Almost There: Christopher Plummer in "The Insider"
Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 4:30PM 
Despite starring in two Best Picture winners and many other movies blessed by plentiful love from AMPAS, Christopher Plummer always struggled to be recognized by the Academy. While the actor earned a lot of golden accolades and nominations for his TV work, including two Emmys, his cinematic efforts rarely caught the attention of awards-giving bodies. It was only in the twilight of his career that such fate changed but that doesn't mean he wasn't deserving before. For example, in 1965, the year of The Sound of Music, I'd have happily nominated him both for his stern star turn as Captain von Trapp and for the malicious sensuality he brings to Inside Daisy Clover.
Still, the closest he ever came to an Oscar nomination pre-2009 was for Michael Mann's The Insider...
That 1999 Best Picture nominee is a near-perfect movie, a fictionalized retelling of a scandal that rocked CBS and the tobacco industry in the mid-1990s. It happened when a former big tobacco executive turned whistleblower, Jeffrey Wigand, told an investigative reporter from 60 Minutes, Lowell Bergman, about lies the industry had been telling the public about its knowledge on the addictive qualities of their product. When it came time to bring the information to light, the CBS legal team insisted on a heavily redacted version of the story instead of the original interview between Wigand and Mike Wallace.
Plummer plays the famed interviewer, a supporting role in comparison to Al Pacino's Bergman and Russell Crowe's Oscar-nominated work as Jeff Wigand. In many ways, the arrival of the actor is presaged by grand anticipation. Not only is he the most famous real-life character being represented but Plummer himself brings with him an aura of wizened stardom. Fittingly, we hear about Mike Wallace before we see the man, his first scene being the closest thing this hardened procedural has to a star entrance. In an Iran-set prologue, we see Wallace control a room as his strong will cajoles those around him, including the security team of the sheik he's interviewing. In no time, we've grown to respect Plummer's Wallace, cowed by his sense of unshakeable authority.
There's an impertinent pride to Plummer's Mike Wallace, the sense of power of a man used to getting his way, even when around some of the most dangerous people in the world. He might explode one moment, and quietly demand vassalage to his authority the next. It's an intelligent variation of professional imperiousness, one that exudes majesty with ease. It seems to come organically to him, no forceful effort visible. In that sense, Plummer embodies the role, smoothing the separation between actor and character until there's little to no friction between the two. Like The Insider itself, the portrait works more as a myth than as a docudrama and it's all the better for it.
This isn't the Mike Wallace of the history books, but the man of legend, a titan who bent the knee when things got tough, disappointing those for whom he had been a mentor, a figure of inspiration and aspiration. In the actor's own words, he wasn't doing an impersonation of Mike Wallace, rather a loose impression of the man that focused on ideas of professional pride and crumbling integrity. He does look like him but other elements reveal the distaste for carbon copy. The voice, apart from some precise speech cadences taken from Wallace's on-air persona, is all Plummer's usual register. He's an actor who molds a role to his specificities as a performer but does it with intelligence and attention to detail. He doesn't disappear into Wallace, rather he makes the script's vision his own.
At the same time, it feels distinct from Plummer's other performances. The performance comes off as unique, singular, transformative even. I wouldn't blame anyone who said the actor is unrecognizable as Mike Wallace, even as I disagree with the assessment. There's a healthy edge of theatricality to Plummer's powerful presence. It's a factor in all of his screen work, but in The Insider, it manifests in a quiet magnetism that brilliantly meshes with Mann's cinematic style. Between the handheld nervousness of the shots and the precise, often feverish, editing, Wallace holds the eye like a portentous monument, his expression defining the scene's mood. It's a magnanimous, majestic thing to observe like a great sight of natural wonder, a waterfall, or a great mountain.
To understand how this performance works, though, we must understand how the film works too. The Insider is constructed in two acts, bookended by a scene-setting prologue and a mournful epilogue. Plummer's contribution to the first portion of the flick is as a delineator of tone, often letting his strong presence take over as he observes from the background. The second act sees that monument crumble once the camera and the audience's attention become laser-focused on Wallace's choices, his caving in to pressure from the higher-ups. It's a smart bit of structuring, both in terms of script and performance.
It allows Plummer to act through a harsh character arc without calling attention to the changes, letting things naturally reach their fraught conclusions. The hints are there from the beginning, like when his joyous charm at a dinner melts into patrician indignation when faced with his interviewee's stress. We can also see it in his dealing with the lawyers from CBS, how he puts on his interview face in conversation with them. Because of all that, the shocking moment when Wallace agrees with the corporate higher-ups feels inevitable. Plummer plays it with no bolster either, just a muted, stoic, almost shameful agreement. Of course, the true acting showcase starts when things go wrong for Wallace, from the cutting of a pre-recorded statement to the New York Times article exposing his agreement with corporate censorship.
His scene in Lowell Bergman's hotel room in the aftermath of betrayal is amazing. Disappointment and prideful resentment wear him down, the TV star looking like a king who's been deceived by his closest minister. As he explains his perspective, why he caved to pressure, neither Plummer nor Wallace asks for sympathy, but the articulation of complicated emotions is impactful nonetheless. As he sees the end of life near, this old legend worries about his legacy, about the final chapter in the story of his life. Sitting in a nondescript hotel chair in a sad little room, he's a man talking with the weight of mortality bearing down on him. Someone who realizes they might have jeopardized the only thing he cared about as well as lost a friend.
He tries to explain himself, but one also feels the tinge of nervousness, the disquiet of a trained orator trying to talk himself into a lie. The next day, he's acting as if nothing happened as if he knew he was wrong all along. The patriarchal soothsaying of a king is back. It's impressive how quickly he switches modes, becoming superhuman instead of that frightened individual with a hurt pride in the hotel room. Still, the crime is done and we must all pay the price. The real Wallace may have spoken against the film, but Plummer allows him to keep his dignity to the end. As Bergman turns his back on the mentor figure during the men's final scene, Plummer says goodbye to his audience with an enigmatic half-smile. It's a perfect note to end, a reticence that leaves us wanting more even as we feel like we know exactly who this version of Mike Wallace is.
In the awards season of 1999/2000, Christopher Plummer got quite a lot of critics' honors. He won the prizes from BSFC, LAFCA, and the NSFC, while he was nominated by the CFCA, LVFCS, NYFCC, OFTA, OFCS, SDFCS as well as the Satellite Awards. However, when it came to the televised precursors, his campaign faltered. The Insider might have gotten a lot of love, but Russell Crowe soon dominated the conversation about its excellent acting at the same time other contenders rose to the front of the Best Supporting Actor race. Soon enough, a quintet emerged and the Globes and SAG lineups were the same as AMPAS'.
The nominees were Michael Caine's inconsistently accented work in The Cider House Rules, Tom Cruise's grubby tour-de-force in Magnolia, Michael Clarke Duncan's take on the magical negro stereotype in The Green Mile, Jude Law's devilish eroticism in The Talented Mr. Ripley, and Haley Joel Osment's distillation of fear in The Sixth Sense. This last one is a case of category fraud but that didn't stop the actor from winning several awards. As for the big precursors, BAFTA went with Law, the Globes chose Cruise, Critics Choice awarded Duncan and SAG gave its prize to Caine. The Academy followed the guild's example. Would you sacrifice any of these men's nominations for a Plummer nod? I certainly would.
The Insider is available to rent from most services.
Reader Comments (26)
Maybe Michael Clarke Duncan was the weakest, I don't like the green mile, The insider is a better movie.
Plummer should have replaced either Michaels. Chris Cooper was probably also up for the sixth spot, but it was a chance to nominate an older actor with a long career, which made Plummer's omission a surprise.
Plummer > Caine by a lot.
Completely agree that Plummer is incredible in this film. My personal ballot would probably have been as follows:
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Magnolia
Jude Law, The Talented Mr. Ripley
John Malkovich, Being John Malkovich
Christopher Plummer, The Insider
Peter Sarsgaard, Boys Don't Cry
Holding this performance up next to his work in "Beginners"...both mind-bogglingly good and entirely different characters so late in his career.
He should have won the damn thing!
I can't argue that Russell Crowe didn't deserve any and all the praise he received for this film but it is a shame that the shine of it appears to have pushed Christopher Plummer's estimable performance to the side. I hate to take away anyone's nomination when they only received one but I'd take out Michael Clarke Duncan and replace him with Plummer.
Malkovich and Plummer should’ve 100% been in this lineup. Neither of the Michaels should have. And then it would be the perfect category.
Plummer is fantastic in this, but that year was Cruise's time and the Academy robbed him for a second Caine win.
Whatever virtues one may think The Green Mile lacks, I can't think of another time in a theater when it felt the entire audience was crying. Like crying so hard the could barely iron their jeans. If nothing else, Michael Clarke Duncan brought a world of knowing heart and warmth to his performance (that last line reading is a thing of pure beauty), so I'd never begrudge him his nod. Michael Caine may be doing good work, but it was clearly no stretch, and he was clearly not at a moment where even a second statue as cap to a good, long career was needed. Cruise was electric, but should've won for Jerry Maguire, and Osment should've won a couple of years later for A.I.. All that being said, I'd take away Caine to add Plummer, but would still make him wait to be honored for Beginners (a winner in ANY year), and Jude Law would be my winner for being sexy as hell and so much more in the criminally underrated The Talented Mr. Ripley. You'd never know that '99 was such a revolutionary year in film making by looking at the Best Picture nominees. Respectable bunch, but by no means earth shattering.
And even now I'm remembering that Malkovich was snubbed, so even as it pains me to take away a sweet moment from someone who was indeed a sweet man, I have to replace Duncan with Malkovich. Malkovich goes beyond just being a good sport about the proceedings, but really invests to confusion of the situation as himself and the character shifts the situation requires. The standing line-up is pretty damn good, but it could have been one for the ages with a couple of switch outs.
What an embarrassment of riches in this category for this year. One of the few years where I'd replace pretty much everybody, but only because the characterizations were that good. I'd keep Law, but add Plummer here, PSH in Ripley (indelible in just a few scenes), Pollack in the menacing-but-sedate role he was born to play in EWS, and Malkovich. But, wow, what a strong year -- and somewhat disappointing choices from the Academy!
'Still amazed that he missed for this. I’d nominated Malkovich, Cruise, Plummer, Law and Timothy Spall for Topsy-Turvy. Joel Osment is clearly a lead
1) Jude Law, The Talented Mr. Ripley
2) Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Talented Mr. Ripley
3) Steve Zahn, Happy, Texas
4) Christopher Plummer, The Insider
5) John Malkovich, Being John Malkovich
What was the Academy thinking? Duncan, Osment and especially Caine had no business being nominated at all. Cruise is understandable, but Law owned this category.
In fact, Caine is in Razzie territory! One of the worst Best Supporting Actor winners ever! Up there with Brennan's "Kentucky," and Griffith's "Ben-Hur."
Remove Caine, easy.
Duncan’s role is a tough cookie to get to crumb right, and I literally know no one that doesn’t fall for Duncan by the end of The Green Mile.
I quite like this lineup, actually, but then again 1999 was an evergreen year for cinema. Anyone else miss the years when each major awards body would reward a different actor? The salad days.... how I do miss them.
Excellent analysis of Plummer's performance, and Mike Wallace as a journalistic legend.
You've succeeded in making me nostalgic not only for Plummer's work, but for those days of yore when there were lots of films that weren't about super heroes. God I hate comic book films.
Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Talented Mr. Ripley
Jude Law, The Talented Mr. Ripley
Brad Pitt, Fight Club
Peter Sarsgaard, Boys Don't Cry
Steve Zahn, Happy, Texas
Quite a year, indeed.
...although, if one considers Zahn as actually a co-lead (unlike Pitt, who I insist is supporting), make that Sam Rockwell (Galaxy Quest).
Fuck it, Cruise was an almost exclusive leading man and had a firecracker role, let him go lead. Del Toro gets shit for his supporting win the next year with less screentime than Cruise and only slightly more screentime percentage.
Well Magnolia is over 3 hours long so explains the screentime.
I agree with Val regarding Duncan's performance. The Green Mile is a good film but just way too long, with two many things thrown into it; and the last 10min are awful.
Malkovich is great in Being John Malkovich, but definitely can't get into my lineup. 1999 is just loaded in both supporting categories. Both Bentley and Cooper are deserving for American Beauty. Osment is borderline lead but I'm happy to have him supporting.
Also, the hate for Caine is unfair. No chance I'd nominate him with that field, but he's strong in the film. Hell, I'd watch a movie about him. It'd be more fitting to his character. Also, The Cider House Rules is flat out poor.
Cruise is an easy all-time win. And Jude Law, upon my first viewing of the film since it came out, is perfect. Such an empty character, and he just nails it.
Plummer's is win-caliber, but may or may not make the list. Just a loaded year...add Pitt, great but a little too shallow in Fight Club. And there are others even better.
Eh, when you can compete with the big dogs standing out in that big an ensemble I say fuck it.
Wow. The Green Mile is really one of my favourite movies - I think it is near perfect, and Duncan was completely terrific. Hanks was excellent, and I also love Bonnie Hunt, Sam Rockwell, Doug Hitchison, David Morse, James Cromwell and Patricia Clarkson's supporting turns.
Michael Caine's Oscar for his performance in Cider House Rules was genuinely pointless. Sure, he did perfectly fine in an unremarkable role, but he'd already won for Hannah & Her Sisters, and his competition in the category this time around was straight up superior to his work down the line. That said, I remember his speech as being notably gracious—I love it when winners acknowledge their peers (Regina King also a stellar example of this when she won in '19). I too would have not even nominated Caine for CHR in favor of Plummer, who was just always wonderful, no matter what the role.
Looking back at 21 years ago and it seemed like Michael Caine winning for The Cider House Rules was a fait accompli, which was strange to me then and befuddling to me now.
The Green Mile is maybe the worst film ever to be nominated for Best Film. What racist garbage! A man knows that an innocent man was executed. Yet in 60 years he doesn't make the slightest gesture to exonerate him. Instead, he just sits on his lily-white ass the whole time feeling sorry for himself and the awful secret he must keep, even when he knows who the real guilty party is!
The Best Supporting Actor field could have been so much better. John Malkovich and Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Talented Mr Ripley) are truly outstanding and really ought to have been nominated. Michael Caine would also be my choice of the five nominees even though I wouldn't have nominated him. My other three would probably have been Plummer, Max Von Sydow (Snow Falling on Cedars) and Jason Robards (Magnolia) (the real MVP of that film).
Plummer is outstanding as Mike Wallace! "Mike?Mike? Try Mr Wallace!"
1999 is such a rich year for movies and performances. And still Michael Caine was nominated. That is so bizarre to me.
My lineup:
Chris Cooper
Christopher Plummer
John Malkovich
Tom Cruise
Jude Law
Giving the Oscar to Cruise. He was magnetic in Magnolia