Was 1993 the Best "Best Supporting Actor" Lineup Ever?
Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 12:11PM
To celebrate the 25th anniversary of a rather amazing Oscar lineup, here's Ben Miller...
There have been several iconic Oscar nominee lineups throughout the years. Best Actor 1967, Best Actress 1939, Best Director 1975... a wholly fearsome lineup comes around but once every couple of decades or so. One of them is celebrating its 25-year anniversary this season: the 1993 lineup for Best Supporting Actor.
Before we get to the nominees, look at who just missed the lineup...
Sean Penn was nominated for a Golden Globe for his crooked lawyer in Carlito’s Way, but that performance has not aged well. At the time it was a “you have arrived” nomination, as that was the first major nomination Penn had received up to that point, despite being a critical darling for some time before that. He also received a nomination from the Chicago Film Critics Association, but that was about it.
On the prestige front, Ben Kingsley in Schindler’s List was the closest thing to a missed opportunity. He acts as an audience surrogate to the atrocities committed, as well as the face of righteousness when viewing Oskar Schindler’s moneymaking schemes. Critically, his snub might seem the most egregious.
The most iconic of the mainstream supporting actor roles in '93, which strangely received zero precursor attention, was Val Kilmer in Tombstone. The film itself is almost a legend in mismanagement, but despite its missteps, Kilmer tunes up Doc Holiday and sends him throughout the narrative with zippy one-liners and an undeniable presence. Kilmer has had a sticky relationship with awards bodies, but the exclusion of Doc Holiday is appalling
…until you see the actual lineup.
Best Supporting Actor 1993
- Leonardo DiCaprio, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?
- Ralph Fiennes, Schindler’s List
- Tommy Lee Jones, The Fugitive
- John Malkovich, In the Line of Fire
- Pete Postlethwaite, In the Name of the Father
I mean, who do you kick out of there?
Fellating a gun onscreen long before James Franco thought of it
Let’s start from the “bottom” with Malkovich. You need to put his career in perspective at this point as he was on quite the run. From 1984-93, he made Places of the Heart (his first Oscar nomination), The Killing Fields, the huge TV movie version of Death of a Salesman, The Glass Menagerie, Empire of the Sun, Dangerous Liaisons, Shadows and Fog, Of Mice and Men, and Alive. Whatever you think of the film itself, a few things to remember about In the Line of Fire: Clint Eastwood was on a career resurgence following Unforgiven, Malkovich’s role was memorable and required a bunch of gimmicky disguises and shouting, plus the film made over $100 million and was a major box office hit (7th for the year). There is no way he wasn’t getting nominated.
Postlewaite might be the least-seen of the nominees (he missed the Globe lineup before the Oscars), but if you have had the privilege of seeing In the Name of the Father, his nomination is undeniable. They say the hardest position in basketball is being a teammate to LeBron James. If that’s true, then the hardest position in film is to be a co-star to Daniel Day-Lewis. You can count on one hand how many times Day-Lewis has been upstaged in a film. Postlewaite more than holds his own, never Day-Lewis's physical equal, but overpowering him regardless. Any other year, he might have pulled off a win.
baby's first oscars!The other three nominees are all-timers in the history of Best Supporting Actor.
DiCaprio’s performance is that classic “this could go very wrong” performance, but he handles the disability role with the subtlety, precision, and heart needed to make it all sing. The nomination both announced his arrival and foreshadowed his near-future superstardom. Despite DiCaprio arriving quickly on the Oscar scene, it still took another 20+ years to get him the Oscar many felt he deserved in 1993.
Fiennes is the winner in my book. Humanizing evil is not a new idea, but Fiennes walked such a fine line, toying with being a better man while refusing to apologize for his inherently evil nature, and he walked away with the film. In addition to being the runaway Best Picture winner, Schindler’s List was the 9th biggest hit of the year and Fiennes was its MVP. 25 years on, it’s still criminal that Fiennes didn’t win his Oscar right then. He's still waiting.
The eventual statue went to the only performance that wasn’t really supporting. Jones has been characterized as Hollywood’s favorite curmudgeon, but the role of Deputy Samuel Garrard perfectly suits his style. The Fugitive acts as a true two-hander, with the film split between the titular fugitive in Harrison Ford and Jones hot on his trail. Jones took home a bushel of precursor awards, with the Academy ultimately crowning him as well.
The best thing about this shortlist is its longevity. None of these performances have aged badly, none of the actors have shamed themselves, and the films themselves are impressive. If any of these performances had walked away with the statue, the legacy of the lineup is unchanged.
Every category has its signature year, and 1993 might be it for Best Supporting Actor. 25 years on, it has aged like a fine wine. Let’s hope 2018's eventual lineup will age just as well.
What say you, Oscar buffs? Do you think 1993 is the best Supporting Actor lineup ever?
Related:
more from Ben
What's Eating Gilbert Grape's 25th anniversary
Reader Comments (57)
Nope, the exclusion of Kilmer remains appalling. Kilmer should have won. He claimed a roles that many legendary or great actors have done excellently (even Dennis Quaid did a great job around the same time) and made the role synonymous with him, as the definitive version.
And while Sean Penn may be a wildly overrated tool, Carlito's Way is probably his best and least mannered performance. Not buying this "It hasn't aged well" speil. It's one of his few performances that has aged well.
If you consider Denzel Washington in Philidelphia supporting, then he should be in this line up as well. But he's borderline co-lead with Hanks
Way better options that year than some of the eventual nominees or even the winner. John Malkovich's cartoon psycho is nowhere near as worthy of a nomination as Kilmer, Penn or Washington. And I think those three are all better than Tommy Lee Jones...a fine performance in a genre role, but Kilmer, Penn and Washington all had much more difficult parts to play.
I'd get rid of Malkovich and Tommy Lee Jones. DiCaprio, Fiennes and Posthelthwaite are fine. I'd choose Penn in the line up over Washington because of the borderline lead thing. And Kilmer wins.
It's a good line-up, but could have been much better.
I've always been a sucker for 2002 (even if Ed Harris is a bit much), and I think 2010 will age really well and looked back on fondly.
I get why 1993 is viewed this way, but I'm not THAT excited about Jones or Malkovich.
Also, Penn is brilliant in Carlito's Way.
This was a stellar year for this category, one that's too often filled with multiple disappointing nominees. It don't know if it's the best line-up ever - but I'd say no set of nominees since this one can compete with this set. I've long thought Fiennes should have won but having revisited Gilbert Grape recently now I'm wishing he and DiCaprio had tied.
And now I'm thinking about this category in the 1990s, and Caine winning over Law AND Osment AND Cruise and just - ugh. I am enthusiastically one Team Law re: that year, but whether it was him or not, that Caine win - ugh.
This year is going to get so close to having such an awesome Best Supporting Actor shortlist!
Adam Driver
Sam Elliott
Richard E. Grant
Michael B. Jordan
Steven Yeun
But it won’t.
I'd kick out Jones for sure! It's a disgrace Kilmer wasn't nominated.
Not the biggest fan of Malkovich, or even Jones. Who really is actually great but I can't help but feel tepid about his win (and thus performance lol) since the other three are so stellar.
Though they're more than amazing to yeah, elevate this lineup into the all time ranks. DiCaprio has never managed to be so...mannered without seeming a bit mechanical. He's perfect and honestly pulls off one of the hardest things for actors to do with sensibility and tact. I'm a huuuuge fan of Postlethwaite, a tremendous anchor of his film along Day-Lewis (I'd actually take Pete as the MVP of this great cast). He's powers the movie and commands the screen without ever going high.
But yes, the Oscar belonged to Fiennes in an all-timer of a performance. From the accent to the body language, to the way he infuses this monster with humanity (without actually asking for sympathy) it's all there. Masterful work.
Great write-up for 1993! I agree it's a terrific category that year. I think Jones is better than Fiennes, though. Fiennes is very good - but there's a smidgen of actorliness about the performance in some of his non-dialogue scenes. Ben Kingsley has the edge in that film. But Jones (who, I agree, is more of a lead) serves his film perfectly. I also love Malkovich in In the Line of Fire. I confess: I haven't yet seen DiCaprio or Postlethwaite's performances.
When I think of great Best Supporting Actor years, 1976 is the other one that quickly comes to mind:
Ned Beatty, Network
Burgess Meredith, Rocky
Laurence Olivier, Marathon Man
Jason Robards, All the President's Men
Burt Young. Rocky
And, indeed, they could have replaced those with:
Robert Duvall, Network
Hal Holbrook, All the President's Men
Zero Mostel, The Front
Richard Pryor, Silver Streak
Carl Weathers, Rocky
and it would still have been a great category!
This is definitely one of my favorite best supporting actor years. Each performance, even Malkovich, is interesting and worth checking out. I'd love to see this lineup incorporated into the supporting actress Smackdown as the remaining available years continue to dwindle down. Usually supporting actor is the most boring acting category but there are a couple years each decade, like 93 and 99, that are worth exploring in-depth.
I always had a soft spot for the 1999 group. It's true that awarding Michael Caine for his role in "The Cider House Rules" probably sours a lot of people to that year, but the quality of the lineup of Tom Cruise (Magnolia), Michael Clarke Duncan (The Green Mile), Jude Law (The Talented Mr. Ripley) and Haley Joel Osment (The Sixth Sense) is undeniable...at least to me.
I’d bump Jones or Postlewaite for McConaughey in Dazed and Confused
DiCaprio and Fiennes aside, I'm actually not terribly fond of this one. The Kingsley snub is dumbfounding.
This is a good field, but my vote goes to your "worst" John Malkovich. He's brilliant.
Two other years come to mind:
1941: James Gleason, Sidney Greenstreet, Charles Coburn, Donald Crisp and Walter Brennan. Five of Hollywood's finest character actors at the top of their game.
2007: Casey Affleck, Hal Holbrook, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Javier Bardem, Tom Wilkinson. They all deserved to win.
That year my lineup would be
Fiennes
Kingsley
DiCaprio
Postlewaite
Harvey Keitel for The Piano
Am I the only one who think that Keitel is outstanding in Jane Campion's masterpiece? The cleaning the piano with my clothes scene: oh lord!
Fiennes will always be my winner of that year! What he did here only Glenn Close in Fatal Atraction / Dangerous Liaisons, Gary Oldman in Bram Stocker's Dracula, Brando in Apocalypse Now and Bette Davis in Whatever Happen to Baby Jane? did on the same level before him!
1993 is a great line up the winner is wrong but Sam Neill in The Piano would've been good,Burgess Meredith for Grumpy Old Men,Pierce Brosnan in Mrs Doubtfire,Joseph Mazzello for Shadowlands,Sean Penn in Carlito's Way
This list is all the more incredible given that Ben Kingsley, Sean Penn (Carlito's Way), Laurence Fishburne (I remember him as supporting in What's Love Got To Do With It) and Johnny Depp (Benny & Joon).
And there are others that would qualify as "Oscar-worthy", plus a bunch of great performances.
That was a great lineup and Fiennes should have won.
Agree with those who brought up 1999 and what an overall great bunch of nominees that was - only to give the gold to Michael Caine, who gave the only lackluster performance of the bunch. I still think Law or Osment should have gotten it.
We had the big fold-out ballot that Premiere magazine provided each year and, before the winner’s name was announced, my dad had already started marking Ralph Fiennes with a red pen. He was that confident that Fiennes would win. Obviously, Tommy Lee Jones emerged victorious (‘I’m not really bald’), but I still have that fold-out ballot and Fiennes still has a tiny red speck next to his name.
By the way, how is it possible that Ralph Fiennes doesn't have an Oscar by now? It's just criminal. He's such a versatile actor: from his hilarious performances in comedies like Hail, Ceasar! & The Grand Budapest Hotel to his romantic lead turns in movies like The End of the Affair to his spellbinding work in films like A Bigger Splash and In Bruges......he can do it all.
Surprised about any criticism of Penn in Carlito's Way (Pacino again incredible and again overlooked/wrongly criticized/underappreciated), tho even more surprised with the confidence displayed in questioning him as an actor. As in Scrubs, "Mistaaaaaaaaaaaaake".
In The Line Of Fire, like many others in 93, is a great film. Intelligently written and tautly directed. Eastwood is part of a ridiculous crew of non-nominated leads that year.
Also surprised people see Jones as a lead. Not crazy, but clearly the film is about Ford. One may as well call Postlethwaite a lead, no? The film is centered around that relationship.
And about Keitel...he's clearly lead and I'd say as lead as Hunter. Sam Neil would probably round out the top 10. Crazy top 10.
Btw, Denzel is really the central character in Philadelphia. No borderline.
2001 is my favorite modern BSA lineup. All the actors are supporting (although Del Toro went lead at SAG it's a true ensemble). I would have been happy to see any of them win (Bridges was my personal favorite) except Phoenix, and that wasn't really a bad nomination, just not as good as the other 4.
I'd have given the Oscar in '93 to Fiennes or Postlethwaite over Jones, but this isn't a bad win.
Sorry - meant 2000 not '01.
Me: I think Fishburne is definitely a lead in What's Love Got to Do With It. There's simply no story without Ike - and he's in it loads. Re: Jones in The Fugitive I lean lead (I'm pretty sure we would say lead without a doubt if his tole was played by, oh, Susan Sarandon) and I feel the film is almost as much about Gerard as it is about Kimble.
Worth mentioning that, despite the quality of the five performances, Tommy Lee Jones was a total lock for the win.
Ben, thanks for the fun article. Strong lineup that year, and I agree that Fiennes should have won in a squeaker over DiCaprio.
And I agree with Ken S about 2007...one of the best years ever with Bardem, Affleck, Hoffman, Holbrook, and Wilkinson. But then 2007 gave us maybe our best quartet of acting winners ever with Day Lewis, Cotillard, Bardem, and Swinton.
If you consider Denzel Washington in Philadelphia supporting, then he should be in this line up as well. But he's borderline co-lead with Hanks
Washington campaigned lead for Philadelphia.
Ken, EricB - I don't know about 2007, you guys. Affleck was a lead Lead LEAD, and Hoffman is kind of basic in a dull movie.
Although, Holbrook gave one of my fave supporting performances of all time, so that raises it a lot.
I’d bump Jones or Postlewaite for McConaughey in Dazed and Confused
This is why we can't have nice things. Backwoods Bimbo is a buffoon. His Oscar win is gross when you realize his comeback narrative would never be granted to anyone else but a white guy and someone who in the end should have never been sponsored as a movie star to begin with.
1994 also had a great Supporting Acto lineup, and it could have been one of the all-time great lineups with one or two replacements.
Martin Landau, Ed Wood
Samuel L. Jackson, Pulp Fiction
Gary Sinise, Forrest Gump
Chazz Palminteri, Bullets Over Broadway
Paul Scofield, Quiz Show
I would’ve replaced Scofield with his costar John Turturro, and since I’m lukewarm on Sinise (and am not fond of Forrest Gump in general), I would’ve replaced him with Jean-Louis Trintignant for Red (though he’s arguably a co-lead). I absolutely adore the other three nominees.
I disliked MM'S win too.
@3rtful again the "black"card. You always criticize and never seem satisfied with anything.
Edwin: I like your thinking re: 1994...except I think that Trintignant is definitely a lead. Put him and Jackson in lead with Travolta, Hugh Grant and Terence Stamp, and then supporting can be Landau, Palminteri, Turturro, Jim Broadbent in Bullets Over Broadway and either Ving Rhames or Bruce Willis in Pulp Fiction. Disco!
@rdf
Leave me alone married white woman.
Fiennes should have won this; Jones would have won for Lincoln and all would be right with the world.
@ Edward L: It’s been a while since I’ve warched Red, but I don’t remember Trintignant’s role being a clear lead so much as a borderline case. I could definitely be misremembering it, though.
I do, however, stick by Samuel L. Jackson as a supporting actor. He’s on screen for about a third of the movie (maybe even less) and is only the central focus in two scenes (granted, they’re two quite long and totally iconic scenes). I understand the argument for him being a co-lead, but to me it’s more of a dominant supporting performance. Or at least a co-lead within an ensemble, which makes the placement ambiguous.
Fiennes is far and away the best of the bunch, and should’ve won the Oscar in ‘93.
Besides, Jones was a co-lead in ‘93. Washington was a lead that same year. Jackson was a co-lead in ‘94. Osment was a lead in ‘99. Affleck was at least a co-lead in ‘07. See a pattern? It’s hard to love a lineup with so year after year of egregious category fraud. (Now ‘76, that’s a solid lineup of true supporting actors.)
I'm going to stick up for TLJ in The Fugitive. I don't think any other actor would have brought as much to the role as he did. He should have been placed in the lead category, but he's terrific.
Edwin: Fair comments. Tringtignant takes a while to turn up in Red, but once he has arrived, he's major for the rest of the film. But I do tend to be quite relaxed with putting people in lead. I think films often have two or three leading roles (and not just Network!). Jackson - hmm, I've oscillated between lead and supporting for him over the years. I grant you, he's missing from a couple of large stretches of Pulp Fiction. A borderline case, I would agree.
Cash: I'm with you on that!
TOMEI4EVA
I really like the year 2000:
Benicio Del Toro, “Traffic”
Jeff Bridges, “The Contender”
Willem Dafoe, “Shadow of the Vampire”
Albert Finney, “Erin Brockovich”
Joaquin Phoenix, “Gladiator”
Going back earlier to 1985:
Ameche and Roberts are good; Brandauer and Hickey are great; and Loggia is a classic with one of the best final scenes ever.
Don Ameche, “Cocoon”
Klaus Maria Brandauer, “Out of Africa”
William Hickey, “Prizzi’s Honor”
Robert Loggia, “Jagged Edge”
Eric Roberts, “Runaway Train”
And I have a soft spot for the 1960s, with its high emotion and sharp character delineation, for example, 1961:
George Chakiris, “West Side Story”
Montgomery Clift, “Judgement at Nuremberg”
Peter Falk, “Pocketful of Miracles”
Jackie Gleason, “The Hustler”
George C. Scott, “The Hustler”
Who would you kick out? That's easy;- Tommy Lee Jones! This was one of the 'what were they thinking' awards. I am still baffled that the Fugitive was even nominated for Best Picture. Totally overrated.
I find it so interesting that 4 of these 5 were from major box office hits!
I remember being a nerd in 1st grade and wanting Leo. The heart wants it wants. A teacher I often talked to wanted "the psycho guy".
Edward L;
Again, you're definitely not saying anything stupid. I get it. I haven't seen What's Love Got To Do With It in a long time. But I think you can make that comment about many -if not any- major supporting character.
Take The Devil Wears Prada. Certainly, Streep is a legit lead. She's also legitimately the second character. Comparing her to Blunt, it's hard to see them as the same. Then again, Hathaway is clearly the main character and it's hard for me to compare the two of them.
Now, I'm not making a definitive statement on where she should be. But what I can definitely assert is that Bassett is the main character. Doesn't mean you're not right about Fishburne, but I think you know what I mean. I admit, it's a stacked field so I want him there and it's not craziness. But when I see it again I'll make a decision.
Don't agree at all on Tommy Lee Jones tho, or the Sarandon thing. It's a legitimate comment tho, I grant you. I just think it's clearly the Harrison Ford show, and Jones is his foil.
Some of those, such as the suggestion of Denzel, or Casey Affleck in Assassination...the movie isn't even about the James character. Affleck is the guy.
One quick thing tho: Travolta cannot be lead in Pulp Fiction, He has the Uma scenes. Jackson has every scene he's in. Travolta always appears as clearly secondary in their time together. Jackson is supporting, but the film is clearly an ensemble. There is no way one can push Travolta lead and Jackson supporting. Even if Travolta has more screentime (I assume he does), it isn't enough more, and the film isn't his more than it is Jackson's. Both should easily be in the supporting category.
Sorry if that sounds arrogant.
Whether or not this message board agrees if he was supporting, Denzel was definitely one of the snubs in the category that year. Would’ve replaced TLJ with him.
I think the Pulp Fiction thing is very simple.
Samuel L. Jackson, despite having memorable roles to that point, was a relative unknown. Uma Thurman was considered up-and-coming and was by no means a big star. John Travolta was a mega-mega star at points of his career and still had the name recognition. Simple as that.
You can't have mega-mega star John Travolta as supporting. He was the first name on all the posters and promotion. Plus, of the four main storylines (Jules and Vincent going to the job, Butch after the fight, Vincent and Mia, Jules and Vincent after the job), Travolta plays a major part in three and has a role in the fourth. He is 100% the lead.
Me: Don't worry - it didn't come across as arrogant.
In What's Love..., Bassett is of course playing the main character - but Fishburne is playing a major character, and I think that major non-protagonists can be leads too (e.g. Michael Douglas in Wall Street or, as you say, Streep in The Devil Wears Prada).
My thing about Jones is that, while it's the Ford show, it's only the Ford show to an extent. Ford was of course the massive star and therefore pulls focus as Kimble - but once Gerard comes into the movie, I would wager that the screen time is split pretty much 50/50 between him and Kimble. Also, many of Ford's scenes - especially in the first half - don't have any dialogue, whereas Jones is always surrounded by other characters and hardly ever stops talking, so his feels like a major role to me. And the two of them drive the plot, from the rail crash to the end - Kimble through evading capture and investigating the reasons for his wife's murder, Gerard through tracking Kimble and initiating ploys to capture him. But fair enough - I don't mind the supporting placement too much - there's a borderline element.
Re: Pulp Fiction: I think Travolta is a clear lead - for the reasons Ben says - and Jackson is borderline but I'd lean to lead for him. Jackson has a profound character arc - the arc that speaks to the film's own stance on the violence it presents. Travolta's character doesn't have an arc. That doesn't preclude him from being a lead for the reasons Ben gives, but I think that Jackson's arc plus his overwhelming dominance of their initial scenes as well as from the Marvin incident to the end of the movie gives him an edge as lead over support. It's an ensemble, yes, but a huge ensemble, and within that, taking a step back, I'd be inclined to give Travolta and Jackson lead placements as the central gangsters of the tale, with everyone else in support. But again, clearly plenty of people feel differently, as Jackson got mainly supporting citations in 1994 (though he did get a handful of lead mentions). So, this one isn't clear-cut either!
The one I feel strongest about as a lead, out of the ones we've discussed, is Fishburne. Be interested to hear your further thoughts on that if you check the film out again. Either way, I think it's mighty cool that the Academy nominated him - an excellent performance deservedly recognised.
Edward L;
I'm actually very surprised that he got nominated. Was far too young to know anything about it, but looking back, such a stacked field, it's surprising.
Pacino was terrific but didn't get any traction, and there were so many performances that year. Fishburne was overlooked at the Globes when the the placement was musical (I think that's funny). Don't know if they pushing him supporting at that point.
All very good points on Jones. I've seen the film recently (keep catching it on TV when I'm not doing anything). A few years ago I saw it again and was really put off but how bad some of the dialogue is, and I hate to say how preposterous a lot of it is. Watching it again, the tension is so very strong so I think it works out OK. But could never push it as BP after that. Especially not that year.
Biut anyway, the talking point is a very good point, but in a way it almost helps define him as supporitng...maybe i'm making that up lol, but his character doesn't shut up, He's the leader of his troops and they love him, even tho he could come off as a curmudgeon. I think I'd agree with you if he had an arc that started from the beginning, as Ford does. Obviously we see Gerrard on a bust with his crew, and his handling of the bureaucrats. which sets his tone, his personality, his ostensible contradictions. But still feel that it's a story about Kimble. Also, such a stacked field. So I'm OK with that.
Tho with Pulp Fiction, where I agree, is that they're either both lead or they're both supporting. Have always said that. When I was younger, I had them both lead. There are a lot of standout performances that year as well. Ben hit it on the head. Travolta is Travolta. It was a comeback, but he was the big name. And his charisma is unbelievable.
But it's just a classic case of an ensemble for me. Given Hanks, Newman, Freeman, Depp, Harrelson, Robbins...and I actually have yet to see The Madness of King George (hit a slump).
Lots of supporting performances too.
Are people finally turning the corner with Tommy Lee Jones's Oscar win? All I ever hear is how robbed DiCaprio and Fiennes were, but Jones gets an unnecessarily bad rap in my view. He helped make "The Fugitive" come alive and knew exactly how to calibrate what he was doing in that kind of film. I've always liked his win but felt in the extreme minority about if.
I agree that the 1976 shortlist is pretty terrific. Any of them could have won and it would've been deserving.
I also really like 1962:
Ed Begley – Sweet Bird of Youth
Victor Buono – What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
Telly Savalas – Birdman of Alcatraz
Omar Sharif – Lawrence of Arabia
Terence Stamp – Billy Budd
...and 1982:
Charles Durning -- The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas
Louis Gossett Jr. -- An Officer and a Gentleman
John Lithogow -- The World According to Garp
James Mason -- The Verdict
Robert Preson -- Victor/Victoria
I have a soft sport for 1974, the first Oscars I ever watched. It was a bizarre year and completely fascinating.
Fred Astaire -- The Towering Inferno
Jeff Bridges -- Thunderbolt and Lightfoot
Robert DeNiro -- The Godfather Part II
Michael V. Gazzo -- The Godfather Part II
Lee Strasberg -- The Godfather Part II
I actually thought last year's lineup was truly wonderful, one of the best ever.
I need to revisit 1993 because it's been a while, but I really like TLJ's win.
Me: Excellent points - thanks. I've really enjoyed our exchange of views!
brookesboy: I like those years too. I do feel that the best supporting actor of 1974 wasn't nominated - John Cazale in The Godfather Part II. John Huston in Chinatown and Martin Balsam and Robert Shaw in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three are all excellent too. Of the nominated five, my vote goes to Gazzo - though the others are all very good too.
Edward L;
Thanks. I appreciate getting someone else's perspective. It's a good one, too.
John Huston and especially John Cazale were fantastic. Cazale deserving over Strasberg and Gazzo. Could have nominated all 4, tho I think it was an easy win for De Niro.
I actually thought of him during our TLJ conversation, given the cutting back and forth. De Niro is the lead while on onscreen, obviously. I wonder if that would give him a better argument, or a lesser one.