I'm always excited to watch this group and I've only seen Palance's performance before. Really interested to see some of these films/performances because I've heard good to decent things. We shall see!
1991 Best Supporting Actor
Jack Palance - City Slickers
So I've seen this film before a long, long time ago. The details were a bit fuzzy but I knew the basic gist of it. It's a Billy Crystal film so he's just going to crack jokes for the whole thing so the details aren't as important. But, I didn't realize how little Palance is actually in this film. He only has a couple scenes and he really doesn't do a whole lot but be intimidating and grunt and dish out some cowboy pearls of wisdom. And spoiler alert: he unexpectedly dies half way through the film and you are left going really?! because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I always thought that Palance had much more to do so I guess you could say he left a lasting impact on the film where his absence is sorely noted. His performance is that of just a gruff, old cowboy - a role he had been playing his entire life. His first Oscar nomination was for the classic Western Shane in 1953, which should tell you all you need to know about Palance. He's an old school actor and he was used to great effect here. This is very clearly a veteran, career achievement Oscar. No one really disputes that. It was the Academy's chance to reward him in an acting role instead of say bringing him out for a special award. It's a feel good award that most people don't mind and his acceptance speech was entertaining to boot, so it's hard to hate it. I don't know if I can really say this is a great performance. It's good and it's fun to watch Palance do his thing but it's so short and with little real substance that this is more like eating Count Chocula cereal for dinner.
Tommy Lee Jones - JFK
While watching JFK, I actually forgot about Jones for a bit because he doesn't appear until about one and a half hours into the film. When I saw him I was like 'Oh yeah! I'm supposed to be watching his performance.' That should tell you how massive the film is in time, scope, and characters. I'm not sure why Tommy Lee Jones was singled out as the sole representative of the film because there are some very strong, very memorable performances by other actors in this. And frankly, Jones isn't much of a factor as some of the other characters. I'd rather take Joe Pesci, Michael Rooker, Donald Sutherland, Gary Oldman, or hell - even John Candy! I don't feel as if Jones leaves an impact on the film. These other characters all leave a mark on the plot or just leave the viewer going hey that was awesome from them. Jones doesn't have any long scenes, they are all very short sentences. Meaning Jones never has a monologue or any big moment. He basically answers questions but never delivers any thing of actual substance. He plays Clay Shaw and is the key guy proving there is a cover up on the assassination attempt and has big white hair. I'm scratching my head while writing this because I really don't know why they nominated him other than maybe he was an up and coming star and they thought it was his turn? They could have gone the veteran route with some other choices or the comedian in a serious film route or a really strong performance by an unknown in Rooker route. I'm just not very satisfied with this nomination because the other choices were mostly better.
Harvey Keitel - Bugsy
I like his introduction where he comes in swearing up a storm at Beatty. He's all fiery and hot and you're thinking wow, someone to challenge Beatty in this film. Keitel keeps it up for a little bit but the performance unfortunately peters out by the end of the film. Keitel's Mickey Cohen, himself a brutal gangster from LA, basically becomes Beatty's lackey. He still keeps his acerbic tongue but doesn't really do a whole lot but drive Bugsy around and be a sort of confidante. When Cohen is introduced, it's funny stuff even if a bit derivative of Keitel's overall work and leaves you wanting a lot more from him. I wish the film would have allowed for more meaningful interaction between Keitel and Beatty instead of relegating Cohen to being a proverbial bagman. Keitel can make a great gangster if used properly but that wasn't so for this film. The film lets him down because it forgets about him being a useful character after his introduction is built up. So unfortunately Keitel hangs around without much to do for most of the film and still somehow gets a nomination out of it. I guess I'm not upset Keitel has a nomination but it would be nice if it were for something more substantial than this.
Ben Kingsley - Bugsy
When Kingsley first showed up I was not digging the accent. It was like a mishmash of New York gangster, Jewish, and some kind of foreign accent all thrown in a blender. I don't know if that's what Meyer Lansky sounds like (he was a Russian Jew based out of NYC, so probably) but it was slightly annoying because he was hard to understand. I thought I wasn't going to like the performance much from that issue but Kingsley settled into his role and you get used to the accent. Kingsley isn't flashy at all which is probably a good thing for the character because you have both Harvey Keitel and Warren Beatty giving loud and in your face performances. Kingsley is what tempers the film and Bugsy himself. He's a realist and he brings a quiet, stern presence to the film. Now I don't want to overstate how important or influential Kingsley is to the film since he's only in a few scenes. But he does seem to pop up when Bugsy needs to be toned down a notch and brought back to Earth. Lanksy is kind of the mob guys' accountant figure and that's exactly how Kingsley plays him. He's calm and collected and level headed and smart. But in saying all that, Kingsley is a minor presence in the film, though a welcome one. He's overshadowed by Beatty and depending on how much you like Keitel, him too. It's a decent little performance but I think I'd rather take one or the other of the two Bugsy nominees since having both seems like overkill.
Michael Lerner - Barton Fink
Any time you ever hear anyone talk about this nomination it's followed by a well, John Goodman should have been nominated instead. And yeah, John Goodman should have been nominated instead, easily. Michael Lerner is in only three scenes. That's it. He is a studio executive and makes all the big decisions when it come to John Turturro's writing. I was looking for anything and everything in those three scenes, yet I didn't find all that much. Lerner is perfect as the studio head because he looks the part and sounds the part. In fact, he is the part. I say that because while there's not a whole lot to the performance, Lerner is near perfect at playing the studio executive. He berates his assistant and acts like the writer is the most important person in the world which is obviously a send up of how it goes down in real life. Lerner is loud and talks fast and is very much the embodiment of what a studio head might be. Lerner plays his part perfectly, it's just that in the three scenes, though he is good, it's the same riff over and over. So while it's enjoyable to watch, I prefer Goodman with all of his character's subtext. I think maybe the Academy enjoyed seeing a studio head portrayed in this manner and gave him a vote for just that reason. They love anything to do with themselves and we see that time and again throughout the years. It's not a terrible nomination by any means and I'm glad he is nominated. I would just rather have had the other guy from this film nominated instead. As it is now, I can't complain too much because I at least got to watch a Coen Bros film again which is never a bad thing.
I was expecting a whooooole lot more than what I got out of this group. Normally this is my favorite category, but all of these performances were a bit of a let down after hearing so much about them. Honestly, nothing stands out as everything is pretty meh. Seriously, this is a weak year overall and I'm very disappointed. For one, you've got Jones getting a nomination while other people in his film were better by leaps and bounds. Jones was boring and did nothing for me. Then you've got Keitel and Kingsley not providing much in their film, though Kingsley is much better than Keitel, at least for me. Finally, we come to Lerner who is decent enough in his three scenes but John Goodman is just better. So I guess I'll stick with Palance as the winner but if I could abstain and give no one the Oscar I would. This is just a very blah year and I need to wash this taste out of my mouth with some 1990 mouthwash (that sounds gross).
Oscar Winner: Jack Palance - City Slickers
My Winner: Jack Palance - City Slickers
Michael Lerner
Ben Kingsley
Harvey Keitel
Tommy Lee Jones
No comments:
Post a Comment