Showing posts with label 1986 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1986 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Thursday, 29 March 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1986: Results
Best Supporting Actor 1986: Michael Caine in Hannah and Her Sisters
Michael Caine won his first Oscar from his fourth nomination for portraying Elliot in Hannah and Her Sisters.
Hannah and Her Sisters tells of the various stories of Hannah and her sisters as well as the stories of her two husbands.
Michael Caine portrays Hannah's (Mia Farrow) second husband who from the opening scene is obsessed with and lusts after Hannah's sister Lee (Barbara Hershey). Many of the performances are quite withdrawn in this film as much of what the character comes in the form of their own narration over what their character is thinking and feeling. This is especially true of Caine's performance and character of Elliot since he not only has plenty of narration scenes but many of his scenes involve him trying to hide his feelings toward his wife sister, or keeping their later affair a secret.
Caine though effectively portrays the part despite the technical limitations that are put upon almost throughout his entire performance. From his very first scene Caine realizes Elliot's lust for his wife sister just perfectly. It is careful and subtle work by Caine that realizes his character's state quite well. Caine finds just the right line between being secretive of what Elliot wants in that unless you look closely you would not notice it. Caine has just the right simple, and subtle indications of Elliot desires for Lee. He shows it really as although he is holding back to such a degree he wants her so much that he comes through nevertheless.
Caine continues to find just the right path for his character as Elliot shyly tries to pursue the affair. Caine is quite good in the way he brings a slight comedic touch to his performance here as he could have portrayed the part completely straight. He just brings the right up amount of humor to his performance as he avoids every pushing to hard for any comedy, but makes it feel entirely natural within his performance. Caine just finds it within his character rather erratic behavior as he almost tries to woo her, without doing so, but trying to do so without being obvious about it. The funny thing is despite Elliot being erratic Caine never overplays a moment of it finding just the right tone for it all.
Caine is terrific in his moments when Elliot finally does reveal his precise feelings to Lee rather suddenly. Caine shows the transition of Elliot well as well still showing that he does not have a single emotion in the moment still showing some hesitation and embarrassment but more specifically in this one scene showing more joy over finally coming out with his true feelings finally. It is funny actually about Caine performance that there is never a single scene where he lets a single emotion override the rest Elliot is one confused fellow and Caine realizes this wonderfully. This particularly special scene for Elliot is the closest Elliot comes to feeling a single emotion which is happiness and Caine brings this out incredibly well.
Although the affair really seems to be given less and less time within the film along with Caine himself the glimpses given Caine continues to bring to life his character's unique situation. Still there is no set emotion Elliot feels about the affair, but Caine is good in showing that after Elliot has achieved the affair he has a lot less fun with it than before he actually even approached it directly, and appropriately the humor does disappear from his performance. Caine in his briefer moments shows the internal struggle that Elliot is facing almost silently. It is an effective portrait of this man who really has no idea of his path, and even in the end when it seems Elliot does seem to know what he wants still has the slightest glint of regret in his performance. It is a very strong performance by Caine that never fails to bring to life the emotional state of his character despite the complexity of it all as well as the subdued nature of the role.
Michael Caine portrays Hannah's (Mia Farrow) second husband who from the opening scene is obsessed with and lusts after Hannah's sister Lee (Barbara Hershey). Many of the performances are quite withdrawn in this film as much of what the character comes in the form of their own narration over what their character is thinking and feeling. This is especially true of Caine's performance and character of Elliot since he not only has plenty of narration scenes but many of his scenes involve him trying to hide his feelings toward his wife sister, or keeping their later affair a secret.
Caine though effectively portrays the part despite the technical limitations that are put upon almost throughout his entire performance. From his very first scene Caine realizes Elliot's lust for his wife sister just perfectly. It is careful and subtle work by Caine that realizes his character's state quite well. Caine finds just the right line between being secretive of what Elliot wants in that unless you look closely you would not notice it. Caine has just the right simple, and subtle indications of Elliot desires for Lee. He shows it really as although he is holding back to such a degree he wants her so much that he comes through nevertheless.
Caine continues to find just the right path for his character as Elliot shyly tries to pursue the affair. Caine is quite good in the way he brings a slight comedic touch to his performance here as he could have portrayed the part completely straight. He just brings the right up amount of humor to his performance as he avoids every pushing to hard for any comedy, but makes it feel entirely natural within his performance. Caine just finds it within his character rather erratic behavior as he almost tries to woo her, without doing so, but trying to do so without being obvious about it. The funny thing is despite Elliot being erratic Caine never overplays a moment of it finding just the right tone for it all.
Caine is terrific in his moments when Elliot finally does reveal his precise feelings to Lee rather suddenly. Caine shows the transition of Elliot well as well still showing that he does not have a single emotion in the moment still showing some hesitation and embarrassment but more specifically in this one scene showing more joy over finally coming out with his true feelings finally. It is funny actually about Caine performance that there is never a single scene where he lets a single emotion override the rest Elliot is one confused fellow and Caine realizes this wonderfully. This particularly special scene for Elliot is the closest Elliot comes to feeling a single emotion which is happiness and Caine brings this out incredibly well.
Although the affair really seems to be given less and less time within the film along with Caine himself the glimpses given Caine continues to bring to life his character's unique situation. Still there is no set emotion Elliot feels about the affair, but Caine is good in showing that after Elliot has achieved the affair he has a lot less fun with it than before he actually even approached it directly, and appropriately the humor does disappear from his performance. Caine in his briefer moments shows the internal struggle that Elliot is facing almost silently. It is an effective portrait of this man who really has no idea of his path, and even in the end when it seems Elliot does seem to know what he wants still has the slightest glint of regret in his performance. It is a very strong performance by Caine that never fails to bring to life the emotional state of his character despite the complexity of it all as well as the subdued nature of the role.
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1986: Dennis Hopper in Hoosiers
Dennis Hopper received his only acting Oscar for portraying Shooter in Hoosiers.
Hoosiers is about a basketball coach (Gene Hackman) with a troubled past trying to help a small town team win the state championship.
Dennis Hopper's Oscar nomination for this film is usually seen a bit of a head scratcher, not due to the quality of his performance in the film but rather because he was nominated for this film instead of his work in Blue Velvet from the same year. The problem with his Blue Velvet performance though is that the character of Frank Booth is not only evil but downright depraved in the most extreme fashion. The academy does not mind brutal villains, they nominated Berenger for this year, but Hopper's Frank was maybe just a little too sick for their tastes.
Perhaps Hopper could have been nominated for Blue Velvet if there was not the rather stupid rule that actors can only be nominated once in a single category but because of that it still gave voters the ability to vote for Hopper, but instead of voting for his portraying of a drug using, murderous sex fiend they could nominate him for the goodhearted town drunk in this film. It is remarkable actually the extreme difference in his two characters although they are both substance abusers one is a good man inside who seems to have the ability to be an even better man inside him.
Disregarding his other performance entirely though Hopper's performance here still does hold merit as the town drunk with a son on the basketball team who finds a second chance through Hackman's character offering him the chance to be his assistant coach. Hopper has plenty of drunk scenes and moments of his character being rather pathetic. Hopper doesn't overdue these scenes. Shooter is disruptive when drunk, and Hopper captures that while not ever making it seem like time for acting which these sorts of scenes commonly let themselves become.
Even though he really is not given much time to develop his character's past other than just a few passing remarks Hopper is effective in actually establishing his character's troubled history. He shows both a pride and a pain in his past over his own success and failures that he had in the past. Hopper's portrayal of this is actually quite remarkable as it is difficult to show both of these feelings without one clearly overwhelming the other or at least failing to convey either well. Hopper though succeeds in showing an honest past of both trouble and accomplishment.
Later as the film when Shooter gets his second chance Hopper is quite effective because he really does not show that Shooter changes but rather through his weaknesses there always was a stronger man inside. Hopper is careful to show that he never completely forgets his problems in his scenes on the basketball court, but rather he is able to pull himself just enough to bring out the best of him. It is a very moving portrait of this man that realizes his character's struggle and strength authentically without a moment of seeming to force Shooter's better moments. Hopper frankly could not be better in the role and does create a moving portrait of this man without ever making his more emotional moments feel in anyway manipulative. Although it might not be his most memorable performance of the year it certainly is a good one and stands as one of the better supporting performances of the year.
Dennis Hopper's Oscar nomination for this film is usually seen a bit of a head scratcher, not due to the quality of his performance in the film but rather because he was nominated for this film instead of his work in Blue Velvet from the same year. The problem with his Blue Velvet performance though is that the character of Frank Booth is not only evil but downright depraved in the most extreme fashion. The academy does not mind brutal villains, they nominated Berenger for this year, but Hopper's Frank was maybe just a little too sick for their tastes.
Perhaps Hopper could have been nominated for Blue Velvet if there was not the rather stupid rule that actors can only be nominated once in a single category but because of that it still gave voters the ability to vote for Hopper, but instead of voting for his portraying of a drug using, murderous sex fiend they could nominate him for the goodhearted town drunk in this film. It is remarkable actually the extreme difference in his two characters although they are both substance abusers one is a good man inside who seems to have the ability to be an even better man inside him.
Disregarding his other performance entirely though Hopper's performance here still does hold merit as the town drunk with a son on the basketball team who finds a second chance through Hackman's character offering him the chance to be his assistant coach. Hopper has plenty of drunk scenes and moments of his character being rather pathetic. Hopper doesn't overdue these scenes. Shooter is disruptive when drunk, and Hopper captures that while not ever making it seem like time for acting which these sorts of scenes commonly let themselves become.
Even though he really is not given much time to develop his character's past other than just a few passing remarks Hopper is effective in actually establishing his character's troubled history. He shows both a pride and a pain in his past over his own success and failures that he had in the past. Hopper's portrayal of this is actually quite remarkable as it is difficult to show both of these feelings without one clearly overwhelming the other or at least failing to convey either well. Hopper though succeeds in showing an honest past of both trouble and accomplishment.
Later as the film when Shooter gets his second chance Hopper is quite effective because he really does not show that Shooter changes but rather through his weaknesses there always was a stronger man inside. Hopper is careful to show that he never completely forgets his problems in his scenes on the basketball court, but rather he is able to pull himself just enough to bring out the best of him. It is a very moving portrait of this man that realizes his character's struggle and strength authentically without a moment of seeming to force Shooter's better moments. Hopper frankly could not be better in the role and does create a moving portrait of this man without ever making his more emotional moments feel in anyway manipulative. Although it might not be his most memorable performance of the year it certainly is a good one and stands as one of the better supporting performances of the year.
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1986: Denholm Elliot in A Room With A View
Denholm Elliot received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Mr. Emerson in A Room With A View.
A Room With A View describes the troubles a young woman faces (Helena Bonham Carter) due the repression involved with Edwardian society.
After winning three Baftas in a role for a supporting actor Elliot finally received an Oscar nomination for his role in this film. I imagine this possibly helped give Elliot the edge with voters over Daniel Day-Lewis from the same film for portraying the stiffest of all Edwardians. Elliot portrays quite a different character in Mr. Emerson who does not abide by many of the Edwardian requirements for proper living and of course behavior. He is a bit more emotional and flamboyant that the ideal Edwardian person, as is his free spirited son George (Julian Sands).
The part is actually rather limited and simplistic though. All Mr. Emerson does is act a little flamboyant, as well as shows his caring for his son who he wants the best for. He is only in a few scenes actually and his impact on the film is not all that great. Denholm Elliot though does his best to infuse life into his part in small ways in his short scenes. He most certainly has an energy in his scenes showing how he is not at all repressed like many of the other people who bend to the rules of society. As well as showing a quiet passion and love for his son showing that Mr. Emerson wants what is best for his son.
Denholm Elliot certainly does fulfill his role. I would in fact say he fulfills it as about any other actor could have. He is a nice enough presence in the film really, but he really is not a particularly memorable one either. I won't say this is his fault in the least he just is not given enough to do. It is never a bad performance in any shape or form. It is an entirely suitable performance for the film, and he does not waste his screen time as he very well could have. In the end though it just is not a remarkable performance, and his nomination for this film was not needed.
After winning three Baftas in a role for a supporting actor Elliot finally received an Oscar nomination for his role in this film. I imagine this possibly helped give Elliot the edge with voters over Daniel Day-Lewis from the same film for portraying the stiffest of all Edwardians. Elliot portrays quite a different character in Mr. Emerson who does not abide by many of the Edwardian requirements for proper living and of course behavior. He is a bit more emotional and flamboyant that the ideal Edwardian person, as is his free spirited son George (Julian Sands).
The part is actually rather limited and simplistic though. All Mr. Emerson does is act a little flamboyant, as well as shows his caring for his son who he wants the best for. He is only in a few scenes actually and his impact on the film is not all that great. Denholm Elliot though does his best to infuse life into his part in small ways in his short scenes. He most certainly has an energy in his scenes showing how he is not at all repressed like many of the other people who bend to the rules of society. As well as showing a quiet passion and love for his son showing that Mr. Emerson wants what is best for his son.
Denholm Elliot certainly does fulfill his role. I would in fact say he fulfills it as about any other actor could have. He is a nice enough presence in the film really, but he really is not a particularly memorable one either. I won't say this is his fault in the least he just is not given enough to do. It is never a bad performance in any shape or form. It is an entirely suitable performance for the film, and he does not waste his screen time as he very well could have. In the end though it just is not a remarkable performance, and his nomination for this film was not needed.
Best Supporting Actor 1986: Willem Dafoe and Tom Berenger in Platoon
Willem Dafoe and Tom Berenger received both of their first Oscar nominations Dafoe for portraying Sgt. Elias Grodin and Berenger for portraying Sgt. Bob Barnes.
Platoon depicts the tour of duty of Pvt. Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen) in Vietnam who struggles with the war as well as the morality of men within it.
I usually do not review performances together even when they are part of the same film unless reviewing one performance naturally causes me to mention the other constantly and this is the cause of Dafoe and Berenger. As the two men portray the beacons of morality within the film Berenger's Barnes representing evil well Dafoe's Elias represents the good. With Oliver Stone an actor must be careful when Stone's heavy handed black and white writing and direction is around, since it can easily lead to very over the top performance, luckily though Berenger and Dafoe are competent enough not to be swept up into the over the topness Stone can often cause in performances.
Neither of the actors overplay their part and both do attempt to turn them into real people, even if Stone's writing tries to keep them both a little simpler than they really needed to be to even convey his theme he wanted out of the two of them. Berenger as the bad Sergeant is the rougher of the two scarred from the war, but also dominate over the the men even over their lieutenant. Berenger early in the film is effective because he does not try to be the eventual point of Stone's early but rather just shows a tough Sergeant leading his men along and doing his job the way he sees he must do it. Dafoe actually counters him in much the same way he doesn't try to make Elias a man of good, but as well just a Sergeant doing his job although in a kinder more humane fashion and interestingly enough early on their differences don't seem that extreme.
The two show two very different fashions in which the two Sergeants cope with the war but both actors handle it effectively so. Berenger shows Barnes to basically internalize most of his feelings toward the war and only seems to realize it in his acts of violence. Although Berenger is great in a few short moments where he shows the emotions quietly coming out of Barnes over the death of soldiers that is very well handled considering such a moment could have been completely forgotten with the path his character eventually takes. Dafoe on the other hand more of show an exasperation in Elias over his years in the war finding them tiring him, and losing faith in the effort. Dafoe conveys this carefully because he does not show it as if Elias has given up but rather there is a still a passion to keep his men alive, but still he sees much of his efforts being futile.
There paths though converge quickly as Barnes murders civilians and Elias fights with Barnes because of this. The two performances than assume their roles of the good and the evil. Berenger is appropriately intense and chilling as Barnes when he goes over the edge and starts killing. He acts though not quite as some sort of soulless villain but rather a man who has just gone over the edge. Berenger does not turn Barnes into the most memorable of villains but that really is not a problem as Berenger plays down his evil enough to be far more realistic as Barnes actually. Dafoe as well does not overdo the goodness of the character for a moment. Elias simply is just a good man effortlessly so because of Dafoe. There is no visible effort in his performance to portray the kindness in Elias he is just honestly a good man.
Both actors achieve in developing the central conflict of the film without hammering it in as much as lesser actors would have even though there director probably would not have minded either way. Just as if not more importantly though both are effective in making their characters human beings first before being representatives of dark and the lighter side of mankind. There performances are strong efforts throughout and each have individual moments that do stand out. Dafoe of course has his big dramatic final scenes which is terrifically acted by him. Berenger best moment comes in his moment we he challenges all of Elias' men on their death threats toward. Berenger is great in the way he absolutely controls the moment and the men as Barnes. Both give strong performances that serve their film probably as well as they possibly could.
I usually do not review performances together even when they are part of the same film unless reviewing one performance naturally causes me to mention the other constantly and this is the cause of Dafoe and Berenger. As the two men portray the beacons of morality within the film Berenger's Barnes representing evil well Dafoe's Elias represents the good. With Oliver Stone an actor must be careful when Stone's heavy handed black and white writing and direction is around, since it can easily lead to very over the top performance, luckily though Berenger and Dafoe are competent enough not to be swept up into the over the topness Stone can often cause in performances.
Neither of the actors overplay their part and both do attempt to turn them into real people, even if Stone's writing tries to keep them both a little simpler than they really needed to be to even convey his theme he wanted out of the two of them. Berenger as the bad Sergeant is the rougher of the two scarred from the war, but also dominate over the the men even over their lieutenant. Berenger early in the film is effective because he does not try to be the eventual point of Stone's early but rather just shows a tough Sergeant leading his men along and doing his job the way he sees he must do it. Dafoe actually counters him in much the same way he doesn't try to make Elias a man of good, but as well just a Sergeant doing his job although in a kinder more humane fashion and interestingly enough early on their differences don't seem that extreme.
The two show two very different fashions in which the two Sergeants cope with the war but both actors handle it effectively so. Berenger shows Barnes to basically internalize most of his feelings toward the war and only seems to realize it in his acts of violence. Although Berenger is great in a few short moments where he shows the emotions quietly coming out of Barnes over the death of soldiers that is very well handled considering such a moment could have been completely forgotten with the path his character eventually takes. Dafoe on the other hand more of show an exasperation in Elias over his years in the war finding them tiring him, and losing faith in the effort. Dafoe conveys this carefully because he does not show it as if Elias has given up but rather there is a still a passion to keep his men alive, but still he sees much of his efforts being futile.
There paths though converge quickly as Barnes murders civilians and Elias fights with Barnes because of this. The two performances than assume their roles of the good and the evil. Berenger is appropriately intense and chilling as Barnes when he goes over the edge and starts killing. He acts though not quite as some sort of soulless villain but rather a man who has just gone over the edge. Berenger does not turn Barnes into the most memorable of villains but that really is not a problem as Berenger plays down his evil enough to be far more realistic as Barnes actually. Dafoe as well does not overdo the goodness of the character for a moment. Elias simply is just a good man effortlessly so because of Dafoe. There is no visible effort in his performance to portray the kindness in Elias he is just honestly a good man.
Both actors achieve in developing the central conflict of the film without hammering it in as much as lesser actors would have even though there director probably would not have minded either way. Just as if not more importantly though both are effective in making their characters human beings first before being representatives of dark and the lighter side of mankind. There performances are strong efforts throughout and each have individual moments that do stand out. Dafoe of course has his big dramatic final scenes which is terrifically acted by him. Berenger best moment comes in his moment we he challenges all of Elias' men on their death threats toward. Berenger is great in the way he absolutely controls the moment and the men as Barnes. Both give strong performances that serve their film probably as well as they possibly could.
Berenger must be commended for the key moments where he infuses humanity into a character who could've been one note. In the near opening sequence where he reprimands the men for mistakes, it could just be hardass but in the moments of the most extreme you see the edges of emotions push through showing a man who genuinely doesn't want to see his men killed. The other moment is when he enters the drug tent to give Elias's loyalists a chance to kill him. Berenger is downright amazing in the scene, and probably makes it the best scene in the film. Berenger whole "machine break down" speech is a moment of rationalizing it himself, but even the way he says "you all loved Elias" he is being earnest in his appreciation for something he knows he couldn't ever have from the men in the same way. But he's truly extraordinary when he tells the men it's their chance to kill him. His "kill me" is delivered by Berenger is filled with so much self-loathing, and honesty, as he says it as a man who wants them to do it. Berenger eyes in the moment are a man seeing what he's turned into and torn up by it even if he can't rectify the course at this point. His follow even when none of the men act, isn't even a verbal attack in the way you'd think, rather than just this anguished sorrow as he can't believe anyone is unable to make him pay for what he's done.
(Dafoe)
(For Berenger)
Monday, 26 March 2012
Best Supporting Actor 1986
Tom Berenger in Platoon
Willem Dafoe in Platoon
Michael Caine in Hannah and Her Sisters
Denholm Elliott in A Room With A View
Dennis Hopper in Hoosiers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)