OVP: Supporting Actor (2023)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2023)

The Nominees Were...

Sterling K. Brown, American Fiction

Robert de Niro, Killers of the Flower Moon

Robert Downey, Jr., Oppenheimer

Ryan Gosling, Barbie

Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things

My Thoughts: And now we officially are in the acting races!  I've noticed slightly less traffic to this series than normal, which I'm chalking up to this being right after the 96th Academy Awards, so you're all tired of the field and would prefer something more retro (don't worry, in June we're be going to do our first foray into the 1990's, so there'll be plenty of nostalgia for everyone).  But, I'm hoping that today and tomorrow will be a fun discussion.  The supporting races at the Oscars were such a foregone conclusion that, quite frankly, it feels like these lineups were under-discussed more than anything else.

For example, did it feel like we were having a moment for Robert de Niro last year?  Nearly fifty years after his first Oscar nomination for The Godfather, Part II, he got his ninth acting nomination for Killers of the Flower Moon, playing the unfathomably evil patriarch of a crime syndicate.  De Niro is giving his best performance...maybe in my lifetime, honestly?  It's spectacular stuff, with the way that he shows his hands repeatedly (this is a man who feels unexpected and yet doesn't have much of a poker face), and yet you are always caught off-guard by his ruthlessness.  Really good stuff, and surprisingly strong chemistry with DiCaprio.

Ryan Gosling gave what might end up being his most memorable role at the end of his career.  Gosling's winning celebrity combined with his lousy box office returns (save Barbie) means that he's been one of our most consistent actors and has done so in genuinely good movies.  That's true here, giving us the best version of his handsome goofball.  There was some press about how "Ken got nominated but not Barbie" in 2023, but that's because Gosling steals literally every scene in the movie he's in, embodying a himbo energy with a silly, broken man.  It's a masterclass in comedy.

This isn't the case for Mark Ruffalo.  Ruffalo was once the Ryan Gosling in movies (compare his work in You Can Count on Me with Gosling's in Blue Valentine...you'll find the similarities), but Gosling is better at over-acting.  Ruffalo's work here isn't enough.  I kind of liked some of his earlier scenes, where he plays a lothario who is just intent on getting into Emma Stone's pants, but when he's asked to play wide in the latter half of the movie, he whiffs more than he connects.  There's too much silly, especially compared to the more sophisticated "big" acting that Stone is doing next to him.

Robert Downey, Jr., like his Avengers costar (it should not be lost that 60% of this category has Marvel credentials given our next nominee was in Black Panther), can suffer from "too much" acting, but that's not the case with Oppenheimer.  I don't think this ranks amongst his best work (which, for my taste, is either Tropic Thunder or Ally McBeal), but it's also a very respectable way to give him an Oscar.  He plays his villain with a sense of entitlement (but also coordination) that feels like a DC creature, someone who is always ready to spring forward with his next line-of-attack, the next ploy for a promotion.  It feels custom-made for him, but that doesn't mean he doesn't ace it.

Our final nominee is the problem.  Sterling K. Brown is not just the worst of these nominees, he's the worst of all 20 acting nominees in 2023.  I am not someone who cares that much about if straight people play gay roles, but they do need to be believable as gay people, which he is not.  He plays this role as too stereotypical, frequently feeling like he has no sense of being attracted to men other than "it's in the script."  To be fair to him, this is the most phoned in character in Cord Jefferson's script, and is filled with a lot of really rough stereotypes about gay people (making him a man-crazy, irresponsible drug addict), but it's so flat, and truly, an egregiously bad performance that would feel more at-home at the Razzies.

Other Precursor Contenders: First off, I hate that the Globes expanded to six nominees per category, as it's such a copout due to a bunch of online whining (news flash: there are more than five good performances in a year...it doesn't stop being a good performance if they're not in the Top 5).  Downey won, besting de Niro, Gosling, Ruffalo, Willem Dafoe (Poor Things), & Charles Melton (May December).  SAG stuck with five, giving it to Downey over Brown, Dafoe, de Niro, & Gosling, while BAFTA also picked Downey atop de Niro, Gosling, Jacob Elordi (Saltburn), Paul Mescal (All of Us Strangers), & Dominic Sessa (The Holdovers) (side note, but this is one of the best lineups I've seen from BAFTA in a while).  The sixth place was undoubtedly Dafoe, though I also think Dominic Sessa was probably on more ballots than his precursor run would let on...it's the kind of co-lead role that gets into this category.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: Both of the supporting men in All of Us Strangers (father Jamie Bell, boyfriend Paul Mescal) are spectacular.  In a year where we spent a lot of time discussing whether both Poor Things actor would get in, we should've been focused on the supporting men of Andrew Haigh's brilliant picture.

Oscar’s Choice: Downey won by so much, you honestly could make an argument for pretty much anyone (save Brown) in second...and no, it isn't automatically Gosling (de Niro is a legend who has been waiting for that third Oscar for 43 years, Ruffalo is clearly going to win at some point, and this was a big picture for him...either of them could've been the runner-up).

My Choice: Depending on the day, it'd be Gosling or de Niro, but more days I land on the latter, so I'm giving it to the villain of Killers of the Flower Moon (both are showing in my My Ballot, and either would've ranked amongst the best winners of this category).  In third is Downey, followed by Ruffalo and then Brown.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you want to attend Senate hearings with Robert Downey, Jr., or do you want to join Robert de Niro & I in Oklahoma?  Ryan Gosling & Mark Ruffalo both feel like inevitable Oscar winners at this point-who gets it first?  And was it Dafoe or Sessa in sixth place?  Share in the comments!

Also in 2023: Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2023

Past Best Supporting Actor Contests: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021)

Film: Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021)

Stars: Simu Liu, Awkwafina, Meng'er Zhang, Fala Chen, Benedict Wong, Michelle Yeoh, Ben Kingsley, Tony Leung

Director: Destin Daniel Cretton

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Visual Effects)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I'll be real-coming out of Spider-Man: Far From Home, I was a bit over the obligation of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  I knew that I wouldn't entirely be able to escape it-projects like the OVP and just general osmosis were going to keep me coming back even if I decided to skip some installments, but I wasn't thrilled about what a post-Thanos world would look like for the organization.  Something happened, though, during the pandemic when I couldn't see any major blockbusters-I developed a hunger for them.  In retrospect, for me the MCU became a place of nostalgia that it couldn't have been in its ubiquity.  Most of the product since Avengers: Endgame, though, has been lacking.  Spider-Man and Black Widow were too dry, Falcon & Winter Soldier and Loki were a snooze, and What If has yet to live up to the fun of its potential.  Only WandaVision, a complete departure from the MCU's traditional formatting, has shown itself to be truly worthy.  That is, until Shang-Chi, currently lighting up the box office & totally defying convention, potentially changing some of the "evolution to streaming" conversations (supposedly Shang-Chi has convinced Disney that they should release Eternals exclusively in theaters as well).  Shang-Chi is doing this not just through exclusivity-it's also one of the best films in the MCU, showing that even if it's sticking to the formula, it can find ways to drive a fun action-adventure that doesn't need a name-brand to keep it afloat.

(Spoilers Ahead) Taking place in the years after Avengers: Endgame (though weirdly it's never explained which characters were blipped or not), the movie is about Sean (Liu), a valet driver who speaks multiple languages but doesn't aspire to much more in his life other than hanging with his friend Katy (Awkwafina).  Things change, though, when a man on a bus tries to steal Sean's necklace, and rather than giving it up, Sean fights the man in a blistering whirl of martial arts, to Katy's shock.  It turns out that Sean is actually Shang-Chi, the son of a ruthless crime boss named Xu Wenwu (Leung) master of the mystical "ten rings," who is attempting to steal these magical necklaces from both Shang-Chi and his sister Xu Xialing (Zhang) in order to take on the home village of their mother, whom he believes is trying to keep her captive, despite them understanding that she was killed when they were children.  They initially are captured by their father, then escape and go to the village, lead by their aunt Ying Nan (Yeoh).  Nan leads them in battle against their father, who in turn awakens the Dweller-in-Darkness, whom Shang-Chi and Katy ultimately kill.  The film ends on something of a cliffhanger, with Shang-Chi and Katy joining up with Captain Marvel, the Hulk, and Wong, presumably joining the Avengers in the process.

Shang-Chi suffers in some regard from some of the problems you get from the Marvel franchises.  The third act is a bit sloppy (they really are not great with ending their films), throwing too much CGI into the battle with the dragons (it made it a bit blurry & washed out, which is the case for a lot of the Marvel films where they simply have too much CGI to make it look realistic), and I will admit that there is maybe not enough information in the pre-Shang-Chi period of our main character's life (I would've liked at least one scene of him as "Sean" without Katy there so we could understand what he was like while he was alone).

But these are small complaints, as Shang-Chi is the best MCU film since Black Panther.  Casting Simu Liu in the lead turned out to be a stroke of genius, as he is totally prepared to play the slacker qualities of this figure, while also believably rising to his destiny as the film continues (also, it must be said, Liu is the hottest addition to Marvel's universe since Thor took off his shirt).  Awkwafina's character might need a bit more explaining in a future film (like, does she have a superpower other than being good at shooting arrows...and isn't that Hawkeye's thing?), but she proves to be one of the most reliable comic reliefs currently in movies, totally nailing the the "comic" part of this and giving us a playfulness that has been lacking in a lot of recent Marvel product.  The remainder of the cast is superb, particularly Leung & Yeoh, both icons of Asian cinema for decades, proving their movie star chops in a big-screen American product.  About the only thing I wanted out was Ben Kingsley's unnecessary connection to the larger Marvel universe (was anyone really clamoring for him reviving his work as "the Mandarin?").  Combined with some terrific stunt work & fight scenes (the fight on the bus is epic, as is the sequence where we first meet Xialing), Shang-Chi is a spry shot-in-the-arm for the MCU films headed into a consequential fall, where both Eternals and Spider-Man: No Way Home come with sky high expectations...it's proof that Marvel can believably achieve such levels still.

OVP: Supporting Actor (2015)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2015)

The Nominees Were...

Christian Bale, The Big Short
Tom Hardy, The Revenant
Mark Ruffalo, Spotlight
Mark Rylance, Bridge of Spies
Sylvester Stallone, Creed

My Thoughts: After over a year profiling this (I say this every time, but I mean it this time-we are not taking as long when we do the next year which I plan on starting in July), we are now arriving in the Top 6 of 2015, the big, iconic races that even lax Oscar fans might remember.  The Best Supporting Actor race of 2015, I'm going to admit right now, was never going to be a great race.  Unlike the female acting contests, which featured some of the best work Oscar had seen in a while, the male races were pretty underwhelming, and even if I was to replace it with my own choices, I wouldn't do that much better as it just wasn't an amazing year for supporting actors.

The best way to indicate that is to look at the actual winner of the Oscar race, Mark Rylance.  Rylance IS one of the great actors of his generation if you count his stage work.  I saw him in Jerusalem in 2011, and I still talk about the performance-it might be the single greatest performance I've ever seen on Broadway.  That said, this performance is fine.  It's admittedly pretty subdued, and he finds the quieter moments in Rudolf Abel, particularly the scene by his desk before he's eventually arrested, but there's not a lot there, particularly when he treads familiar territory with Hanks (and certainly for Spielberg) in the bonding period in the back half of the film.  It's the sort of performance that people applaud Oscar for recognizing since it rarely goes for introverts, but it feels like the sort of win that only happened because there wasn't an obvious, showy piece-of-work to go after.

Then again, there probably was a showy performance of sorts that Oscar could have gone for, but thankfully they didn't.  Mark Ruffalo has been on the outside-looking in with three Oscar races now, but he should have just been watching at home for his work in Spotlight.  Arguably giving the worst performance in the Best Picture winner (and I love Mark Ruffalo usually, so don't come after me in the comments), Ruffalo plays for the rafters with Michael Rezendes.  The giant speech "it could have been any of us" is meant to be a big coming-together moment, trying to unite the journalists with the victims of abuse, but Ruffalo goes so large, and is so bombastic it almost ruins the movie.  It's easy to see why this performance was nominated, but considering that Michael Keaton is nailing his role in the film and easily could have been cited instead, I don't think the "why" is forgivable with actually going through with nominating Ruffalo for one of his lesser efforts.

Tom Hardy is easier to forgive since this is his first time to the dance (I always struggle going too hard after a first-time nominee), and is considerably better than Ruffalo.  That's not to say that Hardy is doing something remarkable here, but there's more nuance in his performance than Leo is giving to his role, giving him more layers and a better trajectory for his character, relying on actual acting and the work of his eyes more than sheer physicality.  That said, he's stuck in a bad movie, and he's not given enough to be able to save it fully.  There's no actual interest in character development from the director, so Hardy's touches don't create something fully-fledged, just a more interesting personage than you'd expect given what the rest of the actors are doing.

Bale has a director who does care about his characters, albeit one whose idea of character development is simply stating "and now the character is like this" rather than growing the story through subtle changes in direction (Adam McKay is many things, not all of them bad, but he is decidedly not subtle).  Bale is also not a subtle actor, and while he is impressive in his ability to inhabit characters, he rarely finds time to grow them without big jerks, going in heavy on the tics that Michael Burry brings to The Big Short, but never finding reasons as to why he eventually has a change-of-heart about the corruption he's profited from.  Bale is hindered by McKay not really understanding the ramifications of the movie he's made (he is also a millionaire who might not be the best representative of the common man's struggles), but you can't blame the scenery-chewing on McKay-that's this actor's constant handicap.

Our final nomination is an actor that almost no one would put in the same thespian league as Bale, mostly because he's played the same character over-and-over for 40+ years, but Sylvester Stallone in Creed is proof that you can find new ways to reinvent a character you know by heart.  Stallone's performance gets the unfair advantage of nostalgia, something no other actor on this list has; there's a lifetime's worth of screen memories in his worn face, his expressions, the way that he has almost a boxer's beaten tenor to his voice at this point.  But there's also a knowledge here in the way he pushes out sentences that would be a struggle for a boxer in his twilight years (knowing what we know about the impact of concussions) and he brings such calm as he hands his baton to the next generation of fighters.  This is an actor who might have only had one truly great character in him, but he plays the part with such care you can't claim he's an actor of limited scope even if you might claim he's of limited range.

Other Precursor Contenders: This category actually had more room in the precursors than I remembered.  Stallone took the Globe, besting Rylance but also Oscar-skipped Paul Dano (Love & Mercy), Idris Elba (Beasts of No Nation), and Michael Shannon (99 Homes).  SAG, in what should have been an ominous sign dropped the Globe-winning Stallone, but stuck to Oscar's Bale & Rylance, also favoring Elba, Shannon, and Room's Jacob Tremblay, with Elba winning despite eventually missing with Oscar.  BAFTA skipped Stallone & Hardy, favoring Elba and Benicio del Toro (Sicario) for the nominations instead, and gave it to a third winner, Rylance.  In terms of sixth place, Elba has the most action headed into Oscar, but his nomination was clearly more of a "screw Netflix" rather than a "screw Elba" so I kind of want to guess Michael Shannon was sixth...Oscar seems to only like him when he comes out of nowhere.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: I'd probably throw out all but my winner here.  Sam Elliott was doing a better performance in Grandma than he would a few years later when he was cited for A Star is Born, while Michael Keaton definitely outdid Mark Ruffalo in Spotlight (plus, Oscar owed Keaton for skipping him in the obviously finest performance in Best Actor the previous year).  Oscar Isaac continues to be one of the best non-nominated actors currently working in the jaw-dropping Ex Machina (perhaps they felt that they had already cited Steve Jobs with Michael Fassbender, but they're both so good it's worth mentioning twice).  And lastly, Jason Statham is not a great actor.  He might not even be a good actor.  But if you're going to throw your persona for a loop in a comedy, I don't know that you could do it better than what he brings to his hilarious work in Spy.

Oscar’s Choice: Sentiment did not command the day with Oscar, as in an echo of Alan Arkin/Eddie Murphy a decade earlier, a quiet character actor in a Best Picture nominee took out an 80's icon who was trying to get an award he'd spent most of his career uninterested in winning.

My Choice: This feels so weird to say, but Sly Stallone totally deserved this Oscar.  He's so much better than the rest and had such a good narrative (and is reportedly a nice guy) I'm still flummoxed as to why he missed this trophy.  I'd follow with Rylance, Hardy, Bale, and Ruffalo.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you with me that Stallone missed a perfect (and probably his only) opportunity to take a trophy, or are you with the more traditional choice of Rylance?  Is Mark Ruffalo ever going to win an Oscar?  And who was sixth place-Shannon or Elba?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2015: Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Previously in 2015

Past Best Supporting Actor Contests: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

OVP: Avengers: Endgame (2019)

Film: Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Stars: Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Paul Rudd, Brie Larson, Karen Gillan, Bradley Cooper, Josh Brolin
Director: Anthony & Joe Russo
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Visual Effects)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I wrote when Captain Marvel came out that it had become impossible for me to judge the films in the franchise without seeing how they ended, and so I (like every person on the planet, apparently) went out the first week Avengers 4 was in theaters and caught the final(?) chapter of the movie franchise.  The film is destined for a slice of immortality, certain to overtake Avatar as the highest-grossing film (a title it may hold forever considering global box office trends-like Avatar and Titanic before it, it’s hard to imagine what kind of movie would eventually trounce such a film).  But the better question is-is it any good?  After 11 years and 22 films, what was the series finale like?

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie picks up almost exactly after we left off, with an opening eerily similar to The Leftovers (a series that is heavily borrowed from in terms of aesthetic, though not in gravitas by this picture).  Hawkeye (Renner) watches as his entire family goes up in smoke (similar to Carrie Coon's Nora on The Leftovers), and soon we find out what life is like in a world where half the planet has disappeared. Each Avenger that got left behind takes their lives in different directions.  Iron Man (Downey) settles down with Pepper Potts and has a child, Black Widow (Johansson) takes on the Nick Fury role, Hawkeye becomes an assassin, the Hulk (Ruffalo) becomes a kinder, gentler being, Captain America (Evans) runs grief sessions, and Thor (Hemsworth) just is a drunk who lets his Adonis-like figure go in favor of a Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski sort of aesthetic (though he’s still hot, and anyone who says otherwise needs corrective lenses).  The return of Ant-Man (Rudd) gives them hope that they can go back-in-time and stop Thanos, but Nebula (Gillan), Thanos’s daughter accidentally informs her father in the past that they are trying to undo his work, and as a result they have a gigantic battle where literally every character you can think of from the MCU pops up to fight Thanos.  This journey ultimately ends in the death of not only Thanos, but also Black Widow & Iron Man, and Captain America becoming too old to be an Avenger.

Here’s the deal-there’s a lot to really like about Avengers: Endgame.  The casting budget on the film had to be just impossibly large (when you’re willing to spend money to, say, just have Michelle Pfeiffer & Marisa Tomei stand at a funeral, you know you’ve entered new territory), but it’s a joy to see something so spectacular. The fight scene with Thanos is wonderful, with major moments from Captain America (people cheered in my theater when he took Thor’s hammer) and for girl power (it was hokey as hell, but I loved the “Women of Marvel Assemble” sequence, and so did the packed theater I was in).  In my opinion we have Evans, Hemsworth, & Gillan as the movie’s MVP’s (the movement to get Robert Downey Jr. an acting Oscarcitation feels a stretch, and more a nod to a truly remarkable comeback than a true acting achievement).  Gillan is giving a strong performance, and Evans/Hemsworth have carved out such wonderful dimensions with these noble guys (and have such great chemistry with everyone) that it’s terrific to get to see them together for the last time.  And there’s something to be said for the movie feeling permanently over.  The next franchises are clearly set up (Spider-Man in a few weeks, but also there’s obvious potential for a future Captain America (with Anthony Mackie as the star), Black Panther, Captain Marvel, & Guardians pictures), but it also feels like an end to at least the chapter that started in 2008, a true achievement in a world where we have to stretch movies until their story breaks.

But there’s also a lot of slog here.  Trying to fit 40-odd characters into a movie is a tough task, and certain people (Black Widow & Hulk especially) get the short end of the stick in this picture.  The movie is overlong, predictable, and doesn’t have the emotional heft of the last film’s surprise snap.  Everything in this movie feels exactly how you would have expected it to turn out.  That might be the sign of a good finale (everything was as it was supposed to be), but a movie should have at least some unexpected twists, and it might have been more interesting if we’d had characters die whom we thought might actually exist in the MCU in the future.  As a result, I’m giving this movie a 3 star rating, and think it rates under Infinity War, which felt more epic and more urgent. As a franchise, it’s hard not to commend the achievements of Kevin Feige over the past 11 years, and I’d probably go with a 4-star for the 22 parts as a whole, even if only a couple actual movies in the series rose to that same level.

Oscar's Long-Suffering Gentlemen

As you may have guessed due to the massive increase in articles on this blog in the past two weeks, I'm in a bit of a house-cleaning mode for the blog, getting all of the articles I meant to write in 2018 but never had time to, out the door for your enjoyment before we dive into some of the new series/articles of 2019.  While doing so, I was looking through my drafts folder and realized that I owe you a sequel to an article about Oscar bridesmaids that I wrote in December.  There I took a look at the living actresses who have been nominated 3+ times but never won a competitive Academy Award.  At the time, it seemed possible that both Glenn Close & Amy Adams could be removed from such a list, but instead they just moved further into the front, both still waiting for an Oscar that might never come (but don't tell them that).

Today we're going to look at the 12 men who are living and don't have an Oscar, but have lost at least three times.  Despite the focus on Close & Adams, there are actually three men on this list who moved up thanks to this past year's ceremony, and we actually had a tragic change in this list from what it would have been had I finished it in December, as the man who would have been our #1, Albert Finney, passed away last month.  Since I didn't have time to write him an obituary at the time, consider this a bit of a memorial post to the fine actor.

Finney was very rare when he died.  I wrote in my December article that only 11 women have died with 3+ Oscar nominations and never winning a competitive one, but for men it's nearly as rare, with 13 such men who have died without a competitive Oscar.  This list includes such icons as Mickey Rooney, Peter O'Toole, and Charles Boyer, all of whom won Honorary Oscars, as well as noted character actors such as Clifton Webb and Charles Bickford.  Below you will find an additional dozen that are waiting for that competitive Oscar-speculate in the comments which ones you think have the best shot at actually taking a trophy home before their final curtain call.

Honorable Mention: Warren Beatty, Matt Damon, and Brad Pitt have 3+ acting nominations without ever taking a trophy for their thespian abilities (and are still with us), but they all have competitive Oscars of their own.  Beatty won Best Director for 1981's Reds, Pitt won Best Picture in 2013 for 12 Years a Slave, and Damon won Best Original Screenplay for 1997's Good Will Hunting.  As a result, I kept them off of the list even though technically they'd qualify.

Note: These are ranked by how many nominations an actress made, then by who got their most recent nomination the latest, and then by who got their first nomination first.

12. Viggo Mortensen

Nominations: Eastern Promises (Actor in 2007), Captain Fantastic (Actor in 2016), & Green Book (Actor in 2018)
He Lost to: Daniel Day-Lewis, Casey Affleck, & Rami Malek
Closest to the Win: It would have been 2018 had awards bodies not A) fallen weirdly in love with Rami Malek in Bohemian Rhapsody and B) Green Book hadn't gotten a significant amount of flack for its treatment of black characters, though that latter hardly stopped it in the Best Picture & Screenplay categories so maybe it was just the former.  You could make an argument that Mortensen may have been a more palatable choice than, say, Christian Bale had Malek not been on a missile trajectory to winning his Oscar.
Well, He Still Won...: Mortensen hasn't been very lucky with awards bodies.  About the most notable trophy he's picked up would be for Best SAG Ensemble for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, but he's never won a significant award for his solo acting.
Is This Happening Someday?: I don't know.  Aside from Green Book, Mortensen's past nominations were genuine surprises, and ones that had no chance of actually winning.  If he continues to make populist films like Green Book this could theoretically happen, but he's not the type of actor who seems comfortable with campaigning, and as a result I'd wager he won't take this, unless he gets the right biopic.

11. Woody Harrelson

Nominations: The People vs. Larry Flynt (Actor in 1996), The Messenger (Supporting Actor in 2009), and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (Supporting Actor in 2017)
He Lost to: Geoffrey Rush, Christoph Waltz, & Sam Rockwell
Closest to the Win: The Messenger?  1996 he was in fourth or fifth place, and Three Billboards was a near-miss for a nomination, so The Messenger you could quite plausibly state that he was second place, though a distant second place to Waltz.
Well, He Still Won...: Harrelson has never won a major trophy for film, but he did take an Emmy for his time in Cheers.
Is This Happening Someday?: I think so.  Harrelson is the sort of actor who demands respect at this point, and appears in prestige films regularly (he works regularly, period).  Give him the right supporting part in a film, and it feels like he'd be able to sneak in as a career-capper sort of trophy.

10. Mark Ruffalo

Nominations: The Kids are All Right (Supporting Actor in 2010), Foxcatcher (Supporting Actor in 2013), & Spotlight (Supporting Actor in 2014)
He Lost to: Christian Bale, JK Simmons, & Mark Rylance
Closest to the Win: None of these movies.  I honestly can't even wager-he was at least in third for all of them, perhaps no higher than fourth.  Ruffalo's nominations are weird because all of these felt like citations you could predict, but also are for work that was never going to come close to an actual win.
Well, He Still Won...: Ruffalo took the Emmy for Best TV Movie for his work as a producer on The Normal Heart but he hasn't picked up a major trophy yet for acting.
Is This Happening Someday?: Yes, it is.  Ruffalo just turned fifty, is well-liked (all of his costars seem to adore him), and now that he's not under contractual obligation to Marvel, he's got more time to make arthouse films, which feels like where he's at home.  He just needs to get in on a Best Picture nominee, and he could win...I honestly think he's famous enough he could win lead.

9. Edward Norton

Nominations: Primal Fear (Supporting Actor in 1996), American History X (Actor in 1998), & Birdman (Supporting Actor in 2014)
He Lost to: Cuba Gooding, Jr., Roberto Benigni, & JK Simmons
Closest to the Win: Call me crazy, but maybe 1996?  The Academy was feeling frisky that year (just ask Lauren Bacall), and he had just won a Golden Globe.  Most pundits, if you look back, thought it was a battle between Gooding and William H. Macy for Fargo, but I wonder if Norton (who also appeared in Everyone Says I Love You and The People vs. Larry Flynt) was more in the thick of the wins than people gave him credit for at the time.
Well, He Still Won...: Norton lost the Oscar to Gooding, but managed to pick up a Golden Globe in 1996 for Primal Fear.
Is This Happening Someday?: I'm going to guess no.  Norton has had a lot more pits than valleys in a career where he's never really stopped working.  I think he's the definition of an actor who starts out strong (surely everyone assumed he was the next big thing by 1999), but Birdman feels more the exception than the rule, and he's not the type that will go after the (quality) Oscar-bait projects.  They'll need to come to him.

8. Joaquin Phoenix

Nominations: Gladiator (Supporting Actor in 2000), Walk the Line (Actor in 2005), & The Master (Actor in 2012)
He Lost to: Benicio del Toro, Philip Seymour Hoffman, & Daniel Day-Lewis
Closest to the Win: None of these are close wins.  Walk the Line couldn't even get a Best Picture nomination, and that's the one that makes the most sense when you compare it to its competition (and he's at best in third behind Hoffman & Heath Ledger).
Well, He Still Won...: It always feels weird to say this, but the only major trophy that the deeply method & dark Phoenix has ever won was for the Comedy Golden Globe (for Walk the Line).
Is This Happening Someday?: I don't think so.  If anyone on this list is the modern successor to Albert Finney, it's Phoenix, who is an actor that is too good not to occasionally be nominated for awards, but also clearly hates them and I doubt the Academy would ever want to give him a microphone.

7. Nick Nolte

Nominations: The Prince of Tides (Actor in 1991), Affliction (Actor in 1998), & Warrior (Supporting Actor in 2011)
He Lost to: Anthony Hopkins, Roberto Benigni, & Christopher Plummer
Closest to the Win: You could make a sincere argument that he was the frontrunner in 1991, with tough competition from Hopkins and Warren Beatty (Hopkins victory has aged very well, to the point where we feel like it was inevitable but that was not what people thought at the time).  However, he was also in the thick of things in 1998, when James Coburn stunned for a victory in Supporting Actor, so there was clearly a lot of support for Affliction (considering how Benigni's career aged, the Academy probably wishes they had given it to Nolte).
Well, He Still Won...: Nolte nabbed the Golden Globe for his work in The Prince of Tides (hard to believe in this era of uniform awards seasons, but Nolte managed to win Drama Actor over the man who'd eventually take the Oscar)...please take note AMPAS-creativity is a good thing.
Is This Happening Someday?: No.  Nolte's shot at ever winning this Oscar died the day that infamous mugshot was taken.  He's nearly 80 years old, and he wouldn't be an awful choice for an Honorary Oscar if it would occur to anyone, but a competitive trophy ain't going to happen-the Warrior nomination was probably the closest he was ever going to get to a career honor.

6. Johnny Depp

Nominations: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (Actor in 2003), Finding Neverland (Actor in 2004), & Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (Actor in 2007)
He Lost to: Sean Penn, Jamie Foxx, & Daniel Day-Lewis
Closest to the Win: Pirates, for sure.  The 2003 Best Actor race was a genuinely close affair, with Penn, Depp, and Bill Murray all in a threeway locked race.  I remember at the time some people even speculated that it could end in a tie of sorts.  Can you imagine a year where the Globes and SAG honored three different lead performers in this era?
Well, He Still Won...: Depp is beloved by the Golden Globes (he's been nominated ten times, including multiple citations before Oscar gave him the time of day), but only won once, for Sweeney Todd (the year of the strike, so we've never seen a major Johnny Depp speech)
Is This Happening Someday?: Probably not.  Depp has become something of a pariah, a sellout on-par with Nic Cage at this point, and the abuse allegations against him will age more poorly as time goes by.  I honestly don't think he'll even get an Honorary Oscar considering how much of his once darling arthouse reputation has been drowned in a series of big-budget schlock.

5. Tom Cruise

Nominations: Born on the Fourth of July (Actor in 1989), Jerry Maguire (Actor in 1996), & Magnolia (Supporting Actor in 1999)
He Lost to: Daniel Day-Lewis, Geoffrey Rush, & Michael Caine
Closest to the Win: Cruise has genuinely been close to winning all three times he's been nominated.  Day-Lewis won in 1989 because Cruise was too young and too new to prestige, Jerry Maguire was a loss because Cruise, like his idol Paul Newman, probably was still too rich & famous to need an Oscar to complete the ensemble, and Magnolia would have happened had Miramax not been shoving caviar down the entire Academy's throat (also, everyone's worked with Mike Caine, and seems to love him, so him being thirsty for the thing probably helped).
Well, He Still Won...: Proving you learn something new every time you research an article, Cruise won the Golden Globe every single time he was nominated for the Oscar for the same film.  Oscar just never bit compared to the starstruck HFPA.
Is This Happening Someday?: I can't tell.  Cruise is still famous enough that he could make this work if he really wanted to, and I think (unlike Depp) he'd be forgiven his baggage.  I just don't think he wants to make the types of pictures that would allow him into an awards season, and honestly-can he still pull off such a character?  He hasn't done something like Magnolia or even Jerry Maguire in so long I honestly don't know if he still can, well, act.  An Honorary Oscar could be in the cards though, especially if they set precedence with Harrison Ford or Sly Stallone.  A lot of Academy members paid their mortgages thanks to Cruise's star power.

4. Kirk Douglas

Nominations: Champion (Actor in 1949), The Bad and the Beautiful (Actor in 1952), & Lust for Life (Actor in 1956)
He Lost to: Broderick Crawford, Gary Cooper, & Yul Brynner
Closest to the Win: At the time, most people assumed that Kirk Douglas, then one of the biggest stars in Hollywood, was a shoo-in for a trophy for Lust for Life.  The Academy, though, seemed to like Oscar-lookalike Yul Brynner more in the crowd-pleasing The King & I and so Douglas went empty-handed.  One has to assume if they had known at the time that he'd never get another nomination that he might have won, but who knows what the Academy would do, even with hindsight.
Well, He Still Won...: Douglas deservedly won the Honorary Award at the 1995 Oscars, back when they still broadcast the Honorary winners at the ceremony, so the world was treated to his emotional tribute to his son.  In addition to a slew of Honorary trophies (everything from the DeMille to the Kennedy Center Honors to the AFI Life Achievement Award), he picked up the Golden Globe in 1956 for Lust for Life.
Is This Happening Someday?: No, obviously not.  Douglas is retired and 102.  He got his Honorary Award, and basically every other lifetime achievement award the industry could throw at him, and he'll die a legend.  Kirk Douglas will still be one of the iconic movie stars of all time even without a competitive Oscar, which is surely better than a statue.

3. Bradley Cooper

Nominations: Silver Linings Playbook (Actor in 2012), American Hustle (Supporting Actor in 2013), American Sniper (Actor in 2014), & A Star is Born (Actor in 2018)...he also was nominated for Best Picture for American Sniper & for Picture/Adapted Screenplay for A Star is Born
He Lost to: Daniel Day-Lewis, Jared Leto, Eddie Redmayne & Rami Malek
Closest to the Win: American Sniper felt at the time like it was on the rise, and honestly I wonder if with two more weeks of gargantuan box office if Cooper could have bested Eddie Redmayne.  Also, still not sure what happened this year with the similarly-gargantuan box office for A Star is Born...though at least there Malek came with his own pile of gold.
Well, He Still Won...: Cooper has competed at the Golden Globes, BAFTA's, and Tonys in addition to the Oscars, but like Dafoe, he's never picked up a major trophy.
Is This Happening Someday?: We enter a trio of actors who have been nominated four times without a victory (with Finney's death, no living male actor has received five nominations without winning at least one of them).  Cooper arguably should be first on this list since he has more losses than anyone, but I'm only counting acting trophies.  Also, he's going to win someday unless we're witnessing a Kirk Douglas situation.  Cooper surely has the respect of the industry, and has a hunger for that trophy, which they usually award (especially in men), though he may have to be a little less pretty to finally get there.

2. Willem Dafoe

Nominations: Platoon (Supporting Actor in 1986), Shadow of the Vampire (Supporting Actor in 2000), The Florida Project (Supporting Actor in 2017), & At Eternity's Gate (Actor in 2018)
He Lost to: Michael Caine, Benicio del Toro, Sam Rockwell & Rami Malek
Closest to the Win: I would guess that last year Dafoe was in second place, and I still think it's a bummer that he didn't gain more traction for a clearly better role than Rockwell's, but he hasn't really been close for any of his other work, so I'd go with that film.
Well, He Still Won...: Dafoe has won a mountain of critics' prizes, but never picked up one of the major televised awards.
Is This Happening Someday?: I would assume not, but honestly that fourth nomination threw me a bit.  There were other more obvious contenders (John David Washington, for example) that could have easily snuck in and taken the fifth slot for Best Actor, and Dafoe doing so indicates that there's some appetite to get him an Oscar...but if there was a proper appetite, wouldn't he have won for Florida?  He works with high-profile auteurs, so if one of them gets a film with a little more traction/nominations it could happen, but it'd help if it was in the next couple of years since he's got some recent losses under his belt.

1. Ed Harris

Nominations: Apollo 13 (Supporting Actor in 1995), The Truman Show (Supporting Actor in 1998), Pollock (Actor in 2000), and The Hours (Supporting Actor in 2002)
He Lost to: Kevin Spacey, James Coburn, Russell Crowe, & Chris Cooper
Closest to the Win: Other than The Hours, Harris was close on all three of the other films.  It was down to he & Kevin Spacey in 1995.  In 1998, it was down to he and Robert Duvall (and then in a huge upset James Coburn won, proving that this "closest to the win" is very much a guessing game).  And in 2000, he was surging at the last minute enough to get his costar Marcia Gay Harden across the finish line, but he wasn't able to invade the Crowe/Hanks battle.
Well, He Still Won...: Harris grabbed Golden Globe awards for The Truman Show and Game Change (the HBO TV movie).
Is This Happening Someday?: I doubt it.  Harris still works (Westworld), but he refuses to campaign, and honestly has gotten to the point where I don't even think he'd show up to accept it (he didn't for Game Change), and unless you're Maggie Smith, you don't win if you don't show up.

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Film: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Stars: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Idris Elba, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Hopkins
Director: Taika Waititi
Oscar History: Marvel's not their favorite, so I'm guessing no even if VFX is theoretically a possibility.
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Movies are supposed to be fun.  Like, genuinely a good time at the cinema, and I think that comic book movies have by-and-large forgotten that.  Think of the nauseating seriousness of some of the more recent Batman entries, with Christopher Nolan getting too bloated and with his inventiveness gone, the DC universe going largely to shit.  The Marvel movies have also struggled on this front, creating lighter heroes but ones still burdened by the world around them.  This occasionally can make for fine movies (Captain America: Winter Soldier still being the high-point of the Marvel universe), but it's also why people have responded so ferociously to Guardians of the Galaxy, a comic book franchise that doesn't take itself too seriously.  That was clearly what Taika Waititi had in mind with the latest installment in the Thor franchise, though I'm not entirely sold on the end result.

(Spoilers Ahead) The Thor franchise is arguably the least artistically interesting one of Marvel's universe.  One could argue that had Thor not been one of the original hits that eventually led to the Avengers movie taking over the globe, he probably wouldn't still be getting these stand-alone movies, but since he was and since Marvel essentially can print money with the Avengers franchise at this point, it's not hard to see why he's still getting his due.  Still, though, Thor as a solo character doesn't really work unless you can juxtapose him against other characters to show how preposterous he is, and Waititi certainly does that in this picture.

The film starts off with Thor (Hemsworth) returning to his home of Asgard after unsuccessfully searching for the Infinity Stones that have constantly peppered this franchise for the better part of a decade now.  We see that he no longer is with Jane, and that shockingly his brother Loki (Hiddleston) is still alive (albeit his father Odin (Hopkins) isn't long for this world).  He soon learns of Hela (Blanchett), his Goddess of Death sister, who destroys his hammer with her bare hands early in the film and slowly we watch as Thor is stripped off all of his iconography, with the hair and one eye soon to follow.   He inevitably ends up in a showdown with Hela, and proving that he has learned some humility, finally realizes that he cannot destroy her, only another demon can do so, and flees rather than stand to fight her.

The movie, though, will focus less on the fight for Asgard and more on the silly side distractions of Thor on Sakaar, a garbage dump of a planet (literally), where the Grandmaster (Goldblum) puts on massive battles that pit his Grand Champion, later revealed to be the Hulk (Ruffalo) against fighters such as Thor.  The movie stays extremely light and frothy in these parts, but I honestly wasn't feeling it.  Whereas Guardians was meant to be light, Thor has some very serious issues going on, and the Hulk in particular is played mostly for laughs but this is a deeply tragic figure.  Plus, Goldblum has used this schtick for so many years it's hard not to assume he's just playing himself onscreen.  Blanchett is better at delivering the camp as a woman who sports antlers for ears and can throw off a deadly bon mot better than pretty much anyone, but she's not central to the story-Goldblum is.  The entire movie is predicated on you just enjoying all of the silliness of Thor's compatriots, but it feels excessive.  Combined with unnecessary cameos (of course we see Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange, because that reminds people he's still around) and shocking, but then eye-rolling cameos (Matt Damon as Loki in a play...at some point we need to address that Damon has largely graduated from movie star to celebrity thanks to his string of middling movies & over-reliance on Jimmy Kimmel), the movie is reliant on societal pressure for you to love the Marvel brand so much that you're willing to dismiss the fact that the plotting here is bordering on garbage.  Chris Hemsworth has graduated into a movie star through these pictures, something we should be thankful for, and is arguably giving the best performance (give-or-take Blanchett), but movie star charisma and the face/body of an alien creature (seriously-how is it that one human being can be that attractive?) can't save this movie from being just, well, dull and pointless.  Marvel can have fun, but they need a plot and a point too.

Those are my (admittedly unpopular) thoughts on Thor: Ragnarok.  How about yours?  Anyone else find the movie to be over dull and forcing the fun, rather than seeming at ease?  Or am I just the spoil sport?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

OVP: Supporting Actor (2014)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2014)

The Nominees Were...

Robert Duvall, The Judge

Ethan Hawke, Boyhood

Edward Norton, Birdman (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher

JK Simmons, Whiplash

My Thoughts: And now we have come to the acting categories-that top six categories that aren't just "really, XX film won another one?" or "do you want to make more popcorn?" during the ceremony while you're watching at home, but the pins-and-needles, "I wonder if they'll say something political or funny?" types of moments when you're watching the actual Oscars.  Here we have five men, four of whom are arguably most famous for parts in superhero movies, and the fifth of which is an acting legend who with this nod got a staggering seventh nomination over forty years after his first.  I really don't want to start with him as I love him as a performer and hated this movie, but it's time to eat our vegetables (or in this case, Velveeta and battery acid).

The Judge was the worst film of 2014.  I remember watching the movie just a couple of days before the Oscars as I wanted to be a completist but had avoided it like the plague, but knew it would make it for something with a cast and crew like this.  Duvall was the sole citation for the film, and it's easy to see why the Academy went for it-he's a wonderful actor being given a series of big speeches to bluster through, selling the hell out of each of them with enough bombast to make Brian Dennehy say "whoa, pull back a little."  The performance, though, is not good and runs counter to the quieter moments of The Godfather that made Duvall a great actor in the first place.  The picture is dreadful, but Duvall is unable to sell the moments where he throws away his career and reputation trying to teach his son a lesson.  It doesn't help that the script genuinely doesn't make any sense, but Duvall should have at least brought more dignity to the role.  The nomination seems to have been an acknowledgement from the Academy for an actor they admire (who clearly wanted this nomination something fierce-he campaigned hard for it) in a relatively weak year for this category, but that's not forgivable and it's not like Duvall hadn't already been amply (and justly) rewarded before.

On the opposite end of the spectrum to Duvall is JK Simmons, the only person in this field who was on his very first nomination.  Simmons has long been a character actor that you recognize as being reliable, a nice guy, and virtually everywhere (he was weirdly even in a dream I had Saturday night).  Giving him this moment-in-the-sun, especially with such a loud character as Terence Fletcher, was bound to give him the long attention that he deserved, but while I like the sentiment here (especially in supporting categories it's great to see a longtime character actor finally get some love), the performance is mostly underplayed.  Simmons delivers each yell and scream with a fierceness that has to be admired, and his character occasionally is duplicitous in an interesting way, but it's hard to see the nuance here-his Terence is all surface, rarely anything more.  I've said this before, but while I like the idea of little backstory into this man (villains without a reason for their villainy are always more terrifying), it doesn't seem possible that Andrew is the first student that got the best of his ego considering how easily he does it.  Simmons isn't helped by a script that doesn't quite know what to do with Fletcher until the end of the picture, but I feel like he should have found a soul somewhere in that body, even if it was damaged and hollow.  Plus, there's no denying this is clearly a leading role, which has to lose some points from the get-go (category fraud is still category fraud even if you're not a headliner).

Speaking of headliners, let's move onto former major movie star Ethan Hawke, who seems to now spend his forties alternating between random horror movies and Richard Linklater pictures.  Hawke's work in Boyhood in many ways borrows from his real-life persona, and in a couple of ways from his most iconic role as Jesse in the Before trilogy.  I love the way that his hapless loser never really finds his moment-in the-sun, but as the years go by he still finds happiness in what was initially given to him.  This is one of many wonderful observations made by Richard Linklater (the way this movie mirrors life is truly special), but Hawke's Mason is someone that probably never really realized that his dreams didn't come true in the way he hoped, and only reflects on it late in the night, with a beer in hand.  It's a wonderfully fresh look at the parental figure, perhaps because we get to see his evolution in a way we never really could in any other film.  The naturalism that Hawke brings is something to behold, and it's odd that Patricia Arquette got the lion's share of the plaudits even when they're both doing phenomenal work.

Mark Ruffalo may be the most weirdly inconsistent actor that I genuinely love to watch at the movies.  For every iconic performance that I can't get enough of (You Can Count on Me, Zodiac, The Kids Are All Right), I also find him leveling into scenery-chewing or overusing his mumbly gifts onscreen (In the Cut, Spotlight).  Foxcatcher is a weird place in-between the two, where he somehow finds himself in a bad movie giving a relatively excellent performance.  It would have been so easy for Ruffalo to turn his Dave into a watchful worrier, someone that is the moral compass to his brother's misguided lug, but he doesn't do that (except in that ridiculously over-the-top final scene in the snow, but that's all on the writers), and instead he is forced to show what it's like to succeed, even when you have to do so at the hands of someone he can't stand.  Think of how superb Ruffalo is in that video documentary he's making, where he's being forced to read lines that he doesn't agree with and that are justifying the vile abuse of his brother.  It's one of many scenes in the film that show that he understands not only this character, but what this character, a man past his prime but who knew he was once a star (and knows that others want to shine in that glory), would give to the world.  It's a great, understated performance.

The final piece here is with an actor who has never really understood the meaning of the word "understated," but at least here he finds a film where that rings true.  Edward Norton's work in Birdman is a funny look at his own self (Keaton isn't the only one playing a parody), an actor of intense gifts who attempted, but was never successful in, translating into the same type of movie-stardom enjoyed by Keaton's Riggan in the picture.  Norton's character is hilarious, perhaps the funniest part of a movie that is droll but has a nasty and delicious sense of humor.  I do feel, especially in the first table-read scene but also in a smattering of moments later in the picture, that Norton uses his character's excesses to indulge his own, and the acting could have used more focus, but overall I think this is one of the better works from this actor, of whom I'll admit that I'm not much of a fan despite his critical following.

Other Precursor Contenders: Even by awards season standards, the precursors for this field were boring, as almost everyone went with the same lineup.  The Globes and the SAG Awards went with the exact same nominees and winner as the Oscars, while the BAFTA Awards only substitution was category fraud with Steve Carell going in place of Robert Duvall.  This makes Best Supporting Actor one of the hardest categories of 2014 to go with a sixth place (we genuinely got no indication of whom it might have been).  My gut says Tom Wilkinson (Selma) or Josh Brolin (Inherent Vice), both former nominees in big films, but I think they were far away-this lineup was clearly the one all awards' voters preferred.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: I am not one of those voters, however.  I definitely would have made room for Ben Schnetzer's wonderful activist in Pride, Adam Driver's sexy-but-troubled brother in This is Where I Leave You, and though I'd have to see it again (it was probably category fraud, but it's been a while since I caught the movie), perhaps Logan Lerman in Fury.  I know he's intensely pretty, but it'd be nice if an ingenue made it in the male categories on occasion instead of just the female.

Oscar’s Choice: I don't even know who was in second place, as JK Simmons won the Oscar in a landslide.

My Choice: Hawke over Ruffalo-aided by both a better movie and more a natural progression, this is a pretty easy decision even though both are quite good.  Following them would be Norton, Simmons, and poor Bobby Duvall way in the back (you've got six more OVP battles left-don't cry too hard for Tom Hagen).

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do I have company in preferring Ethan Hawke, or is everyone on the Just Keep Simmons train?  Am I the only person who generally finds Edward Norton off-putting?  And who was the sixth place finisher that clearly should have been taken over Duvall (every name I'm throwing out is better than him)?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Also in 2014: Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Previously in 2014

Past Best Supporting Actor Contests: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013