Michael Fassbender in Inglourious Basterds
Showing posts with label 2009 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2009 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Best Supporting Actor 2009: Results
Michael Fassbender in Inglourious Basterds
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Best Supporting Actor 2009: Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds
Christoph Waltz won his Oscar from his first nomination for portraying Colonel Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds.
Inglorious Basterds details various going ons in occupied Nazi France.
Christoph Waltz portrays the Nazi S.S. officer Hans Landa who has the nickname the "Jew Hunter" due to his ability to find Jewish people hiding from the Nazis. This is most certainly a juicy villain role that Waltz instantly sinks his teeth into his role from his first scene where he interrogates a French farmer about the whereabouts of a Jewish family who is believed to be in hiding. It is a long drawn out scene but Waltz is brilliant as he displays Hans Landa's unique character, as well as Hans' methods as a detective.
Christoph Waltz in this first scene shows an odd sort of charisma in his performance that is simply perfect for the role of Hans Landa. It is not that he makes Landa likable really but there is an undeniable magnetic quality to his performance. He dominates the screen in every scene showing Hans Landa to be a man who is always in charge no matter what the situation might be. Waltz amplifies Landa's power by always having the utmost assurance in his performance.
What I really like about his performance though is shown best in his first scene as he so well realizes the sophistication and intelligence in Landa. He is brilliant in simply the way he works through the scene as he kindly approaches the farmer with certainly with a sense of superiority, but with a certain gentleness and calmness. Underneath the calm exterior Waltz always shows Landa almost breaks down the farmer with his almost slight and only somewhat related questions.
It would have been exceedingly easy to handle this part of his performance incorrectly. The whole style of Landa frankly with just slight fault could have made his opening interrogation seem implausible. Waltz absolutely nails it an makes the interrogation appropriately intense. He is especially effective in his final scene where he shows the true business side of Landa which is chilling especially in contrast to his earlier approach. Waltz is brilliant leaving absolute no doubt about Landa's abilities.
Waltz actually is not in the film for a great deal of time after the first scene but his impact from his first scene is not forgotten for a moment making his time of return have the impact it should. He stands as a powerful presence through the whole second half of the film. Waltz not only manages to keep Landa an imposing figure in each of scenes. What really makes him threatening though is Waltz manages to keep Landa somewhat ambiguous in his exact motives.
The final scenes of his film there is a rather large decision made by Landa that really could have come across as rather far-fetched. Waltz though throughout managed to establish Landa as more than just an evil Nazi but rather a pompous superior opportunist making his final decisions completely logical in the end. Waltz manages to bring this depth to Landa with a great ease, despite the fact the film gives him only a little time to develop this facet of the character.
If one were to complain about this performance at all it would be he can be somewhat self indulgent in his delivery of the line "Bingo" but I would say that even that actually works within his characterization of Landa who is self indulgent in his belief in his own superiority. Waltz simply gives a great memorable villainous performance that manages to be both humorous and chilling, and succeeds with every single challenge found in the role.
Christoph Waltz portrays the Nazi S.S. officer Hans Landa who has the nickname the "Jew Hunter" due to his ability to find Jewish people hiding from the Nazis. This is most certainly a juicy villain role that Waltz instantly sinks his teeth into his role from his first scene where he interrogates a French farmer about the whereabouts of a Jewish family who is believed to be in hiding. It is a long drawn out scene but Waltz is brilliant as he displays Hans Landa's unique character, as well as Hans' methods as a detective.
Christoph Waltz in this first scene shows an odd sort of charisma in his performance that is simply perfect for the role of Hans Landa. It is not that he makes Landa likable really but there is an undeniable magnetic quality to his performance. He dominates the screen in every scene showing Hans Landa to be a man who is always in charge no matter what the situation might be. Waltz amplifies Landa's power by always having the utmost assurance in his performance.
What I really like about his performance though is shown best in his first scene as he so well realizes the sophistication and intelligence in Landa. He is brilliant in simply the way he works through the scene as he kindly approaches the farmer with certainly with a sense of superiority, but with a certain gentleness and calmness. Underneath the calm exterior Waltz always shows Landa almost breaks down the farmer with his almost slight and only somewhat related questions.
It would have been exceedingly easy to handle this part of his performance incorrectly. The whole style of Landa frankly with just slight fault could have made his opening interrogation seem implausible. Waltz absolutely nails it an makes the interrogation appropriately intense. He is especially effective in his final scene where he shows the true business side of Landa which is chilling especially in contrast to his earlier approach. Waltz is brilliant leaving absolute no doubt about Landa's abilities.
Waltz actually is not in the film for a great deal of time after the first scene but his impact from his first scene is not forgotten for a moment making his time of return have the impact it should. He stands as a powerful presence through the whole second half of the film. Waltz not only manages to keep Landa an imposing figure in each of scenes. What really makes him threatening though is Waltz manages to keep Landa somewhat ambiguous in his exact motives.
The final scenes of his film there is a rather large decision made by Landa that really could have come across as rather far-fetched. Waltz though throughout managed to establish Landa as more than just an evil Nazi but rather a pompous superior opportunist making his final decisions completely logical in the end. Waltz manages to bring this depth to Landa with a great ease, despite the fact the film gives him only a little time to develop this facet of the character.
If one were to complain about this performance at all it would be he can be somewhat self indulgent in his delivery of the line "Bingo" but I would say that even that actually works within his characterization of Landa who is self indulgent in his belief in his own superiority. Waltz simply gives a great memorable villainous performance that manages to be both humorous and chilling, and succeeds with every single challenge found in the role.
Best Supporting Actor 2009: Christopher Plummer in The Last Station
Christopher Plummer received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Leo Tolstoy in The Last Station.
The Last depicts the last year of Tolstoy's life and his conflict with his wife over who he chooses to leave his work and his possessions to.
Christopher Plummer although had a long career he was never nominated until portraying Tolstoy in this film. Tolstoy although should seem like a larger than life sort of role neither the film nor Plummer really play him as such. The film basically shows him to be almost a pawn in the middle between his followers lead by Chertkov (Paul Giamatti) and his wife Sophia (Helen Mirren). Plummer at the same time does not have any sort of overwhelming presence in the film.
Tolstoy should really seem like more than the way Plummer portrays him. After all Tolstoy apparently created such a group of followers who were very much devoted to him, but Plummer lacks the charisma one should expect from such a figure. There just is not any special way Plummer portrays the character to really make Tolstoy seem substantial and really he should have found some way to do this, but he never does anything to achieve this.
This is not to say Plummer is bad, he certainly show the emotions Tolstoy is going through over the course of the film from his anger to the film, to his amusement over his new protege, or his sort of depression at the end of the film when he finally chooses to follow his own path. Plummer has his small facial reactions his more jovial moments, and his yelling scenes with Mirren that I suppose are suitable enough but always seem far too by the books for Tolstoy.
The whole performance by Plummer just feels a much too standard performance, and it never does anything with Tolstoy that makes his performance as Tolstoy distinct. The way he plays Tolstoy it feels like Tolstoy could be any old man. It just seems a like a missed opportunity by Plummer, although it is not a bad performance really, it just seems like a far too standard of a performance when it could have been something memorable.
Christopher Plummer although had a long career he was never nominated until portraying Tolstoy in this film. Tolstoy although should seem like a larger than life sort of role neither the film nor Plummer really play him as such. The film basically shows him to be almost a pawn in the middle between his followers lead by Chertkov (Paul Giamatti) and his wife Sophia (Helen Mirren). Plummer at the same time does not have any sort of overwhelming presence in the film.
Tolstoy should really seem like more than the way Plummer portrays him. After all Tolstoy apparently created such a group of followers who were very much devoted to him, but Plummer lacks the charisma one should expect from such a figure. There just is not any special way Plummer portrays the character to really make Tolstoy seem substantial and really he should have found some way to do this, but he never does anything to achieve this.
This is not to say Plummer is bad, he certainly show the emotions Tolstoy is going through over the course of the film from his anger to the film, to his amusement over his new protege, or his sort of depression at the end of the film when he finally chooses to follow his own path. Plummer has his small facial reactions his more jovial moments, and his yelling scenes with Mirren that I suppose are suitable enough but always seem far too by the books for Tolstoy.
The whole performance by Plummer just feels a much too standard performance, and it never does anything with Tolstoy that makes his performance as Tolstoy distinct. The way he plays Tolstoy it feels like Tolstoy could be any old man. It just seems a like a missed opportunity by Plummer, although it is not a bad performance really, it just seems like a far too standard of a performance when it could have been something memorable.
Monday, 5 December 2011
Best Supporting Actor 2009: Woody Harrelson in The Messenger
Woody Harrelson received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Captain Tony Stone in The Messenger.
The Messenger follows a casualty notification officer and wounded veteran Staff Sgt. Will Montgomery (Ben Foster).
Woody Harrelson portrays Captain Tony Stone is Will's superior who mentors and works with Will as a casualty notification officer. Harrelson is not one of my favorite actors as he tends to needlessly overact in many of his performances. Luckily this is not the case in this performance, for the most part. Harrelson gives a very intense performance early on as he sets up for the ground rules on how to inform the death of soldiers to their next of kin.
Harrelson is very strong in these early scenes setting up the mood for the film. It is interesting the way he plays Stone's form of conviction in these moments. Harrelson shows that Stone very much understands the importance of his job, and that it must be done right. He shows no humor in these moments being direct and to the point about the whole affair, because in this particular part of life Stone is absolutely will take it with absolute seriousness.
Harrelson manages to show that Stone knows his sense of duty and performs it with the utmost responsibility of a true soldier. Harrelson is truly effective though because of his ability to show that Stone has been at this difficult duty for too long of a time. It is not that it still does not effect him it does as it should, but Harrelson always presents a certain knowledge in Tony that establishes his long history performing his duty.
The best scenes in the film, and the some of the best moments in Harrelson's performance are in the casualty notification scenes. Harrelson and Ben Foster actually say very little in these rather difficult to watch scenes, other than the actual notifications. Harrelson is very good and his reactions are work in perfect contrast to Foster's. Harrelson and Foster are both very effective and only add to the emotional impact of these scenes through their pitch perfect reactions. They both show the soldiers attempting trying the hardest to contain their emotions, but that it is a terrible struggle to do so.
Unfortunately Harrelson is less impressive as the unofficial Tony who acts quite differently when not in uniform perhaps a little too differently. Harrelson starts to do a little too much of his Harrelson routine although not to the extent that it seems like overacting, which he can do in some of his performances, but it does not exactly fit with the Tony Stone seen earlier in the film. Yes it makes sense for Stone to be quite different when not on duty, but Harrelson unfortunately does a little too much of his usual Harrelson thing some of the time, although not all of the time preventing it from being too distracting.
I do believe though Harrelson could have toned down more of some of his mannerisms he usually finds in these scenes and it would have helped his performance be more effective on a whole. Instead most of his scenes are just him doing his old Harrelson thing although certainly toned down most of the time. Except of course for his Oscar scene where he listens Will's description of his war time experiences. Tony breaks down in this scene, and Harrelson did not really completely earn his reaction unfortunately and his whole performance really fails to make the impact it should in the scene. His failings are almost made up by the other half of his performance which does allow this to be a powerful performance, although not a perfect one.
Woody Harrelson portrays Captain Tony Stone is Will's superior who mentors and works with Will as a casualty notification officer. Harrelson is not one of my favorite actors as he tends to needlessly overact in many of his performances. Luckily this is not the case in this performance, for the most part. Harrelson gives a very intense performance early on as he sets up for the ground rules on how to inform the death of soldiers to their next of kin.
Harrelson is very strong in these early scenes setting up the mood for the film. It is interesting the way he plays Stone's form of conviction in these moments. Harrelson shows that Stone very much understands the importance of his job, and that it must be done right. He shows no humor in these moments being direct and to the point about the whole affair, because in this particular part of life Stone is absolutely will take it with absolute seriousness.
Harrelson manages to show that Stone knows his sense of duty and performs it with the utmost responsibility of a true soldier. Harrelson is truly effective though because of his ability to show that Stone has been at this difficult duty for too long of a time. It is not that it still does not effect him it does as it should, but Harrelson always presents a certain knowledge in Tony that establishes his long history performing his duty.
The best scenes in the film, and the some of the best moments in Harrelson's performance are in the casualty notification scenes. Harrelson and Ben Foster actually say very little in these rather difficult to watch scenes, other than the actual notifications. Harrelson is very good and his reactions are work in perfect contrast to Foster's. Harrelson and Foster are both very effective and only add to the emotional impact of these scenes through their pitch perfect reactions. They both show the soldiers attempting trying the hardest to contain their emotions, but that it is a terrible struggle to do so.
Unfortunately Harrelson is less impressive as the unofficial Tony who acts quite differently when not in uniform perhaps a little too differently. Harrelson starts to do a little too much of his Harrelson routine although not to the extent that it seems like overacting, which he can do in some of his performances, but it does not exactly fit with the Tony Stone seen earlier in the film. Yes it makes sense for Stone to be quite different when not on duty, but Harrelson unfortunately does a little too much of his usual Harrelson thing some of the time, although not all of the time preventing it from being too distracting.
I do believe though Harrelson could have toned down more of some of his mannerisms he usually finds in these scenes and it would have helped his performance be more effective on a whole. Instead most of his scenes are just him doing his old Harrelson thing although certainly toned down most of the time. Except of course for his Oscar scene where he listens Will's description of his war time experiences. Tony breaks down in this scene, and Harrelson did not really completely earn his reaction unfortunately and his whole performance really fails to make the impact it should in the scene. His failings are almost made up by the other half of his performance which does allow this to be a powerful performance, although not a perfect one.
Saturday, 3 December 2011
Best Supporting Actor 2009: Stanley Tucci in The Lovely Bones
Stanley Tucci received his first Oscar nomination for portraying George Harvey in The Lovely Bones.
The Lovely Bones tells the story of a teenage girl Susie Salmon who after being brutally murdered after calling watches over her family's struggles after her death.
Stanley Tucci plays the murderer who is a serial killer and implied pedophile. I will say in my initial viewing I saw Tucci as one of the few good things in the film, since the film itself is such a poorly directed film almost the rest of the way. Tucci also just happens to be part of the only section of the film that is not directed entirely ineptly which is the thriller section of the film. I must say though when I watched the film again even Tucci performance ran thin on me as well.
One thing that Tucci does do in this film fairly well in fact is being creepy, but really a lot of that has to go more with his look that even Tucci's performance. He just looks like someone with something wrong with him with his bad comb over, his mustache, his glasses, and the clothes that he wears. All that Tucci really adds to that is a strange voice that just seems like there is something wrong with it, and the occasional fake happy smiles, as well as a great number of evil stares.
After watching him once though his whole appearance, voice, and style just becomes far less effective, I suppose Tucci whole transformation into the killer just is less disconcerting after you have seen it once already. He unfortunately he almost started to fall into the rest of the badness or blandness of the rest of the film. Tucci is not used in any way that allows him to expand George into a more interesting creation and in fact I really started to find it funny the way George almost seems to teleport around to find the best bush to hide behind in a creepy fashion.
The only thing Tucci really is allowed to do is act like a creep, and their a simply more interesting and memorable film creeps than Tucci's George Harvey. A problem though actually arises from him acting like a creep, since it seems there is too much of a delay in anyone suspecting him, and frankly how couldn't you suspect him. I think this would actually been a more memorable performance if Tucci seemed more outwardly normal as George Harvey. This bad decision to make him as creepy as possible though really just shows the ineptness of the direction.
Now I do want to state that Tucci is not exactly bad, in fact he probably gave the exact performance that the director wanted, but this could have been far more than it is. He simply does not make for that memorable of a villain, and what is notable about him is mostly the way he looks. Also the film fails to create the necessary sympathy for the victim since Susie Salmon mispronounces Laurence Olivier name as Laurence Oliver, and calls him a loser HOW DARE SHE!!!! Anyways back to Tucci, not a bad performance but after watching it again it does not have the visceral effect one expects from a performance like this.
Stanley Tucci plays the murderer who is a serial killer and implied pedophile. I will say in my initial viewing I saw Tucci as one of the few good things in the film, since the film itself is such a poorly directed film almost the rest of the way. Tucci also just happens to be part of the only section of the film that is not directed entirely ineptly which is the thriller section of the film. I must say though when I watched the film again even Tucci performance ran thin on me as well.
One thing that Tucci does do in this film fairly well in fact is being creepy, but really a lot of that has to go more with his look that even Tucci's performance. He just looks like someone with something wrong with him with his bad comb over, his mustache, his glasses, and the clothes that he wears. All that Tucci really adds to that is a strange voice that just seems like there is something wrong with it, and the occasional fake happy smiles, as well as a great number of evil stares.
After watching him once though his whole appearance, voice, and style just becomes far less effective, I suppose Tucci whole transformation into the killer just is less disconcerting after you have seen it once already. He unfortunately he almost started to fall into the rest of the badness or blandness of the rest of the film. Tucci is not used in any way that allows him to expand George into a more interesting creation and in fact I really started to find it funny the way George almost seems to teleport around to find the best bush to hide behind in a creepy fashion.
The only thing Tucci really is allowed to do is act like a creep, and their a simply more interesting and memorable film creeps than Tucci's George Harvey. A problem though actually arises from him acting like a creep, since it seems there is too much of a delay in anyone suspecting him, and frankly how couldn't you suspect him. I think this would actually been a more memorable performance if Tucci seemed more outwardly normal as George Harvey. This bad decision to make him as creepy as possible though really just shows the ineptness of the direction.
Now I do want to state that Tucci is not exactly bad, in fact he probably gave the exact performance that the director wanted, but this could have been far more than it is. He simply does not make for that memorable of a villain, and what is notable about him is mostly the way he looks. Also the film fails to create the necessary sympathy for the victim since Susie Salmon mispronounces Laurence Olivier name as Laurence Oliver, and calls him a loser HOW DARE SHE!!!! Anyways back to Tucci, not a bad performance but after watching it again it does not have the visceral effect one expects from a performance like this.
Friday, 2 December 2011
Best Supporting Actor 2009: Matt Damon in Invictus
Matt Damon received his second acting Oscar nomination for portraying Francois Pienaar in Invictus.
Matt Damon portrays the captain of the South African Rugby team who President Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) wants to win the World Cup in an attempt to unite the country together. Damon role here is actually a fairly limited one not in terms of screentime but in terms of what Pienaar does throughout the course of the film. Pienaar has no internal conflict and is devoted to his team winning from the very beginning, and than proceeds to agree with Mandela's ideas almost instantly. Pienaar has no personal conflict or struggle other than just to win the game.
I do not want to be too negative though as there is not anything wrong with Damon's performance either. He uses a South African accent and actually handles it quite well by not ever overdoing it or bringing too much attention to it. He keeps it simple but as it should be. Damon most certainly does have the determination required for his performance, and keeps a certain degree of passion in his performance that is always completely fitting of his character.
Damon though never really has any sort scenes that really allow him to much of anything but really small reactions. His reactions even are not given that much importance considering he can just be part of a crowd during a scene. There is nothing wrong with these reactions either, and are always certainly fitting to his character. In the end there are just only a few challenges in the role the accent, and showing the right passion Damon completely fulfills these challenges but the film never asks anything more from him.
I do not want to be too negative though as there is not anything wrong with Damon's performance either. He uses a South African accent and actually handles it quite well by not ever overdoing it or bringing too much attention to it. He keeps it simple but as it should be. Damon most certainly does have the determination required for his performance, and keeps a certain degree of passion in his performance that is always completely fitting of his character.
Damon though never really has any sort scenes that really allow him to much of anything but really small reactions. His reactions even are not given that much importance considering he can just be part of a crowd during a scene. There is nothing wrong with these reactions either, and are always certainly fitting to his character. In the end there are just only a few challenges in the role the accent, and showing the right passion Damon completely fulfills these challenges but the film never asks anything more from him.
Thursday, 1 December 2011
Best Supporting Actor 2009
Woody Harrelson in The Messenger
Matt Damon in Invictus
Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds
Christopher Plummer in The Last Station
Stanley Tucci in The Lovely Bones
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)