Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Tom Hanks in Catch Me If You Can

Tom Hanks did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Carl Hanratty in Catch Me If You Can.

Catch Me If You Can works for several reasons, as one of Steven Spielberg's very best later career films. A film I never hesitate to praise, and despite its success in many ways, seems to fly slightly under the radar within Spielberg's filmography. One of the reasons for this success is the star pairing featured through Leonardo DiCaprio as teenage conman Frank Abagnale, and Tom Hanks as the FBI agent trying to catch him Carl Hanratty. Now this pairing is effectively used in direct scenes together, but more often apart as Hanks searches for the elusive and cunning Frank. Now in this, I find that we see how Hanks's performance is very much emblematic of the success of the film. This as half of Hanks's work actually in fact evokes his earliest roles, that of the comic actor. Hanks playing the straight laced Carl among a group of obnoxious other fellow agents. In this Hanks plays a wonderful overly straight man. This as Hanks's work very much seeks to make the investigation entertaining through the specific way he presents Hanratty's kind of overly bookish determination, right down to his "just the right kind of silly" convertible sunglasses. Hanks has a nice elegant touch here even when presenting some general exposition over Frank's crimes, Hanks is little frustrations sneers are ideal in granting a nice humor to the moment just as the scene gets across what is needed. 

Hanks creates the right balance in that he doesn't make Carl a joke, but delivers a definite sense of comedy to each of these scenes. His performance makes for the right kind of drive in the investigation for this film, this as he's not trying to find a true monster, rather just finding a kind of thief. Hanks brings a deft timing then even in his first interaction with Frank, who poses as a secret service agent to escape him. Hanks in this scene is wonderful in bringing enough intensity initially as he first confronts Frank, and shows the right sense of confusion and calculation as he gauges the story he takes in. He's equally good though in bringing a real, but also still comic anxiety when he realizes the truth and sees Frank elude him. Hanks's perpetual state of frustration and drive is just wonderfully realized within his performance. He makes highlights every little bit of extra moments so well, such as his extra annoyed delivery of his rather hostile knock knock joke towards his fellow agents, or even in his boredom and disbelief as he just struggles to do his laundry without issue. Hanks's performance makes Carl a particularly enjoyable antagonist and more so foil to Frank. Instead of the guy who seemingly is floating through life, we have the guy struggling with every bit of his investigation. Hanks makes Carl both dogged and haggard in the right kind of equal measure. 

Now what is truly emblematic though is as much as the film is a great entertainment, there is more to it than that, and we get that within Hanks's performance just as we get that entertainment value from him. We are granted a sense of a bit more on the second interactions between Frank and Carl, as Frank calls Carl on Christmas. Hanks's delivery of this scene finds just the right balance in the moment. A bit of internalized somberness towards Carl's only seemingly lonely state as he speaks towards covering for other men, a direct bit of anger mixed with pride as he tries to both admonish Frank and explain how Frank barely got the best of him. There's a bit more though, as he speaks there just the smallest bit of understanding in his initial "you had no one else to call" towards Hanks, before switching it towards a bit purposeful direct hectoring towards the man who made him look like a fool. Again though this nagging sense of something more that kind of connects the two men is seen again when Carl visits Frank's father (Christopher Walken). This scene seems straight forward enough as Hanks's eyes glance around showing a man looking for clues, while delivering each word with a kind of perfunctory inquisition. The essential part of the scene though is when Frank's father accuses Carl of not being a family man for thinking he'd give up his son. Hank's reaction is perfection, this as there a bit of surprise within the moment, but again just this perfect glint of sadness suggesting Carl's own loneliness. 

The evolution of the Carl and Frank relationship is beautifully done with a substantial part of that being Hanks and DiCaprio's performance. Hanks here playing with DiCaprio never to try to outdo him, but rather to so artfully defer to him in a certain sense, without being overshadowed. This as while Carl's frequent solo perspective makes Hanks border on supporting the nature of the character, as so well realized by Hanks is truly a supporting one in the best of ways. Hanks finds the natural progression in creating a sense of empathy with Carl with Frank. There are still some proper playful moments, such as Hanks's deadpan reaction as Carl unashamed eats an eclair without sharing, but there's a real emotional depth in their work together. This as there second face to face scene, where Carl gets Frank to surrender, Hanks's performance is quiet, yet direct. There is an earnestness within the warning he gives to Frank. Hanks suggesting both a genuine threat but also an as genuine concern for Frank within the situation. When later Carl is the one who has to inform Frank of his father's death, Hank's performance is one of pitch perfect empathy. First his reaction that shows just the glimpse of despair over the idea, then his delivery that is straight forward, but also entirely sincere. Hanks earns the friendship that develops as this really second father figure, as he goes far to bring Frank into the FBI to try to limit his incarceration. Now in this we find the connection between really two lonely people, Carl as the father without a family, as he's estranged from his daughter, and Frank estranged from his whole life. Hanks finds just the right tone here. This as he doesn't over do the warmth, yet it is always so palatable and a certain point quite poignant. When Carl tells Frank the truth of his own isolated personal life, Hanks's direct as man reaching out, but still tempered still as essentially his former opponent of sorts. Hanks grants the sense of a teacher trying to truly connect with him, but also giving him the limits. I love even Hanks's reaction in the final segment of the film as he awaits to see if Frank has changed his ways or not, by whether or not he will be returning to work. Hanks's quite reactions of concerns are genuinely moving though understated still. Especially adore Hanks's final subdued reaction of relief at seeing Frank. Hanks never breaks the nature of the character, but shows his heart in the way that is honest to the character. This in turn making the reveal of it all the more affecting. Hanks's work delivers on both just the pure entertainment of the film, but also that essential heart of it within the idea of loneliness. Hanks does it with such ease, yet so effectively, that I have, while always praising the performance I'll concede before examining it a bit more closely, I might've taken it a little for granted.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Results

5. Marcel Iures in Hart's War - Iures gives a fine portrayal of the camp commandant, both the needed cold efficiency and some hints at humanity.

Best Scene: Giving the book.

4. Timothy Spall in All or Nothing - Spall gives a moving portrayal of a man in a constant state of depression that only sinks further.

Best Scene: Breakdown.

3. Brendan Fraser in The Quiet American - Fraser plays off his typical presence brilliantly by being both that and far more.

Best Scene: Final talk with Fowler.

2. Leandro Firmino in City of God - Firmino makes for a striking psychopathic murderer, though balances it with enough nuance in his realization of the character.

Best Scene: Benny's party. 

1. Christopher Plummer in Nicholas Nickleby - Good prediction Calvin. Plummer excels with his Dickens villain here, making the most of the miser, but being surprisingly heartbreaking as well.

Best Scene: Revelation.

Updated Overall 

Next: 1950 lead (throw in any supporting suggestions as well).

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Marcel Iures in Hart's War

Marcel Iures did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Colonel Werner Visser in Hart's War.

Hart's War in simplest terms is a World War II POW film about the murder trial for an African American officer accused of murder. It's a film that tries to cover a whole lot within this conceit, however the ambitious seem beyond the grasp of its director.

Marcel Iures plays the required role of the German camp commandant, and I'll say for the first half of the film this appears to be the fairly typical cold German portrayal. Iures does this in a way I will say is fine. This carrying himself with the calm resolute manner, having a callous glare towards men he is executing for having tried to escape and speaking with moderate venom towards his imprisoned counterpart Col. William McNamara (Bruce Willis). Standard I would say if entirely fine in presenting the opposition with the required type of efficiency, perhaps with a bit less charisma than say an Otto Preminger in Stalag 17, but good. Eventually Iures gets more to do when a series of events leads to one African American pilot being executed by the Germans via framing, and then the man likely responsible for that getting killed. This leading to the other African American office Lt. Scott (Terence Howard) being accused of murder. He is given a proper court martial, where our main character, the wet behind the ears somewhat cowardly law student Thomas Hart (Colin Farrell) is called upon to act as the defense. Although complications begin to occur, this including Colonel Visser offering Hart some help by giving him a court martial manual. This scene is Iures's focal point scene where he reduces his typical manner to portray the moment as though Visser is just one making speaking to another. There is still a certain distance in his overall tone, but Iures does well to accentuate a man of speaking genuine interests in a more casual, as well as more humane manner. It's a good scene for Iures as he effectively differentiates the man from the soldier. This only brief though as we see him reacting to Hart's new abilities to mess with McNamara's plans for the court martial. There though Iures is good though as the manipulator with the smiles of bemusement of seeing his manipulations working. Iures work here in general finds a degree of nuance to present as well an interest in the proceedings that go beyond his manipulations, again alluding to the degree of humanity in the scene with Farrell. Much like the film I don't think it really builds towards something substantial, and is more on the border of something greater. I don't think Iures is able to quite find that greatness within his own work, but it is good performance. He goes beyond a stock villain to find some complexity within the role, even if I wish there was perhaps a bit more.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Christopher Plummer in Nicholas Nickleby

Christopher Plummer did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Ralph Nickleby in Nicholas Nickleby.

Nicholas Nickleby is a fine, if just that, Charles Dickens adaptation about the titular young man coming to age while having to deal with different ills of Victorian England.

I have to say after watching The Man Who Invented Christmas, about Dickens writing a Christmas Carol it got me thinking what a fully fledged portrayal of Scrooge would be like. This as while Plummer played Scrooge in that film, it was a purposefully arch type portrayal, more for the generalized idea of the character, than really getting into the meat of who he was sort of beyond the page, again I believe this was entirely intentional. Thankfully it appears this thought was already realized in this film. Now, Plummer doesn't play Dickens's most famous miser in Ebenezer Scrooge here, but the character of Ralph Nickleby is definitely a classic miser in his own right. Now, as to be expected, Plummer's demeanor and voice couldn't seem a better fit for the world of Dickens already from the outset. He not only fits into the clothes like he was born in them, but Plummer's voice already is a perfect fit for the Victorian style vernacular. Unsurprisingly Plummer makes a striking impression from his first scene where the Nickleby family seeks help from their uncle after the death of their father. Plummer's performance delivering on the wanted sort of cold precision of manner as he speaks every word with a blithe disregard for nearly any sentiment for his father. Plummer presenting a general indifference towards his family's needs and more so the death of his brother. Ralph providing only basic leads for his niece and nephew, the titular Nick (Charlie Hunnam), for financial support. Plummer finds a wonderful balance in this moment though in that there is the slightest hint of warmth in recommending work for his niece, however for his nephew it is with a diabolical grin of a man knowing far more of the appointment than he is letting on.

This is quickly found by Nicholas as his job is at a horrible boarding school. His slight hint of warmth is even found questionable as Ralph subjects his niece to a creepathon in a dinner with a group of older men. Plummer showing that Ralph is perhaps the greatest creep of all as he presents Ralph as man unable to exactly interact with his niece that isn't somewhat questionable. Plummer plays this particularly well in he presents it as almost the man isn't quite aware of his own perhaps lecherous desire. This as he speaks with a calm support and apology to her, yet his eyes speak as though he is living within some sick fantasy. Plummer making for quite the horrible villain, though in the best ways, and quite frankly makes Ebenezer Scrooge look like a nice chap, even before he is reformed. Plummer though excels here in finding variety within the blunt villainy of the character. This as a moment where one of his clients comes to Ralph over his horrible treatment of niece and nephew. Plummer starting the scene with the smug assurance of a man whose always got what he's wanted and everything seemingly has gone his way. He's effortless though in the switch, and properly horrible still in the sheer disbelief when he sense the man has any distaste for his cruel actions. Plummer's face of being taken aback is properly cathartic, but also so effectively shows the nature of the man's state as he is so shaken by any disruption of his financial control. Plummer is just a delicious dastardly fiend here, in just with such confidence portraying the man's cruel nature with such ease. This again though with a delightful nuance for the material, for example finding humor in reacting to the rather grotesque bad boarding school master with a combination of withdrawn disgust hidden by a phony courteousness for a man he wishes to use against his nephew, this in contrast to another moment of so specifically altering his voice to the coldest tone when speaking of his most hated nephew. Plummer is fantastic here in making the most out of any given scene by never taking a single path in revealing Ralph's villainy.

Now as much as Plummer makes for a great miser villain here, I probably wouldn't even be mentioning this performance it were not for the climax of the film. The climax of this film following Nicholas as he uncovers some secret for a final confrontation with Ralph, where all is revealed in a classic novel serial style fashion. This also where he gets sort of his Scrooge moment, this in facing his past, though not through supernatural means but rather just Nicholas revealing an important thing about Ralph's past. Now before even this we do have a certain descent as everything is going against Ralph largely due to his questionable ways. This within just a great moment where we see Ralph alone reacting to his change in fortunes. It is satisfying in the sense of the man losing that smug confidence, but there is something more within his work. Again Plummer's performance grants something more intimate within the miser a real pathos even in the moment of the man facing ruin, a humanity within the pathetic reaction. Although he doesn't make you sympathize with Ralph in the moment, he so artfully elevates the potential archetype through the degree of depth of his portrayal. That is but a warm up for the revelation scene. The revelation being initially of a secret marriage of Ralph's that resulted in a son who was said to be sickly. Plummer's performance is outstanding in this scene, and really earned largely through even that greater nuance within his portrayal of the generally evil character we found in the rest of the film. This as even mentioning the marriage it is with a quiet recognized regret on Plummer's brow, however a greater somberness is revealed as he notes the death of his son as broken hearted father. A broken heart though long ago. As the story goes on though it is revealed the boy had lived for some time, and it is revealed to have been in fact a boy at the bad boarding school who had become best friends with Nicholas. Plummer's face filling with a dread as he grants such palatable emotion in the moment of Ralph recognizing that he had earlier sabotaged his own son to try to get to get Nicholas, having not known he was his son, though in turn perhaps helping to the early demise of the boy. Although this is not the redemption of Scrooge, Plummer is heartbreaking in that sense in revealing the moment of revelation that does create a change in the man. This in revealing the heart of the man only within sorrow. Plummer's work in this scene is astonishing at times as his expression not only shows the sense of regret but also in his eyes, the sense of man whose long held reality is shattering through these words. This with even though a moment of calling back to the potential love for his wife, and son, that is so beautifully performed as Plummer looks upon the boy's bed with a sense of love wrapped within despair. Plummer realizing his own Scrooge like change, though this time not for a man to renew his life but rather gives into his death. Although overall I'd call the film overall as just fine, Plummer goes above and beyond in his performance here. This by creating both a proper Dicksonian villain but also a genuinely tragic fool.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Leandro Firmino in City of God

Leandro Firmino did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Li'l Zé in City of God.

City of God is the excellent film that follows the lives of children as they become young men in a slum.

One of the risks City of God takes is that  director Fernando Meirelles used almost entirely a cast of non-professional actors. I'll say this is always a risk, and often times even when it is successful there can be certain sort of traits of such an ensemble. This even in better ones there can be some very obvious off-moments, or more often sort of a lack of risk taking within the performances. City of God is notable then, in that I wouldn't have guessed this cast, other than the child performers I suppose, were non-professional from the start, and even with the child actors I wouldn't have been surprised if they had prior experience. The film lacks any of those qualities within the cast. Now the film is largely an ensemble, the pseudo lead is Rocket (Alexandre Rodrigues), who we see go from a child to an adult trying to make it as a photographer. His story is very much parallel to the more tumultuous action, where he typically is only an observer of the criminal underworld of the slum. Within the underworld there is a vast array of characters we find, some with little vignettes many with more. The one with the strongest perspective being Li'l Zé, who we first meet as an overly ambitious child criminal. A child criminal who cuts his teeth by committing a robbery and even killing/leading to the deaths of sort of the old guard of wannabe hoods. This switching over to his adult life, in turn switching from the child actor Douglas Silva to Leandro Firmino, in a particularly memorable montage of Li'l's coup de grace's on his victims as he ages into the fierce gang leader who will dictate so much of the story going forward. 

Firmino opens with that image of his face already of a performer you wouldn't guess that this is first film. This in the confidence in a sense of portraying the overt psychopathy in the moment of his smile brimming with glee. This portraying L'il as a man who doesn't shoot for the sake of it, he shoots for the love of it. We find L'il quickly making massive expansion as it jumps into the young adult lives of the central characters, where L'il Zé and his more balanced partner Benny (Phellipe Haagensen), have almost completely taken over the slums in terms of the criminal underworld. Firmino's performance again suggests such a strict confidence that is ideal for L'il as we see him as a man in the criminal world. This both in the ease he brings to the threats of violent L'il will so easily dispense with a human life if he decides he needs to or he for the fun of it, but also through the sense of the man as a boss in the criminal underworld. Firmino speaks with that same ease as he commands one thing another. I particularly love his bravado when he acts more like a king than a gangster when letting someone go, or making a particular grandiose declaration. Firmino brings the right bluster in granting the sense of this delusion of grandeur within L'il Zé who believes himself to be more than just a criminal within the slum, but rather this lord of it whose laws must be obeyed. This in a particularly horrifying scene where Li'l orders the shooting and killing of a few child thieves he feels has broken his orders for the slum. Again Firmino's performance creates a chilling quality in the manner in which Li'l so easily speaks his order, but even more so does it as though he is treating the situation like he is punishing a trespasser not ordering the death of a child. Their unopposed reign leads Benny to expand his horizons while L'il stays the same, and here Firmino excels in showing a different side to the man, in his complete failure to thrive outside of the criminal life. This as we see, by Benny's mocking, his first attempt to try to pick up a woman. Firmino is excellent in the moment by bringing a hint of vulnerability as makes these attempts. This in his eyes suggesting a genuine desire but also important hesitation of a man who really doesn't know what to do, but wants to do. When rejected though he doesn't deal with it, or attempt to better himself, we rather see the worst of L'il again. This in Firmino portraying the man falling upon what he knows in violence and again with the needed visceral edge to the sheer cruelty of the man. This again we a zero sense of remorse within his murders of others in his quest that soon becomes a rivalry about his failures with women as it does his actual criminal enterprise. Even in this downward spiral he effective balances the sides of the man, this in the moments of reminded of his inadequacy with find just the humorless killer, however whenever given the change to prop himself up based on his criminal work, we see such joy within Firmino's work. A man portraying this unearned pride in every moment to the point of loving to pose for pictures as though he is an egotistical celebrity rather than a brutal killer. Firmino's work here is one of the greatest successes of the film's risk regarding its casting. You'd never second guess his work here, as he gives a wholly captivating portrayal of tyrant, though a tyrant of a slum.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Brendan Fraser in The Quiet American

Brendan Fraser did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Alden Pyle in The Quiet American.

I must admit I always liked Brendan Fraser. One of the very the era specific leading men of the late 90's and early 2000's. Now he's an actor who wasn't always in the best roles, in fact many of his roles are quite silly, but I have to admit I liked him even in those often silly roles. Fraser, despite being disparaged by some perhaps for this very reason, I felt really had an old school earnest quality in his presence as an actor. This making him seems perhaps odd, though in fact ideal, casting for one of his strictly dramatic roles in this film. Although overall the film focuses on the British journalist Thomas Fowler (Michael Caine), within Vietnam during the war though while France tried to maintain the power structure there, the real focal point in a way is Brendan Fraser's Pyle who is the titular character, though not the leading character. We open with the film actually finding out Pyle has been murdered, and from there we are then following basically Fowler's relationship with Pyle as we uncover who this "quiet American" is. This though in the initial meeting we see the intelligence of this casting as Fraser could be any ole' Fraser role as Caine's Fowler meets a somewhat silly looking American sticking out like a sore thumb within Vietnam.

Fraser's typical eagerness is found here and is ideal in painting our perspective of Pyle, just as it does Fowler's, as this generally affable if unassuming man. Fraser brings a very low key charm and seeming naivety towards the role early on. This with a believable earnest quality as he speaks to Fowler with sincerity and is surprised to hear a grenade explosion soon afterwards. Fraser creates an easy likability to Pyle even if he seems ill-fitting to his placement within Vietnam, though one seemingly shouldn't be concerned as he claims to be there for medical purposes only. This to the point that early on as Pyle to Fowler's Vietnamese mistress Phuong, one can believe Fowler's initial near lack of reaction as Fraser presents a distinct purity of interest through that specific charm of his. Fraser makes Pyle more than anything seemingly just a perhaps slightly out of his element yet just generally charming fellow who one shouldn't worry too much about. His chemistry with Caine in this is particularly important as he always does greet him with an honest smile as just a genuine friend. There are important moments though that Fraser effectively uses early on to really give us the truth of Pyle earlier though painting in a way that you don't really give him a second thought. This as he speaks to the philosophy of a third force in Vietnam to essentially take power. Fraser delivers these words though of just a school boys sort of interest in a fascinating concept, and doesn't raise any alarms in Fowler, nor the viewer.

The nature of the man reveals itself more after Fowler visits a Vietnamese General, who may be making a 3rd force, and on his way home Pyle takes a ride with him. The two avoid a seeming assassination attempt and within that sequence Fraser is terrific as there is a snap switch in his performance that creates an instant different agency within the man, but also an intensity. The intensity he brings the moment that is a bit startling initially as the affable Fraser naturally performs this switch to seemingly allude to another nature to Pyle. Again though we see Pyle essential reset himself and the constant state of the man Fraser presents is as the "quiet American". This just with that low key charm, even as the two men eventually battle over Phuong, Fraser's presents Pyle's manner even in this as courteous and gentlemanly with that overt sincerity once again. What Fraser does here is honestly realize proper operator and essentially a spy in Alden Pyle. This as one watching Fraser in his typical manner doesn't take second note other than an overly eager yet unassuming man. What is so remarkable is the revelation that Fraser realizes. Again as related to that philosophy of the third force that Pyle takes any action to support, even if it means support civilian bombings to create a public fervor. Fraser's work is terrific as he successfully rips off the cloak with such an ease. This in revealing a much darker figure in manner and again that intensity seen in the earlier scene coming fully out as a man with determined and violent purpose. Fraser's performance utilizes his own presence to create the false image of Pyle, yet makes a notable impact by subverting that presence by effectively revealing the darker side of the character. Although most coming into the film initially might've second guessed casting Fraser in this role, I'd say this is just about perfect casting as he truly embodies both the falsehood and the truth of his character.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Timothy Spall in All or Nothing

Timothy Spall did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Phil in All or Nothing.

All or Nothing is more mid-tier Mike Leigh, in that while it doesn't feel aimless like the least of his efforts it doesn't quite find that cathartic rhythm of his best work, about 3 working class families that live in the same apartment complex.

Frequent Leigh collaborator Timothy Spall returns once again to play a technical patriarch as he had done in Secrets & Lies. This man though not exactly living his best life, but you know I'd feel the same way if James Corden was my son (okay that was a bit cruel but so was his performance in Cats). This as we find him in the first half of the film slogging through his life as a not particularly invigorated cab driver, who is the husband of the similarly downtrodden Penny (Lesley Manville) with two young adult children who live with them. Spall's performance in the early scenes of the film is a man in basically a depressive haze. Spall's quite powerful in fashioning just the way the man just is always looking almost like a beaten hound dog with his shrunken expression, and the way he always seems to look away from any conflict. This as we see as his wife attempts to speak to her son their son who is an overweight layabout, we Spall just staring with that same somberness. Later Phil does attempt to get his son to do anything and he speaks with just a meek sense of defeat even before one word comes out of his mouth. Spall realizing a man in Phil he basically has become stuck within this state, and has been brought down within it for a long time. This as even as he drives his cab it is with eyes of a man somewhat lost within those perpetual troubles that are sitting within his mind.

Spall most important moment in the first half of the film is when he has a conversation with an initially rude French costumer who berates him for his carelessness. Eventually the conversation turns towards a more positive note. Spall is wonderful in he is able to combine a dreariness with an affable quality. This as he has a sincerity in his still so modest way of speaking in the conversation though there is a positive spirit as the costumer seems to show a genuine interest. When pressed about his personal experience with his wife, and the love of their relationship though, Spall's voice falls further into that sorrow of the man. This to the point that after that Phil drives towards nothingness for awhile, this while his son suffers a non-fatal heart attack. Spall is exceptional in the scene of bringing such an honest reality to someone trying to escape his for a moment. This as we see Phil just go drive to the coast and away from it all. There Spall brings an unsentimental moment of a man trying and really failing to find happiness, and instead stuck still in that glare of depression. This coming to a head in the film's second half where Phil and his family take more closely center stage. This as his wife Penny derides him for trying to escape work seemingly and taking so long to react to his son's condition. Spall moment of finally breaking from internalized depression to it externalized is simply incredible. This as it isn't angry it is just a desperate statement of his depression in his anguish in every word as he speaks of his wife's treatment of him, but more so his fear that she no longer loves him. Spall in every moment, as he still looks away, and speaks still so modestly even when heightened, finds such a genuine vulnerability in every second of his speech. A speech that evokes basically a complete hopelessness. Penny though reacts though with tenderness towards Phil, where as much as the two performers so effectively portrayed that state of deterioration, that are as effective in the moment of just sincere warmth between them. This allowing for an earned final scene of the two visiting their son who is recovering. Both don't suddenly change the people entirely rather we just see just the same people with a hope and a happiness in the moment. Spall's little smile still isn't big, but all the sweeter in a way as it feels so authentic in the man he showed us throughout the rest of the film. This earning this change even with the transition as brief as it is. Spall's performance being again just a powerful modest work ideal for the approach of Mike Leigh.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002

And the Nominees Were Not:

Christopher Plummer in Nicholas Nickleby

Leandro Firmino in City of God

Brendan Fraser in The Quiet American

Marcel Iures in Hart's War

Timothy Spall in All or Nothing

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Results

5. Richard Gere in Chicago- Gere throws himself completely into the role which certainly offers some entertainment even if he over does it at some points.

Best Scene: Give em the old razzle dazzle.

4. Dennis Quiad in Far From Heaven- Quiad is somewhat restricted by the writing of his character but he excels in his portrayal of a very repressed man.

Best Scene: Frank tells his wife about his early vacation.

3. Andy Serkis in The Two Towers- Serkis creates a unique and very interesting character through his portrayal Gollum and his multiple personalities.

Best Scene: Smeagol and Gollum face off.

2. Robin Williams in Insomnia- Robin Williams gives probably his best performance giving a chilling performance as a killer who seems absolutely genuine in his innocence even while admitting he is completely guilty.

Best Scene: Walter Finch tells why he murdered the girl. 

1. Bernard Hill in The Two Towers- This is another very personal choice but I love Bernard Hill's work in the Two Towers. He takes a character that could have been a complete throwaway but instead brings such humanity and power into his role of King Théoden.

Best Scene: King Théoden mourns his son.

Overall Rank:

1. Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York
2. Bernard Hill in The Two Towers
3. Christopher Walken in Catch Me If You Can
4. Robin Williams in Insomnia
5. Christopher Plummer in Nicholas Nickleby
6. Paul Newman in Road to Perdition
7. Tom Hanks in Catch Me If You Can
8. Brendan Gleeson in 28 Days Later 
9. Andy Serkis in The Two Towers
10. Brian Murray in Treasure Planet
11. Leandro Firmino in City of God
12. Brendan Fraser in The Quiet American
13. Timothy Spall in All or Nothing
14. Jude Law in Road to Perdition
15. Daniel Craig in Road to Perdition 
16. Brendan Gleeson in Gangs of New York  
17. Tony Leung in Hero
18. Tom Courtenay in Nicholas Nickleby
19. Chris Cooper in Adaptation
20. Min Tanaka in The Twilight Samurai 
21. Forrest Whitaker in Panic Room
22. Thomas Kretschmann in The Pianist
23. Sean Astin in The Two Towers
24. Dennis Quaid in Far From Heaven 
25. Willem Dafoe in Auto Focus 
26. Alan Arkin in 13 Conversations About One Thing 
27. Tatusya Mihashi in Dolls
28. Gabriel Byrne in Spider
29. Matthew McConaughey in Frailty
30. Barry Pepper in 25th Hour 
31. Christopher Lee in The Two Towers 
32. Ralph Waite in Sunshine State
33. John C. Reilly in Gangs of New York
34. Seu Jorge in City of God 
35. Benedict Wong in Dirty Pretty Things
36. Stephen Dillane in The Hours 
37. Philip Seymour Hoffman in Punch-Drunk Love 
38. Eric Tsang in Infernal Affairs 
39. Brian Cox in 25th Hour 
40. Ralph Fiennes in Red Dragon
41. J.K. Simmons in Spider-Man 
42. Philip Seymour Hoffman in 25th Hour 
43. Cliff Robertson in Spider-Man 
44. Anthony Wong in Infernal Affairs
45. Brian Cox in Adaptation 
46. John C. Reilly in Chicago
47. Ed Harris in Buffalo Soldiers
48. Powers Boothe in Frailty
49. Liev Schreiber in The Sum of All Fears 
50. Phellipe Haagensen in City of God 
51. Scott Glenn in Buffalo Soldiers
52. Brad Dourif in The Two Towers  
53. Douglas Silva in City of God 
54. Mekhi Phifer in 8 Mile
55. Kenneth Branagh in Rabbit-Proof Fence
56. Nathan Lane in Nicholas Nickleby
57. Anthony Hopkins in Red Dragon
58. George Clooney in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind 
59. Jim Broadbent in Gangs of New York 
60. Marcel Iures in Hart's War
61. Ian McKellen in The Two Towers  
62. David Gulpilil in Rabbit-Proof Fence
63. Matheus Nachtergaele in City of God
64. Jamie Bell in Nicholas Nickleby
65. Sean Bean in The Two Towers
66. Willem Dafoe in Spider-Man 
67. Dwight Yoakam in Panic Room
68. Dennis Haysbert in Far From Heaven
69. Max von Sydow in Minority Report
70. Joaquin Phoenix in Signs
71. Denzel Washington in Antwone Fisher
72. Liam Neeson in Gangs of New York 
73. Michael Byrne in The Sum of All Fears
74. Stanley Tucci in Road to Perdition 
75. Richard Harris in The Count of Monte Cristo
76. Ciarian Hinds in The Sum of All Fears
77. Timothy Spall in Nicholas Nickleby
78. Billy Boyd in The Two Towers 
79. Richard Harris in The Chamber of Secrets
80. Frank Finlay in The Pianist
81. Noah Huntley in 28 Days Later
82. Kenneth Branagh in The Chamber of Secrets 
83. David Wenham in The Two Towers 
84. Rutger Hauer in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
85. Christopher Lee in Attack of the Clones
86. Richard Gere in Chicago 
87. Nikolaj Lie Kaas in Open Hearts 
88. Barry Pepper in We Were Soldiers
89. Bruce Willis in Hart's War 
90. Harvey Keitel in Red Dragon
91. Brian Cox in The Bourne Identity
92. Luiz Guzman in Punch-Drunk Love 
93. Terence Howard in Hart's War
94. Michael Wincott in The Count of Monte Cristo
95. Matthew McConaughey in 13 Conversations About One Thing
96. Jared Leto in Panic Room
97. Sergei Lopez in Dirty Pretty Things
98. Philip Seymour Hoffman in Red Dragon
99. Jason Isaacs in The Chamber of Secrets 
100. Colin Farrell in Minority Report   
101. Alfred Molina in Frida 
102. Chris Cooper in The Bourne Identity
103. James Cromwell in The Sum of All Fears
104. John C. Reilly in The Hours 
105. Michael Shannon in 8 Mile
106. Rupert Grint in The Chamber of Secrets
107. Morgan Freeman in The Sum of All Fears
108. John Rhys-Davies in The Two Towers
109. Jeremy Irons in The Time Machine 
110. Peter Stormare in Minority Report
111. Alan Bates in Sum of All Fears 
112. Orland Bloom in The Two Towers  
113. John Turturro in 13 Conversations About One Thing
114. Dominic Monaghan in The Two Towers
115. Karl Urban in The Two Towers
116. Tom Wilkinson in The Importance of Being Earnest 
117. Jeremy Davies in Secretary
118. Guy Pearce in The Count of Monte Cristo
119. Gary Cole in One Hour Photo
120. Tim Blake Nelson in Minority Report 
121. Henry Cavill in The Count of Monte Cristo
122. Christopher Eccleston in 28 Days Later
123. James Franco in Spider-Man 
124. Jeff Goldblum in Igby Goes Down
125. Henry Thomas in Gangs of New York 
126. Luis Guzman in the Count of Monte Cristo
127. Rory Culkin in Signs 
128. Orlando Jones in The Time Machine 
129. Martin Sheen in Catch Me If You Can
130. John Noble in The Two Towers
131. Geoffrey Rush in Frida 
132. Ed Harris in The Hours
133. Jared Harris in Igby Goes Down
134. Olivier Martinez in Unfaithful
135. Rip Torn in Men in Black 2 
136. David Hyde Pierce in Treasure Planet
137. Tony Siragusa in 25th Hour
138. Dermot Mulroney in About Schmidt
139. Dylan Smith in One Hour Photo
140. Michael Madsen in Die Another Day
141. Howard Hesseman in About Schmidt
142. Toby Stephens in Die Another Day
143. Eric Lloyd in The Santa Clause 2
144. Johnny Knoxville in Men in Black 2 
145. Ryan Phillipe in Igby Goes Down
146. Rick Yune in Die Another Day
147. Martin Short in Treasure Planet
148. Rob Schneider in Mr. Deeds

Next Year: 1950 lead

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Richard Gere in Chicago

Richard Gere did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning the Golden Globe and being nominated for Sag, for portraying Billy Flynn in Chicago. 

Although Billy Flynn is the largest male role in Chicago I don't consider him lead and watching it again only supported my thoughts why. Flynn is almost always viewed through Roxie(Renee Zellweger)'s perspective and even in the one scene where he is not interestingly John C. Reilly actually gets the focus. Gere though does have a very showy part though because of this, and the whole idea is we only ever see Flynn as the hot shot lawyer who is much more of showman than a proper legal consultant. This pretty much means that Gere's point throughout the film is pretty much just to be on the entire time and try to be entertaining as possible while Flynn goes about making Roxie a media darling as well as get her off her murder rap.

 I will start with what I think Gere does do right which is that he seems to be enjoying himself a great deal throughout the film, and particularly all of his musical numbers. This is a very nice variation of things when compared to the oddly grim faces often displayed by Catherin Zeta-Jones and Zellweger. Gere always does bring a nice light touch and a lot of energy into all of scenes. His singing voice not be amazing, but even so he always still seems to bring everything he has to every number anyway. He is always definitely trying to be entertaining though of course how much enjoyment your going to get from the performance does depend a great deal of how much you like Richard Gere as an actor to begin with.

Well I personally I'm just not that crazy about Gere to being with. He is an actor with charisma, but he does not always use the charisma in the very best of ways. He often just kind of has rather than really infusing it into a role to do something really special. More than that though I do feel that Billy Flynn simply could have been a more entertaining character, and I do think maybe the character could have made the film far more enjoyable than it ended up being. He could have been more than just a scene stealer and maybe could have  made scenes work purely from his presence. I will admit that is a tall order, and Gere doesn't quite meet, this challenge sometimes falling quite short even bordering a little on being a bit hammy.

Richard Gere's work does not reach the heights that he potentially could have in the role of Billy Flynn as it does seem the type part is ripe to steal the whole film with which he does not do. I don't think that Gere fails though in his role either. He does offer some entertainment through his method of just throwing himself into every scene for better or worse. This technique is a two edged sword as it does mean he is one of the bright spots of the film as he does go in all or nothing, but this also is what makes him maybe go just step too much in various moments during the course of the film when his face might just seem a little too knowing for his own good. A mixed bag for sure but I will credit Gere for giving his all even if that might not have been quite enough and just a little too much at the same time. 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Robin Williams in Insomnia

Robin Williams did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Walter Finch in Insomnia.

Insomnia is about a homicide detective under investigation by internal affairs Will Dormer (Al Pacino) who is sent to Alaska to investigate the murder of a local teen while he plagued by guilt and the inability to sleep due to the midnight sun. It's an effective thriller even though it unfortunately has Hillary Swank in it who should only be cast in very rare circumstances. 

In 2002 Robin Williams rejected his standard on screen persona with his startling but sympathetic turn in One Hour Photo and in Insomnia. Williams again is playing against his usual type once again, and like One Hour Photo he does not even give a hint of his comedic work. As with many films where the killer is a mystery at least at first, and a famous actor has yet to make his appearance it is fairly safe to assume that he is going to be the killer. Insomnia actually pretty much takes this as a given as the first we even know of Williams it is hearing his voice revealing that he is the killer to Pacino's character. This actually is a pretty interesting way to introduce the character that might have not worked if it wasn't Williams's familiar voice over the phone.

Even though it is only his voice Williams makes a strong impact to begin with with his eerily calm delivery as he speaks. Finch isn't calling Dormer to turn himself in nor is he calling in the often used villain calling the hero routine but rather to make a deal as Finch was a witness to Dormer shooting and killing his partner. William's performance is very interesting in that even his voice is strangely calm there is nothing overtly evil about it either. He finds such startling tone for just his manner in which Finch talks that instantly makes him a fascinating character before we have even met him as Williams opens up with a mystery of this man only leaving us to what to know exactly what is behind the man who speaks in such a gentle way about his murder.

When Dormer finally meets Finch face to face Williams does not disappoint. His Finch is very different from his Sy in One Hour Photo even though it might seem like Williams might tread a little water in his performance but he does not. As Finch there is not anything that would make you instantly pinpoint him as a murderer at least in his style. He is again technically a lonely man, but in this case a very different sort of lonely man. Unlike in his leading work from this year Williams portrays the man who is all alone with a great degree of contentment most of the time. Williams doesn't make Finch seem desperate in any way, and part of what makes this performance so effective is that Williams does not plays Finch as the aggressive killer instead creates a more complex portrait.

When Finch lays out his plans to Dormer which involve framing somewhat else for the murder there is something so strange yet absolutely brilliant about Williams's performance. Everything that Finch lays out he words so nicely and puts it together like a set of plot points they both need to follow to make sure that they both escape any judgment. Why this is brilliant is that Finch himself is a mystery writer and Williams does two things by taking this approach. Firstly he shows that Finch has a certain ego in his writing so much that he will even keep using the writer's lingo and keep a distance even though he is the killer. Secondly though he suggests the way Finch has become since the murder and although it is his very first and now that he can view himself away from it that he could very easily become a serial killer due to his changed nature.

A particularly interesting thing that Williams does here is dominate his scenes with Pacino even though Dormer is the far more volatile one of the two. What Williams does though is basically create the dominance through an odd complacency. As they set up the plan Finch always urges on Dormer one way or another to follow his plan exactly. Williams does this with this odd charisma as even when he is insulted he barely bats an eye always gently pushing his ideas over Dormer's objections. There is also something else there as Finch consistently praises Dormer and his profession as well as trying to convince Dormer to go along with him as a way to do the right thing. Williams is amazing because it is impossible to tell whether he is being genuine in this praise and it comes off as just the easiest way for Finch to control Dormer all the more.

Williams's very best scene is when he tells Dormer about what exactly happened when he killed the girl. Williams lets go ever so slightly of the writer making his own story in this scene, although only ever so slightly. It is a very strange scene but testament to how good Williams is here as he makes you actually sympathize with Finch even though all he is doing is admitting he killed the girl. Again there is something else though as Williams brings just the smallest hint of a seething emotion under neath Finch's almost cherub like smile, and lets onto to where the extreme hatred came from that came when he killed the girl. This scene is incredible moment for Williams because even as he makes Finch seem like a man who did kill by accident what he actually is doing at the same time is showing how Finch is truly reprehensible as he has become a man who can completely rationalize his brutal murder. 

I think Robin Williams probably should contractually obligated to play a potential psychopath as he quite good at it, and it is quite an achievement that he doesn't repeat himself at all in his two portrayals of that sort from 2002. Williams pretty much makes every move you would not expect from Robin Williams playing a psychopathic murderer. In that he downplays everything evil about his character even though it is something that always within his characterization nevertheless. One of my favorite scenes that I think sums up the effectiveness of Williams's performance is late in the film as he and Dormer seem to have fixed everything up just right for themselves. Finch once again plays the nice man saying everything Dormer did was the right thing to do, and Williams is able to be honest with this sentiment even while he actually is not. That dynamic though makes Walter Finch such a chilling character though when he says that he will wrap everything up. Williams in his face gives the face of a man just giving a little bit of comfort, but in his eyes he is man who leaves the possibility that this wrap up probably will mean at least writing just one more murder in to end his story.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Dennis Quaid in Far From Heaven

Dennis Quaid did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a Golden Globe, a Sag, and being nominated for and winning several critic awards including the NYFCC, for portraying Frank Whitaker in Far From Heaven.

Far From Heaven is an interesting experiment at recreating the look and feel of a 50's melodrama although it deals directly with its topics rather than alluding to them. The only problem with this for me is that I never really cared for 50's melodramas, and as well I think it missteps somewhat in its partial attempt to replicate the style of the performances in that era.

Dennis Quaid actually has nothing really to do with the style found in some of the other performances in the film and pretty much tries for a realistic approach in his character. Quaid plays Frank the husband of Julianne Moore's Cathy Whitaker and the father of the children. They seem the ideal enough suburban household of the fifties except there is a severe problem in that Frank is a repressed homosexual who early on the film secretly attempts to find liaisons for himself which most often result in him being caught. Unlike many portrayals of gay characters Quaid in no way uses any mannerisms in his portrayal which makes absolute sense because he is playing someone who on the surface should at least seem just like any normal family man from the period. 

Although I know many love this performance I do not have quite the same appreciation for it as I feel Quaid's role is used as more of a plot point to Moore's central storyline muting the impact of Quaid's work somewhat. This is not at all Quaid's fault but it does set some limitations to his portrayal making his character not nearly as interesting as he could have been. What we see of Frank are really glimpses of his moments. We never really see the details, and no I don't mean the sex scenes. What I mean is we see the beginning and the end only of each part of his story. We see him look for liaisons, but then instantly only see the result of them. We see him hear about the therapy but we see none of it. We see him go back to his old ways at the end, but then we instantly see him having accepted himself fully.

What Quaid is left with are the glimpses of the man rather than the whole, but to Quiad's credit I did want to see the whole instead. Quaid is effective in the glimpses. In any of his scenes seeking liaisons they are almost entirely silent which Quaid works well with. Quaid always supports that Frank is a man of the time still no matter what, and even as he is doing something looked very much down upon he will still fulfill his role. Quaid is very good in this as Frank does keep himself within his structures even as he is breaking them, and Quaid leaves the desires in Frank subtle but known. Quaid brings across the repression with the right internalized intensity. Even when Frank seems the ideal man Quaid has the other element always present, but often only there if you look closely.

Quaid's work ends up being really episodic because we don't get the transitions instead we get the results.  Credit goes to Quaid though for realizing each of these moments the best he can and firmly in the character of Frank. Even when he laments his existence where he fights his repression with alcohol Quaid even as he breaks down still keeps that repression even within the scene. It is an interesting scenes as Quaid portrays Frank fighting against himself during the whole time, and leaving himself as nothing more than a bit of a confused mess. Due keeping the character always in this framework it is utterly fitting in the scene where Frank becomes angry over the rumors of Cathy's relationship with the black gardener as again Quaid shows Frank always keeping his role even if he hates that role.

This is a strong piece of work by Dennis Quaid in his creation of Frank, and it only helps that he doesn't go for any of the over the top moments so often in equivalent characters from the 50's. I do have my reservations in that I do think this could have been something absolutely incredible even Frank received much more focus and his arc consisted of more than just the base and then the peak in terms of every point of his story. I won't blame Quaid as that has absolutely nothing to do with him, instead I will credit him in giving striking portrait of Frank even within the sometimes extreme limitations put upon him, and I do believe that Quaid only would have been better if there was more material for him as he excels with what he has.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Bernard Hill in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Bernard Hill did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying King Théoden in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

I found when re-watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy that the first two films have one character each whose performance I really took for granted the first time I watched the films, but I have come to really appreciate for the depth they bring to their parts. The first film had Sean Bean as Boromir who turned what could have been just a one note bully to a tragic portrait of patriot brought down by his own devotion to his country. The third film perhaps could have had a performance like this in John Noble's Denethor, but the writing of the character and Noble's performance really leave a lot to be desired. I have to admit now that I made a mistake listing Noble far too high in my ranking for the supporting actors of 2003 as I wrongfully blamed only the writing, but really Noble is all over the place in his characterization and really overplays his role.

Now how about the second film though. The second film follows the very strings of the story, but the one that actually gets the most focus depicts Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), and Legolas (Orlando Bloom) as they attempt to help the human kingdom of Rohan fight against the evil hordes of Orcs brought down upon them by the evil wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee). A central figure in this story is that of the King of Rohan Théoden. Although to be sure he isn't at first when he is a slightly moving corpse who basically just gives out orders to make it so his own kingdom will fail since he is under the control of Saruman. Hill does not have much to do in these brief scenes for sure, but he certainly gets his chance to shine once Théoden regains control of himself.

When a King is a supporting character in a film they often are rather simplistic characters either being just kind of simple higher up good guys or bad guys. Bernard Hill deserve a great deal of credit for really making an honest character out of Théoden not just a place holder for power. Hill's work is one that I only appreciate more on additional viewings of this film as he brings so much to this part. What Hill does in the part is create the King as a real man, and what really what there is to the King as whole. When he regains his power it is a great scene for Hill as he goes from the living corpse to the King once more. It is a great scene because Hill naturally infuses into the part the inner strength and really the majesty there should be within a great King.

Of course immediately after that scene where Hill set up the strength of the King the tone quickly changes when Théoden asks to see his son who has recently been killed. Hill has a difficult scene as we did not know the son in any way and we just met Théoden so it very well could have fallen flat, but Hill absolutely delivers in the scene importantly bringing a great humanity to his role. It is a incredible scene not only due to Hill's heartbreaking reaction as he grieves over the death of his son, but as well in this brings a great deal of emotional weight to what will come through Hill's portrayal of Théoden feelings toward the conflict as the whole. There is such a haunting quality Hill brings as he regrets being the one who lives as the young dies and the world around him seems to be turning to darkness.

Hill continues to excel in the role by bringing depth to the part that very easily could have been overlooked. When Théoden makes his decision for his people to whole in the fortification of Helm's Deep this is not a decision that is just there to make the plot move forward rather Hill offers far more in the part realizing the duties of the King in his portrayal. These are not just skimmed over in an improper fashion by Hill he brings a great deal of heart in his performance and Hill always shows the devotion in Théoden to the welfare of his people. There is never a moment where the idea of being the King is that of just being a man of power to have power, what Hill really brings to life is the idea of the responsibility of the power, and Hill expresses this through his portrayal which is commanding yet always carries a certain empathy as well.

When Hill is the most important is in the central set piece of the film which is the battle of Helm's deep. With Mortensen needing to play the role of pretty much the leading action star and Bloom and Rhys-Davies being the killing machine comic reliefs it leaves Hill to be the one to to express what the battle really means throughout its course. Where as soon as the battle begins the others stay fairly consistent in manner Hill is excellent as he portrays the experience of the King in his battle that will either save or destroy his Kingdom. Hill is spellbinding in a scene just before the battle as Théoden asks one of his men if he will follow him to whatever end the battle might bring. Hill's expression conveys the heavy burden responsibility in Théoden, a doubt if he is worthy of such loyalty, and the fear of what may come from his leadership.

As the battle proceeds Hill acts as the face of the reality of the situation and is very effective as his honest portrayal of what the King goes through the experience of the decisive battle. At first with the hesitations but he moves toward confidence as it seems the battle is in his favor. This does not last long though as the battle continues. Hill in every act of battle allows us to see the seriousness of the situation even as the others are jumping head first into crowds of enemies or surf boarding shields. Hill makes Théoden always brings the power alive and makes it more than just a series of action scenes. He always brings the meaning to the moments and is especially powerful at the end of the battle as Hill shows the way the length of the fight has worn down Théoden. This makes it all the more inspiring as Théoden makes one last charge against the enemy. It is an amazing scene for Hill as he brings out the final strength of the King as he makes one final attempt to personally save his people.

I suppose I am committing some serious blasphemy when I say that Andy Serkis's performance as Gollum is not my favorite performance in this film, but even though I like that performance my favorite performance in that film and my favorite of the whole trilogy actually is Hill's portrayal of King Théoden. I just love this portrayal of a character that could have been so easily just brushed aside or been just a pretty unremarkable character. Bernard Hill gives a great performance that doesn't simply any aspect of his performance making Théoden a fully fleshed character and a remarkable look into the mind of this King. Hill brings a true poignancy in his performance giving the gravitas needed for each of his scenes, and his delivery of Théoden's speeches are some of the best moments in the film.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Andy Serkis in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Andy Serkis did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Gollum/Smeagol in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

The Two Towers is the strong follow up to Fellowship of the Rings that basically depicts the separate journeys of the Fellowship members after they have disbanded.

Ah this performance one very often cited as an Academy oversight, although it was unlikely going to happen when the academy no doubt had a hard time understanding the idea of a motion capture performance, or at least refusal to recognize along with purely live action work. This was not just the academy's fault either though as the BFCA rewarded Serkis, but only after separating into a digital performance category where he was nominated along with Dobby and Yoda. BAFTA probably should have been ashamed though since they did not nominate Serkis here despite the fact that they nominated Eddie Murphy for his vocal performance in Shrek just a year earlier.

Well anyway what is there to a motion capture performance anyway? Obviously the voice work all belongs to Serkis that is a given, but then comes the controversy. Some, who probably haven't done a great deal of research in the matter, think it is all the computers and the animators at work. Of course then there is another party that pretty much says it is all Serkis which in itself is just a bit of an overstatement, but its true that the motion capture also allowed Serkis to portray what Gollum does in his face and in his physical movements. The reason I say its a bit of an overstatement though is if it was just Serkis in make up his eyes would not be nearly as large or quite as expressive, and digital artists did contribute to the character as well.

In some ways though this is a form of a very advance make up, and just as make up can aid an actor performance in some way this makes Gollum more of an otherworldly creature than he would have been if Serkis had just been covered in make up instead. Getting that rather heavy baggage out of the way how about I get to the actual performance now. Serkis plays Gollum the creature who has become warped from being the previous bearer of the evil ring of power which is now in the possession of Frodo (Elijah Wood) who wishes to destroy by going through the difficult path to Mordor along with his friend Sam (Sean Astin). Gollum appears the first time as he tries to steal the ring from them, but is quickly caught instead.

Much of what is important about Serkis's performance is his creation of Gollum as a character, and the split personality disorder that he clearly suffers from with the oppressive evil Gollum and the meek sympathetic Smeagol. Serkis is particularly impressive early on when the personalities come in and out almost at random. Serkis is effective in portraying the differences of the sides with the viciousness of his expressive and violent voice as Gollum balanced against the timid expression and the soft voice of Smeagol. What's most impressive is early on how Serkis comes in and out of the personalities randomly yet with a natural flow that makes Gollum's disorder particularly effective in both suggesting what the ring has done to him, but as well setting the tone for his character. 

Gollum ends up with a strange role as he is always a villain of sorts as he wants to steal the ring yet he ends up acting as the guide and almost the guardian to Frodo at the same. It would have been very easy to have gotten Gollum wrong making him too much of a joke, or just a one note creature. Serkis though honestly develops a character with Gollum and makes him the strange, but interesting presence he should be. He finds the right mix of the character from being the blunt guide of information, the sometimes even comic companion, but as well the volatile personality in which you can't quite know what to expect from him and stands as a threat even when it seems like he is trying to help. 

The transition Gollum has through the film actually is fairly blunt one in that the Smeagol personality takes over for quite some time in the film therefore Serkis stays with that character for some time until abuse causes the Gollum personality to come back. The major change is in the Smeagol personality and Serkis is very effective in his portrayal of Smeagol's take over as he finds the strength to overcome his weaknesses, but as well his later manner when he goes back to be subservient to the Gollum personality. His transition is relatively simple but Serkis handles it very well by being convincing through its entirety bringing Gollum naturally to the point of being a full on villain by the end of the film.

This obviously is not a traditional performance in a whole lot of ways, but Serkis should be given a great deal of credit for his memorable portrayal. He makes Gollum a unique creature through his distinct yet always natural feeling facial and physical manner as well as his voice that is just perfect in separating Gollum from all the other creatures found in the film. More than that though Serkis actually brings the right complexity in the part, and manages to mediate the different roles which Gollum fills in film with a terrific consistency. With a part that could have been completely obnoxious, or could have come off at quite a distant character due to the computer generated nature of the character Serkis achieves something rather special as he makes Gollum one of the most compelling characters in the film.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002

And the Nominees Were Not:

Andy Serkis in The Two Towers

Bernard Hill in The Two Towers

Dennis Quaid in Far From Heaven

Robin Williams in Insomnia

Richard Gere in Chicago