Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1991: Kevin Bacon, John Candy, Jack Lemmon, Joe Pesci, Michael Rooker and Donald Sutherland in JFK

Kevin Bacon, John Candy and Jack Lemmon did not receive Oscar nomination for portraying Willie O'Keefe, Dean Andrews, and Jack Martin respectively in JFK.

One of the great assets of JFK is its large ensemble. A technically star studded cast, however what is important here is this is less towards making cameos, and instead is about  granting importance to every individual within the film no matter how small the role. The performances back this up in terms of giving the film this certain vibrancy within the characters, even though the plot is the central thrust of the film. This is to every minor character, even the most brief of witness. Three notable witnesses within the film are of very different men that lead New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) onto the trail of a mysterious man Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones), who he eventually attempts to prosecute for the assassination of the president. All three are played by notable actors of the time, with two being potential distractions, but never as such due to the strengths of the work of the actors. The first being Jack Lemmon who appears as a low grade private eye Jack Martin who claims to have been pistol whipped by his partner, and former FBI man Guy Banister (Ed Asner) shortly after the JFK assassination. Lemmon's performance is a proper representation of the strength of the ensemble though through a specific type of approach. In one part Lemmon's natural presence offers a sense of who is Jack Martin is even beyond the small perspective we see him in. Lemmon brings the right bafflement and general awkward demeanor not only of perhaps a bit of sous, but even more so a man of no importance who is bearing witness to something very important. Lemmon's simple reaction in the flashback scenes are notable of a man completely out of his element if not a little scared. His essential scene though is his words to Garrison which Lemmon delivers so effectively in this paranoid, and hesitating delivery, not of an insane man, but rather coming to understand what he was indirectly part of. Lemmon's work vividly recalls these moments, but also importantly delivers this growing sense of dread through this witness.

Now a rather different witness though comes into play with Kevin Bacon Willie O'Keefe a male prostitute who Garrison visits in prison, and who also claims to be able to connect various men within the conspiracy. Again what is remarkable here is that what is offered in the character, and Bacon's performance is not just this bland slate there to deliver some important information. There is so much more there even though most of what he says is important for the plot. Bacon though fashions his own personal style as Willie brandishing a certain level of flamboyance fitting for such a man who openly brags about his life choices. The swagger that Bacon brings though is only a facet that naturally realizes the man who ostensibly wants to show off a bit towards the government men who have come to visit him. This is a bit different from the Willie Bacon plays in the flashbacks where he is more or less a "boy toy" for Clay Shaw. Bacon actually creates this minor, very subtle, arc within these scenes as we see him very much put up this overt pleasantries and lustful attitude in these interactions. He plays the man trying obviously just to please his John in a way, but there is more when the conversations turn towards the assassination/philosophy. In these moments Bacon effectively breaks that showing this very naive curiosity in his reactions of someone who really doesn't fully understand what he is listening to, but wants to be part of it. This in turn gives a logic towards his explanation for his motivations for coming forward not to expose the truth for justice, but rather to allow the world to know why Kennedy was killed in his mind. Bacon recites this speech as a true fervent zealot, but that of the simple student who believes he's learned something from his master.

Another performance in service of kicking off the case comes with John Candy as New Orleans lawyer Dean Andrews who claimed to have been hired by a man named Clay Bertrand to represent Lee Harvey Oswald. This casting is perfect actually in terms of Candy as Andrews, however it is very much out of the type of roles Candy typically played especially at that time in his career. It was a bit of a departure, but also a sad reminder of the under appreciation of the star's dramatic talents before his untimely death. This is a dramatic character role that Candy excels with in his two major scenes. The real Andrews had a style all his own, very much steeped in New Orleans, and Candy realizes this beautifully. He brings the right tempered style within his accent but his whole demeanor as sort of this southern dandy lawyer. Candy makes him properly a strange character though with a definite charisma who either might just be part of a vast conspiracy or just be willing to make up a phone call. Either way Candy is a proper "character" in the best sense of the word bringing to life such a strange sort of man, yet in a convincing fashion. Candy particularly excels with Andrews's somewhat more stylized dialogue. He does wonders with it first outlining it with this breeziness of a man just enjoying his own eccentricities until Garrison continues to pester him for more concrete information. There Candy brilliantly segues to bringing this serious emphasis by dropping just a bit of the more surface flamboyance. Candy conveys so effectively the severity of the real knowledge Andrews has in this shifting of tone, and reveals the man terrified for his own well being underneath all the false bravado. Candy proves his talent beyond what he knows for and this performance is another sad testament of the lack of appreciation for that talent while he was alive. Candy, Bacon and Lemmon, other than all being all named after delicious foods, show the strength of the ensemble. Not one of them has a lot of screentime yet in each they offer a distinct and memorable witness who live beyond the conspiracy, while also adding their own important contribution to the central thrust of that element of the film.

Michael Rooker did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying New Orleans Assistant District Attorney Bill Broussard in JFK.

Well changing gears a bit in terms of performances we have the very talented Michael Rooker who plays one of Garrison's team of investigators who are trying to make the case. The role of Bill is a composite character and is technically there to serve a purpose that actually feels expanded upon because of Rooker's performance. At first though Bill seems to be just one of the team working with the other members in an attempt to trying to unlock the secrets of the conspiracy. Rooker though is effective as such in essentially presenting a blunter aspect within these scenes who is not quite as squarely in line with Garrisons's thinking as the rest. Rooker's interactions and reactions say a lot more than just merely being part of the scenes. He firstly properly shows the genuine weight of certain moments to create the right sense of the investigators motivation from moment to moment as he tries to understand the plot himself. There is an overarching difference though where Bill is often a voice of dissent, and some would say reason, even in the early stages of the investigation such as even pointing out the lack of credibility of some of the witnesses he has found. Now this is key in Rooker's performance because there was a chance, particularly with Oliver Stone at the helm (though he's particularly on point as a director with this film), for a simplification of this character.

What I mean by that is the specific delivery of the objections, and points of reality brought on by Bill as the "devil's advocate" for many of the early scenes, even as he is shown still to be pretty dogged investigator. Rooker does not for a moment allow Bill to be some simple straw man by providing such straight forward quality within his delivery of his objections and concerns. Rooker doesn't show them as this perpetually naysayer, but rather provides the right substance of consideration just for the facts when he does so. He creates that right basic ability for doubt, but Rooker wisely portrays this as Bill just being less fervent in his belief in the conspiracy rather than in support for Garrison. Rooker creates the right dynamic as this force of dissent in the scenes of Garrison's group discussions. He offers the alternate viewpoint as this convincing perspective by making every initial frustration and reaction of disbelief as something wholly genuine. Rooker by taking this approach makes the pivotal choice in terms of Bill's transition as he is approached to essentially spy on Garrison lest his own law career be sacrificed. Rooker is great in this offer scene as he does not present as this the easy choice of a weasel. Rooker instead finds in the emotional intensity of the moment the right conflict as he speaks. He delivers the sense of a real unease with considering the offer as it mean betraying his boss, but also a frustration knowing that he doesn't want to sacrifice his own career for an investigation he doesn't fully believe in. Although it is a somewhat brief moment Rooker captures so effectively the conflict in Bill in that moment, and again offers more substance within the role than there may have been otherwise.

Bill stays on a spy however Rooker thankfully does not immediately become this villainous force. When espousing on his new discoveries though there is this slight half-hearted quality within Rooker's delivery that properly alludes to his state of mind. He also brings this when he is questioned about his devotion, where Rooker brings the right extreme snap back at any accusations that isn't over the top rather the expected reaction of a man with a guilty conscience. Rooker's best moment comes though as Bill launches into his own alternative theory that involves the mob rather than the entire U.S. government as Garrison proposes. Rooker is great in this scene though as he passionately advocates Bill's view in two frames of mind. One being a genuine passion towards the idea but also this unease towards accepting such a nihilistic view of the government. Rooker fashions another layer though even beyond that to show this certain desperation in his delivery not in terms of selling his idea, but rather towards Garrison's own safety. Rooker does not make it this selfish diversion, but rather shows some better side to Bill making the alternate conspiracy as much of a plea as anything else. Rooker in this way does not make Bill's turn this simple revelation of a bad guy in the wings. Rooker instead offers a real humanity in the changes by showing Bill painfully taking each step from the doubting Thomas before becoming the full blown Judas. It's a terrific performance as Rooker realizes this arc so well within essentially the margins of the film.

Joe Pesci did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying David Ferrie in JFK.

Joe Pesci plays one of the most pivotal roles in the film, technically as important as Jones's Clay Shaw, as one of the men alleged to be part of the cabal who helped to execute Kennedy's assassination. His first appearance though is when he is brought into Garrison's office, long before he begins his formal investigation, stemming from a vague clue about the man David Ferrie for having taken a trip to Dallas the day Kennedy was killed. Pesci in a way has a challenge from the outset with the rather, different, appearance of Dave Ferrie with eye brows of an odd sort, and his ill-fitting blonde wig. Pesci of course is more than up to the task being rather idiosyncratic himself. Pesci is a unique quantity as an actor, indispensable when it comes to comparison, as there is no one who can deliver what Pesci delivers quite like Pesci. This is essential for the role of Ferrie who is suppose to stick out like a sore thumb both in terms of appearance but also really everything about the man. Pesci doesn't just play into this but owns it with his New Orleans accent he uses to only amplify the jarring style of the man. Pesci makes Ferrie very much a man who not only might be part of an assassination plot, but also would probably be the easiest to identify due to his personal style which is anything other than subtle. This is clear from his first scene which Pesci is sheer perfection in every stumbled delivery, and nervous reaction, or false interaction, setting up as a man with clearly something to hide though just smart enough not to fully blurt it out.

After that scene though we see Ferrie in two distinct lenses though those of the past from the recollections of Garrison's witnesses, and the present with Garrison's few interactions with the man. In the flashback scenes we get quite a lot of classic Pesci in his realization of Dave Ferrie as the homosexual "bon vivant" and a military conspirator. Pesci portrays this in an interesting way as this mess of a man though in his mind yet somehow comforted within his place in his world. As the "bon vivant" Pesci actually elicits this overt comfort in the life projecting as a peacock showing Ferrie essentially where he seems most at home wholly being himself in the homosexual underground of New Orleans, rather than the awkward man we meet in Garrison's office. As the military conspirator Pesci is fantastic in delivery that trademark intensity of his of course in the moments of Ferrie going on his long flights of mental fancy that both take him towards killing Castro and eventually Kennedy. Pesci brings this extreme zealotry that he also plays with a certain intriguing duality. Pesci offers this clear conviction within his vicious words of anger and distress over being pulled from his anti-Castro efforts, but when it turns to Kennedy there is an even more obtuse quality Pesci infuses. It is this madness that Pesci finds of a man speaking words with a belief to be sure, but steeped in this insanity that suggests Ferrie doesn't even quite understand the full ramifications himself.

Those past scenes essentially are the seeds to the Ferrie we find in the present that Pesci gives us a proper paranoid mess when he contacts Garrison's men after their investigation, including his name, has leaked to the press. This leads to a stunning scene for Pesci's performance where he brings sort of that same visceral power to his work that was so remarkable in his Oscar winning performance, though translated here for a very different role and purpose. Pesci instead of using that for such an imposing figure, he instead brings that unpredictable violent energy in creating the extreme vulnerability of Ferrie in the moment. Everything about Pesci from his hastened tone of voice to his manic movements echo a man burdened by many things. We see the fear in his eyes in every reaction from every unknown that Pesci makes fitting to a man on the brink of some death, but within that we also have that burden of the past. Pesci creates this increased agitation within his physical portrayal of Ferrie as he begins seemingly to speak of his connection to the assassination. Pesci is astonishing in the way he captures this though as this stream of consciousness of a man neither healthy of body or mind. He constantly changes in these moments from second to second so naturally from moments seemingly of mania, to others of only of terror, and occasionally these wholly lucid moments that seem to reveal some of the secrets he holds. Pesci though always makes him the madness we saw before but amplified ten fold as he reveals the full weight of the assassination on Ferrie as he shows us a man struggling with both what he became a part of and his own actions. The most powerful moment of Pesci's incredible work though comes when Ferrie finally seems to come to calm with an instance of clarity. Pesci delivers this moment as Ferrie reflecting on his own guilt while seeming to look towards some other path he could have taken in his life. Pesci is downright heartbreaking in the moment by so quietly portraying this moment as this brief sobriety in an insane man, as he ponders on his desire to become a priest which never could have been. What makes the moment so poignant though is how naturally Pesci finds it through his vivid tragedy he creates of a man who essentially lost himself through the conspiracy.

Donald Sutherland did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying X in JFK.

Of all the figures in a film filled with mysterious figures the most elusive maybe Donald Sutherland's character who merely goes by the name of X. He differs though then the named of the mystery men as he is a deep state deep source ally to Garrison offering him his own insight on the assassination on one long walk around the grounds of Washington D.C. He is essentially the film's "Deep Throat" who is another real life figure unnamed in the film there to offer the most secret information however while refusing to offer himself as a witness for the investigation. The difference between Hal Holbrook's Deep Throat from All The President's Men and X, other than meeting in broad daylight, is that X delivers all of his information in a single scene. The scene one could argue and simplify as the biggest exposition dump of all time, however it never comes off as such due to the film's brilliant use of editing and Donald Sutherland's performance. Donald Sutherland's performance is explaining, a whole lot of explaining, but some of the most captivating talking one will witness in any film. X is essentially there to give a deeper insight into more a black ops perspective that Garrison is not privy to. This leads Sutherland to give a most fascinating performance on every front. First of all that great voice of his has never been better used as he rattles off detail after detail with such eloquent, and precise delivery.

I could frankly listen to Sutherland break down every single detail of the assassination by how well he phrases every single word. Sutherland brings more to the role than that, and I'm not just referring to his few flashback scenes where we get a more of the moment X as he reacts in confusion towards first being sent on a wild goose chase then later fear at discovering the assassination. Sutherland creates such varied demeanor that grants us a sense of X even as he never for a moment loses that dramatic thrust of his monologue that remain effortlessly compelling in his hands. There is a fascinating combination of tones that Sutherland realizes as this certain blithe quality within his work, suggesting properly a man long within the black ops, but somehow still the sense of severity of his words within this. Sutherland delivers this very controlled passion of a man adamant to let the right information out to Garrison while also still having just the right shred of indifference as though it is X's way of coping with the coup d'etat that he could do nothing to prevent. Sutherland brings this bluntness through this approach as both a man clearly concerned for what happened, but also with the sense to know there is very little he can do about what happened given the forces against him. Sutherland's work here is immaculate in not only just making every bit of exposition meaningful, but even still managing to make X more than a mere exposition machine. It is outstanding work from Sutherland as he leaves such an undeniable impression on the film in such short order. Sutherland again creates the sense of the greatness of this ensemble because he doesn't just serve his purpose within the film by making his scene fascinating, but also in turn makes X as fascinating as this mysterious presence within the film. His work creates a highlight within a film filled with highlights, and is one of Sutherland's best performances.