Richard Harris in Unforgiven
Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross
Showing posts with label 1992 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1992 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Thursday, 13 October 2011
Best Supporting Actor 1992: Results
Richard Harris in Unforgiven
Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross
Best Supporting Actor 1992: Jaye Davidson in The Crying Game
Jaye Davidson received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Dill in The Crying Game.
I suppose I should say that there will be spoilers in this review, as it is impossible to really discuss this performance at length, without revealing the twist behind the character of Dill, although really the nomination for Davidson in this category really spoiled the twist to begin with. Well the twist is that Dill is really a man who dresses as a woman.
The most notable aspect of this performance is the twist. Davidson is most certainly believable as the woman, as his look certainly allows this. How much of this is genuinely acting though, and how much of it is merely how he looks, and Neil Jordan's direction. Well this is hard to say, much of it is how he looks, and even that is technically imperfect as he still looks like a strange woman.
Well either way though that does not alone make this an amazing performance, or even an overly special performance. True the other nominees this year could not have come across as a woman, but Davidson would not have been able to really been believable in any of the other character the other nominees played. So really what really should be focused on than is what he does with the character of Dill, more than what gender Dill happens to be.
The main characteristic Davidson portrays in Dill is a great deal of neediness. Dill desperately wants to be loved by someone no matter what, and is quickly offended if they are to hurt Dill. Davidson certianly realizes this well, although I must say that perhaps he focuses a tad too much on this aspect. It is almost the entire focus of his performance, and really there probably could have been even more to Dill, which Davidson does not bring to the part.
Davidson though does manage to make a fairly interesting relationship with Stephen Rea. The do not quite have a natural chemistry especially in the second part of their relationship, but they effectively create an interesting dynamic, with Rea being very very hesitant, but Davidson playing Dill as consistently persistent, and earnest in keeping the relationship going.
Davidson creates an interesting characterization but hardly a perfect one. Also although no amateurism every comes through with this performance, he never comes across of having a full grasp of the screen either. Although this is a unique performance, most certianly I am hard pressed to call it an amazing performance by any means.Once one gets past the twist of the character, and watches it on repeat viewings he never comes across as stunning by any means.
The most notable aspect of this performance is the twist. Davidson is most certainly believable as the woman, as his look certainly allows this. How much of this is genuinely acting though, and how much of it is merely how he looks, and Neil Jordan's direction. Well this is hard to say, much of it is how he looks, and even that is technically imperfect as he still looks like a strange woman.
Well either way though that does not alone make this an amazing performance, or even an overly special performance. True the other nominees this year could not have come across as a woman, but Davidson would not have been able to really been believable in any of the other character the other nominees played. So really what really should be focused on than is what he does with the character of Dill, more than what gender Dill happens to be.
The main characteristic Davidson portrays in Dill is a great deal of neediness. Dill desperately wants to be loved by someone no matter what, and is quickly offended if they are to hurt Dill. Davidson certianly realizes this well, although I must say that perhaps he focuses a tad too much on this aspect. It is almost the entire focus of his performance, and really there probably could have been even more to Dill, which Davidson does not bring to the part.
Davidson though does manage to make a fairly interesting relationship with Stephen Rea. The do not quite have a natural chemistry especially in the second part of their relationship, but they effectively create an interesting dynamic, with Rea being very very hesitant, but Davidson playing Dill as consistently persistent, and earnest in keeping the relationship going.
Davidson creates an interesting characterization but hardly a perfect one. Also although no amateurism every comes through with this performance, he never comes across of having a full grasp of the screen either. Although this is a unique performance, most certianly I am hard pressed to call it an amazing performance by any means.Once one gets past the twist of the character, and watches it on repeat viewings he never comes across as stunning by any means.
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Best Supporting Actor 1992: Gene Hackman in Unforgiven
Gene Hackman won his second Oscar from his fifth nomination for portraying Little Bill Daggett in Unforgiven.
Gene Hackman plays the Sheriff of Big Whiskey. He is a man of a violent past, and in a way is the other side of the coin of Clint Eastwood's William Munny. Munny seeing himself for the evil man he was understands what he has done as wrong. Hackman's Bill Daggett though instead never has taken that what he has done is bad, instead decides that he is in fact superior to others creating some odd morality he finds in himself. Hackman realizes Little Bill perfectly as a rather unique villain. Little Bill always believes he is doing the right thing, no matter how evil of an act he might be doing. It is the complexity of Little Bill that Hackman is able to show so well. He is never for a moment a one dimensional villain but rather a very complex man who happens to do some very bad things, very bad things that he believes are the right thing.
Hackman manages to excel in every aspect of his character, and from the beginning he shows that Little Bill is not a standard villain. In his first scene Hackman plays Little Bill as caring more for not causing violence, and perceiving his judgment of the two cowboys who cut up a prostitute as the right thing to do. At this moment he does not show a ruthless man he is, but rather just a sheriff trying to do the right thing. The fact that Hackman does not play him like a villain works perfectly in creating the complexity of Little Bill.
The best scenes though that I think show that he is not really completely evil are his scenes where he is building his house. Although he is not particularly good at it, Hackman really shows some honest pride in what he does, that shows a genuine joy he has in this accomplishment. In these moments Hackman shows no psychopath, killer, or bully, but just a normal man. I particularly like when he hears someone say something negative about his work, Hackman does not play it like a villain hearing an insult, but instead reacts more effectively by showing it really hurting him, becuase building the house is something he truly cares about.
These scenes of house building work as an excellent contrast though to his far more brutal scenes. Hackman is appropriately cruel in these moments. There is an incredible intensity Hackman brings to his performance. He makes Little Bill always in command of his situation. He is completely in charge in almost every one of his scenes. He makes Little Bill absolutely the man in charge of all of Big Whiskey which is entirely realized by Hackman's overwhelming presence in each of these scenes.
Hackman is especially chilling though in certain scenes where he shows the cold blooded killer that is inside of Little Bill. This is especially well shown by Hackman in his scene with the novel writer and the gunfighter English Bob (Richard Harris) held in prison by Little Bill. In this scene Hackman for some of it shows Little Bill's history of the dangerous men. Hackman has the right ease here really showing Little Bill great knowledge of what it takes to be a gunfighter. With his relaxed manner of approach the subject Hackman makes it all the more effective when he shows the cold chilling nature in Little Bill when he starts playing around with a gun.
His most chilling moment though comes in his scene where he is torturing information about the assassins from one of the bounty hunters going to kill the cowboys. Hackman is incredible in how brutally, but quietly tells how he is going to hurt the man until he gets what he wants. Hackman does not overact it instead he brings the cruelty of Little Bill fully to life. What I do think is amazing though is how he is able to bring all the aspects of Little Bill completely into the one character. The more chilling, as well as the more humane characteristics all into a single man, it is this is what makes his performance truly great.
Hackman manages to excel in every aspect of his character, and from the beginning he shows that Little Bill is not a standard villain. In his first scene Hackman plays Little Bill as caring more for not causing violence, and perceiving his judgment of the two cowboys who cut up a prostitute as the right thing to do. At this moment he does not show a ruthless man he is, but rather just a sheriff trying to do the right thing. The fact that Hackman does not play him like a villain works perfectly in creating the complexity of Little Bill.
The best scenes though that I think show that he is not really completely evil are his scenes where he is building his house. Although he is not particularly good at it, Hackman really shows some honest pride in what he does, that shows a genuine joy he has in this accomplishment. In these moments Hackman shows no psychopath, killer, or bully, but just a normal man. I particularly like when he hears someone say something negative about his work, Hackman does not play it like a villain hearing an insult, but instead reacts more effectively by showing it really hurting him, becuase building the house is something he truly cares about.
These scenes of house building work as an excellent contrast though to his far more brutal scenes. Hackman is appropriately cruel in these moments. There is an incredible intensity Hackman brings to his performance. He makes Little Bill always in command of his situation. He is completely in charge in almost every one of his scenes. He makes Little Bill absolutely the man in charge of all of Big Whiskey which is entirely realized by Hackman's overwhelming presence in each of these scenes.
Hackman is especially chilling though in certain scenes where he shows the cold blooded killer that is inside of Little Bill. This is especially well shown by Hackman in his scene with the novel writer and the gunfighter English Bob (Richard Harris) held in prison by Little Bill. In this scene Hackman for some of it shows Little Bill's history of the dangerous men. Hackman has the right ease here really showing Little Bill great knowledge of what it takes to be a gunfighter. With his relaxed manner of approach the subject Hackman makes it all the more effective when he shows the cold chilling nature in Little Bill when he starts playing around with a gun.
His most chilling moment though comes in his scene where he is torturing information about the assassins from one of the bounty hunters going to kill the cowboys. Hackman is incredible in how brutally, but quietly tells how he is going to hurt the man until he gets what he wants. Hackman does not overact it instead he brings the cruelty of Little Bill fully to life. What I do think is amazing though is how he is able to bring all the aspects of Little Bill completely into the one character. The more chilling, as well as the more humane characteristics all into a single man, it is this is what makes his performance truly great.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Best Supporting Actor 1992: David Paymer in Mr. Saturday Night
David Paymer received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Stan in Mr. Saturday Night.
Mr. Saturday Night tells of the life of Jewish stand up comedian Buddy Young Jr. who the film can't decide if we are suppose to love or hate.
It is rather interesting that David Paymer was nominated for playing Buddy's brother and agent. I say this is because it was the film's only nomination, a film that seemed a to be a little too much of Oscar bait for Billy Crystal who plays Buddy and directed the film as well. Paymer is second banana in the film, but does really manage to steal the entire film from Billy Crystal and it is easy to see why he was nominated and Crystal was not.
This film is filled with a lot of overly sentimental scenes that seem rather forced, and overly schmaltzy. Paymer is better off than the rest of them though and is able to bring out some honest genuine emotion in his part. Even though there are many factors working against Paymer as the script forces him to be overly emotional from his earliest scenes, which puts a great deal of pressure on him to begin with. What I did find interesting was Paymer did not fail despite this problem.
Paymer actually does fairly good job of showing Stan's regrets and pains over what he did not have and his brother did have. Paymer particularly does excel in a single scene devoted to him where he introduces Buddy's eventual wife to him, even though he clearly feels for her himself. It is a very strong scene by far the best in the film, although that is saying very little, because Paymer creates an honestly heartbreaking portrait of a man always put second.
Unfortunately I cannot continue to praise Paymer, although it is not really his fault due to the lackluster script, as well as due to Crystal's performance. Their chemistry together could have been really something special, but it never does because Crystal's own characterization of Buddy feels lacking. Also after awhile Paymer performance becomes repetitive. Not because of what he does, but the film requires basically to go over the same exact emotional notes over and over, which eventually becomes tiresome. Paymer is never bad, and with a better script probably could have given a stronger performance.
It is rather interesting that David Paymer was nominated for playing Buddy's brother and agent. I say this is because it was the film's only nomination, a film that seemed a to be a little too much of Oscar bait for Billy Crystal who plays Buddy and directed the film as well. Paymer is second banana in the film, but does really manage to steal the entire film from Billy Crystal and it is easy to see why he was nominated and Crystal was not.
This film is filled with a lot of overly sentimental scenes that seem rather forced, and overly schmaltzy. Paymer is better off than the rest of them though and is able to bring out some honest genuine emotion in his part. Even though there are many factors working against Paymer as the script forces him to be overly emotional from his earliest scenes, which puts a great deal of pressure on him to begin with. What I did find interesting was Paymer did not fail despite this problem.
Paymer actually does fairly good job of showing Stan's regrets and pains over what he did not have and his brother did have. Paymer particularly does excel in a single scene devoted to him where he introduces Buddy's eventual wife to him, even though he clearly feels for her himself. It is a very strong scene by far the best in the film, although that is saying very little, because Paymer creates an honestly heartbreaking portrait of a man always put second.
Unfortunately I cannot continue to praise Paymer, although it is not really his fault due to the lackluster script, as well as due to Crystal's performance. Their chemistry together could have been really something special, but it never does because Crystal's own characterization of Buddy feels lacking. Also after awhile Paymer performance becomes repetitive. Not because of what he does, but the film requires basically to go over the same exact emotional notes over and over, which eventually becomes tiresome. Paymer is never bad, and with a better script probably could have given a stronger performance.
Sunday, 9 October 2011
Best Supporting Actor 1992: Al Pacino in Glengarry Glen Ross
Al Pacino received his seventh Oscar nomination for portraying Ricky Roma in Glengarry Glen Ross.
Glengarry Glen Ross details the struggle of four retail estate salesmen to make sales while dealing with the hostile company they work for.
Al Pacino plays Ricky Roma who is one of the four salesmen, but the only one who is not really struggling. For the first half of the film you barely even see Roma as he is at the restaurant across the street from the Real Estate office, working on slowly on a sale. We only see small glimpses of Pacino, but every moment on screen he is exactly as Roma should be. A man who knows exactly what he is doing, and does not care how really he gains his goals.
In these early moments we see him for only small moments but he has the perfect pompous superiority in each of these small moments. Pacino in these scenes shows that without a doubt Roma is in charge of the situation without question. Although a lot of what Roma is saying is a lot of nothing, Pacino's complete confidence makes his sway of his customer without a doubt believable. The way he just eases into the sale through his nice little conversation is perfectly played by Pacino, he makes Roma the perfect salesman he is suppose to be.
In the second half of the film you see far more of Roma as he interacts with the other salesman, as the sales leads have been stolen, and each salesman is being asked about the crime. Roma though is far more concerned by the fact that his customer from the night before is balking on the deal. Pacino is excellent in showing how that no matter what Roma has a plan. Pacino again is a master of Roma's double talk, showing an absolute command of the situation, using every trick he has to keep his sale. Pacino shows Roma basically puts on a character as a salesman a man always at ease, and in total control.
Pacino though shows behind the showman is a man who is easy to point out the stupidity of other as loudly as possible. He yells but this is not overacting, but exactly as Roma should be, pointing out anyone he thinks is dumb as dumb even if in a crude fashion. Also interestingly enough Pacino manages to show a little bit of a softer quality in regards to the way he views "The Machine" Levene (Jack Lemmon). Pacino shows an honest respect for Levene, that establishes their history together, as well as the idea that Roma may not be 100% amoral after all. Pacino adds this depth without compromising the rest of his performance, which is a highly entertaining, and effective performance that certianly would have been more deserving of a win than the performance he won for this same year in the leading category.
Al Pacino plays Ricky Roma who is one of the four salesmen, but the only one who is not really struggling. For the first half of the film you barely even see Roma as he is at the restaurant across the street from the Real Estate office, working on slowly on a sale. We only see small glimpses of Pacino, but every moment on screen he is exactly as Roma should be. A man who knows exactly what he is doing, and does not care how really he gains his goals.
In these early moments we see him for only small moments but he has the perfect pompous superiority in each of these small moments. Pacino in these scenes shows that without a doubt Roma is in charge of the situation without question. Although a lot of what Roma is saying is a lot of nothing, Pacino's complete confidence makes his sway of his customer without a doubt believable. The way he just eases into the sale through his nice little conversation is perfectly played by Pacino, he makes Roma the perfect salesman he is suppose to be.
In the second half of the film you see far more of Roma as he interacts with the other salesman, as the sales leads have been stolen, and each salesman is being asked about the crime. Roma though is far more concerned by the fact that his customer from the night before is balking on the deal. Pacino is excellent in showing how that no matter what Roma has a plan. Pacino again is a master of Roma's double talk, showing an absolute command of the situation, using every trick he has to keep his sale. Pacino shows Roma basically puts on a character as a salesman a man always at ease, and in total control.
Pacino though shows behind the showman is a man who is easy to point out the stupidity of other as loudly as possible. He yells but this is not overacting, but exactly as Roma should be, pointing out anyone he thinks is dumb as dumb even if in a crude fashion. Also interestingly enough Pacino manages to show a little bit of a softer quality in regards to the way he views "The Machine" Levene (Jack Lemmon). Pacino shows an honest respect for Levene, that establishes their history together, as well as the idea that Roma may not be 100% amoral after all. Pacino adds this depth without compromising the rest of his performance, which is a highly entertaining, and effective performance that certianly would have been more deserving of a win than the performance he won for this same year in the leading category.
Best Supporting Actor 1992: Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men
Jack Nicholson received his tenth Oscar nomination for portraying Colonel Nathan R. Jessep in A Few Good Men.
A Few Good Men depicts a trial for two marines who accidentally killed another marine during a hazing.
Jack Nicholson portrays the commanding officer of the U.S. Military base in Cuba, where the death of the soldier occurs. I must admit when watching this film I can't help but think that Nicholson is really miscast. I really cannot believe him as an ultra fervent marine commander, Nicholson always comes off a little too much of a rebel, to truly be a man who only ever really thinks of doing his perceived duty as a Marine no matter what the cost.
Also really Nicholson may seem a tad too evil to begin with. I knew from the first time I saw the film, that Nicholson was definitely behind everything since he just had the look the whole time. The casting of Nicholson as well as his approach really does not work as well as it should. It is too obvious that he is the bad the guy in the film, but at the same time it is hard to believe that he is sort of bad guy he is suppose to be. I never felt he truly believed in the Marines duty too much, instead he came off as doing what he did just because he was evil, which I do not really think is the intent of the story.
This is not to say Nicholson is truly bad, just really he should not have been the choice for the part. He no matter what is Jack Nicholson who still is effective in his own way in his scenes, even though not in the right fashion for the film. He is an intense villain, and his break down is handled well enough by Nicholson to be somewhat memorable. The feeling never escaped me though that Nicholson was not the Colonel Nathan R. Jessep the film needed or wanted him to be.
Jack Nicholson portrays the commanding officer of the U.S. Military base in Cuba, where the death of the soldier occurs. I must admit when watching this film I can't help but think that Nicholson is really miscast. I really cannot believe him as an ultra fervent marine commander, Nicholson always comes off a little too much of a rebel, to truly be a man who only ever really thinks of doing his perceived duty as a Marine no matter what the cost.
Also really Nicholson may seem a tad too evil to begin with. I knew from the first time I saw the film, that Nicholson was definitely behind everything since he just had the look the whole time. The casting of Nicholson as well as his approach really does not work as well as it should. It is too obvious that he is the bad the guy in the film, but at the same time it is hard to believe that he is sort of bad guy he is suppose to be. I never felt he truly believed in the Marines duty too much, instead he came off as doing what he did just because he was evil, which I do not really think is the intent of the story.
This is not to say Nicholson is truly bad, just really he should not have been the choice for the part. He no matter what is Jack Nicholson who still is effective in his own way in his scenes, even though not in the right fashion for the film. He is an intense villain, and his break down is handled well enough by Nicholson to be somewhat memorable. The feeling never escaped me though that Nicholson was not the Colonel Nathan R. Jessep the film needed or wanted him to be.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
Best Supporting Actor 1992
Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men
Al Pacino in Glengarry Glen Ross
Gene Hackman in Unforgiven
David Paymer in Mr. Saturday Night
Jaye Davidson in The Crying Game
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)