The Wide Open Spaces of Best Supporting Actor
Friday, October 24, 2014 at 1:54PM With only six presumed major contenders yet to be screened by these eyes (Unbroken, Big Eyes, Into the Woods, A Most Violent Year, Selma, American Sniper) it's awfully late in the year for there to be so little in the way of clues as to what the full Supporting Actor lineup might look like. In a more competitive year Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher), J.K. Simmons (Whiplash), and Edward Norton (Birdman) probably wouldn't seem like cast iron locks in October. But they do.
Kingsley (Exodus), Waltz (Big Eyes), Caine (Interstellar), Duvall (The Judge). 19% of the nominees in this category in the past 20 years have been previous winners.
In the fantasy world inside my head, the Academy board of governors throws up their hands and admits defeat, making a special ruling that from this day forward there will be 7 Supporting Actress nominees each year and only 3 Supporting Actors because everyone knows that's the way it should be given the disparity gap in quality between the two categories. But the world doesn't operate by my actressexual logic, as tragic as that may be.
Given the Academy's lack of imagination for this particular category -- it's by a significant ratio the least quality-oriented among Oscar's long history with acting honors -- we'll most likely see some scenario where very traditional Oscar Bait or Category Frauders or Respected Men who they like regardless of the role / picture show up. Maybe a twofer from this previously nominated bunch: Christoph Waltz (Big Eyes), Robert Duvall (The Judge) Michael Caine (Interstellar), Josh Brolin (Inherent Vice -- I love this performance by the way. Not trying to paint it with an underserving brush), or maybe even a double whammy like Tim Roth/Tom Wilkinson (Selma) though the Supporting Actor category hasn't had a double since Bugsy way back in 1991 with Ben Kingsley and Harvey Keitel. (Back then I pretended Keitel was nominated for Thelma & Louise instead - it made infinitely more sense)
My point is this: two spots are wide open for which truly no one can legitimately claim to have any solid traction for (yet). Frankly any actor with a good size role this year who is either a) respected or b) in an Oscar friendly movie, would be insane not to be shaking hands and kissing babies and doing a bajillion interviews. And as I've long maintained, campaigning as a long shot is NOT bad for your career. It helps you with momentum, even if you don't make it, the next time you're great in a picture. Pardon the pun, but it's a golden opportunity.
Here, for your hopeful amusement and ponderings, some contenders that aren't being discussed...
LONGSHOT CONTENDERS OFF BEATEN PATH
... FOR YOUR 'WHAT IF' PONDERINGS...
TYLER PERRY, Gone Girl
Elvis has arrived... at the Dolby Theater? I was the first pundit to suggest this and honestly I don't see why it's so far-fetched. He's a known commodity seen in a new context (often an attention-grabbing combo) in a crowd-pleading part in a blockbuster hit. Plus Supporting Actor, of all the acting categories, is arguably the one that's least concerned with actual performances and roles and more with the men in question. This is the category where they regularly shove people they just want to congratulate, people they just generally like regardless of the part, and careers that are there to be honored. (Plus its where they shove leading men who aren't strong enough to make it in the Lead Actor category but let's not get into Category Fraud today!) The real question here is whether AMPAS members love Gone Girl and I'm getting conflicting info on that.
Billy Magnusson at the Tony AwardsCHRIS PINE and BILLY MAGNUSSEN, Into the Woods
Look, I know how Oscar works. They're more likely to nominate Johnny Depp as The Wolf no matter what he looks like therein since they like the familiar faces. Still, in nearly every production of Into the Woods the Princes are awesome and funny. No one thinks "comedy!" when they hear the name Chris Pine unless they're obsessed with Just My Luck and if so they deserve our collective empathy but I assure all of you that the other prince, stage actor Billy Magnussen, is the real deal as comically gifted actors go. He's probably too young / too unknown by AMPAS types to win one of those "silly" nomination even if they end up loving Into the Woods but maybe that "Agony" duet will be a real showstopper?
ALEC BALDWIN, Still Alice
For symmetry's sake with Iris (2001), they could nominate the long-suffering husband of the Best Actress with Alzheimers. If they do, everyone will be absolutely stunned to realize that Alec Baldwin is older now than Jim Broadbent was back then. True fact.
ANDY SERKIS, TOBY KEBELL, and JASON CLARKE, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
People seem to have forgotten about Dawn of the Planet of the Apes which is a bit weird when you consider how obsessed people were for at least two weeks earlier this year. Serkis and Kebell are both doing motion capture performances that everyone was wild for as the film's star ape and his antagonist. Oscar might not be quite ready to go there yet, but Oscar pundits and think piece essayists most definitely are each time. Eventually something like that will happen but I'm guessing we're about 10 years away from that scenario. Still, you never know and if the movie has a late revival and they're too scared to nominate an Ape there's always rising star Jason Clark in the lead role to consider for supporting. Can this movie's campaign team remind everyone how respected this cast was over the summer for some Best Ensemble traction at least? We'll see.
MARTIN SHORT, Inherent Vice
Hear me out and try not to hate me. I am not a fan of Martin Short. I know this makes me an outlier but his screen persona / performance style is too broad to take seriously in non-slapstick situations. Yes, even in the rare circumstances when he's doing drama. Nevertheless I am not blind to the crazy love other people feel for him and at least at the screening I attended for Inherent Vice his extended over the top cameo as a lecherous drug-addled dentist with a much younger girlfriend was a huge hit with the crowd. The Academy isn't opposed to oddball nominations in the supporting category if it means they can honor a veteran. Maybe this isn't so far-fetched at all... IF and only if the critics rally for Inherent Vice which they might despite it being Paul Thomas Anderson's worst movie.
ALBERT BROOKS, A Most Violent Year and... uh... Drive
Fantasy Scenario Inside My Demented Oscar Brain: Feeling frisky the Actors Branch refuses to comply by AMPAS rules and forces a double nomination for Albert Brooks. First for his supporting role in the late breaking A Most Violent Year and a special write-in for Drive (2011) the very first retroactive nomination for a past snub along with a full page apology in Variety. Sorry about it, man. You were such a good sport that year. Here's two nominations!
FRESHLY UPDATED OSCAR CHARTS...
(more to come)
ACTRESS | SUPPORTING ACTOR | SUPPORTING ACTRESS | ANIMATED FEATURES
Reader Comments (60)
Random Oscar Trivia (because who doesn't love that?): if Caine is nominated in Interstellar, he'll be the first actor ever to be nominated in six separate decades:
60's: Alfie
70's: Sleuth
80's: Educating Rita, Hannah and Her Sisters
90's: The Cider House Rules
00's: The Quiet American
10's: Interstellar (theoretically)
The only actors to come close are Meryl, Jack, Olivier, Kate Hepburn, and Newman, all of which have five (like Caine currently).
Just saw Grand Budapest Hotel and wish some of the supporting roles weren't probably just a little too small for Oscar nods. Adrien Brody and Willem Defoe especially.
As far as category fraud goes, putting Fiennes in supporting wouldn't even be that egregious, given Oscar's history and all.
I"ll be surprised if Interstellar is as big a player as they are hoping. There will be comparisons to Gravity (which will bring on Gravity fatigue) and frankly, the stills from Inter lack the pristine clarity of Gravity which was so, so beautiful. The performances will all be solid (including Caine (but I suspect he will be doing a version of Alfred so no awards traction)) but I can't see them standing out around all that CGI and there doesn't seem to be a central performance to build around. It might land a best picture, director and certainly lots of tech notice........
I am not quite in the don't-get-the-acclaim category with Michael Caine. I do think he's been overnominated but it doesn't bug me the way it does with other actors. When he was good in his prime, he had a hearty but helpless man's man quality that I enjoy, as in Hannah, Sleuth and perhaps my favorite, The Man Who Would Be King. I do think his performance in The Cider House Rules was rather bad, particularly his American accent, and he has coasted through many roles.
I admire both Julianne and Meryl, but I actually think Julianne has recently given better performances and certainly has worked with more challenging directors and material. Julianne isn't as much a shape-shifter as Meryl, but her naturalism always feels more intuitive and less calculated, which are just as important in movie acting.
There Will Be Blood is, in my book, PTA's only masterpiece, enthralling from beginning to end. I also love Boogie Nights, but wouldn't use the m-word. All of his other films have their brilliant moments, but often suffer from self-indulgence, where his ambition outstrips what he delivers on the screen. For example, the first hour of The Master was just great, setting up the story and the era and the Americana superbly. But instead of developing his characters and narrative in any organic way Anderson kept trying to outdo himself in terms of dread and pessimism about his themes. For me it became predictable and oppressive. Just my opinion.
Nat, I think you're right on the money with Boyhood. Unlike other people here, I think its not going to be a major threat for any wins with the exception of Patricia Arquette's performance. If Linklater had refocused his movie and made it about the mother, then I believe that would've been a much more captivating movie. But I do believe it had moments of brilliance- again mostly because of Arquette's arc.
I totally buy the possibility of Tyler Perry. He was great in the movie. Had they given him more to do in the third act, he could've won! But, is the movie ultimately not concerned with his character? Also, I agree with the person who said Ralph Fiennes should be a lock.
I don't know, Nathaniel, Supporting Actress has gone to quite a few middle-aged women in recent years - Mo'Nique, Octavia, Tilda, Melissa Leo.
Lupita is an outlier, but she was classically trained newcomer, so I wouldn't put her in Stone's category either.
You could argue that Cruz and Hathaway were both glamorous movie stars and therefore similar to Stone. But I think they were viewed as longer-time industry fixtures. As previous nominees, if they're comparable to any likely 2014 nominee, it's probably Keira Knightley, who I think could be Arquette's closest competitor.
Did you not watch Martin Short in his Emmy-nominated role in "Damages"? He completely changed my idea of his (dramatic) worth there. I didn't even know he was in "Inherent Vice." Now I'm more curious about that film than I already was.
Moore sucks sucks as an actress period :(
Tyler Perry is already on my shortlist for the final five. It's exactly the kind of thing the Academy would pat itself on the back for doing, and he is a full-fledged member now, let's not forget.