Best Supporting Actor 2002

1998 through 2007

Best Supporting Actor 2002

Chris Cooper - Adaptation.
14
38%
Ed Harris - The Hours
4
11%
Paul Newman - Road to Perdition
1
3%
John C. Reilly - Chicago
3
8%
Christopher Walken - Catch Me If You Can
15
41%
 
Total votes: 37

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3955
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby ITALIANO » Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:46 pm

Well, let's face it, gays unfortunately aren't immortal, and some - especially till a few years ago - even die of Aids, so I don't see anything wrong if movies deal with that. It's not necessarily homophobic - it depends on how it is done. Of course this doesn't mean that Ed Harris is good in The Hours - he's actually scarcely believable both as a gay man and as a dying man; not helped by the script, true, but very, very fake.

I don't like any of these five movies much, which makes things more difficult. I am glad that a great character actor like John C. Reilly has an Oscar nomination, but it's not the most interesting role he has ever played.

And I'm glad that Chris Cooper has an Oscar, though Adaptation and anything else written by Charlie Kaufman don't really give actors the chance to explore a character, to make that character human, to breath... They are prisoners of the writer's (supposed) intelligence, and it prevents them from being really as creative as they could be.

By contrast, Christopher Walken - in a not very good movie - can still play a recognizable, flawed but warm human being, and even if only by default, I find myself voting for him.

ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby ksrymy » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:44 am

bizarre wrote:
ksrymy wrote:Please expound on this archetype. What do you mean by it and what other examples are there? I can't think of any examples of this other than Harris and Quaid.


Here you go.


Should have also mentioned Colin Firth's character in A Single Man. The man has a disease and doesn't want to live anymore. He doesn't die because he's gay though. I see your point much better now though.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6376
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby Mister Tee » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:36 pm

Whatever else you can say about 2002, it had about the most jam-packed last seven weeks of any film year I can recall. Far from Heaven, Talk to Her, Chicago, The Two Towers, Adaptation, About Schmidt, The Pianist, Catch Me If You Can, Gangs of New York...all opened right on top of one another (leaving perfectly solid films like The Quiet American, Narc, The 25th Hour and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind to fight for the slightest bit of attention). Filmgoing certainly seemed exciting at least for that brief period.

Given my oft-expressed deep love for Far from Heaven, it may surprise some to hear me say the Dennis Quaid omission wasn't a body blow to me (except insofar as it represented weakness for the film as a whole). I thought Quaid was fine but not exceptional in the role. Given the way the season had gone, I certainly EXPECTED him to be nominated -- and would have seen it as recompense for his being passed over two decades earlier in The Right Stuff. But his missing out didn't kill me.

The actors I most missed were Alfred Molina (that he was left off while the far less impressive Salma Hayek prevailed seems an object lesson in how much more difficult it is for male actors to get nominations); Ray Liotta for his deeply felt change of pace in Narc; and, one no one seems to mention: Noah Taylor as the young Hitler in Max. Max as a movie was hit and miss, but Taylor really created an indelible, unsentimentalized portrait of the young monster.

Of the nominees, I'm with most in dismissing Ed Harris first, for the least impressive of his nominations. I was baffled in general by Academy enthusiasm for The Hours -- a wan, tony art exercise that grabbed up a whole batch of nominations that would more pleasingly have ended up elsewhere.

Paul Newman's nomination is for me the epitome of why I hate seeing big stars slumming in the supporting category. There's nothing especially wrong with his performance; he's still the great actor he always was. But he needed this nomination like a hole in the head, and I resent the spot being wasted on him at the expense of any of the others I mentioned above.

John C. Reilly's nod did seem to say "well, you were everywhere this year, inluding in the best picture favorite", rather than making any particular statement about the individual performance. Reilly's a generally good actor, and seems a wonderful fellow, so I hardly begrudge him the acknowledgement. I also, though, don't vote for him.

The fact that Christopher Walken was (for what seemed the first time in eons) not playing some weirdo probably helped account for his nod (and his win at SAG). But it also had something to do with him being damn good in the film. I don't like him enough to give a second Oscar (the same decision Academy voters came to), but I cheerfully rate him runner-up in this group for beautifully enjoyable work.

Chris Cooper, though, rules. Cooper's career has been disappointingly limited overall -- Sabin is on the money in saying he's played one hard-ass after another, to the point of tedium. But in Adaptation he's loose as a goose and funnier than I'd have ever imagined he could be. For me this is one of the Academy's least impeachable choices of modern times: Cooper was easily the year's best, and gets my no-hesitation vote.

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

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby bizarre » Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:26 pm

ksrymy wrote:Please expound on this archetype. What do you mean by it and what other examples are there? I can't think of any examples of this other than Harris and Quaid.


Here you go.

ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby ksrymy » Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:49 pm

bizarre wrote:
ksrymy wrote:
bizarre wrote:I once heard someone describe the Ed Harris performance as "pinkface" - blackface for gays. Sounds about right.


This doesn't sound right at all. You're comparing Al Jolson's extremely-stereotyped black characters to an actor who exhibits zero gay stereotypes other than being afflicted with AIDS which you can't choose to emphasize in your acting. "Pinkface" suggests limp wrists, excessive lisps, and an overall flamboyant attitude like Hank Azaria's character in The Birdcage.


I think the cynic in question was referring to Harris' indulgent portrayal of the "tragic homo" archetype, which is just as common as "the queen".


Please expound on this archetype. What do you mean by it and what other examples are there? I can't think of any examples of this other than Harris and Quaid.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7325
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby Sabin » Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:36 pm

But that's the role. That's not Ed Harris' performance. He's basically just playing Ed Harris. I could be wrong. I haven't seen the film since its release ten years ago (!!!), but I don't recall Ed Harris playing limp-wristed and swishy. I don't buy him as that obnoxious child from the 50s for a second. Had the film committed more to a "tragic homo archetype", it might have carried a bit more weight.

Is there a more boring gay director alive than Stephen Daldry?
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

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

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby bizarre » Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:24 pm

ksrymy wrote:
bizarre wrote:I once heard someone describe the Ed Harris performance as "pinkface" - blackface for gays. Sounds about right.


This doesn't sound right at all. You're comparing Al Jolson's extremely-stereotyped black characters to an actor who exhibits zero gay stereotypes other than being afflicted with AIDS which you can't choose to emphasize in your acting. "Pinkface" suggests limp wrists, excessive lisps, and an overall flamboyant attitude like Hank Azaria's character in The Birdcage.


I think the cynic in question was referring to Harris' indulgent portrayal of the "tragic homo" archetype, which is just as common as "the queen".

ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby ksrymy » Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:59 pm

bizarre wrote:I once heard someone describe the Ed Harris performance as "pinkface" - blackface for gays. Sounds about right.


This doesn't sound right at all. You're comparing Al Jolson's extremely-stereotyped black characters to an actor who exhibits zero gay stereotypes other than being afflicted with AIDS which you can't choose to emphasize in your acting. "Pinkface" suggests limp wrists, excessive lisps, and an overall flamboyant attitude like Hank Azaria's character in The Birdcage.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby FilmFan720 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:00 am

Ed Harris is an actor I usually like a lot, and have defended here several times. But his work in The Hours is an abomination, a character who is pretty insultingly flat that he brings nothing to.

Paul Newman is fine in The Road to Perdition, but this is honoring the man, not the performance. I like John C. Reilly a lot in Chicago, but he doesn't elevate the role enough (like I saw Joel Grey do onstage) to get a nomination from me.

So it is between the Christophers, and they are both wonderful. I will give the edge to Walken, because I have seen it a little more recently and am still blown away by his tenderness and humanity in that role.

I have never gotten the hoopla over Dennis Quaid in Far From Heaven. Everytime I see the film, he just seems to be straining to hit the notes and wooden the rest of the film. Dennis Haysbert, however, gives a quiet, unhistrionic performance that is really beautiful.

My 5:
1. Christopher Walken, Catch Me If You Can
2. Chris Cooper, Adaptation
3. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Punch-Drunk Love
4. Dennis Haysbert, Far From Heaven
5. Robin Williams, Insomnia
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15587
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:44 am

I don't think it was a great year for films, none of the last ten years were but if I had to pick one it would probably be 2006.

My initial reaction to Far From Heaven was that it was well-made but phony, more a reflection of what movies of the 1950s were than real life ws. The Hours was more a reflecitonof the often dull hum-drum times, which is why it resonated more with the older skewing Academy. That said, Dennis Quaid's performance waas the real deal although it was more reflective of on-screen characters in the early 1960s than the mid-1950s - the film seemed to want to have it both ways - tell a story more reminiscent of the 1960s but in the filmic style of the 1950s where it waas set. His lack of even a nomination was a real stunner.

I loved Being John Malkovich but parted ways with Andy Kaufman's bizarre writings with Adaptation, which I found too silly for words. Chris Cooper, though, was the best thing about it and the only one of the three actors I thought truly deserving of a nomination.

John C. Reilly's nomination was clearly recognition for his body of work as well as a an add-on nomination for the phenominally successful Chicago. But at the expense of Quaid, Haysbert and Molina it was simply wrong-headed.

Paul Newman's nomination was borderline deserving, but a win for Road to Perdition would have been a bit much.

I thought Christopher Walken was fine in Catch Me If You Can but I didn;t see him as doing any particularly award worthy in it. Maybe they liked him so much because he was playing a normal guy after all those quirky characters he had bene playing for so long.

Which leaves Ed Harris in the under-rated (here anyway) The Hours. It's a heart-breaking performance especially in retrospect with the big reveal at the end. It's not Ed Harris playing a character with AIDS that moves the audience so much as who the character was before he became afflicted. I wouldn't have thought I'd ever be voting for Harris, but I a here even if it's only be default because Quaid and Molina arent in the mix.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7867
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby Reza » Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:35 am

Voted for Cooper.

My picks for 2002:

1. Dennis Quaid, Far From Heaven
2. Chris Cooper, Adaptation
3. Paul Newman, The Road to Perdition
4. Dennis Haysbert, Far From Heaven
5. Alfred Molina, Frida

The 6th Spot: John C. Reilly, Chicago

mlrg
Adjunct
Posts: 1094
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby mlrg » Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:42 am

Dennis Quaid should be the winner

Christopher Walken - Catch Me If You Can gets my vote

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

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby bizarre » Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:28 am

I once heard someone describe the Ed Harris performance as "pinkface" - blackface for gays. Sounds about right.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7325
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby Sabin » Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:17 am

In a race without Andy Serkis’ unreal interpretation of Gollum in the best of the Lord of the Rings films, Chris Cooper easily gets my vote. For a small era following American Beauty, the great actor became shockingly dull in one hard-ass role after another. And then here he is as John LaRouche, toothless, manic, and sweet. Even in his truly great performances like in Lone Star, nothing could have prepared us for this. What a triumph of casting! It’s a little surprising then that he did win because it’s so utterly unlike the kind of performance that usually wins in this category: the elderly gangster, the understanding father, the artist with AIDS, Mr. Cellophane…

Christopher Walken was both the runner up in terms of quality and likelihood of winning, which would have made him the first actor to win an Oscar for acting in a Steven Spielberg film. At the height of ultra-ironic Walken-mania, here he was giving an incredibly sweet performance. I think had he been given one or two more scenes, he might have won. As it is, it plays like an unexpectedly sweet subversion of image rather than tour de force.

I thought it was pretty strange that Paul Newman lost as much steam as he did. I predicted he would take the Golden Globe, and then he wasn’t even nominated for a SAG. Chalk it up to general antipathy to Road to Perdition, or the fact that it came out so long before the holiday season. You can certainly make the case for Paul Newman winning two acting Oscars in his almost fifty year career and this was clearly going to be it for him. He’s certainly fine in the film and he has a very dignified last scene, but you can’t really give him an Oscar for a reliably fine autopilot performance.

I think in many ways, The Hours stole a lot of Far From Heaven’s thunder. One of the most baffling omissions of the past decade was Dennis Quaid in 2002. Just as with Paul Giamatti’s unforgivable snub for Sideways, I read the nominees and said to myself “How odd! Did they really nominate six people in this category?” It just did not register, especially after Quaid’s critic’s wins, Golden Globe, and SAG nominations. Though it should be said that Far From Heaven did fare rather poorly with the Academy. Even without that Best Picture nomination that was never going to happen, many predicted it would be up for possibly seven and it didn’t even end up with a Costume Design nomination. I don’t think anybody would have predicted that both Road to Perdition and Frida would end up doing substantially better. I find The Hours to be a fairly miserable endurance test. Ed Harris isn’t really bad in the film, but there is zero personality in his work. No humor. No nothing. I just don’t think that Ed Harris was at all the right choice for this role. I honestly did not care of this man died of AIDS…and yikes, is that a terrible thing to say!

I’m glad John C. Reilly has a nomination, but let’s be honest! He got it for the idea of his performance, not the performance itself. I’ve seen Chicago on-stage and I’ve seen Amos Hart done right. Unlike Ed Harris in The Hours, it’s not as though something went wrong, it’s just that something didn’t go right. John C. Reilly is a perfect casting suggestion for Amos Hart, but his role is played for spectacle and not comedy. Reilly had a great year with roles in Gangs of New York and The Hours, neither of which he’s terribly good in. He gave his best performance of the year in the fairly lousy though ultimately forgettable The Good Girl, and he’s done better before and after. It’s a shame his only nomination came at the expense of Dennis Quaid. And Andy Serkis. And Alan Arkin, Willem DaFoe…

Best Supporting Actor
1. Andy Serkis, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
2. Chris Cooper, Adaptation.
3. Willem DaFoe, Auto-Focus
4. Alan Arkin, Thirteen Conversations About One Thing
5. Dennis Quaid, Far From Heaven
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4154
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2002

Postby The Original BJ » Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:13 am

In my nearly fifteen years of Oscar-watching, I don't think I've ever been as stunned by an Oscar omission as the moment when John C. Reilly's name was announced instead of Dennis Quaid's. At the time, I honestly thought Quaid was running second in the race to Cooper, and found it unfathomable that -- even in a crowded field -- he would be the name left off the list. After the critics' prizes, nominations at every single precursor, Quaid's substantial career, and the fact that this role represented a nice change of pace for him, I could only conclude that voters just didn't much like Far From Heaven, and Quaid's hugely moving performance was just an unfortunate casualty when it should have been a slam-dunk.

Moving past the big omission, I found this slate pretty weak, given the alternatives. I thought Dennis Haysbert's more restrained work in Far From Heaven was nearly as good as Quaid's, and wondered why he never got much traction at all. And though I wouldn't have supported some of the more recent campaigns for Andy Serkis's mo-cap work, his Gollum was hugely memorable, and there's really no way one can deny his contribution to creating this character even though the actor doesn't actually appear on screen. Of the candidates that actually stood a chance, I found Alfred Molina to be the life of the party in Frida, and would have found his inclusion far more deserving than a number of the actual nominees.

I think Ed Harris is the weakest of the lot, and this is his least impressive nomination. On the whole, I find The Hours to be pretty histrionic stuff, and Harris's AIDS-afflicted gay man made for some of the most affected, over-the-top moments in the film. The part's pretty small, too.

I adore Paul Newman as much as anybody, but I'm afraid I don't see much point to this nomination. Although the actor brings his typical professionalism to the role -- and is far more believable as a gangster than Tom Hanks -- the part isn't much of an acting stretch. And after picking him numerous times in Best Actor, I see no reason why I'd need to grant him a supporting trophy at this point in his career.

For me, John C. Reilly's nod is about on par with Queen Latifah's. I think both actors nail their big numbers -- and John C. Reilly is about as perfectly cast a sadsack for "Mr. Cellophane" as you could find -- but neither has all that much to do outside of those standout songs. It's hard to begrudge Reilly, a strong character actor, a mention like this, but he's clearly along for the ride, and doesn't merit win consideration.

The first time I saw Catch Me If You Can, I didn't much pay attention to Christopher Walken, and figured his nomination was due to the fact that for once, he was playing an actual human being instead of a total weirdo. But a more recent reviewing of the film made me realize I was wrong. To a part that doesn't have all that much screen time, Walken brings both a light-on-his-feet sense of humor and a touching amount of pathos. He's the most deeply human presence in the film, and merited the attention he received this year for doing what the best supporting actors do: take a part that's fairly tangential to the main narrative, and imbue it with numerous colors and a sense of backstory, making a singular impression while generously allowing his costars to shine. But I'm very glad Walken's late surge of buzz didn't result in a win, because...

...I think Chris Cooper completely owns this category. (Had Dennis Quaid been nominated, I still would've chosen Cooper, but it would've been a much closer fight.) It's worth noting how much of a change of pace this part was for Cooper -- so often he plays restrained, conservative, masculine types (as in Lone Star, American Beauty, Seabiscuit). But here he's allowed to completely let loose, and I just loved watching his uninhibited comic side take over. ("That's how much fuck fish!") John Laroche is an outrageous, original, scene-stealing creation by one of our best character actors, and he deserved the Oscar all the way.


Return to “The 8th Decade”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests