesci came out of retirement to play this part, and doesn't get the showiness of his nominated costar Al Pacino. However, Pesci, an actor made famous for his vitriolic or even outlandish work in films like GoodFellas and Home Alone here adapts to an introverted character. There's a sense of calm upon his Russell, someone who is always in control even when others around him think he's not in the loop. This is a hard role to play & standout, but Pesci shows that retirement has not made him rust-a truly calculating turn, and one that compliments the film nicely. I left the film curious, not frustrated, by his conflicting motives.
His costar Al Pacino, for me, is also a supporting player (by my measure, despite this being a big part, he is not the lead-that's completely the titular Robert de Niro). Pacino gets a showier part than Pesci, which is usually followed by a "but," when critics say this, however that's not the case here. Pacino is terrific in The Irishman, full stop. His Jimmy Hoffa is meant to be both true-to-life (Hoffa bent & broke the law throughout his time in the sun), while also staying the moral compass of the film, the one character who seems to have his arrow pointed as close to north as you can find in Scorsese's epic. Pacino could've overplayed him (he's done that often in the past few decades), but here his calibration is fully-locked. A brilliant casting move for Scorsese to finally bring Pacino into his fold.
The other character I can't really fault as being a "category fraud" situation is Tom Hanks in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, another case of a supporting player portraying a big & important part, but a supporting one nonetheless. Hanks is an ideal choice to play Mr. Rogers, and honestly I wondered if this might be boring as Hanks has mined this well frequently in his career. But he plays Rogers compellingly, and more surprisingly, with layers. Hanks doesn't canonize Rogers, but he also doesn't shy away from the fact that he was simply a good man, driven by his religious principles & a want for equality. That's hard to do in a movie, and to make your character worth watching for two hours when you don't have an obvious flaw to connect the audience to, but Hanks does it with a late career role I think is his most challenging part since Saving Mr. Banks.
Anthony Hopkins, one could argue, is not entirely the lead in The Two Popes, as it is more Pope Francis's story than Benedict's, but I don't really buy that. Skirting the line, but it's over the threshold for me personally. That said, while I know others didn't love this movie, I thought Hopkins was quite good in it (similar to Hanks, he's an actor who has been churning out under-appreciated work for much of the past decade after dominating the awards circuit throughout the 1990's). He gives us a rage & an anger that we need from Benedict, who is haunted by not only his remote connection to God, but also the burden of his earthly legacy, clearly in shambles as Francis becomes the beloved figure Benedict never could aspire toward.
Brad Pitt is the one case of category fraud I'm not buying any arguments for. Just because Leo's character is the headliner doesn't mean that we have to buy that Pitt is suddenly supporting here, and I don't. Docking him for that, Pitt's great here (Pitt is always great, in fact-while not a list of my favorite performances ever assembled in this category, this might be one of the best lists of talents the Academy has ever come up with in Supporting Actor). He is a man who has spent his life in second fiddle, knowing that any dreams of stardom went out long ago & he is best left enjoying what's left in his time alongside bigger names. Pitt might be playing a version of himself as a handsome, sun-bleached California dude, but the best actors know how to bring themselves into each character to make the part completely theirs.
Other Precursor Contenders: Oscar & the Globes were in lockstep this year, both in terms of their winner (Pitt) and their nominees (every single performer carried over from this star-studded lineup). SAG got a little bit different, but not much-they kept Pitt as their winner, while putting in Jamie Foxx (Just Mercy) in place of Tom Hanks. BAFTA also awarded the trophy to Pitt, and was exactly the same as Oscar's lineup. In terms of sixth place, we knew at the time that Hanks might miss (he'd been on a long Oscar draught), but it was hard to tell who was in sixth. Foxx isn't a bad guess (it does feel like he's in that spot in his career where a third nomination will probably come about), but I kind of wonder in retrospect if love for Parasite would've put Sang Kang Ho into contention.
Performances I Would Have Nominated: There are no bad performances in this lineup, and it is (for my money) the best cumulative acting lineup that Oscar assembled in 2019. That said, I would have included both Taika Waititi (Jojo Rabbit) and Tommy Lee Jones (Ad Astra), both of whom added nice compliments to their film's stories and are undoubtedly true supporting parts.
Oscar’s Choice: It was decided pretty early on that this was Brad Pitt's year, and it was made clearer when he was competing against four men who already have an Oscar (this argument didn't work for Amy Adams in 2013, but it was a sound one for Pitt).
My Choice: I'm going to go with Pesci in a very slight nod over Pacino (I have said differently on other days), as I think it lingers better. For third, it would be Pitt without the category fraud, but with the category fraud points docked, the bronze will go to Tom Hanks, with Pitt & Hopkins coming behind.
Those are my thoughts-what are yours? Are you with me siding with Joe Pesci or are you standing behind Brad Pitt finally getting his Oscar? How much should category fraud matter when deciding whom to vote for in these contests? And seriously-who was the sixth place finisher? Share your thoughts below in the comments!
Also in 2019: Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Animated Short, Live Action Short, Previously in 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment