Ralph Fiennes in In Bruges
Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading
Gary Oldman in The Dark Knight
Showing posts with label 2008 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Best Supporting Actor 2008: Results
Ralph Fiennes in In Bruges
Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading
Gary Oldman in The Dark Knight
Monday, 19 March 2012
Best Supporting Actor 2008: Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder
Robert Downey Jr. received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Kirk Lazarus in Tropic Thunder.
Tropic Thunder is a comedy about a group of actors trying to film a war movie about a rescue effort, but find they must actually must do a rescue much like in the film.
Although a comedic or at least a performance with comedic elements is not too rare in this particular category a completely absurd sort of comedic performance is uncommon, although this sort of performance gave Kevin Kline a deserved Oscar win. Robert Downey Jr. performance certainly is a strange one as he portrays 5 time academy award winner Kirk Lazarus who is portraying African American Sgt. Osiris being a devoted method actor he delves into the role by darkening his skin as well as staying in character at all times even after a death that certainly would put the production on hold.
Although this performance is rather complex in many ways by Robert Downey Jr. it also is rather simple in its intent. The only real point behind the whole character's setup is to be funny more than anything else. Downey most certainly does this through each facet of his character. From firstly his portrayal of Lazarus's portrayal of Sgt. Osiris which is a gruff no nonsense sounding somewhat like the leads in some blaxploitation films. What really makes Downey funny as Osiris is just how serious he is actually in the role. Although the idea of his character is absurd Downey never treats it as such.
Downey's dead seriousness with his character is hilarious as he says every single line no matter how stupid it may sound, or strange with the same deadpan conviction. As the point of view his character makes sense though as well as Lazarus is suppose to take every role as seriously as possible, and with as much dedication as possible so no matter what he is saying it should be with this certainty. Really this sort of seriousness is perfect for the character and frankly if he tried to clearly make every line funny and every tried to obviously poke fun at the portrayal it would not have worked. This performance works because Downey shows at all times Lazarus sees nothing funny at all about what he is doing.
Downey is though remains funny though even in his character's pivotal moment near the end of the film where he confronts his whole idea of being playing all sorts of dudes. Again Downey is funny as well as being effective becoming the Australian actor who reminds me of Mel Gibson circa The Road Warrior. He again makes the over dramatics of his transformation, as well as the transformation itself both believable and funny because Downey always stays absolutely committed and invested into the role. The whole role of Kirk Lazarus frankly could have been quite a big failure in a great number of ways luckily though Downey is up to the task. Everything Downey does only amplifies the effect of his roles and the roles of Kirk Lazarus because he plays this entirely comedic performance just as he would a dramatic one.
Tropic Thunder is a comedy about a group of actors trying to film a war movie about a rescue effort, but find they must actually must do a rescue much like in the film.Although a comedic or at least a performance with comedic elements is not too rare in this particular category a completely absurd sort of comedic performance is uncommon, although this sort of performance gave Kevin Kline a deserved Oscar win. Robert Downey Jr. performance certainly is a strange one as he portrays 5 time academy award winner Kirk Lazarus who is portraying African American Sgt. Osiris being a devoted method actor he delves into the role by darkening his skin as well as staying in character at all times even after a death that certainly would put the production on hold.
Although this performance is rather complex in many ways by Robert Downey Jr. it also is rather simple in its intent. The only real point behind the whole character's setup is to be funny more than anything else. Downey most certainly does this through each facet of his character. From firstly his portrayal of Lazarus's portrayal of Sgt. Osiris which is a gruff no nonsense sounding somewhat like the leads in some blaxploitation films. What really makes Downey funny as Osiris is just how serious he is actually in the role. Although the idea of his character is absurd Downey never treats it as such.
Downey's dead seriousness with his character is hilarious as he says every single line no matter how stupid it may sound, or strange with the same deadpan conviction. As the point of view his character makes sense though as well as Lazarus is suppose to take every role as seriously as possible, and with as much dedication as possible so no matter what he is saying it should be with this certainty. Really this sort of seriousness is perfect for the character and frankly if he tried to clearly make every line funny and every tried to obviously poke fun at the portrayal it would not have worked. This performance works because Downey shows at all times Lazarus sees nothing funny at all about what he is doing.
Downey is though remains funny though even in his character's pivotal moment near the end of the film where he confronts his whole idea of being playing all sorts of dudes. Again Downey is funny as well as being effective becoming the Australian actor who reminds me of Mel Gibson circa The Road Warrior. He again makes the over dramatics of his transformation, as well as the transformation itself both believable and funny because Downey always stays absolutely committed and invested into the role. The whole role of Kirk Lazarus frankly could have been quite a big failure in a great number of ways luckily though Downey is up to the task. Everything Downey does only amplifies the effect of his roles and the roles of Kirk Lazarus because he plays this entirely comedic performance just as he would a dramatic one.
Sunday, 18 March 2012
Best Supporting Actor 2008: Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight
Heath Ledger won his Oscar from his second and final nomination for portraying The Joker in The Dark Knight.
The Dark Knight details the struggle for the morals and fate of Gotham City between Batman (Christian Bale) and the Joker.
The supporting category more recently has been known as the villains, although one can find villains throughout the category as both nominees, and winners like Walter Brennan, Gig Young, and Gene Hackman was never opposed to rewarding villains in the category. In the years of 07, 08 and 09 though they simply made a habit of it. 08 certainly felt like a villains year though as two of the nominees were undoubted villains, and two of the other nominees could easily been argued as antagonist characters. The winner therefore makes sense to have been the biggest villain of them all.
The Joker has been portrayed several times actually two times previously in live form with Caesar Romero camping it up with his portrayal in the 60's, and Jack Nicholson handling the character in a somewhat similar fashion in 80's Batman film. Ledger with his posthumous Oscar winning performance though although does not reject those previous portrayals he never for a moment tries to just copy these earlier renditions, and makes the Joker of this film something very much of his own creation. He doesn't exactly reject these earlier portrayals, but it clear that Ledger's version of the Joker always belongs to Ledger.
Ledger does this with an extremely risky performance that never tries to play it safe. Ledger's entire performance is on a ledge (no pun intended) the entire time seeming to try something new in every scene he has. A performance like this is all one really a huge chance, since it never for moment feels like standard performance and is a completely different from anything Heath Ledger ever did before in this film. Because of this Ledger's performance does face reactions all around the spectrum really because of this risks since his performance either works for you or it doesn't there really is not a great deal of middle ground.
For me personally all of Ledger's risks he takes with the Joker all pay off completely. The voice he uses with the strange accent works perfectly for the Joker. He both sounds completely insane with it, yet he as well still is commanding and chilling at the same time. His hunched over posture, and his whole bizarre mannerisms all work in favor of making Joker an unforgettable creation. The amazing part of it all though is despite every little thing he does to create this Joker it never for a moment felt like a performance to me. Ledger always simply becomes the Joker from his first scene to his last he is the character, every little mannerism is only more of what the Joker is.
Ledger's Joker is a terrific villain because of how much he does accomplish with the part. He never is one note in the part oddly enough even though the Joker is a character who doesn't change in throughout the course of the film and his only objective is technically to create chaos with what he does. Ledger in each and every scene gives a chilling villain who has a overwhelming presence every time he is on screen. You really cannot help but look at Ledger in this performance. Ledger shows here that the Joker takes almost everything in stride, and almost never ceases to have fun no matter how much evil he is committing with his actions. Ledger shows a great joy in the Joker. His joker simply loves being the Joker there is never a question that he could be anything else.
Ledger never goes about a scene in a single fashion of being just an imposing villain, even though he is always effective with that. What it interesting is his different levels of insanity and his different attitudes depending on who is dealing with. Frankly one can see in Ledger's performance is his differing attitudes to his adversaries. When it is someone he frankly seems to see as a more worthy foe he honestly seems to have more fun with them and takes what seems like a more lighthearted approach. When it is someone though the Joker would have very little respect for someone he sees more of a tool than anything else he treats them with far less respect which means for the Joker not being as funny. In this moments Ledger really makes Joker the most chilling because when he has no respect he is especially swift and cruel with his violence.
What is truly terrific about this performance and it is probably the same element that helped give his fellow most recent villainous winners their wins frankly is their ability to be quite entertaining and funny despite being terrible characters. Ledger probably has even more of it than Bardem and Waltz even though and constantly adds an energetic dark humor to every scene with the Joker through even the smallest reactions. Ledger could not have been better in the role. He keeps the Joker the enigma quite effectively without seeming like a well realizes the character since nothing is really told about the Joker's the one thing he does tell he contradicts himself. He keeps the Joker as a mystery yet he realizes Joker as a truly insane individual who certainly came from somewhere but it is probably better off not know where he came from.This type of risky performance by Ledger could have easily gone all wrong, but Ledger only ever succeeds with his great performance.
The supporting category more recently has been known as the villains, although one can find villains throughout the category as both nominees, and winners like Walter Brennan, Gig Young, and Gene Hackman was never opposed to rewarding villains in the category. In the years of 07, 08 and 09 though they simply made a habit of it. 08 certainly felt like a villains year though as two of the nominees were undoubted villains, and two of the other nominees could easily been argued as antagonist characters. The winner therefore makes sense to have been the biggest villain of them all.
The Joker has been portrayed several times actually two times previously in live form with Caesar Romero camping it up with his portrayal in the 60's, and Jack Nicholson handling the character in a somewhat similar fashion in 80's Batman film. Ledger with his posthumous Oscar winning performance though although does not reject those previous portrayals he never for a moment tries to just copy these earlier renditions, and makes the Joker of this film something very much of his own creation. He doesn't exactly reject these earlier portrayals, but it clear that Ledger's version of the Joker always belongs to Ledger.
Ledger does this with an extremely risky performance that never tries to play it safe. Ledger's entire performance is on a ledge (no pun intended) the entire time seeming to try something new in every scene he has. A performance like this is all one really a huge chance, since it never for moment feels like standard performance and is a completely different from anything Heath Ledger ever did before in this film. Because of this Ledger's performance does face reactions all around the spectrum really because of this risks since his performance either works for you or it doesn't there really is not a great deal of middle ground.
For me personally all of Ledger's risks he takes with the Joker all pay off completely. The voice he uses with the strange accent works perfectly for the Joker. He both sounds completely insane with it, yet he as well still is commanding and chilling at the same time. His hunched over posture, and his whole bizarre mannerisms all work in favor of making Joker an unforgettable creation. The amazing part of it all though is despite every little thing he does to create this Joker it never for a moment felt like a performance to me. Ledger always simply becomes the Joker from his first scene to his last he is the character, every little mannerism is only more of what the Joker is.
Ledger's Joker is a terrific villain because of how much he does accomplish with the part. He never is one note in the part oddly enough even though the Joker is a character who doesn't change in throughout the course of the film and his only objective is technically to create chaos with what he does. Ledger in each and every scene gives a chilling villain who has a overwhelming presence every time he is on screen. You really cannot help but look at Ledger in this performance. Ledger shows here that the Joker takes almost everything in stride, and almost never ceases to have fun no matter how much evil he is committing with his actions. Ledger shows a great joy in the Joker. His joker simply loves being the Joker there is never a question that he could be anything else.
Ledger never goes about a scene in a single fashion of being just an imposing villain, even though he is always effective with that. What it interesting is his different levels of insanity and his different attitudes depending on who is dealing with. Frankly one can see in Ledger's performance is his differing attitudes to his adversaries. When it is someone he frankly seems to see as a more worthy foe he honestly seems to have more fun with them and takes what seems like a more lighthearted approach. When it is someone though the Joker would have very little respect for someone he sees more of a tool than anything else he treats them with far less respect which means for the Joker not being as funny. In this moments Ledger really makes Joker the most chilling because when he has no respect he is especially swift and cruel with his violence.
What is truly terrific about this performance and it is probably the same element that helped give his fellow most recent villainous winners their wins frankly is their ability to be quite entertaining and funny despite being terrible characters. Ledger probably has even more of it than Bardem and Waltz even though and constantly adds an energetic dark humor to every scene with the Joker through even the smallest reactions. Ledger could not have been better in the role. He keeps the Joker the enigma quite effectively without seeming like a well realizes the character since nothing is really told about the Joker's the one thing he does tell he contradicts himself. He keeps the Joker as a mystery yet he realizes Joker as a truly insane individual who certainly came from somewhere but it is probably better off not know where he came from.This type of risky performance by Ledger could have easily gone all wrong, but Ledger only ever succeeds with his great performance.
Friday, 16 March 2012
Best Supporting Actor 2008: Josh Brolin in Milk
Josh Brolin received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Dan White in Milk.
Josh Brolin portrays the eventual assassin of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn) who is also his fellow San Francisco city supervisor. Watching Milk again I must say I was a little surprised to see just how little screen time Brolin actually has in the film. Yes he is a perpetual character almost throughout the film, but he only comes in and out for brief periods. Whenever Brolin is on screen though he makes a substantial impact even in the briefest moments. Brolin despite his technically limited screen time avoids ever making Dan White into just into an obvious villain for the film, or an inevitable plot development for the film, Brolin instead succeeds making Dan White into a fascinating character in his own right.
We see Dan White only really on the outside we never see him at his home, or in his personal life, and Brolin must convey everything about White in the smallest of ways. The amazing part about Brolin's performance is his success with the part, I never felt for a moment White was underdeveloped by him despite his limitations within the context of the film. Brolin performance firstly is quite successful in his representation of White for the most part such as in his public appearances. In just his public appearances Brolin just suggests Dan White as just a man passionate about his specific beliefs. He does not try to make him an evil man just a fairly typical politician, at first.
His early scenes are actually pivotal to his performance as he actually tries to be friends with the man he eventually murders. Brolin here is excellent in that he shows Dan White as a man looking for some sort of friendship, a strange man who has some sort of separation from others for whatever reason Brolin is careful not to disclose. There is a sadness though in Brolin's performance creating strangely enough a great deal of sympathy for White. He is able to keep this degree of sympathy even when he is fighting with Milk over there eventual divergences. Brolin shows White to honestly feel betrayed actually no so much for Milk not doing what he wanted, but rather clearly not being his friend that he believed he might have been.
Brolin's performance builds over every little scene showing a pressure building on him in each moment he is on screen up until the murders. Brolin is absolutely brilliant in his final scenes as he goes about the killing because of how matter of fact he is. He never shows it to be some sort of act of a lunatic for a single moment, but rather far more chilling by the act of a man who has simply gone off the edge that just seemed what he had to do. This is a terrific performance by Brolin that realizes his character fully despite his limited screen time. I only wish he frankly was given more time since what he does with White is incredible, and left me only wanting to actually see more of his character.
We see Dan White only really on the outside we never see him at his home, or in his personal life, and Brolin must convey everything about White in the smallest of ways. The amazing part about Brolin's performance is his success with the part, I never felt for a moment White was underdeveloped by him despite his limitations within the context of the film. Brolin performance firstly is quite successful in his representation of White for the most part such as in his public appearances. In just his public appearances Brolin just suggests Dan White as just a man passionate about his specific beliefs. He does not try to make him an evil man just a fairly typical politician, at first.
His early scenes are actually pivotal to his performance as he actually tries to be friends with the man he eventually murders. Brolin here is excellent in that he shows Dan White as a man looking for some sort of friendship, a strange man who has some sort of separation from others for whatever reason Brolin is careful not to disclose. There is a sadness though in Brolin's performance creating strangely enough a great deal of sympathy for White. He is able to keep this degree of sympathy even when he is fighting with Milk over there eventual divergences. Brolin shows White to honestly feel betrayed actually no so much for Milk not doing what he wanted, but rather clearly not being his friend that he believed he might have been.
Brolin's performance builds over every little scene showing a pressure building on him in each moment he is on screen up until the murders. Brolin is absolutely brilliant in his final scenes as he goes about the killing because of how matter of fact he is. He never shows it to be some sort of act of a lunatic for a single moment, but rather far more chilling by the act of a man who has simply gone off the edge that just seemed what he had to do. This is a terrific performance by Brolin that realizes his character fully despite his limited screen time. I only wish he frankly was given more time since what he does with White is incredible, and left me only wanting to actually see more of his character.
Thursday, 15 March 2012
Best Supporting Actor 2008: Philip Seymour Hoffman in Doubt
Philip Seymour Hoffman received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Father Brendan Flynn in Doubt.
Doubt details the strict Sister Aloysius' (Meryl Streep) suspicions about her parish and school's priest around his relationship with one of the students.
Philip Seymour Hoffman portrays the priest who may or may not be a child molester it is never made absolutely clear either way. Hoffman is careful to portray Father Flynn as just an average priest early on in the film. There is an innate friendliness in his performance that is fitting of his priest who wants to make the church come off that way to outsiders as well as the parents of the children in the school. In addition to this in his sermon scenes Hoffman has a confidence as well an understated passion that is a perfect fit for his priest.
Hoffman early though leaves his character open to interpretation just enough without ever seeming like an obvious problem in anyway. There does always seem to be something else about Father Flynn in Hoffman's portrayal that never leaves him as a black or white figure but a man of grey. Hoffman carefully conveys this in just his early moments such as when he is talking to the boys about dating or even just teaching them about basketball. Hoffman finds just the right approach here because he technically does not seem to say anything precisely, but yet he still conveys the idea that there is something more to Father Flynn.
Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance greatest challenge comes when he may or may not have committed a crime. Hoffman neither confirms or denies his crime at any moment in his performance. This is something very difficult to be able to do without falling one way the other, the best portrayal of this is obviously Jeremy Irons in Reversal of Fortune, Hoffman here is not quite on Irons level yet his portrayal of Flynn's possible guilt is well handled. Hoffman does carefully suggests guilt in a way but not necessarily guilt in terms of what he is being accused of, but possibly guilt because of some feeling for the crime not because he actually did it. Hoffman leaves Flynn properly open to interpretation.
Many of Hoffman's pivotal scenes though come in his confrontational moments with Meryl Streep's Sister Aloysius. These scenes are really are as much of their character's conflict as the actors conflict over their styles in the scene. Meryl Streep here has the accent and the greater degree of theatrics which makes sense for her character who always wants her presence to be known as well as wants things done her way, Hoffman on the other hand downplays his half of the conflict. Hoffman makes Flynn almost trying to avoid the conflict with the sister, and constantly trying just to calm the situation more than outright attack the sister back on her terms.
It is a very effective approach that works well in contrast to Streep's approach that creates an interesting dynamic between the two. Hoffman with ease shows the great emotional range that Father Flynn goes through in just a single scene. From his early moments of trying to be just dismissive, to soon becoming more frustrated and angry while showing an underlying guilt of some sort at the same time. Hoffman is extremely effective because he moves through this emotions with absolute realism. There is no disconnect in his performance but rather every emotion is all part of Father Flynn's troubled reaction to the accusations made against him.
Hoffman is able to handle all of the difficulties of the role in strive never falling into any sort of obvious trap one way or another in terms of his character. He completely fulfills the challenges of the role and achieves precisely what he needs to with the role of Father Flynn. If I were to complain about the performance, and really I do not need to as he he gives a very strong performance, is I could not help feeling it could have perhaps been even better of one than it already is. It is not to say there is a single problem with his performance, there really isn't, only could not help but feel with such a character it could have been an absolutely stunning performance instead of just a very good one. I can't even identify really what exactly stops him from going further I really can't, but in the end I can't shake the feeling that perhaps he could have. Nevertheless this is a fine performance from Hoffman and should be recognized as such.
Philip Seymour Hoffman portrays the priest who may or may not be a child molester it is never made absolutely clear either way. Hoffman is careful to portray Father Flynn as just an average priest early on in the film. There is an innate friendliness in his performance that is fitting of his priest who wants to make the church come off that way to outsiders as well as the parents of the children in the school. In addition to this in his sermon scenes Hoffman has a confidence as well an understated passion that is a perfect fit for his priest.
Hoffman early though leaves his character open to interpretation just enough without ever seeming like an obvious problem in anyway. There does always seem to be something else about Father Flynn in Hoffman's portrayal that never leaves him as a black or white figure but a man of grey. Hoffman carefully conveys this in just his early moments such as when he is talking to the boys about dating or even just teaching them about basketball. Hoffman finds just the right approach here because he technically does not seem to say anything precisely, but yet he still conveys the idea that there is something more to Father Flynn.
Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance greatest challenge comes when he may or may not have committed a crime. Hoffman neither confirms or denies his crime at any moment in his performance. This is something very difficult to be able to do without falling one way the other, the best portrayal of this is obviously Jeremy Irons in Reversal of Fortune, Hoffman here is not quite on Irons level yet his portrayal of Flynn's possible guilt is well handled. Hoffman does carefully suggests guilt in a way but not necessarily guilt in terms of what he is being accused of, but possibly guilt because of some feeling for the crime not because he actually did it. Hoffman leaves Flynn properly open to interpretation.
Many of Hoffman's pivotal scenes though come in his confrontational moments with Meryl Streep's Sister Aloysius. These scenes are really are as much of their character's conflict as the actors conflict over their styles in the scene. Meryl Streep here has the accent and the greater degree of theatrics which makes sense for her character who always wants her presence to be known as well as wants things done her way, Hoffman on the other hand downplays his half of the conflict. Hoffman makes Flynn almost trying to avoid the conflict with the sister, and constantly trying just to calm the situation more than outright attack the sister back on her terms.
It is a very effective approach that works well in contrast to Streep's approach that creates an interesting dynamic between the two. Hoffman with ease shows the great emotional range that Father Flynn goes through in just a single scene. From his early moments of trying to be just dismissive, to soon becoming more frustrated and angry while showing an underlying guilt of some sort at the same time. Hoffman is extremely effective because he moves through this emotions with absolute realism. There is no disconnect in his performance but rather every emotion is all part of Father Flynn's troubled reaction to the accusations made against him.
Hoffman is able to handle all of the difficulties of the role in strive never falling into any sort of obvious trap one way or another in terms of his character. He completely fulfills the challenges of the role and achieves precisely what he needs to with the role of Father Flynn. If I were to complain about the performance, and really I do not need to as he he gives a very strong performance, is I could not help feeling it could have perhaps been even better of one than it already is. It is not to say there is a single problem with his performance, there really isn't, only could not help but feel with such a character it could have been an absolutely stunning performance instead of just a very good one. I can't even identify really what exactly stops him from going further I really can't, but in the end I can't shake the feeling that perhaps he could have. Nevertheless this is a fine performance from Hoffman and should be recognized as such.
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
Best Supporting Actor 2008: Michael Shannon in Revolutionary Road
Michael Shannon received his first Oscar nomination for portraying John Givings in Revolutionary Road.
Revolutionary Road is one of those films about the soullessness of suburbanites this time about the Wheelers played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet.
Michael Shannon portrays a plot contrivance the son of one the Wheelers friends who has been in an institution and is mentally unbalanced. The whole point of his character seems to be the Oscar nominated character for the film, since John acts as the only one who will tell those suburbanites that they are the soulless individuals they are. This is not to say that Michael Shannon performance is bad, but his character's whole existence is a little questionable.
Shannon shows up in three scene to chew the scenery a bit particularly in his first and last scenes. Again this does not mean its bad, after all the performance and character seemed setup just to be the Oscar nominated supporting performance for the film. It is true that since his character is suppose to be intrusive as well as mentally unbalanced it would be technically wrong for his performance to be quiet but I don't think the part of John has to be quite actory fashion Shannon chooses to portray him.
All three scenes he wants to steal with his performance which makes John seem frankly more intrusive than he some ways should be, because he seems intrusive through what feels like a performance more than what feels like actually human behavior but than again the character in itself is just a plot device to be used therefore I suppose Shannon's method is supportive of that fact. I do think though John would have been more interesting if he had been portrayed more realistic and in a less purposefully showy manner.
I should not be mistaken though because Shannon still is effective in the role. He is intense and certainly entertaining as he acts out his part. He never came alive as a mentally disturbed man exactly but he did act well as the plot device he was written as has. The doubt and hatred John fires up is most certainly understandable through Shannon's striking performance. He does control his scenes without question and certainly makes it so cannot avoid John's observations.
Shannon performance does work in context for the film which I highly doubted really wanted a more realistic and depth filled approach, which I think perhaps Shannon could have pulled off to, but the film does not care about who John really is it just wants him to cause conflict within the film when it needs him to. It really is a missed opportunity for both Shannon and a character for his character to less than he frankly could have been. John easily could have been a great very memorable character, but as it is Shannon gives a strong enough performance but not one that stays with you too long after watching the film.
Michael Shannon portrays a plot contrivance the son of one the Wheelers friends who has been in an institution and is mentally unbalanced. The whole point of his character seems to be the Oscar nominated character for the film, since John acts as the only one who will tell those suburbanites that they are the soulless individuals they are. This is not to say that Michael Shannon performance is bad, but his character's whole existence is a little questionable.
Shannon shows up in three scene to chew the scenery a bit particularly in his first and last scenes. Again this does not mean its bad, after all the performance and character seemed setup just to be the Oscar nominated supporting performance for the film. It is true that since his character is suppose to be intrusive as well as mentally unbalanced it would be technically wrong for his performance to be quiet but I don't think the part of John has to be quite actory fashion Shannon chooses to portray him.
All three scenes he wants to steal with his performance which makes John seem frankly more intrusive than he some ways should be, because he seems intrusive through what feels like a performance more than what feels like actually human behavior but than again the character in itself is just a plot device to be used therefore I suppose Shannon's method is supportive of that fact. I do think though John would have been more interesting if he had been portrayed more realistic and in a less purposefully showy manner.
I should not be mistaken though because Shannon still is effective in the role. He is intense and certainly entertaining as he acts out his part. He never came alive as a mentally disturbed man exactly but he did act well as the plot device he was written as has. The doubt and hatred John fires up is most certainly understandable through Shannon's striking performance. He does control his scenes without question and certainly makes it so cannot avoid John's observations.
Shannon performance does work in context for the film which I highly doubted really wanted a more realistic and depth filled approach, which I think perhaps Shannon could have pulled off to, but the film does not care about who John really is it just wants him to cause conflict within the film when it needs him to. It really is a missed opportunity for both Shannon and a character for his character to less than he frankly could have been. John easily could have been a great very memorable character, but as it is Shannon gives a strong enough performance but not one that stays with you too long after watching the film.
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
Best Supporting Actor 2008
Josh Brolin in Milk
Philip Seymour Hoffman in Doubt
Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight
Michael Shannon in Revolutionary Road
Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)