Best Supporting Actress 2005

1998 through 2007

Best Supporting Actress 2005

Amy Adams - Junebug
21
43%
Catherine Keener - Capote
4
8%
Frances McDormand - North Country
0
No votes
Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
12
24%
Michelle Williams - Brokeback Mountain
12
24%
 
Total votes: 49

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15824
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Supporting Actress 2005

Postby Big Magilla » Sun Jun 24, 2018 5:45 am

I've come to like Amy Adams a great deal, but I still don't get the love for her over-acting in Junebug. I have also come to like Rachel Weisz, who despite my initial misgivings, is a worthy Oscar winner for The Constant Gardener even if I do still think Ralph Fiennes gave the better performance in the film.

My pick for the win, however, is still Michelle Williams, who has come close to duplicating her performance a few times in subsequent films, but whose breakthrough performance in Brokeback Mountain remains her best to date.

This is the one 2005 acting category where I haven't changed any of my nominees. My also-rans still include Maria Bello in A History of Violence, Diane Keaton in The Family Stone and Shirley MacLaine in In Her Shoes.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

Cinephile12
Graduate
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Best Supporting Actress 2005

Postby Cinephile12 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 5:58 pm

Not a bad year.

North Country is a bad film and, despite her efforts, Frances McDormand has nothing to work with, because the material itself is shallow, uninteresting and, well, bad. She's adequate, but North Country should have stayed away from any kind of awards recognition. Rachel Weisz does give a competent performance and she's electrifying in the film's first act. A worthy nomination, although I thought she was Fiennes' co-lead and got nominated in the wrong category. Still, it's a fine performance and a respectable Oscar win. Michelle Williams is, in my opinion, a rather limited actress. But within her limitations, she can give excellent performances (see: Meek's Cutoff, Blue Valentine and Wendy and Lucy). She is also rather fine in Blue Valentine, handling her character's emotional fragility very well and, despite a few flaws (the 'Jack Nasty' scene felt "off" to me), I thought she was engaging and quietly heartbreaking.

Amy Adams won the National Society of Film Critics Award and deserved it. She's miles above her competition, taking an annoying character (on paper) and creating - gradually - a multilayered and colorful human being. She was funny, weird, brought life to the film and, eventually, heartbreaking in her last scenes. She's my runner-up.

But there's Catherine Keener who is sublime in Capote. Nelle Harper Lee, as a character, has pretty much nothing of notice to do in the story. Yet, Catherine Keener not only manages to hold her own against Philip Seymour Hoffman's scenery-chewing (in a good way) performance, but she creates a real character, approaching the material with focused intelligence, brilliant subtlety and extraordinary naturalism. I'm still surprised the Academy nominated her for such subtle and quiet work. She's an easy pick here.

nightwingnova
Temp
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: Best Supporting Actress 2005

Postby nightwingnova » Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:48 am

Weiss was fine and Williams worked very hard and succeeded in having us remember her good work.

Leagues better was Catherine Keener, who created a living character from a real person and had us notice her though she was rarely doing anything of note on screen.

bizarre
Assistant
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Best Supporting Actress 2005

Postby bizarre » Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:54 am

My choices:

1. Amy Adams, in "Junebug"
2. Tess Harper, in "Loggerheads"
3. Rachel Weisz, in "The Constant Gardener"
4. Taraji P. Henson, in "Hustle & Flow"
5. Bae Doona, in "Linda Linda Linda"
ALT. Meryl Streep, in "Prime"

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3460
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Postby FilmFan720 » Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:15 pm

Michelle Williams is the only one of these five that I would have nominated, and she will get my vote here. One thing I will never understand is that with all the attention the film got, why could Anne Hathaway not garner one single nomination for the film? I think she is just as good as Williams, has just as great of an Oscar scene (the phone conversation) and had the good girl turns serious and naked aspect that you would have thought could have pushed her into some conversation. She is the unsung hero of that film.

As for the other nominees, I like Catherine Keener quite a bit in Capote...what most here seem to find uninteresting I found quiet and focused. Frances McDormand is a great actress, but the material is so flaccid here that you can't really give her much credit. Rachel Weisz is a boring actress in a film I didn't much care for. Amy Adams is an actress I really like, in a film I didn't much care for, giving one of the most bewilderingly annoying performances ever in this category.

My Top 5:
1. Corrina Harschfour, Downfall
2. Maria Bello, A History of Violence
3. Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain
4. Anne Hathaway, Brokeback Mountain
5. Scarlett Johanssen, Match Point
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

Kova
Graduate
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:41 pm
Location: MI
Contact:

Postby Kova » Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:08 pm

This is an easy pick for me: Amy Adams, all the way, in one of the best acted films of the decade (Celia Weston would have made another worthy nominee). I haven't been a huge fan of what she's done since (she almost single-handedly made Julie & Julia crumble), but she's wonderful here.

Michelle Williams is very convincing as the waif-in-over-her-head in Brokeback. And she gets bonus points for turning some impossible lines ("Jack nasty!") into gut-wrenching material.

McDormand is perfectly fine, though her nomination is mostly for her reputation, her character, and her politically correct film.

I loved Capote, but Keener's spot should have went to someone else...a blank performance by a performer who is usually anything but.

Ah, Rachel Weisz. I just never understood all the fuss about this performance. She is pretty and competent, but by the time awards season kicked in that year I had forgotten her performance in its entirety (other than the clip that was repeatedly shown at award shows, I honestly could not think of any other line, scene...whatever...that she was involved in). I was also disappointed that the superior Fiennes remained overlooked.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4251
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Postby The Original BJ » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:26 pm

It seems we're VERY split on this year -- not just on whom we voted for, but on our overall perceptions of these candidates.

I thought it was a travesty Maria Bello was overlooked for her powerful History of Violence performance. I also really liked Scarlett Johansson's seductive/neurotic work in Match Point, and hoped her string of solid roles around that time would propel her to an Oscar nod.

Alas, voters went for McDormand, in what was a real waste of space nomination. I think she's a splendid actress -- I enthusiastically voted for her last time she was on this ballot -- but by the time her disease-afflicted character is wheeled into the court room you can only feel bad that she's stuck with such silly material.

Keener's nod was far less embarrassing, but I just have to admit that whatever there is to get about this performance I just don't get. She doesn't really do anything -- what some saw as nuanced, subtle work I just found uninteresting. Shocking as it may sound for me to say it, I much preferred Sandra Bullock's work the next year.

Michelle Williams was very fine as Ledger's suffering wife in Brokeback Mountain. Her character's loneliness and lack of fulfillment were crucial in conveying the idea that prejudice harms more than just the lives of those directly affected by it. And her child-like anger in the "You don't go up there to fish" scene helped make that moment something instantly iconic. But I was surprised at the time that so many gravitated around her as their favorite -- she doesn't have as nearly a dominant or layered role as my two favorites on this ballot.

By Oscar night, I almost felt bad I wasn't rooting for Rachel Weisz. I, too, had found her charming even in crap (like Enemy at the Gates), so I was thrilled when she landed this juicy role in The Constant Gardener. And she was excellent -- passionate, intelligent, romantic. Her character is such a forceful, appealing presence in the film's first chunk, that by the time she more or less exits the story, her absence haunts us as it does Ralph Fiennes's character. A wonderful choice, and I cheered her win.

But I would have cheered even louder for Amy Adams, who I think gives the greatest supporting actress performance of this entire decade. I hadn't heard much about Junebug before it opened, but I read a couple good reviews on the day it opened in LA, and there wasn't much else playing, so I casually decided to check it out. And then this absolutely lovely movie unfolded in front of me. And then there was this actress, who wasn't at the film's center, but who completely stole the show while also providing her scene mates with numerous moments in which they could shine. She was consistently hilarious, while also managing to be warm, kind, and genuine. And just when I was more than happy to hand her the Oscar...she had this overwhelmingly powerful hospital scene that revealed itself to be the dramatic crux of the movie. At the time, I worried that she'd be a one-off, and not ever have the opportunity to shine like this again -- of course, five years later, she seems poised to have a long career as one of Hollywood's bright stars. I am thrilled to vote for her here, and I truly encourage those of you who haven't seen Junebug to check it out. I think it's a total gem, and Adams's performance is only one of the many recommendable things about it.

Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Postby Uri » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:55 am

Once again, Marco, it's you and I against the world. I should just copy and paste your comments and sign my name, apart from the brother's part – mine haven't seen any movie for nearly two decades, ever since he turned into an ultra religious Jew. Never mind.

I haven't seen Junebug and yes, Adams it a perfectly nice actress in a rather bland way. McDormand, on the other hand, is an actress I love, but all I can say about her in North Country is that I hope she was nicely paid for it. Williams was good - pathetic, confused, angry – she conveyed the path her character is forced to take in a believable and nicely non showy way. A well earned nomination.

For me, Weisz's victory is one of the greatest mysteries in the history of the Oscars. It's by far not the worst choice they've ever made. It's a perfectly competent performance. But while I usually can understand why a certain win occurred, regardless of the actual quality of the acting (Zellweger's win makes perfect sense to me), to this day I really don't understand why this particular generic performance by this particular generic actress was plucked out of the crowd and why people are compelled to canonize it. Bizarre.

I know its blasphemy to say it round here, but Capote was a respectable film and Hoffman was fine if not really exciting in it. But in a sly, almost subversive way, Keener certainly was. She's always there, acting as if she's blending with the wallpaper, yet it's very clear, constantly, that she gets everything and process it. She conveys intelligence, humor and sharpness with very limited "doing" stuff, merely by "being". A great performance.

To Keener and Williams, I'll ad Maggie Gyllenhaal, who was sublime in Happy Endings, MacLaine who managed to rise above the sticky mess she was in and to create a precise portrayal and Laura Linney, who wasn't as overshadowed by Jeff Daniels as first impressions might suggest.




Edited By Uri on 1291996743

Hustler
Tenured
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires-Argentina

Postby Hustler » Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:30 am

Havent´seen Adams. Mc Dormand played an interesting role in a very conventional movie. Bullock´s performance was by far more enjoyable than Keener´s.
Williams was good in a very small role. (I´ve seen better creations from her as Wendy and Lucy)
Finally, Weisz portrayed a sensual and passionate woman so intensely. She gets my vote.

Hustler
Tenured
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires-Argentina

Postby Hustler » Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:22 am

Damien! I want you to watch the new film played by Julieta Zylberberg called Moral Sciences. You´ll like it.



Edited By Hustler on 1291987454

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4018
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:23 am

I still haven't seen Amy Adams. I'm almost afraid to - and not only because she isn't an actress I like. Last Christmas Junebug was one of the "movies you haven't heard of" that I gave to my brother - who like me has seen almost everything - as a present. Ten movies that I was sure he didn't know anything about - ranging from the giallo masterpiece Short Night of Glass Dolls to one of my absolute favorites, the Golden Palm winner The Long Absence with the wonderful Alida Valli. Anyway, after some time he called me and said something like: "Some were very good, but why that dreadful American movie?". He told me in details why it was dreadful; I've chosen to trust my brother for once.

Frances Mc Dormand is the proof that even a very good actress can't do much with a terribly-written character, and it's true that nobody connected with North Country should have been invited to the Academy Awards.

As far as "pretty-girls-who-win-Best-Supporting-Actress" go, Rachel Weisz probably isn't the less talented, though I was never deeply impressed by her. Still, that must not be the only reason why she won - I guess that the fact that she was playing some kind of leftist political activist must have seemed to some as daring and unheard-of as, say, a straight actor playing gay. Because there's really nothing in her nice but predictable performance that is Oscar-worthy - nothing except her character, who isn't very profound but was certainly good for solving some collective guilty-feelings. (And trust me, I have known women like her - they DO exist - but none was as conveniently beautiful as Weisz. Sexy AND communist, the perfect combination - played by Kathy Najimi it wouldn't have been the same).

Michelle Williams is rather affecting in Brokeback Mountain. A nomination is all she deserved, but at least she did deserve it.

Thank God there's Catherine Keener. It's easy to impress when you have long monologues looking into the camera, as Sandra Bullock would do in the second, very superficial Capote movie (she didn't impress me of course). But when you don't have any single scene which is really YOURS, and you are always at the side of a frame, and you share that frame with a powerful actor in a showy role, and still you can, moment by moment, "create" a believable, human character, getting to the essence of it, with a sublety that's unusual for a category - actors - known for its narcissism, it's clear that you are a great performer. One who would never win an Oscar, I know - except mine - but still a great performer.

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8229
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Postby Reza » Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:24 am

Precious Doll wrote:Amy Adams annoyed the hell out of me in Junebug and continues to do so in her subsequent roles (with the exception of Enchanted).

I agree Precious. Find her most annoying in everything but Enchanted. I'm curious to see her play a bitch in The Fighter.

mlrg
Adjunct
Posts: 1117
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Postby mlrg » Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:19 am

Amy Adams - Junebug

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:09 am

I hated Amy Adams in Junebug (hated the smug condescending movie too). It's the kind of performance so transparently trying to convey pathos and evoke audience affection that you just want to smack the performer across the face with a 4 x 5.

Catherine Keener (probably at her untalented director's urging) seemed to have determined that Harper Lee was a dull, bland appendage to Truman Capote. She successfully conveyed this in her performance. But even if she was surpassed by Sandra Bullock's more nuanced portrayal of the same character, she is a hell of a lot more watchable than Hoffman's strained, ill-conceived and utterly false impersonation of Capote.

Michelle Williams is fine in Brokeback Mountain, But I think Ann Hathaway was much more memorable, with a fuller-developed character.

North Country is a negligible movie, although it's heart is in the right place. But Frances MacDormand -- an actress I'm generally not particularly fond of -- doesn't have a false moment. Marge in Fargo may be a more memorable character, but I think this is her best performance.

Still, my vote has to go to Rachel Weisz for the passion and conviction and hard-edge virtue she conveys in her character. I think it's absurd that Ralph Fiennes wasn't nominated for his great performance, but I like to think that a vote for Weisz is also an acknowledgment for him.

My Own Top 5:
1. Maggie Gyllenhaal in Happy Endings
2. Rachel Weitz in The Constant Gardener
3. Julieta Zylberberg in The Holy Girl
4. Michelle Trachtenberg in Mysterious Skin
5. Shirley MacLaine in In Her Shoes




Edited By Damien on 1291972607
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5264
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Postby anonymous1980 » Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:28 am

Haven't Adams' or McDormand's yet.

As much as I like Catherine Keener as an actress, I really don't understand her nomination. She doesn't do bad work per se but her role is underwritten and she does nothing really special with it that would make me go she's one of the five best supporting actresses of the year.

Rachel Weisz was quite excellent in her role and I don't begrudge her win.

But my vote would have to go to Michelle Williams. She totally nailed her role in what limited scenes she was in and made an indelible impression. The fact that we still sympathize with her makes Brokeback Mountain an even better film.


Return to “The 8th Decade”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest