93rd Academy Awards: Best Supporting Actor (aka Best Lead Actor Overfill)
Monday, April 12, 2021 at 10:49AM by Christopher James
(from left, clockwise) Daniel Kaluuya, Lakeith Stanfield, Paul Raci, Leslie Odom Jr. and Sacha Baron Cohen make up the 2020 Supporting Actor race.Category fraud has been talked about extensively at The Film Experience. Yet, year after year the supporting categories are filled with leading performances. This year, one could argue that four-fifths of the Supporting Actor field is made up of leading performances. How is a true supporting actor supposed to compete with a lead performance that has been strategically "demoted."
Bad blood aside, the field is filled with many interesting performances from a diverse group of nominees. Even better, four of the five nominees are celebrating their first acting nomination this year. The Oscars can often be accused of repeatedly nominating their favorite actors, whether or not they deserve it, so it's nice to see fresh blood...
On the less generous side, playing a "real life" historical figure is still an easy path to a nomination. Four of the five nominees are here for playing real people. Additionally, four of the five nominees are from Best Picture nominees, illustrating Oscar's unwillingness to look past their favorite films of the year. We can quibble about the Oscars all day (and frequently have). Yet, all that matters at the end of the day is whether the performances cited are good, and for the most part they are.
Without further ado, let's review the five nominated performances for Best Supporting Actor.
Sacha Baron Cohen as Abbie Hoffman - The Trial of the Chicago 7
30:14 minutes of screentime (or 23.23% of the total running time) | First time nominee | First appearance, 3 minutes into the film
Sacha Baron Cohen knows how to command the spotlight. His portrayal of Abbie Hoffman lives or dies on the ability to make him a larger than life yippie crusader. In many ways, Cohen is up to the task. He’s incredibly watchable throughout the film. However, like the film, there’s a hollowness to his performance. There’s a MadTV element to it, like we’re always supposed to know that this is Sacha Baron Cohen playing Abbie Hoffman. Aaron Sorkin’s script gives Hoffman and Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong) ample bits of comedy and levity, making them the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of the Chicago 7. Cohen gives these moments his all.
Yet, he never seems adept enough to dramatize the central gulf between him and the more “respectable” radical, Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne). In a third act argument between the two characters, both Cohen and Redmayne find themselves a bit lost in the wordiness of Sorkin’s dialogue. They quickly spit out their lines, but forget to add the necessary characterization. When Abbie takes the stand near the end of the film, Cohen recovers some ground with his character. After a whole movie of overplaying every affectation and vowel that Hoffman utters, Cohen finally downplays his performance to essentially state Sorkin’s thesis. A few good notes does not an Academy Award worthy performance make, though.
Daniel Kaluuya as Fred Hampton - Judas and the Black Messiah
46:09 minutes of screentime (or 36.80% of the total running time) | Second nomination (Previous nominee: Best Actor for Get Out in 2017) | First appearance, 3 minutes into the film
A chill ran down my spine when Daniel Kaluuya's first speech happened. Immediately, the actor sinks into the grandstanding oration that made Fred Hampton such a charismatic and powerful leader. "A dashiki ain’t gon’ help you when they come up in here wit’ some tanks like they did in Henry Horner!" Hampton bellows to a crowd that is either walking out or standing up cheering. Kaluuya has the star power to be necessarily larger than life, but also the commitment to disappear in the role. Director Shaka King and cinematographer Sean Bobbitt understand the starpower Kaluuya has during these grandstanding rallying cries. He's framed as a larger than life figure when in public, making him appear like this Messianic titular figure. That's a lot of pressure for an actor to fill. Luckily, Kaluuya is more than up to the task. There's a reason why his "I am a revolutionary" speech has been the cornerstone for the film's marketing.
For this whole season, we've seen so many clips of Kaluuya excelling at Hampton's speeches. Yet, the movie's secret weapon is the loving relationship between Hampton and Dominique Fishback's Deborah Johnson. The film wisely sketches out Hampton's personal life aside from the cause. This further outlines why he fights so hard for black liberation and gives him a more fleshed out motivation and makes his character fully rounded. When Hampton is released from prison, Hampton shares a tender moment with a pregnant Deborah. For a moment, the movement disappears and we are inhabiting the inner world of Fred and Deborah's love. Kaluuya's performance is far from one note. Fred Hampton is a revolutionary who loves as much as he fights. His tenderness is directly related to his strength and his ability to connect with people. These keen observations are part of what make Kaluuya one of our most exciting actors. I cannot wait to see what else is in store for his career.
Leslie Odom Jr. as Sam Cooke - One Night in Miami
54:20 minutes of screentime (or 47.52% of the total running time) | First time nominee | First appearance, 3 minutes into the film
There’s nothing but big shoes to fill in One Night in Miami. The film cast of characters includes Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Sam Cooke and Jim Brown. All the actors are able to effectively bring to life these historical figures and convincingly play out conflicts that may have happened during one night that they spent together. Yet, it is Leslie Odom Jr. who reaped the lion’s share of the awards buzz for his work as Sam Cooke. He stands out largely because he is the character who provides the spark for much of the conflict in the film. After Cassius Clay (Eli Goree) becomes the Heavyweight Boxing Champion of the World, Malcolm X (Kingsley Ben-Adir) wants to use this opportunity to discuss his role in the Civil Rights Movement and convince him to convert to Islam. X criticizes Cooke for “selling out” to white audiences, causing Cooke to defend his success and music. The discussions about the responsibility one has when given a platform give Ben-Adir and Odom plenty of opportunity to leave an impression. Odom does a great job presenting Cooke’s nuanced views on celebrity and racism. However, the movie sometimes doesn’t give him enough of an opportunity to vary his performance.
So much of the movie takes place in the Miami hotel room that we don't get a lot of time to see the characters in their element. That's why Odom's standout scene is a flashback to a Boston performance. It allows Odom to channel Sam Cooke's incredible stage persona. The sound goes out and a warmed up crowd immediately turns on Cooke. However, he is able to use his voice, without amplification, to entertain and excite the crowd in a rallying cry. Odom conveys what it takes to command a crowd and showcases the power of stage presence. This is very different than the compact nature of the story up to that point. Odom allows us to catch a bit of breath outside of the hotel room. We're predisposed to like Sam Cooke as he acts as the audience surrogate in many ways. Odom never squanders this audience good will.
Paul Raci as Joe - Sound of Metal
18:21 minutes of screentime (or 15.19% of the total running time) | First time nominee | First appearance, 27 minutes into the film
What makes a great supporting performance is believing that they are the star of their own movie. What Paul Raci excels at is effortlessly placing Joe at the center of his own narrative. As the head of a community for deaf addicts, a lesser movie would’ve just made Joe a “fairy Godfather” of sorts, only there to solve Ruben’s (Riz Ahmed) problems. Raci smartly makes Joe’s life and mission larger than just Ruben. We can sense that Ruben is just one person Joe has taken interest in and that his drive is to help deaf people find their place in the world.
We learn so much about Joe during his intake meeting with Ruben. He’s confident and welcoming as Ruben and Lou (Olivia Cooke) arrive, speaking clearly. Once he gets one-on-one with Ruben, he begins signing and using a device that transcribes his speech. Raci is a child of deaf parents and fluent in sign language. This authenticity helps his performance transcend typical potholes that may have fallen this introduction. He effectively slips into the various ways that Joe can communicate with Ruben, allowing him the space to use his supporting character screen-time to share his worldview with Ruben. Joe wants his wards to learn how to thrive as deaf people, rather than solve their hearing issues. As a Vietnam vet injured in the war, Joe has lived a majority of his adult life deaf. He doesn’t need to monologue about his experiences, we read them on his face and in the subtext of his ideology.
Lakeith Stanfield as Bill O'Neal - Judas and the Black Messiah
49:51 minutes of screentime (or 39.75% of the total running time) | First time nominee | First appearance, 1 minute into the film
While Daniel Kaluuya gets all the bravado as the titular Black Messiah, Lakeith Stanfield has a trickier role to play as the titular Judas (yes, they are both the titular role). After impersonating an FBI officer to boost cars, the feds enlist Bill O'Neal to infiltrate the Black Panthers and take down Fred Hampton. It is tricky to play someone who is actively betraying an organization fighting for black liberation. This is where the strength of Stanfield's performance comes in. In most scenes, he makes Bill fade into the background, listening and observing. Initially, his listening is more of a function of his job, acting basically as a human tape recorder with the goal of funnelling information. Stanfield manages to also chart how this act of listening transforms Bill into a more active person who becomes galvanized by Fred Hampton. Shame and discomfort read across his face even when he's trying to display strength. Stanfield's performance may be less bombastic, but it's still just as effective as Kaluuya's performance.
While the character may read as passive, Stanfield knows how to effectively drive a scene. One harrowing scene in particular involves a couple Panthers interrogating Bill about his past while he is in a car. With a knife and gun pointed at him, Bill is instructed to hotwire the car, to prove that he had impersonated an FBI official solely to boost cars, and that he is not an informant. Uncharacteristically, Stanfield makes Bill more hyper, jumpy and defensive. Now that he's the center of attention, he wants to find some way to deflect it, but can't. Once he successfully hotwires the car, he laughs for a second. He's successfully evaded getting exposed. Bill doesn't want to rock the boat further. He quickly diffuses the tension and drives off. The target has been moved and he can breathe a small sigh of relief. Stanfield excels at playing the duality of his Judas character throughout, which builds to a satisfying, if heartbreaking, conclusion.
Conclusion
Each actor has their own unique gifts, making this an overall strong lineup. Kaluuya is almost guaranteed the win. While it may be the showiest performance in the lineup (and a strong one), I would cast my ballot for Paul Raci. With less than half the screen time, he makes Joe feel like the star of his own show, sketching out decades of a life and bounds of wisdom in just a few short scenes.
Remember to vote on who SHOULD win the Oscars on the Oscar charts.
OTHER CATEGORY REVIEWS
- Adapted Screenplay
- Cinematography
- Costume Design
- Makeup and Hair
- Original Song
- Sound
- Visual Effects
- Documentary Feature
- Shorts, Animated
- Shorts, Doc
- Shorts, Live Action
plus
Reader Comments (39)
Great breakdown Chris. I know Kaluuya is going to win, but I would leap from my chair in the event of a Paul Raci victory.
In spite of the category fraud this is a great line up.
I think Stanfield, though not doing his best work, does interesting work and creates a complicated character.I'm glad he's nominated! There's something interesting about that when you consider the politics of the Black panthers, and the broader politics of the late 1960s in the Black community.
Raci is incredible, and more than anything else, I just hope he gets to keep working after this, whether that be in films, as a regular on a TV show, or even in guest stints.
My vote is for Raci.
Beautiful write-ups. Can't add anything else.
Raci for the win.
Glad you recognize Lakeith has a tricky role to play. He would get my vote (though I'll be happy for a Kaluuya win).
This is a fine analysis. I now want to watch these films again with the insights I gained here (well maybe not Chicago 7 - ugh!)
1. Daniel Kaluuya
2. Paul Racci
3. Lakeith Stanfield
4. Sacha BarĂ³n Cohen
5. Leslie Odom Jr.
What a great group of actors!
1. Paul Raci
2. Leslie Odom Jr.
3. Daniel Kaluuya
4. Lakeith Stanfield
5. Sacha Baron Cohen
Stanfield is really the only super egregious fraud here, honestly. Kaluuya is a lead but you could make a case for him in supporting the same way you could for Whitaker in "The Last King of Scotland."
My winner is Raci too,a true supporting performance,wonder where his career goes from here,more mentor/father roles.
I'd have preferred Rylance's more lived in performance to be nominated from the Chicago 7 cast,everyone is weirdly operating on different acting levels,the group never felt cohesive.
I am a huge Kaluuya fan so will be fine with his win,LaKeith is a great actor but this is category fraud.
Watching ONIM I never realised how much screen time Odom Jr gets.
Would have liked to see Bill Murray for On the Rocks or any of the Another Round men.
Raci deserves it.
If I were to predict an upset it would be in this category with Paul Raci (rightfully) winning as supporting actor.
If this were the 70s or 80s, Kaluuya would be in lead and Raci would be sailing to a win.
Loved reading this! Indeed a strong lineup albeit category fraud galore. Raci gave the best supporting performance of the year but I'll be happy Kaluuya has an Oscar.
Even if the performances are good I don't care about this particular category this year. Too much fraud
So every single one of these actors has more screen time than best actor Anthony Hopkins did in Silence of the Lambs. Raci has a couple minutes more, Cohen has nearly twice the screen time, Kaluuya and Stanfield have three times the screen time, and Odom's pushing four.
Listen, screen time isn't everything, but this is ridiculous. Raci is clearly supporting and I'm OK with Cohen's classification, too. But Kaluuya, Stanfield, and Odom have no business being even near this category. I like their performances a lot! Just put them where they belong. This is getting egregious.
PP -- exact same for me. I check out when a category is gamed to the point of being not the category it is at all. It's like giving Best Costume Design if all the nominees were like animated features (and not even stop motion animated features with actual physical costumes). Well, yes, technically someone is sketching that wardrobe but it's not what I come to costume design for.
Cash -- yup. all of those men are lead actors. It's like if they're that good just nominated them in Lead where they belong. If they're not recognize that you didn't think they were good enough to compete in the proper category. This category's name is not "lead actors we like almost as much as the ones we nominated instead of them"
I'll say it again: if Odom Jr. is lead then all four men in MIAMI should be considered leads. I'm OK with that argument, even if it's not one I'd personally make. The screen time thing is very misleading here, because it's merely counting time *on screen*, even when an actor is simply visible in the background. Cooke is in the room, but he doesn't really take center stage until quite a ways into the film. The film mostly takes Malcolm X's point-of-view, making Ben-Adir the only true lead in my book.
Only Stanfield's placement here equals the outrageousness of those Mara/Vikander noms in 2015 or Stone/Weisz in 2018.
Jonathan --I hear you. We have slightly different opinions on MIAMI. I think it has two leads (Odom & Ben-Adir) and the entire films revolves around their opposing points of view with the other characters stepping their toes in to comment or to work as plot catalysts. Nevertheless I get why ensemble pictures are hard for people in the "category fraud" debates as there are multiple ways to interpret them so i haven't been that upset about Odom Jr this season (even though I think he's 100% a lead. )
But the discussions around JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH have made me so crazy. Yes it has a large cast but it is not remotely an ensemble film (which would be the only justification for its nominations). That's like calling Nomadland an ensemble film simply because there are a lot of people in it.. I also cant understand the argument that The Black Messiah is any less of a lead than the Judas. Yes. there's that one sequence where he goes to jail but still even in his absence the entire plot is about his absence! JATBM is the classic example of a two male -lead film. like a Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid or a Defiant Ones or a The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford or Mutiny on the Bounty. There is not remotely a world where either of those actors are supporting so the debates about this have been so entirely frustrating for me to listen to. If the movie had come out anytime before, oh, the mid 1990s, not a single person on earth would have claimed with a straight face that either of them were supporting but now we've got a whole nation of people trained on this notion that films can only have one lead, even buddy pictures or conflict pictures!, and genitalia determines whether your're lead or supporting and if the other lead has similar genitals than you can't possibly also be a lead so lets do mental gymnastics to figure out how you're suppporting even though the whole movie is about you and you're the titular character.
it makes me so crazy.
Crazy cat lady
Performance-wise
1. Stanfield
2. Baron Cohen
3. Kaluuya
4. Raci
5. Odom, Jr.
True Supporting performances:
1. Baron Cohen
2. Raci
"JATBM is the classic example of a two male -lead film. like a Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid or a Defiant Ones or a The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford or Mutiny on the Bounty."
Is it, though? You've just listed a bunch of films that hinge on the close and persistent interaction of two (or more) male stars, who are paired throughout as coequals. The "buddy film" dynamic of BUTCH CASSIDY is nothing at all like the JUDAS situation, where one character is providing the narrative entryway and the bulk of the viewpoint (O'Neal). I would need to see the film again to be sure, but I don't recall Stanfield and Kaluuya sharing many scenes together - one of the disappointing aspects of the script and film, in my opinion. Even Affleck and Pitt have more dialogue between them in JESSE JAMES.
"but still even in his absence the entire plot is about his absence!"
The entire plot of THE THIRD MAN is about Harry Lime's absence; is Orson Welles a lead in that?
Look, I would place Kaluuya in lead as well, but I think this is a somewhat more flexible case than it appears. It also doesn't help that he's nominated alongside his costar who is *totally* a lead, making his placement in comparison seem less egregious.
Arguably the worst category this year.
Two titular characters.
Two leaders of an ensemble.
Only one true supporting actor.
Paul Raci gang, we ride at dawn.
Baron Cohen - C
Kaluuya - A
Odom, Jr. - B
Raci - A
Stanfield - A
If there is an upset, it'll be either Stanfield (after all, he earned enough votes to kick out the predicted Boseman) or Raci ("disability" plus the quiet storm of Juan/Mahershala Ali in Moonlight).
1. Raci
2. Kaluuya
3. Odom Jr.
4. Stanfield
5. Baron Cohen
1. Raci
2. Cohen
the others N/A as leading roles though I'd rank them like so
1. Odom - best I've ever seen him and I even saw him in Hamilton before he left the show ;)
2. Kaluuya - Strong on a scene by scene basis but he and LaKeith are both miscast... I had trouble getting over casting 32 and 29 year old actors because the characters being only 19-21 when all of this was going down is such an important element of the history. It really changes the texture of the tragedy and lessens the miraculous scope of Hampton's cultural impact to make him so much older.
3. Stanfield -- this is the first thing I've seen him in where i was left wanting; I couldn't see the interiority of this character -- this is the same issue i had with Malek as Freddie Mercury. It all felt so surfacey to me. What is actually going on with this character in their heart/mind? -- and usually i think he's the MVP or a total standout. He's much better in Short Term 12, Get Out -- (I nominated him for both right here ;) -- and Sorry to Bother You.
LaKeith Stanfield, actor about 30, had to play his character at about 19, and then in interspersed television interviews at age 40, and I was completely convinced. The captions at the film's end shocked me. I vote for LaKeith,
Replace the leading actors with supporting performances from within their own films and you get such a rad line-up (and an Oscar for Raci to boot):
Aldis Hodge (One Night in Miami)
Lil Rel Howrey (Judas and the Black Messiah)
Jesse Plemons (Judas and the Black Messiah)
Paul Raci (Sound of Metal)
Mark Rylance (The Trial of the Chicago 7)
Regarding Jesse Plemons. What happened to him? He's as big as a house!
Christopher, formatting your article like this is Smackdown teasing. Just go the whole hog and tell us how many stars you give them. You naughty boy!
@Martin...
Plemons had 2 chances this year, "I am thinking of ending things" (he could have gone lead, but leading was extremely crowded) and "Judas" (but having Kaluuya going supporting just killed any chance of him getting traction). But fact is, Plemons have been on the rise for a while, and I think it is just a matter of time - and continue choosing the right projects - till he gets at least a nomination.
On the comment on Sacha Baron Cohen's performance in the article, I agree on something... there's a tonal mismatch between SBC and Redmayne but that's not SBC's fault (nor Redmayne's), but Sorkin's screenplay and specially his (lack of) direction, that shies off becoming a celebration of the absurd, as he stablishes with the caricaturesque judge portrayed by Langella. The movie shines in that theater of the absurd with the interactions between SBC, Langella, Rylance and Strong, with Rylance playing the straight man in shock about the absurd attitude by Langella, and SBC and Strong just embracing that absurdism of a trial that is clearly a joke.
Sorkin doesn't see that he has dark comedy gold flowing free from the source material - and probably that is why Spielberg seemed to have SBC already chosen to play Hoffman, not only his physical appearance - and both Hoffman and Strong are amped up as stoners, one inch away at some points to become Harold and Kumar or the delightfully silly starring characters of "Dude, where's my car?", but Sorkin, again, knows that it wouldn't be deemed as a "serious" enough picture and derails it with Redmayne's deadpan - and in my opinion, hammy - performance, with the film shaking abruptly from absurd comedy to drama and both genres clashing - in a not good way - when the anchors of both genre (SBC and Redmayne's characters) have to interact... SBC tones down his performance to match it, while Redmayne doesn't tone himself a bit up, and there's no common ground for both to play... and that's Sorkin's fault both at writting and directing, and probably also at editing when choosing takes.
Ugh... I'd love to see this film rewritten and directed by either Kevin Smith or Quentin Tarantino, with the same cast. Not by Spielberg! It would have been worse, with Steven - I am always making the DEFINITIVE film on this issue - Spielberg.
I don't like when an actor has a career strong enough to be nominated for two Oscars for lead roles (albeit on fraud in Supporting) almost certainly taking the win from true supporting performers like Raci.
this is always oscar's most boring category, and this year is no exception, sadly.
kaluuya is a talented actor, and great for him that he'll be oscared. i'm rooting for Raci, who did the most with what was on the page and made the whole journey of his character clear without explanation.
Dear AMPAS President, there are too many lead actors frauding their way into the Supporting Actor category nowadays. Please eliminate three. I am not a crackpot.
People, to be fair, Lakeith Stanfield was campaigned in Lead. It was the voters who put him in Supporting, and apparently enough of them to give him a nomination. I don't know, maybe there were enough voters who really wanted to see him nominated and saw that Lead Actor was stacked, so they put both him and Kaluuya in Supporting. We really can't blame that one on Lakeith.
@Jesus Alonso: really astute dissection of Trial of Chicago Seven, I totally agree that those tonal problems are what make the film ultimately so weak and unsatisfying. Sorkin was not the ideal person to direct and his limitations really show.
@Richter Scale, Precisely!! The Actors Branch cant be trusted in upholding category fraud!! If anything, they just conveniently slot whoever they like to whichever acting category that has an opening in their opinions!!
There shld be a overseeing committee ala Bafta Jury system to vet the nominations and veto any nomination which is clearly a LEAD (or campaigned as such)
Or we could have a Longlist ala Bafta, so tt we narrow down the list to 20 nominees per category, so that the uproar of LaKeith could be identified & nipped at the bud.
Jonathan - "I would need to see the film again to be sure, but I don't recall Stanfield and Kaluuya sharing many scenes together"
That is why the percentage of both on the scene is not so high, they share few scenes, it is almost always one or the other, different from Thelma & Louise for example, who are constantly in the same frame. But both films are co-starred, in different ways.