OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2007)
The Nominees Were...
Casey Affleck, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton
Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton
My Thoughts: As we've learned throughout our 2007 dissection, film really had a remarkable year in terms of the Oscars, as AMPAS dismissed some obvious prestige plays and went with a series of dark, powerful films. And yet, the real shocker may be that looking at the Best Supporting Actor lineup they didn't somehow screw this lineup up. Even in the best of years, the Best Supporting Actor list is almost always filled with duds. Respected character actors, semi-lead performances, and scene stealers in Best Pictures are the standard line in this category, and again in 2007 they stick to these cliches, but in a surprise most of these performances are not dull, but instead are quite exceptional and career bests in a couple of cases. So, given that refreshing bit of prelude, let's start with the worst of these performances.
I was never a big fan of Philip Seymour Hoffman's acting style in movies. People loved his deeply method approach, the way that he managed to be a movie star that looked like a character actor (a trick not many people get the opportunity to portray, but Paul Thomas Anderson and Bennett Miller saw to his having it), but I always felt his performances were too harried and theatrical. In fact, the most impressive moment I ever saw from in his career was when he played Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman, a towering achievement and one of the best performances I've ever seen on the New York stage. But that was the theater, where he could get away with some of his more indulgent acting tics. As a result other than The Master I've never been particularly struck by anything Hoffman did as a film actor, and that includes Charlie Wilson's War. Here he plays a bombastic CIA operative, whose only temperatures are loud and louder when it comes to the way that Hoffman portrayed him. There's technical skill here, but honestly even by the low bar I set for Hoffman, this is the least of his Oscar nominated roles, and feels more like an afterglow citation by people still enamored with his work in Capote.
Much better is Casey Affleck, a fine actor who occasionally gets in his own way in terms of technical skill. This is the film that pushed him out of the way of his brother's shadow, likely leading to him eventually taking the Oscar for Manchester by the Sea. Though he's never as good as Pitt, who has the more understated and challenging role, Affleck brings a mannered approach to Robert Ford that makes you constantly guessing about him and his motives, perhaps because as Ford is written his motives seem to always be changing. Is he in love with James, or is he simply trying to become him? It's not clear, but Affleck doesn't shy away from the Celluloid Closet angles of this part, and though his speaking pattern is sometimes frustrating, it's never out-of-character and well-considered. My biggest problem with this nomination is that Affleck is the main character, hardly supporting at all-he has more screen-time than even Pitt himself, and was only relegated to supporting because he was not yet a matinee idol. I dock quite a few points for what is one of the most egregious cases of category fraud I've seen in a long time.
Tom Wilkinson arguably has some category fraud in his corner as well, though at least his work in Michael Clayton could convincingly be called supporting (there's no question that George Clooney's titular character is the main point of focus). Wilkinson, like Hoffman, plays this part so bombastically it's hard to take it seriously. Honestly-that whole scene where he proclaims "I am Sheva the God of Death" is so manically over-the-top that you almost wonder if Tony Gilroy is playing this part for comedy. Unlike the very specific decisions made by his costar Tilda Swinton, this feels more muddled and all-over-the-place, and very different from Wilkinson's fine work in In the Bedroom. A disappointment, but he's aided by Michael Clayton being quite a fine film.
The last two performances are from actors giving, in my opinion, the best performances of their careers. Javier Bardem managed to turn his Anton Chigurh into a movie star-career, getting him spots in major cinematic franchises like James Bond and Pirates of the Caribbean, and overall becoming a household name. His Chigurh is pitch-perfect, and still lives up to the hype. He keeps the character foreboding, dangerous, and unknowable. There's no need for back story here, which the Coen Brothers smartly avoid, as he's simply a demon that is intent on winning at all costs. The film lives and dies on this performance, and Bardem knows it, keeping his part restrained when other actors (including, quite frankly, Bardem himself in later years) would have over-played their hands with such a plum part. That he keeps such an iconic villain subdued is a miraculous feat, and shows why he became an acting icon after this movie.
Finally, we have Hal Holbrook playing the annual part of an aging character actor who finally gets his due from the Academy. The only thing that upsets this cliche is that Holbrook is marvelous in Into the Wild, playing a lonely man drawn in by the youth and kindness of a wayward stranger. Holbrook gets scenes that could play to the rafters, but he keeps them back, eventually bringing out a difficult vulnerability that shatters against the emotionally-stunted Chris McCandless (played by Emile Hirsch) when he asks him to adopt him. The pain on Holbrook's face, finally taking a chance after a long life of playing by the book, and then realizing that he was rejected, is marvelous-it honestly haunted me for months after seeing the picture, and made me think the movie itself is better than it is. That's what great supporting actors do, and I'm so glad that Holbrook got to be included in Oscar's pantheon after a long career as a bit player in entertainment.
I was never a big fan of Philip Seymour Hoffman's acting style in movies. People loved his deeply method approach, the way that he managed to be a movie star that looked like a character actor (a trick not many people get the opportunity to portray, but Paul Thomas Anderson and Bennett Miller saw to his having it), but I always felt his performances were too harried and theatrical. In fact, the most impressive moment I ever saw from in his career was when he played Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman, a towering achievement and one of the best performances I've ever seen on the New York stage. But that was the theater, where he could get away with some of his more indulgent acting tics. As a result other than The Master I've never been particularly struck by anything Hoffman did as a film actor, and that includes Charlie Wilson's War. Here he plays a bombastic CIA operative, whose only temperatures are loud and louder when it comes to the way that Hoffman portrayed him. There's technical skill here, but honestly even by the low bar I set for Hoffman, this is the least of his Oscar nominated roles, and feels more like an afterglow citation by people still enamored with his work in Capote.
Much better is Casey Affleck, a fine actor who occasionally gets in his own way in terms of technical skill. This is the film that pushed him out of the way of his brother's shadow, likely leading to him eventually taking the Oscar for Manchester by the Sea. Though he's never as good as Pitt, who has the more understated and challenging role, Affleck brings a mannered approach to Robert Ford that makes you constantly guessing about him and his motives, perhaps because as Ford is written his motives seem to always be changing. Is he in love with James, or is he simply trying to become him? It's not clear, but Affleck doesn't shy away from the Celluloid Closet angles of this part, and though his speaking pattern is sometimes frustrating, it's never out-of-character and well-considered. My biggest problem with this nomination is that Affleck is the main character, hardly supporting at all-he has more screen-time than even Pitt himself, and was only relegated to supporting because he was not yet a matinee idol. I dock quite a few points for what is one of the most egregious cases of category fraud I've seen in a long time.
Tom Wilkinson arguably has some category fraud in his corner as well, though at least his work in Michael Clayton could convincingly be called supporting (there's no question that George Clooney's titular character is the main point of focus). Wilkinson, like Hoffman, plays this part so bombastically it's hard to take it seriously. Honestly-that whole scene where he proclaims "I am Sheva the God of Death" is so manically over-the-top that you almost wonder if Tony Gilroy is playing this part for comedy. Unlike the very specific decisions made by his costar Tilda Swinton, this feels more muddled and all-over-the-place, and very different from Wilkinson's fine work in In the Bedroom. A disappointment, but he's aided by Michael Clayton being quite a fine film.
The last two performances are from actors giving, in my opinion, the best performances of their careers. Javier Bardem managed to turn his Anton Chigurh into a movie star-career, getting him spots in major cinematic franchises like James Bond and Pirates of the Caribbean, and overall becoming a household name. His Chigurh is pitch-perfect, and still lives up to the hype. He keeps the character foreboding, dangerous, and unknowable. There's no need for back story here, which the Coen Brothers smartly avoid, as he's simply a demon that is intent on winning at all costs. The film lives and dies on this performance, and Bardem knows it, keeping his part restrained when other actors (including, quite frankly, Bardem himself in later years) would have over-played their hands with such a plum part. That he keeps such an iconic villain subdued is a miraculous feat, and shows why he became an acting icon after this movie.
Finally, we have Hal Holbrook playing the annual part of an aging character actor who finally gets his due from the Academy. The only thing that upsets this cliche is that Holbrook is marvelous in Into the Wild, playing a lonely man drawn in by the youth and kindness of a wayward stranger. Holbrook gets scenes that could play to the rafters, but he keeps them back, eventually bringing out a difficult vulnerability that shatters against the emotionally-stunted Chris McCandless (played by Emile Hirsch) when he asks him to adopt him. The pain on Holbrook's face, finally taking a chance after a long life of playing by the book, and then realizing that he was rejected, is marvelous-it honestly haunted me for months after seeing the picture, and made me think the movie itself is better than it is. That's what great supporting actors do, and I'm so glad that Holbrook got to be included in Oscar's pantheon after a long career as a bit player in entertainment.
Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes were largely similar to the Oscars despite them getting a bit more creative in other categories, with only Holbrook missing (the HFPA, as is their style, went with the movie star in a crowd-pleaser: John Travolta in Hairspray). The SAG Awards skipped Hoffman instead, a bit of a surprise considering he seemed like a sure thing with Oscar at the time, picking Tommy Lee Jones for No Country for Old Men. Finally, the BAFTA Awards also went with Jones, as well as Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood, skipping over the more America-centric Holbrook & Affleck. The only thing all lineups had in common was an easy win for Bardem, who was giving one of those performances that couldn't be ignored. For me, it's hard to tell whether it was Travolta or Jones in sixth place, but considering Jones's shock Best Actor nomination part of me thinks Travolta's major comeback in 2007 was the sort of crowd-pleasing hit that just missed with AMPAS.
Performances I Would Have Nominated: I've never been as smitten by Tommy Lee Jones as some other filmgoers, but honestly-his work as Ed Tom Bell is the best performance of his career, and deserved a nomination. I also would have found time for Max von Sydow's tortured father in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, as well as one of the many outstanding supporting performances in Zodiac, with Mark Ruffalo likely being my favorite of the bunch.
Oscar’s Choice: An easy win for Bardem, though second place is harder to call-would they have gone with the sentimental favorite of Holbrook or would a quick second win for Hoffman have been in the cards? I could make a case for either, but I'm guessing Hoffman would have had an edge.
My Choice: I also can't stop what's coming, and will pick Bardem over Holbrook. In third place is Affleck, who would have been a threat for going higher were it not for the category fraud, followed by Wilkinson and finally Hoffman.
Those are my thoughts-what are yours? Are you with the consensus choice of Bardem, or does someone want to make an argument that another man deserved this trophy? Who was second place, Hoffman or Holbrook? Who was sixth place-Jones or Travolta? And which Zodiac supporting player was the most snubbed? Share your thoughts below in the comments!
No comments:
Post a Comment