Best Supporting Actor 2007

1998 through 2007

Best Supporting Actor 2007

Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
17
43%
Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
13
33%
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson's War
0
No votes
Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild
9
23%
Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton
1
3%
 
Total votes: 40

Okri
Tenured
Posts: 2551
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby Okri » Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:03 pm

I thought Jones gave the best performance from No Country for Old Men and would've gladly supported a win for him here (not for his work in the odious Haggis film he was nominated for). I don't get the love for Bardem's performance. Hoffman plays Sorkin = shoot me now (if we needed a shallow performance with good line readings, James Marsden in Enchanted would've been a better choice. Holbrook was good, but Affleck was simply a revelation. Yes, he's lead. But I have whole portions of his performance imprinted in my memory.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby Sabin » Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:37 pm

I don't think there's anything playacting about Javier Bardem's work in No Country for Old Men. I think it's an entirely successful performance on its own terms. There is something categorically different going on in Angela Lansbury's Manchurian Candidate performance that's not called for in No Country for Old Men. Both of these performances you cite have elements of perversion and humanism to them (which is not to say that I think Judith Anderson is a pervert in Rebecca but, as I recall under the censored restrictions of the time, Hitchcock had to fall back on allusions rather than a direct depiction of lesbianism) which would very likely diminish Bardem's performance. I think Bardem's physical presence is very affecting in the film and deserves a lion's share of praise, but by the same token I think it's simply injustice that he was clearly the runaway victor in a race replete with superior performances. That's all. I'd rank him behind Affleck, Holbrook, and possibly even Hoffman.
"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

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

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:53 pm

I remember the talk of Pinsent and while some were trying to shoehorn him into Support, he was frequently mentioned, at least on this board, as a co-lead. And I'm still astounded that people consider Bardem's performance that good? It's intensely shallow with virtually no emotional growth. It's creepy sure, but so was Johnny Depp in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory...that doesn't make him Oscar worthy. Now look back at the great villain performances like Angela Lansbury in The Manchurian Candidate or Judith Anderson in Rebecca. Those were sinister performances...Bardem's seemed more like playacting.

For my money, Holbrook added human depth to a film that I felt was a bit uneven in places. He's always been a reliable actor, but his sorrow was mesmerizing. Too bad he'd be used so poorly in something like Water for Elephants, though.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

bizarre
Assistant
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby bizarre » Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:23 pm

Sabin wrote:It's not my memory that Gordon Pinsent was discussed for Supporting. It's also not my memory that he was discussed for Leading. Shameful because I prefer him to pretty much everyone nominated for Best Actor in 2007.

After seeing 3:10 to Yuma, I thought that Foster had a very good shot at a nomination. Not entirely sure where that buzz went. Perhaps after Casey Affleck's push for Supporting was deemed legitimate by the National Board of Review, an open slot just disappeared. Bardem and Wilkinson were pretty solidly in the race, as was Holbrook despite his Golden Globe snub. Philip Seymour Hoffman just seemed incredibly likely to get something for his impressive year and, even though it was a disappointment, Charlie Wilson's War did nab a not-unimpressive $60-something milllion. Who then? I don't remember Tommy Lee Jones talk for No Country... emerging much until after it became "clear" he wasn't getting in for In the Valley of Elah. Had Casey Affleck not received his dubious Supporting push, would he have entered the race as lead? Not sure. I never viewed Viggo Mortensen as a possibility for Eastern Promises and then he became close to a lock. I'd like to think he could have displaced Viggo or Jones who failed a single major precursor nod for Elah, but perhaps not.


Who knows, really - this year was all over the place. Many great American films and great performances in the running, and clearly the Lead races were open enough to allow major season shut-outs like Jones and Linney into the conversation (although to be fair Jones was hailed as a frontrunner to win when his film premiered). Perhaps there was potential for the same thing to happen in Supporting.

IIRC at the end of the year I was predicting for the races (a bit of no guts no glory - but mainly wishful thinking that Blanchett wouldn't get nominated):

ACTOR - George Clooney, Daniel Day-Lewis (*), Emile Hirsch, James McAvoy, Viggo Mortensen
ACTRESS - Amy Adams, Julie Christie, Marion Cotillard (*), Angelina Jolie, Ellen Page
SUPPORTING ACTOR - Casey Affleck, Javier Bardem (*), Philip Seymour Hoffman, Hal Holbrook, Tom Wilkinson
SUPPORTING ACTRESS - Cate Blanchett, Jennifer Garner, Saoirse Ronan, Amy Ryan, Tilda Swinton (*)

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby Sabin » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:09 am

It's not my memory that Gordon Pinsent was discussed for Supporting. It's also not my memory that he was discussed for Leading. Shameful because I prefer him to pretty much everyone nominated for Best Actor in 2007.

After seeing 3:10 to Yuma, I thought that Foster had a very good shot at a nomination. Not entirely sure where that buzz went. Perhaps after Casey Affleck's push for Supporting was deemed legitimate by the National Board of Review, an open slot just disappeared. Bardem and Wilkinson were pretty solidly in the race, as was Holbrook despite his Golden Globe snub. Philip Seymour Hoffman just seemed incredibly likely to get something for his impressive year and, even though it was a disappointment, Charlie Wilson's War did nab a not-unimpressive $60-something milllion. Who then? I don't remember Tommy Lee Jones talk for No Country... emerging much until after it became "clear" he wasn't getting in for In the Valley of Elah. Had Casey Affleck not received his dubious Supporting push, would he have entered the race as lead? Not sure. I never viewed Viggo Mortensen as a possibility for Eastern Promises and then he became close to a lock. I'd like to think he could have displaced Viggo or Jones who failed a single major precursor nod for Elah, but perhaps not.
"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: 558
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby bizarre » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:13 am

Not many other actors were in the running this year. This was a pretty locked fivesome by the time of the announcement (even Jones, who made SAG, was an also-ran). Apart from Jones only John Travolta (Hairspray) would have had a shot, with some longer shots being Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood, J.K. Simmons in Juno, Ben Foster in 3:10 to Yuma, the fraud-y Gordon Pinsent in Away from Her and Andy Griffith in Waitress. Buzz around other candidates never managed to materialise for long.

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

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby Reza » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:07 am

My picks for 2007:

1. Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
2. Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild
3. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson's War
4. Ben Foster, 3:10 to Yuma
5. Tom Wilkinson Michael Clayton

The 6th Spot: Tommy Lee Jones, No Country For Old Men

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

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby The Original BJ » Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:58 pm

NOTE: Edited in 2016 to reject category fraud.

Oh right. THIS nonsense.

This may be the best lineup in this category this decade. I, too, would have cited Tommy Lee Jones in No Country (better than the performance that actually earned him a nomination this year, I feel) and Robert Downey, Jr. in Zodiac (WAY better than his bid in this category next year). I'd also throw out Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood, for making an impression even opposite the Day-Lewis powerhouse.

I think Philip Seymour Hoffman is my least favorite. He had some funny lines, but I find Charlie Wilson's War to be a mostly half-hearted affair (despite the talent behind and in front of the camera), and some of his scenes are pretty silly.

I'm on the fence with regards to Tom Wilkinson's nomination. I do think he has some strong scenes -- his descent into madness certainly makes an impression -- but I also think he has some over-the-top moments. I don't think this nomination is anything embarrassing, but I don't consider him.

Hal Holbrook is just heartbreaking in Into the Wild. I think I had tears in my eyes most of the time he was on screen. The bond between this old man near the end of his life and the young kid with (seemingly) his entire future ahead of him makes for the most poignant relationship in the movie, and that scene in which Holbrook asks Emile Hirsch if he might be willing to let him adopt him is really just a beautiful piece of acting by the vet. A lovely performance.

But the other two performances are exemplary, and a bit more substantial. Of course, in Casey's case, that's the problem. I don't know if this is the worst case of category fraud ever, but it really is one where I just absolutely cannot accept any argument that he's supporting using any kind of rational logic. But, no need to rehash that (too late?) Quality-wise, he's absolutely extraordinary. I'd seen Affleck in Good Will Hunting and Ocean's Eleven prior to this, and certainly neither of those performances suggested he had this tour-de-force in him. I think everything about this turn -- his gentle tenderness, the seeming innocence in his high-pitched voice, the way he gradually becomes more and more overwhelmed by his obsession with Pitt's Jesse James -- is remarkable. I viewed him as a near-tie with Day-Lewis as the year's Best Actor, and his strong work in Gone Baby Gone that same year proved this was no fluke either.

And then there's Bardem, who I think is the year's finest genuinely supporting actor -- and I do think this is a supporting role. For me, Brolin is the lead, and when you consider Jones's not insignificant amount of screen time, that's quite a bit of time that Bardem is gone from the movie. He's exceptional as well, in a performance that commands with both striking physical presence (just the way he moves through the frame is frightening) and quietly forceful line deliveries ("Friendo"). And as the vehicle in this film for the Coen's dark sense of humor, he feels like such an odd, unique creation every time he appears on screen. A hugely memorable screen villain.

Affleck's work is the most astonishing, but Bardem's performance is nearly as great and not a case of soul-crushing category fraud, so he gets the prize.
Last edited by The Original BJ on Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby FilmFan720 » Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:18 pm

Another great year for film, with a lot of great performances, some of them honored here, and some of them not.

Tom Wilkinson and Philip Seymour Hoffman are two outstanding actors, but this is neither's shining moment. Hoffman does the best he can with a weak film, while Wilkinson is emoting far too much.

Hal Holbrook is heartbreaking in his big scene in Into the Wild, giving the film the heart that it had struggled to find for much of the journey.

Which leaves us with the two greatest performances of the year:

Casey Affleck is the best, but he is a lead. Hands down. Javier Bardem is a close second, but he is a supporting role (I see all three roles as supporting). I voted Bardem here, as hard as it is to vote against Affleck.

My ballot is filled out with three performances I love that no one else has bothered to cite, here or anywhere else.

1. Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
2. Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild
3. Paul Dano, There Will Be Blood
4. Michael Murphy, Away from Her
5. Andy Griffith, Waitress
A very close sixth place to Garret Dillahunt's turn in The Assasination of Jesse James...
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

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

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby Mister Tee » Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:11 pm

After a few years of uninspired competition, a strong slate; I only wish one or two of them could have been along in 2006 or 2005.

For me, the group could have been upgraded even further if Robert Downey Jr. had been there for Zodiac -- his best screen work to date -- and if Tommy Lee Jones had been cited alongside Bardem for No Country.

Of the actual contenders, it pains me to say the worst is Tom Wilkinson for Michael Clayton. I've much admired Wilkinson's work in the past -- voted for him in In the Bedroom -- but here he delivers a pretty standard going-looney performance. He does have one good scene, when Clooney encounters him on the street carrying loaves of bread, but it's not enough to offset the bulk of the work.

Charlie Wilson's War is an eminently fogettable, trivial piece of filmmaking, but Sorkin provides alot of good patter for Philip Seymour Hoffman, and he delivers the lines with panache. Nothing prize-worthy, but decent fun.

Now we're getting into " in any normal year, (x) would win" territory.

Hal Holbrook, a pro's pro of an actor, got a wonderful if smallish part in Into the Wild and made the absolute most of it. Holbrook is the rare actor who can make fundamental decency interesting. He doesn't have any histrionics; he's maybe the least flashy character Emile Hirsch encounters through the film. But he's the most memorable and moving of them, because of what Holbrook's presence brings to it. Very fine work.

Equally fine work, on a far larger scale, is Casey Affleck as Robert Ford. I see no need to fully rehash the arguments over placement; they're too recent for most of us to have forgotten. Suffice to say Affleck is co-lead with Pitt, and both would have rated best actor nods. But even in this category, Affleck rates significant consideration for a striking portrayal.

But in the end I have to go for a performance I do view as clearly supporting, and also like just a bit better: Javier Bardem's relentless killer in No Country. As Bruce LaVigne says, Chigurh on the page is pretty much a killing machine. What the Coens and Bardem do, together, is make him a full-bodied character who is still a killing machine, one totally without heart, but with, somehow, a presence that elevates him above standard screen villain. Bardem in a cockeyed way wins the audience over, but not by inviting us in. He doesn't make himself into a lovable villain (the way, say, Hannibal Lecter does), but does create a colorful character nonetheless. His way with dialogue is wonderful -- he half-had the Oscar after after his opening "Call it" scene at the convenience store -- and his mere physical presence is daunting throughout. This pick inaugurated a three-year run of Oscar picking villainous men in the category; I think all of them are pretty impressive, and perhaps none moreso that Bardem. He gets my vote.

bizarre
Assistant
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby bizarre » Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:04 pm

I haven't seen Hoffman, but the other four are all great.

Wilkinson is highly entertaining, but in a hammy way that isn't always in keeping with the rest of his film.

Bardem plays a symbol, not a person, and he delivers the gravitas and menacinng presence that the role needs. Memorable work.

Affleck is incredibly strong - insightful and intuitive, but perhaps a teensy bit monotonous. He makes my Lead Actor ballot, there's no reason for him to be in this category.

Holbrook is the best for me here, etching an entire life story into a five-minute arc. He's the only reason to sit through this rubbish film.

My lineup:
1. Tommy Lee Jones ... No Country for Old Men
2. Hal Holbrook ... Into the Wild
3. Javier Bardem ... No Country for Old Men
4. Richard Wilson ... Clubland
5. Paul Rudd ... Knocked Up

Bruce_Lavigne
Graduate
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:47 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby Bruce_Lavigne » Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:13 pm

Casey Affleck's is the worst kind of category gerrymandering: Not only is he a lead, but if only one actor per film can be called "the" lead (and there's no argument to be made for such a position that, in my humble opinion, isn't complete b.s.), then Affleck is it for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. It boggles my mind that in this day and age, the argument over whether to call somebody a "lead" or "supporting" actor could still come down to the respective actor's degree of stardom. (And to be clear, I'm not saying that Brad Pitt is in any way a supporting player in Assassination; I'm just saying that his role is clearly the smaller and less narratively significant of the two lead roles in the film, and the stardom thing -- as specious an argument as could be made -- is the only way to justify saying otherwise.) Affleck's is the best of the nominated performances, but you know how it goes; I can't in good conscience vote for him in this category (nor, for the record, would I vote for him in the lead category if he and Daniel Day-Lewis had both been nominated).

Category placement is also difficult for me when it comes to No Country for Old Men. Is the story about an everyman (Josh Brolin) with a force of evil (Javier Bardem) out to destroy him and a force of good (Tommy Lee Jones) out to save him? Is it equally about a pursuer (Bardem) and a quarry (Brolin), with the lawman (Jones) trying to stop their deadly confrontation bringing up the rear? Personally, it feels to me like it's about a lawman forced to reevaluate his nostalgic view of old-time morality and his ability to continue doing his job when confronted with the Moss/Chigurh situation... but I can't call Brolin a supporting player, nor can I quite call Jones a lead, due to the size of their respective roles, regardless of what the story feels like.

One thing I can say for certain is that I'm totally comfortable calling Bardem a supporting player, and he's my pick for the year's best. I don't draw as thick a line between "effective" and "great" as some here have, so the fact that so much of the performance's effect comes from things like presence and character doesn't bring it down any in my estimation -- and it's not like the "presence" in question isn't something that's uniquely Bardem's own. On the page, Anton Chigurh is a role that probably doesn't ask for much other than looking like a badass and acting sort of crazy. What Bardem brings to the role, that elevates it from a generic thriller antagonist to a genuinely interesting character, is a sense of absolute conviction. We've seen lots of "psycho" villains whose craziness manifests itself in the use of half-nonsensical philosophizing, but as played by Bardem, Chigurh comes off as a man with a genuine, deep-seated philosophy regarding fate and nature, and this belief makes him far more interesting than he otherwise might be. Plus, there's his complete, stone-faced humorlessness, that works brilliantly with the context of the movie around him to take itself over the top into a kind of brilliantly Coen-esque black comedy. I acknowledge that appreciating Bardem's work here is probably at least somewhat dependent on appreciating what the Coens do in general, or at least what they do in No Country for Old Men, but I'm a pretty unreserved fan of theirs, and of Bardem's performance.

As for the rest, Holbrook gives a lovely little performance in a movie I really liked; Hoffman is reliably terrific, and the best thing in Charlie Wilson's War; and Wilkinson is unbearably hammy in what I considered an otherwise rock-solid but undistinguished film.

My ballot:
1. Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men)
2. Hal Holbrook (Into the Wild)
3. Robert Downey, Jr (Zodiac)
4. Philip Seymour Hoffman (Charlie Wilson's War)
5. J.K. Simmons (Juno)

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby Sabin » Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:34 pm

I don’t think that 2007 features the best lineup in recent years, but it definitely is one of the strongest. I was very confident in predicting all five nominees this year. I know some had Tommy Lee Jones down, but I was pretty sure that it would come down to these five. And the notion of a John Travolta nomination for Hairspray never crossed my mind. The only performance I personally didn’t care for was Tom Wilkinson’s in Michael Clayton. It’s no fault of his own, he’s just miscast. I don’t buy him as a too-brilliant lawyer gone off the edge. He lacks that brilliance, that intensity. He just seems like a lunatic who George Clooney has never met before. Hardly a best friend from college. He’s not bad. He’s just miscast.

Really, I’m torn between the best leading performance of the year and the best supporting performance of the year. Casey Affleck is the lead in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and there’s no need to rehash that all-too recent argument. Hal Holbrook isn’t just supporting. He turns up over ninety minutes into Sean Penn’s lovely film, and he might have had a better shot of upsetting Javier Bardem for the win if the Academy had demonstrated any affection for Into the Wild. Considering the lone other nomination it got was for Best Film Editing (admittedly, not bad considering it bested Michael Clayton and Atonement), it was never going to happen. Holbrook is beautiful in Into the Wild, but Casey Affleck – for me – gives one for the books. If 2007 is one of the great recent years for film, then The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford stands as its great achievement and it’s impossible to separate Casey Affleck’s leading performance from it. As I did with Jake Gyllenhaal, as I did with Benicio Del Toro in 21 Grams, as I did with Ethan Hawke in Training Day, as I did with Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense, I’m going to vote for the lead.

And to be fair, I’m not sure that he’s the only lead in this category. It’s a little late to be declaring spoilers, but the narrative of No Country for Old Men places equal onus on Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem as pursuer and pursuee with Tommy Lee Jones as underlying Greek choir, and that the film ends with Javier Bardem still running points to the idea that evil is as singular a presence as heroism and whatever befalls it. Even if Bardem were supporting, I don’t think he would get my vote. He’s very strong in No Country for Old Men and it’s not a bad win by any stretch. It’s certainly nice that a talented actor like Javier Bardem got the opportunity to shine after his great work in Before Night Falls. But the truly best performance in the film was Josh Brolin and I already voted for Bardem in 2000.

Charlie Wilson’s War isn’t just a slog, it’s a botched, compromised slog of confused politics that crackles to life with charming Aaron Sorkin dialogue set-pieces every once in a while, and almost all of them feature Philip Seymour Hoffman’s onery Gust Avrokados. As an actor, he’s always an unpredictable fit. You never quite know if he’s going to be just a foul scene-stealer like in Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, an unexpectedly gracious co-star like in The Savages, or perform a little three ring-circus like in Charlie Wilson’s War. The Lumet aside, 2007 was a very strong year for Hoffman and I rank his work in Mike Nichols’ destined to be forgotten collaboration with Aaron Sorkin as a curio worth fast-forwarding through to Hoffman’s sunglasses and moustache, the latter of which perfectly predates Ron Swanson by about three years.

Best Supporting Actor
1. Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild
2. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson’s War
3. Steve Zahn, Rescue Dawn
4. Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Superbad
5. Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
Last edited by Sabin on Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 2885
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby dws1982 » Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:59 am

Casey Affleck is great, but totally lead, so I would never consider voting for him. I love No Country For Old Men, but Javier Bardem is more an example of an effective presence than a great performance. Tommy Lee Jones is the great performance in No Country. (I recognized him in Lead for it and In the Valley of Elah.) Philip Seymour Hoffman gave a great performance in 2007--probably his best ever and one of only a couple of times (The Ides of March was another) when I liked him. But that was in The Savages, not for his silly lounge act in Charlie Wilson's War. Tom Wilkinson is fine in Michael Clayton, but I miss the actor from In the Bedroom. Hal Holbrook is wonderful in Into the Wild--just a wonderful, wise, and heartbreaking performance. He's the only choice.

My picks for the year:
1- Hal Holbrook for Into the Wild
2- John Heard for Steel City
3- Guy Marchand for Dans Paris
4- Irrfan Khan for The Namesake
5- Clayne Crawford for Steel City

ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1138
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Re: Best Supporting Actor 2007

Postby ksrymy » Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:52 am

Big Magilla wrote:[quote="ksrymy"}The other nominee I'd throw in would be Vlad Ivanov for his unnerving work as the menacing freelance abortion doctor in 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days. The film was released in America on January 25, 2008 so I believe that makes him eligible. [/i]


Well, no, the film must open in a Los Angeles area theatre by December 31st and play consecutively for seven days. The film, which won the Best Foreign Film Oscar under a different set of rules may have had an Oscar qualifying run in L.A. January 25, 2008 is the New York opening date. It was nominated for a Golden Globe in the Best Foreign Film category for 2007 and won the Chicago Film Critics award for Best Foreign Film of 2007, so it may have been eligible for Oscar consideration in other categories.[/quote]

In that case, I'd give the extra spot to Max von Sydow while bumping Hoffman into my actual list.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald


Return to “The 8th Decade”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests