Categories One by One: Best Supporting Actor

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 3011
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Categories One by One: Best Supporting Actor

Postby dws1982 » Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:36 pm

Mister Tee wrote:(I've been a long-time fan of Mark Harris, but he's annoyed the crap out of me this season with his Three Billboards sniping)

I've unfollowed him on Twitter altogether. His general negativity and unpleasantness, combined with constantly ascribing bad motives to anyone with whom he disagrees (on movies or anything else) is just not something I care to see any more.

I don't have much to add on this category--like you, I think Rockwell is probably the most sure of the four acting frontrunners.

Okri
Tenured
Posts: 2621
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Categories One by One: Best Supporting Actor

Postby Okri » Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:42 pm

I thought of the Tommy Lee Jones comparison as well, and given that Jones got a surprise best actor nomination, I think I will predict Harrelson. I've gotta be honest, though, I'm at the point where being right with predictions is less important that having fun with them.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6587
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Categories One by One: Best Supporting Actor

Postby Mister Tee » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:50 pm

I guess Rockwell's win is so taken for granted that no one's felt the need to add much here, but I think you make a couple of interesting points...

...especially about Richard Jenkins. It's rather remarkable that he's shown such strength as a nominee -- getting in at SAG even while the film was missing Ensemble -- yet has never for a second seemed a potential winner. If there were subterranean opposition to Rockwell -- which I don't think there is, but assume -- Jenkins could be the kind of "we didn't see it coming but why didn't we?" upset that Anna Paquin was over Winona Ryder, or Kevin Kline over Martin Landau.

But Dafoe seems to have sucked up all the possible upset energy, largely because of that critics' run and, it seems to me, the fact that bloggers seized upon him at Cannes and just locked into the idea. Like you, I just don't understand where this enthusiasm came from (this one, to me, is the "manufacturing consent" scenario), but, because of it, Dafoe remains at least a possible surprise win.

A brief moment to say Christopher Plummer has had a worthy career with, now, an interesting series of late career fireworks, and he's perfectly fine in All the Money..., but this is an utterly unnecessary nomination that I'll always feel robbed Michael Stuhlbarg.

I understand what you're saying about Woody Harrelson -- I felt/expressed some of it when I saw Three Billboards, calling him the soul of the film. It's a beautiful performance, and, given the man's surprising longevity (and, now, three nominations), you'd think, like you say, he should be in the race. But 1) Despite his being in the public eye roughly as long as Dafoe, I don't think he's held in near the same esteem, for a reason you articulate: he came to us from TV, and not just TV: a sitcom. Yes, it was an Emmy-winning sitcom, but that was back in the day when the Emmys thought L.A. Law and thirtysomething were great dramas. Harrelson has spent much of the three decades since striving to reach respectability -- I'd say he's definitely there now, but it wasn't always the case. Whereas Dafoe was at the top of the respectability ladder after Platoon/Last Temptation, and has been accumulating extra points since. 2) I had the same feeling about Harrelson that I did about Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men -- beautiful performance, soul of the movie. And in both cases my next thought was, yeah, he should be awards-cited...but there's that other guy in the movie who just has a clearly more dominant role/performance.

I know we disagree on Three Billboards, and I think it's come to the point where fans/foes of the film almost can't talk about it (I've been a long-time fan of Mark Harris, but he's annoyed the crap out of me this season with his Three Billboards sniping). For those who disIike the film, Rockwell's character/performance is seen as the root of the film's problems. But the flm's fans -- and, per SAG/BAFTA/Globes, there are quite a few of them -- don't have this issue with the film, so they simply see it as powerful, complex, dominant work in a major best picture contender. I'll grant you that Rockwell's career-points kicking in here has been something of a surprise -- he's always been an actor the cognoscenti have known, but you wouldn't have thought his resume would be so familiar to so many groups as to help carry the day. But apparently a long-time reputation as dependable character man has done more for Rockwell than we might have thought up till now.

I honestly see him as perhaps the most certain of the four seemingly-locked acting winners...which may just mean I'm going to be shocked tomorrow night. But I feel pretty good about betting on him.

Okri
Tenured
Posts: 2621
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Categories One by One: Best Supporting Actor

Postby Okri » Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:15 pm

Let’s jaw about this one, that may or may not be as straightforward as we think.

So, Christopher Plummer? What first appeared as a stunt from Scott was taken seriously. I’m not sure how or why, to be honest. But a man who waits 50+ years into his career to get three nominations in less than a decade? Talk about second acts. A second Oscar, however, would be just weird. And probably not all that deserved, if we’re frank (yes, I was one who was fine with his Insider-snub).

Richard Jenkins is an actor I can imagine winning an Oscar one day, but this year? Well, he got this nomination VERY easily – he coasted with the film’s popularity without feeling entirely like a coattail nominee. But it’s not a performance anyone’s really enthusiastic about. A Jenkins win would suggest this his film was a major sweeper and I don’t think anyone’s really expecting that at this time.

So, now we’re down to brass tacks.

Willem Dafoe really never made much sense to me as a critics-sweeper. So when he was doing that (and The Florida Project has really been performing much more strongly than I expected with the critics in general) it was super confusing. But he made even less sense as a TV-awards sweeper, so his failure there made sense. So, does he stand a chance at winning? Probably. He’s been around for quite some time, of course. And we’ve seen races where the long-standing actor wins if no one’s passionate about anything (James Coburn in Affliction). But does that really describe this race? And his film is super tiny (for comparison, Affliction actually outgrossed it in straight terms).

Can we just talk for a second about how Harrelson never really entered this race as a potential win candidate? He has the same number of nominations as Dafoe, has been around for about as long and is an equal part of the heart of his film, such that it has one. Does that fact that he was a TV actor first for a significant portion of his career alter the impact/length of his career (before TV was cool). I know he has a smaller role than Rockwell, but I’m really quite floored that he doesn’t seem to have much of a shot. Which makes me think that maybe he does. Especially since I don’t get how Rockwell romped through the TV portion of the season (my lack of understanding is a recurring theme). Even from a “manufacturing consent” stand point. In terms of accumulated points, how does he have so many? He has a sizeable role, but his arc and the supporting structure has gotten the most negative commentary. If AMPAS wants to be ‘woke’ it would probably go with a different candidate. But do they? Probably not as much as twitter.

But I still don’t know who to predict. Rockwell is the one we should probably predict, but I kinda want to predict Harrelson.


Return to “90th Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest