Re: Best Supporting Actor 1999
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:04 pm
American Beauty was the heavyweight winner on the year, yet its supporting players -- Wes Bentley here, Thora Birch and Mena Suvari on the female side -- barely figured in consideration. This leads me to a late-arriving insight on the actors' branch: they don't much go for young adults. We've seen, in the past two years, omissions of Andrew Garfield (in his 20s, but playing a college student) and Shailene Woodley, and we drew ominous conclusions from them...presuming it spelled doom for their films. But, while neither film won best picture, each won a key screenplay award, and Social Network also took the keystone editing prize. And, here in 1999, American Beauty had close to a sweep (by non-period standards), yet suffered the same omissions. So, maybe we've been over-complicating it. Voters are quite willing to go for child performances (always in support, whatever the size of the role), as we see with Osment here, Ronan, Breslin and Steinfeld to follow. But adolescents/young adults...not so much. Rinko Kikuchi is the only one I can come up with, offhand...Kate Hudson if you stretch, and she had a big push, including the Golden Globe. Maybe the voters don't consider these people fully actors yet.
As for other omissions: I'll never understand the enthusiasm for Christopher Plummer; it's the rare time the Oscars made more sense than critics' groups. My prime addition would be Brad Pitt, for his then best-of-career performance in Fight Club.
Michael Clarke Duncan's nomination, like the one for his film, seemed the product of a campaign that continued even after the movie fizzled (and, largely, of casting, with his size doing most of the work).
As we discussed in another thread months back: Paul Thomas Anderson exploited the essential inauthenticity of Tom Cruise's persona to make his phony character work for the film. I dispute that this is in any way constitutes a memorable performance. In fact, I specifically think Cruise failed in that bedside conversation with his father, and it's obvious Anderson felt the same: he cut away at the key moment, when Cruise should have been peaking, and the only reason I can think of is, Cruise's failure to rise to the occasion must have been obvious.
If Damien were here, Michael Caine would have had at least one vote, since I know Damien adored the performance. I wasn't wild about the Cider House Rules' sentimentalization of Irving, but I thought Caine's work was the strongest in the film. An unavoidable issue, however: Caine's accent really came and went, detracting from an overall nice piece of work.
Haley Joel Osment gave one of the more memorable child performances of recent years, and, since he followed it up with another impressive one two years later in A.I., you can't just assume his director was responsible. But there are reasons to resist voting for him: the category fraud (lead, for sure), and a general difficulty with voting for tots.
So, sticking with adults, I, too, opt for Jude Law. The Talented Mr. Ripley got mostly mistreated by voters -- it was better than pretty much the whole best picture slate -- but it did manage five nominations, most prominent among them Mr. Law's breakthrough. I'd say Law's subsequent career falls into the "disappointment" slot, but here he exudes magnetism and acting ability, and is easily the best of the five contenders.
As for other omissions: I'll never understand the enthusiasm for Christopher Plummer; it's the rare time the Oscars made more sense than critics' groups. My prime addition would be Brad Pitt, for his then best-of-career performance in Fight Club.
Michael Clarke Duncan's nomination, like the one for his film, seemed the product of a campaign that continued even after the movie fizzled (and, largely, of casting, with his size doing most of the work).
As we discussed in another thread months back: Paul Thomas Anderson exploited the essential inauthenticity of Tom Cruise's persona to make his phony character work for the film. I dispute that this is in any way constitutes a memorable performance. In fact, I specifically think Cruise failed in that bedside conversation with his father, and it's obvious Anderson felt the same: he cut away at the key moment, when Cruise should have been peaking, and the only reason I can think of is, Cruise's failure to rise to the occasion must have been obvious.
If Damien were here, Michael Caine would have had at least one vote, since I know Damien adored the performance. I wasn't wild about the Cider House Rules' sentimentalization of Irving, but I thought Caine's work was the strongest in the film. An unavoidable issue, however: Caine's accent really came and went, detracting from an overall nice piece of work.
Haley Joel Osment gave one of the more memorable child performances of recent years, and, since he followed it up with another impressive one two years later in A.I., you can't just assume his director was responsible. But there are reasons to resist voting for him: the category fraud (lead, for sure), and a general difficulty with voting for tots.
So, sticking with adults, I, too, opt for Jude Law. The Talented Mr. Ripley got mostly mistreated by voters -- it was better than pretty much the whole best picture slate -- but it did manage five nominations, most prominent among them Mr. Law's breakthrough. I'd say Law's subsequent career falls into the "disappointment" slot, but here he exudes magnetism and acting ability, and is easily the best of the five contenders.