I had this thought at work the other day about what it must be like to be an actor, director, writer, whatever and have these uneducated (film wise) goobers like me writing about someone's hard work that became an Oscar nominated film. I've railed against some performances and films because they are pretty bad to me but imagine being the guy who wrote one of those films reading some idiot trash your film. Kind of weird to think about right? I don't pretend that my opinion matters any more than anyone elses - it's just my own opinion. Just interesting to think about! Does what I'm writing really matter? No, but it is pretty fun. This category offers some heavy hitters facing off and two unknowns that I'm very interested to check out.
1992 Best Supporting Actor
Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
Yep, I'm totally okay with this as the winner. Hackman is indeed superb in this role and all the superlatives you've heard about it are correct. The main reason I like Hackman as the lawman Little Bill Daggett is because the performance is so understated. It would be extremely easy to play up the violent parts in a crazy or loud way. To do so would be to make those moments come across as abnormal or for show. Hackman delivers a performance that makes those moments of cruel brutality seem inherit to the character and not something that is out of place for him to do. Hackman is a great lawman because he is a violent man that stops at nothing to ensure peace in whatever place he calls home and patrols. It's great to watch because these moments are that much different from when he's being a nice guy talking about building his porch or just doing his lawful duties. This man would have been celebrated in earlier Westerns as the hero, just an every man keeping the thieves and scoundrels and killers out of his town. The brutal nature of it is merely a byproduct and we would be sad if he was killed. But in Unforgiven, all of that is turned on its head and shown for what it all really is: violence is violence no matter who it is done to. This is a very realistic Western instead of the idealistic stuff we are used to and I think it makes the characters such as Little Bill more complex which is always a good thing. He's the good guy but he's also not the good guy. You can't just blindly except he's good because he has a badge and seems like a decent guy at times. I like that this performance makes you question all of the preconceived notions of good and bad. Plus, there's no doubt that watching Gene Hackman do his thing is entertaining and the idea of him not having an Oscar is kind of ridiculous. I'm just glad he won his for a legit great performance and not because he was due.
Jaye Davidson - The Crying Game
I'll say right now that if you haven't watched the film, then maybe go watch it before reading anything about the film because a big part of it will be spoiled right away. Not that you probably couldn't figure out what the twist is, but at least you can go into it pure and not focused on when it will happen. Anyway, The Crying Game is a film that I didn't much care for, though I can see the importance of it and this nomination in the larger scheme of things. Even today, something like this would be a huge issue so seeing them nominate something like this in 1992 is really intriguing. Davidson plays Dil, a transgender woman who seems to attract drama and falls for Stephen Rea's character. Rea doesn't know and that's the big twist that's revealed two thirds of the way through when Davidson gets naked and we see his/her semi-erect penis. That obviously takes a lot of courage for Davidson to go through with and I feel like that coupled with the transgender thing is a big reason why Davidson was nominated. Not to take anything away from the performance but it's basically the main reason. Davidson's performance is only okay to me. It's sort of dramatic and sassy for most of the performance until the very end when Davidson is able to explode with all the rage that must be bottled up inside the Dil character. I didn't really like the film and Davidson didn't exactly put me over the edge into liking it. I can say Davidson accomplishes what is necessary of his character. I just don't feel all that wowed by the performance outside of the one big moment. It fits the film and that's about it. At least the Academy was enlightened enough to nominate it and that's pretty special. The Academy could certainly do worse and I don't mind it being nominated.
Jack Nicholson - A Few Good Men
Here's something you might not have known about Jack Nicholson: he's a pretty good actor. So good that him being in a supporting role is almost unfair to everyone else. Of course he's going to get nominated for playing a memorable villain type role with an even more remembered court room scene. Mention A Few Good Men to anyone and you'll probably get a bad impression of Nicholson yelling "You can't handle the truth!" and that's the lasting impression of the film - and performance. Nicholson plays a Marine commander in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where two young Marines killed another guy during a hazing incident. From the initial scene where we first meet Nicholson, we get the sense that he's kind of a bad guy and not just a hardcore Marine. Despite the overt villainy, Nicholson does a fine job with the material. He even tones down the usual Nicholson mannerisms and tics that would be completely out of place for a high ranking Marine officer. Probably what helped Nicholson get nominated is the court room scene where he and Tom Cruise battle it out, mano a mano. It's very entertaining with Nicholson at first getting the better of Cruise and acting all smug and untouchable. But then Cruise catches Nicholson in a lie and the change when Nicholson realizes he has been caught is pretty solid acting. He becomes defensive and arrogant so quickly that it's pathetic to watch, which means Nicholson is very effective in the scene. There can be times in the performance where Nicholson is too on the nose with his sort of evil Marine commander, but it doesn't damage the performance really. And really, the film lends itself to having a character like Colonel Jessup be so overbearing and a bad guy and needs the character to succeed as a story. If he was a pushover, we wouldn't care about the story and the court room scenes wouldn't be so memorable. So this is a decent enough Nicholson performance and has some indelible moments but it's certainly not top shelf, vintage Nicholson (though I'm sure others would argue that it is).
Al Pacino - Glengarry Glen Ross
Holy shit, this movie is awesome! Seriously, this is a new favorite that I'm going to watch again really soon, it's that good. It appeals to what I often like in a film: great acting performances and characters, a minimalist style, snappy dialogue that doesn't feel overly written, and I love the whole rainy background of the beginning of the film. There's a lot more to it that I like but that's the basics. Anyway, great film that everyone should watch. Now, here we have Pacino nominated for his second performance of the year after his Best Actor winning turn in Scent of a Woman. I don't understand when the Academy deems it necessary to do shit like this. They obviously really wanted to get Pacino an Oscar, that was quite obvious. But I feel like the double nomination takes away from another actor getting the credit he deserves instead. Pacino is fantastic in the role of Ricky Roma, a cleverly devious salesman full of bravado and balls, there's no doubt about this. His intro where he lays the groundwork for selling property to a lonely, dejected guy at the bar is masterful. You fully believe he's a great salesman with a unique style. He's a showman and we see glimpses of the loud, frantic, later years Pacino begging to come out. When he gets real angry you think that he might burst into full on Scarface mode but he pulls it back in. You might think this makes the performance redundant of his past work but it absolutely works for the character of Roma. Pacino is deft enough to not let the character get out of control and that restraint makes the performance. He comes off like an asshole salesman who will do anything to make a sale which makes him seem like an amoral scumbag but he shows a bit of humanity and reverence when talking with Jack Lemmon's character, a sort of mentor for him. I think that shows that outside of the world of sales and leads he probably is a somewhat decent guy and really shows the depth of the character. Also of note is how he can shred apart someone with his insults and make them feel so tiny that it's kind of awesome to watch in a twisted way. Now, Pacino is great but I feel like Jack Lemmon - or even Alec Baldwin in his one scene - could have been a good choice here instead of Pacino. If you're going to call it an ensemble film and give a Supporting nom to Pacino, they could have done the same for Lemmon, though some might argue he's Lead. Either way, he should have been nominated because his performance blew me away. I did not expect that from Lemmon and it may be one of the best performances I've ever seen, no joke. That's why I think a double nomination is so silly. Just reward someone once because no one is ever, EVER, going to win two acting awards in the same year. Pacino could have shared the wealth here and still won an Oscar.
David Paymer - Mr. Saturday Night
Even if you don't know the name, you know the face. Paymer is a character actor that you've seen countless times but never knew his name. I like that he's getting his due here, because character actors make the world go round. Paymer plays Stan, the older brother to Billy Crystal's Buddy Young, a once famous comedian. The film, which was supposed to be a star vehicle for Crystal that he wrote, directed and produced by himself is unfortunately a bit on the overly sentimental side. I'd say Crystal has no sense of subtlety or nuance, instead hitting us over the head with moments intended to elicit an emotional response whether earned or not. Immediately we see Paymer's character as this sad sack manager for Buddy who has forgone his own life to further his brother's and we know this because of flashbacks and treacly moments where we are supposed to feel sad and empathetic. Why, I don't know, because we only just met him. Paymer does his best with what he has to work with but the material lets him down and he's unable to really overcome it and bring something to the performance to really stand out. It's also a little repetitive. Paymer longs to be his own man but settles for being his brother's keeper and we see this pointed out time after time. He loses his act with his brother, loses the girl he likes, is unable to break away from Buddy to go off on his own journey. The beats of the performance become familiar and we stop caring for Stan because we aren't seeing anything all that different from the character. At the end, the two have a yelling match and then a tearful reunion and all you feel as the viewer is manipulated. Stan never changed and Paymer never developed the character because he wasn't allowed to. Paymer is good but the character isn't, so the performance suffers. The nomination is the reward here.
Hackman is your easy winner. I'm sure some people like Nicholson a lot, but the dude already had 3 Oscars, would you really give him a 4th for that performance? Nah. Pacino would warrant some actual votes if he wasn't already the Best Actor winner which was why he was nominated twice - to get him a win finally. I'd prefer this performance to his other one but then Hackman would be out and that's not a good compromise. Nicholson is becoming, or already is, his same performance self but with minor twists so third is good enough. Then Paymer is 4th since really the nomination is his reward and he doesn't really stand out in this group. Davidson is my 5th simply because the performance is based around the big reveal which is almost all it has going for it. Outside of that, it's not that great of a performance. The winner really makes the category stronger because after him it's not as great as previous iterations have been. I'm a little disappointed that it's so bland but I know it will return to form sooner than later.
Oscar Winner: Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
My Winner: Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
Al Pacino
Jack Nicholson
David Paymer
Jaye Davidson
No comments:
Post a Comment