Best Supporting Actor 2005

1998 through 2007

Best Supporting Actor 2005

George Clooney - Syriana
1
3%
Matt Dillon - Crash
2
6%
Paul Giamatti - Cinderella Man
2
6%
Jake Gyllenhaal - Brokeback Mountain
21
60%
William Hurt - A History of Violence
9
26%
 
Total votes: 35

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7636
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby Reza » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:42 am

Greg wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:This practice of separating star players of the same sex to lessen competiton goes back to Vanessa Redgrave in 1977's Julia. The most egregious campaign was the one that had Leonardo DiCaprio being pushed for supporting actor for 2006's The Departed even though he was that film's most valuable player, not because any other actor from the film had a stronger chance of winning, but because he was in competiton with himself in Blood Diamond. That was a practice that began in earnest with Julianne Moore in 2002's The Hours, but at least in that case there were two other stars of the film who could, and in one case, did, compete in the lead category. In actuality, however, it goes all the way back to Jessica Lange in Tootise.


I do think Redgrave and Lange had clearly supporting roles.


Indeed they both did. Screen time also attests to that.

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2644
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby Greg » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:21 am

Big Magilla wrote:This practice of separating star players of the same sex to lessen competiton goes back to Vanessa Redgrave in 1977's Julia. The most egregious campaign was the one that had Leonardo DiCaprio being pushed for supporting actor for 2006's The Departed even though he was that film's most valuable player, not because any other actor from the film had a stronger chance of winning, but because he was in competiton with himself in Blood Diamond. That was a practice that began in earnest with Julianne Moore in 2002's The Hours, but at least in that case there were two other stars of the film who could, and in one case, did, compete in the lead category. In actuality, however, it goes all the way back to Jessica Lange in Tootise.


I do think Redgrave and Lange had clearly supporting roles.
Bankers don’t like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth.

James K. Galbraith

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15381
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:15 am

OscarGuy wrote:I wasn't arguing lead vs. support, I was submitting observational data; however, I agree with Tripp. Regardless of how we feel about star wattage and comparative association in films, there is a sometimes clear distinction between lead and support. At the time Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis were co-nominated for Thelma & Louise, it would have been unthinkable to nominate one in support. Yet, based on Oscar-winner/nominee vs. not, Davis would have been the purported "lead" if the film were released today and I bet Sarandon would have been pushed for support. It's bald-faced ridiculousness.

Nah, Sarandon was the bigger star and not yet an Oscar winner. Davis would have been the one pushed for support.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15381
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:11 am

All this angst over the Academy placing Jake Gyllenhaal in support for Brokeback Mountain is really misplaced. The IMDb. lists nine pre-cursors for which he was either nominated or won in support prior to the Oscars. Blame the on-line soothsayers who predict these things long before the films are even seen. By the time Oscar campaigns begin the dye has been cast.

This practice of separating star players of the same sex to lessen competiton goes back to Vanessa Redgrave in 1977's Julia. The most egregious campaign was the one that had Leonardo DiCaprio being pushed for supporting actor for 2006's The Departed even though he was that film's most valuable player, not because any other actor from the film had a stronger chance of winning, but because he was in competiton with himself in Blood Diamond. That was a practice that began in earnest with Julianne Moore in 2002's The Hours, but at least in that case there were two other stars of the film who could, and in one case, did, compete in the lead category. In actuality, however, it goes all the way back to Jessica Lange in Tootise.

And then there's the unusal case of Kate Winslet in The Reader. Although the actress had a larger role than either of the actors who split the film's main character, her character is gone from large chunks of the film. A case could be made for either a lead or supporting nomination, but the campaign for support was itself wrongheaded because the push for support was based on the strong possibility of her receiving more votes for Revolutionary Road in lead. The Globes and SAG nominated her in both categories for both performances, the Globes actually awarding her in both, while BAFTA nominated her for both in lead and Oscar rejected her performance in Revolutionary Road altogether, awarding her in lead for The Reader.

I understand what Reza is saying about Gyllenhaal's star power even if I don't quite agree. Glyllenhaal has been on the verge of major stardom ever since 1999's October Sky. He is equally at home in blockbusters and small independant films, but if he hasn't broken through by now - he's 31, going on 32 - chances are his career will remain at the same level. He could, like William Holden at 33, find the one role that redefines him, but more likely he will remain like Christian Slater, Keanu Reeves and dozens of others, someone who will over time receive fewer and fewer offers for lead roles and turn up in supporting ones, perhaps leading to another supporting nomination down the road.

And while I agree with what Tripp is saying about lead and supporting vs. Best Movie Star and Best Character Actor, the first year that the supporting awards were given, Spencer Tracy, a genuine Movie Star was nominated for Best Actor for his below the title supporting role in San Francisco while Character Actor Stuart Erwin was nominated in support for his lead role in Pigskin Parade. Today's practice makes more sense even if sometimes the politics behind the category placements aren't always right.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12424
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby OscarGuy » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:11 am

I wasn't arguing lead vs. support, I was submitting observational data; however, I agree with Tripp. Regardless of how we feel about star wattage and comparative association in films, there is a sometimes clear distinction between lead and support. At the time Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis were co-nominated for Thelma & Louise, it would have been unthinkable to nominate one in support. Yet, based on Oscar-winner/nominee vs. not, Davis would have been the purported "lead" if the film were released today and I bet Sarandon would have been pushed for support. It's bald-faced ridiculousness.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby FilmFan720 » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:25 am

Reza wrote:
OscarGuy wrote:The only reason he hasn't been bigger is a poor choice of films to appear in. Other than Source Code, his selections have been largely frustrating (think the awful Prince of Persia). Love and Other Drugs was less a failure because of him, but because of the director. However, his upcoming slate doesn't look too inspirational. He's a talented actor who has a Nicolas Cage-like problem of being unable to pick good films (though Cage's problem is he's thrown his money away and just wants to make money hand-over-fist).


......and because of all these problems you mention, Gyllenhaal will always be nominated in the supporting category if he happens to be in an A list film costarring with a bigger star. I don't know if you guys get what I'm trying to explain? He is not a star..............as yet.


I hate this argument, because the categories are lead and supporting, not Best Movie Star and Best Character Actor. They shouldn't be labeled that way, and they haven't been. Are you really going to tell me that Richard Jenkins is a bigger movie star than Jake Gyllenhaal, or that Jack Nicholson isn't a movie star? The categories are about screen time and centrality to the story...both in dream world and reality.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7636
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby Reza » Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:31 am

OscarGuy wrote:The only reason he hasn't been bigger is a poor choice of films to appear in. Other than Source Code, his selections have been largely frustrating (think the awful Prince of Persia). Love and Other Drugs was less a failure because of him, but because of the director. However, his upcoming slate doesn't look too inspirational. He's a talented actor who has a Nicolas Cage-like problem of being unable to pick good films (though Cage's problem is he's thrown his money away and just wants to make money hand-over-fist).


......and because of all these problems you mention, Gyllenhaal will always be nominated in the supporting category if he happens to be in an A list film costarring with a bigger star. I don't know if you guys get what I'm trying to explain? He is not a star..............as yet.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12424
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby OscarGuy » Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:10 am

The only reason he hasn't been bigger is a poor choice of films to appear in. Other than Source Code, his selections have been largely frustrating (think the awful Prince of Persia). Love and Other Drugs was less a failure because of him, but because of the director. However, his upcoming slate doesn't look too inspirational. He's a talented actor who has a Nicolas Cage-like problem of being unable to pick good films (though Cage's problem is he's thrown his money away and just wants to make money hand-over-fist).
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7636
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby Reza » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:36 am

The Original BJ wrote:
Reza wrote:Both Raul and Jake may have played lead roles in films but they are both perceived to be "supporting actors" by and large. I cant think of any films Jake has done which labels him a lead in Hollywood.


Oh, see I take the opposite point of view with respect to Jake Gyllenhaal. At the time of Brokeback's release, I saw him as one of Hollywood's up-and-coming leading men, both due to the recent release of Jarhead, as well as the roles he had lined up post-Brokeback. (Those films may not have been blockbusters, but he's pretty consistently played leads since then.)

At the time of Brokeback, Gyllenhaal seemed like a possible heir to the Brad Pitt/Leo DiCaprio career path, hardly someone who would follow in the footsteps of Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti. This just added further annoyance to my frustration over his supporting placement, because he WASN'T some unknown character actor, but a handsome son of Hollywood who'd clearly been groomed for some pretty major stardom.


.......which he never quite achieved unfortunately.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4054
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby The Original BJ » Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:36 pm

Reza wrote:Both Raul and Jake may have played lead roles in films but they are both perceived to be "supporting actors" by and large. I cant think of any films Jake has done which labels him a lead in Hollywood.


Oh, see I take the opposite point of view with respect to Jake Gyllenhaal. At the time of Brokeback's release, I saw him as one of Hollywood's up-and-coming leading men, both due to the recent release of Jarhead, as well as the roles he had lined up post-Brokeback. (Those films may not have been blockbusters, but he's pretty consistently played leads since then.)

At the time of Brokeback, Gyllenhaal seemed like a possible heir to the Brad Pitt/Leo DiCaprio career path, hardly someone who would follow in the footsteps of Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti. This just added further annoyance to my frustration over his supporting placement, because he WASN'T some unknown character actor, but a handsome son of Hollywood who'd clearly been groomed for some pretty major stardom.

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7636
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby Reza » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:57 pm

It's also a matter of perception I feel. Both Raul and Jake may have played lead roles in films but they are both perceived to be "supporting actors" by and large. I cant think of any films Jake has done which labels him a lead in Hollywood. Julia played leads on Broadway but in films he was a character actor. All the cited lead multiples were with either big stars or a particular role was dominant in which case a character actor was up in the lead category - Abraham in Amadeus. Also Hulce for that matter.

Did Julianne Moore really refuse the "fraud"? I dont think actors nowadays refuse such category placements like the Rosalind Russells of yesteryear.

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2644
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby Greg » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:07 pm

Multiples in support are still common; and, I think the aversion to multiples in lead could very well lead to an increase in multiples in support in the coming years.
Bankers don’t like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth.

James K. Galbraith

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6252
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby Mister Tee » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:00 pm

Bog wrote:Will we ever see multiples in the same category again? When did this slumming and frauding all begin? Broadcast News followed by a reverse case by Hopkins making it seem possible? Do you think Olivier 40 years ago and Winger 30 would have borderline cruised to their awards were this greed something seen as acceptable back then?


I've opined here in the past, I think it was the failure of Raul Julia to get his expected best actor nod alongside co-star William Hurt in Kiss of the Spider Woman that set the new era in motion. The year just prior had seen the two Amadeus actors cited, and the year before that the two Terms of Endearment ladies had shown up side by side, in neither case hurting the chances of one winning. And, of course, the decades preceding had seen many multi-nominees -- actresses in '77, actors in '76, '72, '69 etc. But Julia's omission was pretty flagrant (and inexplicable, for the likes of James Garner/Murphy's Romance), and, from there on, the Thelma/Louise pair are the only doubles we've seen -- it's hard not to feel by design.

I'm afraid you're right, that Winger might have been bumped to support today -- insulting, given that I think her performance is what carries the film. Then again, she might have shown some integrity -- as Julianne Moore did, with Kids Are All Right -- and refused the fraud.

Bog
Assistant
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby Bog » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:15 am

I voted for Gyllenhaal by default, though I agree he should have been considered leading. Maybe it's not the biggest case of category fraud ever, but just because Michelle Williams had more focus than Anne Hathaway in no way makes Gyllenhaal more a supporter. What's crazy to me with it almost seen as illegal now to be positioned in a category with someone you co-starred, why does it not work? My bet is while deciding on Ledger in what sure seemed like pic and performance of the year, why not have the costar he outshined right there next to him? Will we ever see multiples in the same category again? When did this slumming and frauding all begin? Broadcast News followed by a reverse case by Hopkins making it seem possible? Do you think Olivier 40 years ago and Winger 30 would have borderline cruised to their awards were this greed something seen as acceptable back then? I know the absolute goal in making a film these days is winning everything, but there are only 20 spots and only 4 winners for hundreds and hundreds of yearly films...is it that imperative for a studio/producer to win not just accept a nomination?

The rest of this was a joke especially Giamatti on the sidelines for Sideways gets thrown this ridiculous bone...I missed Daniels and Costner on this list, shame shame.

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7636
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2005

Postby Reza » Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:27 am

My picks for 2005:

1. Jake Gyllenhaal, Brokeback Mountain
2. Kevin Costner, The Upside of Anger
3. William Hurt, A History of Violence
4. Terence Howard, Crash
5. Matt Dillon, Crash

The 6th Spot: Frank Langella, Good Night, and Good Luck


Return to “The 8th Decade”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests