OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2010)
The Nominees Were...
Christian Bale, The Fighter
John Hawkes, Winter's Bone
Jeremy Renner, The Town
Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are Alright
Geoffrey Rush, The King's Speech
My Thoughts: And now we enter the Big Six Oscar categories. We proceed into this category with a fairly typical lineup of supporting actors: a leading man slumming it in Best Supporting Actor (though he's arguably in the wrong category), an afterglow nomination for a recently discovered talent, a longtime character actor finally getting a role that matches his talent, an Indy actor getting a random nomination when he should be on number three, and a former winner.
I remember seeing John Hawkes in a play when I was a kid-he was native to near my hometown, and I was star-struck, despite him being just a bit player in Hollywood at the time. Ten years later, he managed to win the character actor lottery and got a beautiful part in a movie that got him all the way to the Oscars.
The performance is exquisite, in a film that improves dramatically with time. Hawkes knows the difference between what his character is saying and what he's doing-I love the way that he spends so much of the film warning Ree to stay away, to not get interested in what her father is doing, and then he largely does the opposite, helping her along the way and finding himself in trouble as a result. Hawkes has such a gravel-y, decayed aspect to his movements, rundown from years of overwork and drugs, and yet has enough wit and nerve in him to prove that there's a reason he's survived all of these years in this hellish Ozark wilderness.
Jeremy Renner doesn't have the same connection with his manic bank robber that Hawkes does. There is a strong chemistry that he has with Affleck's character; he gets that the friendship that they currently enjoy is out of comfort and obligation, not out of any sort of continued love or residing admiration. Renner, however, doesn't have the restraint that Hawkes does, at least not in this particular role. His performance oftentimes pushes a little too much into scenery-chewing villain, and as he becomes more and more unhinged, the performance shows less and less restraint. He's the best thing about the movie, but that isn't saying a whole lot as there's nothing as eye-catching as him in the film, even if he's over-the-top. Renner, since his critically-acclaimed two-year, two-nomination run in 2009/10 has gone the way of Nicolas Cage-blockbuster after blockbuster (some good, some Gone in 60 Seconds level), and I'm starting to worry that he, like Cage, is gone for good from quality films. He's still got killer arms though.
Mark Ruffalo is an actor that I have loved for such a long time, to finally see him in an Oscar lineup is a treat, as I'd be on my third nomination for him by now. His work as Terry in You Can Count on Me is one of those performances I watch over-and-over, marveling at its brilliance and the way he makes a thoroughly unlikable guy seem so appealing. Seven years later, he would be just as wonderful as the tired, increasingly lost detective he played in Zodiac (a film that hardly anyone remembers anymore, and they should, as it's a billion times superior to David Fincher's latest serial killer film Girl with the Dragon Tattoo).
In this film, however, he ditches the detective and goes back to the laid-back, "whatever" bohemian we know him to be from other roles. Ruffalo nails the initial reactions to the idea that he has kids-a springy mix of intrigue and reluctance, with intrigue winning over, of course (honestly, if you're in his shoes and discover you have a child, you want to meet them regardless of how surprised you are they may exist). He also gives such realistic pain in the film's final scenes, as he pleads to be back in the children's lives. He understands at that point where his road has been leading, and knows that he has been given a rare opportunity into this world that he was never meant to be a part of, and has wasted the relationship with the only children he'll ever really have. Ruffalo's vocal cracks, the way he just sort of mumbles out his off-the-cuff responses-it's a hipster vocal intonation that only a seasoned character actor could pull off so well.
These three were likely just afterthoughts when it came to actual Oscar voting, as the obvious first and second places were filled by the final two men, both of whom one could argue were the lead, rather than supporting, actors in their films. For Christian Bale, this nomination was a longtime coming. After years of manic weight gains, cult followings (someday I will understand why every straight guy I was friends with in college wanted to grow up to be Patrick Bateman, but probably not today), and critical acclaim, he finally got a role that could combine both his transformative sensibilities with a film that was friendly enough for Oscar to latch onto it.
Bale is a good actor, but I never really loved him in this role specifically. I found the scenes to calculating, too click-click-click. He always seems to be Christian Bale playing Dicky, and not Dicky himself. The way that he persistently flies off the handle, has entered into a state of delusion, it seems like he's working too hard to underline, bold, and exclamation point all of the tics of the character. I think that Bale is better when he's subtler, and this role, while no one was ever going to play it subtle, would gain so much from making it harder for Mickey to disown his brother. The screenplay makes him stretch it on and on, but as an audience we have trouble connecting so much that we believe that Mickey would struggle with the decision. Family is family, but Bale's Dicky doesn't have the intoxicating magnetism or the overpowering moxie, that, say Melissa Leo's Alice does, and so I never quite bought his character in the way that I bought Leo's.
Unlike Bale, Geoffrey Rush has never had difficulty getting noticed by the Oscars. Though he won his first Oscar as a leading actor, most of his best work is at the sidelines, spouting off bon mots and clever observations with the flare of a late-career John Gielgud (can't you just imagine him in this role with Richard Burton as King George?). This is what fits him best-too much Geoffrey Rush is definitely a thing, and his scenery-eating ways often get in the way of the best moments of his performances. He's actually far more appropriate in a film like Pirates of the Caribbean, where overacting is a good thing, than he is in costume dramas, where his loud, swinging work is a bit outlandish for the surroundings. The overacting doesn't grind the way that Bale's does, to the point where you wonder why anyone would put up with him (they have vastly different character arcs as well, which helps), but it doesn't ring as a performance that merited inclusion in such a field.
I remember seeing John Hawkes in a play when I was a kid-he was native to near my hometown, and I was star-struck, despite him being just a bit player in Hollywood at the time. Ten years later, he managed to win the character actor lottery and got a beautiful part in a movie that got him all the way to the Oscars.
The performance is exquisite, in a film that improves dramatically with time. Hawkes knows the difference between what his character is saying and what he's doing-I love the way that he spends so much of the film warning Ree to stay away, to not get interested in what her father is doing, and then he largely does the opposite, helping her along the way and finding himself in trouble as a result. Hawkes has such a gravel-y, decayed aspect to his movements, rundown from years of overwork and drugs, and yet has enough wit and nerve in him to prove that there's a reason he's survived all of these years in this hellish Ozark wilderness.
Jeremy Renner doesn't have the same connection with his manic bank robber that Hawkes does. There is a strong chemistry that he has with Affleck's character; he gets that the friendship that they currently enjoy is out of comfort and obligation, not out of any sort of continued love or residing admiration. Renner, however, doesn't have the restraint that Hawkes does, at least not in this particular role. His performance oftentimes pushes a little too much into scenery-chewing villain, and as he becomes more and more unhinged, the performance shows less and less restraint. He's the best thing about the movie, but that isn't saying a whole lot as there's nothing as eye-catching as him in the film, even if he's over-the-top. Renner, since his critically-acclaimed two-year, two-nomination run in 2009/10 has gone the way of Nicolas Cage-blockbuster after blockbuster (some good, some Gone in 60 Seconds level), and I'm starting to worry that he, like Cage, is gone for good from quality films. He's still got killer arms though.
Mark Ruffalo is an actor that I have loved for such a long time, to finally see him in an Oscar lineup is a treat, as I'd be on my third nomination for him by now. His work as Terry in You Can Count on Me is one of those performances I watch over-and-over, marveling at its brilliance and the way he makes a thoroughly unlikable guy seem so appealing. Seven years later, he would be just as wonderful as the tired, increasingly lost detective he played in Zodiac (a film that hardly anyone remembers anymore, and they should, as it's a billion times superior to David Fincher's latest serial killer film Girl with the Dragon Tattoo).
In this film, however, he ditches the detective and goes back to the laid-back, "whatever" bohemian we know him to be from other roles. Ruffalo nails the initial reactions to the idea that he has kids-a springy mix of intrigue and reluctance, with intrigue winning over, of course (honestly, if you're in his shoes and discover you have a child, you want to meet them regardless of how surprised you are they may exist). He also gives such realistic pain in the film's final scenes, as he pleads to be back in the children's lives. He understands at that point where his road has been leading, and knows that he has been given a rare opportunity into this world that he was never meant to be a part of, and has wasted the relationship with the only children he'll ever really have. Ruffalo's vocal cracks, the way he just sort of mumbles out his off-the-cuff responses-it's a hipster vocal intonation that only a seasoned character actor could pull off so well.
These three were likely just afterthoughts when it came to actual Oscar voting, as the obvious first and second places were filled by the final two men, both of whom one could argue were the lead, rather than supporting, actors in their films. For Christian Bale, this nomination was a longtime coming. After years of manic weight gains, cult followings (someday I will understand why every straight guy I was friends with in college wanted to grow up to be Patrick Bateman, but probably not today), and critical acclaim, he finally got a role that could combine both his transformative sensibilities with a film that was friendly enough for Oscar to latch onto it.
Bale is a good actor, but I never really loved him in this role specifically. I found the scenes to calculating, too click-click-click. He always seems to be Christian Bale playing Dicky, and not Dicky himself. The way that he persistently flies off the handle, has entered into a state of delusion, it seems like he's working too hard to underline, bold, and exclamation point all of the tics of the character. I think that Bale is better when he's subtler, and this role, while no one was ever going to play it subtle, would gain so much from making it harder for Mickey to disown his brother. The screenplay makes him stretch it on and on, but as an audience we have trouble connecting so much that we believe that Mickey would struggle with the decision. Family is family, but Bale's Dicky doesn't have the intoxicating magnetism or the overpowering moxie, that, say Melissa Leo's Alice does, and so I never quite bought his character in the way that I bought Leo's.
Unlike Bale, Geoffrey Rush has never had difficulty getting noticed by the Oscars. Though he won his first Oscar as a leading actor, most of his best work is at the sidelines, spouting off bon mots and clever observations with the flare of a late-career John Gielgud (can't you just imagine him in this role with Richard Burton as King George?). This is what fits him best-too much Geoffrey Rush is definitely a thing, and his scenery-eating ways often get in the way of the best moments of his performances. He's actually far more appropriate in a film like Pirates of the Caribbean, where overacting is a good thing, than he is in costume dramas, where his loud, swinging work is a bit outlandish for the surroundings. The overacting doesn't grind the way that Bale's does, to the point where you wonder why anyone would put up with him (they have vastly different character arcs as well, which helps), but it doesn't ring as a performance that merited inclusion in such a field.
Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes found room for both Andrew Garfield in The Social Network and in a clear case of celebrity-loving, Michael Douglas in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, keepin Mark Ruffalo and John Hawkes out of the final five (Christian Bale was the victor). The SAG Awards were actually a carbon copy of the Oscars (the only category they did that in in 2010), and also went with Bale as the winner. Finally, the BAFTA Awards, generally favoring British actors, only had room for one American: Mark Ruffalo, cutting both Jeremy Renner and John Hawkes in favor of Andrew Garfield (almost certainly the sixth place in the field) and Renner's costar, the late Pete Postelthwaite. The King's Speech was an unstoppable force at the BAFTA's that year, and so it carried Geoffrey Rush along for the ride.
Performances I Would Have Nominated: Supporting Actor is always the field I get the most disgusted with Oscar. They typically will pick at least one of my best of the year, but Geoffrey Rush, Jeremy Renner, and I'm sorry, even Christian Bale are all fairly lazy "inside-the-box" picks in my opinion. They're not bad, but they just aren't up to the level of some of the best work of the year. It's partially because the category is surprisingly ageist, ruling out younger performances (it's odd because Supporting Actress almost gets to the point where they nominate too many younger performers). Miles Teller, for example, may be in his screen debut, but his work in Rabbit Hole as a young man trying to come to terms with how he accidentally killed a little boy with his car, is a complicated role that he still manages to pull off in a way few veteran actors could even find success. Even better is the dual roles that Andrew Garfield acted in Never Let Me Go and The Social Network. I've struggled to figure out which one I like better, but I think it'd have to be the privileged, short-changed Eduardo that tops the doomed, lovelorn Tommy. Whichever one you go with, it's hard to imagine how Oscar felt it appropriate not to include him in some capacity-his combined work is easily the best of the year for this category, and a great star-is-born turn for the future Spider-Man.
Oscar's Choice: Oscar made the relatively easy choice of honoring the never-nominated Bale over the already-winning Geoffrey Rush. The better question for everyone was who was in third (my guess would be Hawkes, but that's based on nothing but intuition).
Oscar's Choice: Oscar made the relatively easy choice of honoring the never-nominated Bale over the already-winning Geoffrey Rush. The better question for everyone was who was in third (my guess would be Hawkes, but that's based on nothing but intuition).
My Choice: It's a tough call between Hawkes and Ruffalo, tougher than I figured it would be when I started writing this piece, but I'm going to go with my initial gut choice of Ruffalo. His character is tougher to pull off, and the blending of comedy with the dramatic makes me check my box for him. In third would be Rush, followed by Bale, and finally Renner.
How about you-were you absolutely behind Christian Bale, or did you like me think the performance was overrated? If you did, who was your choice for the big trophy? Which performance was in third place (I'd love an argument on that one, as I'm at a loss for who would be the guess)? And which Andrew Garfield performance was the superior? Comment away!
No comments:
Post a Comment