Best Supporting Actor 2021: Results

5. J.K. Simmons in Being the Ricardos - Simmons is completely fine, if also completely insubstantial, in his grumpy portrayal of classic grump William Frawley. 

Best Scene: Table Read.

4. Jesse Plemons in The Power of the Dog - Plemons effectively establishes his character's state of being caught under his brother's thumb, though finds little variation after a certain point.

Best Scene: "Apologizing" for Phil to Rose.

3. Troy Kotsur in CODA - Kotsur is bad in the comic scenes he's given, but makes up for them through the honesty he brings in his dramatic scenes.

Best Scene: Talk on the pickup truck bed. 

2. Ciarán Hinds in Belfast - Hinds represents the virtues of Belfast through his warm, humorous and heartfelt performance.

Best Scene: Words of wisdom.

1. Kodi Smit-McPhee in The Power of the Dog - Good predictions Maciej, Emi Grant, Aidan, Robert, Tahmeed, Mitchell, Anonymous, RatedRStar, Luke, David Jones and Matthew Brown. A foregone conclusion, Smit-McPhee effortlessly realizes a very tricky character in his performance that so artfully maneuvers around the truth while also slowly revealing it.

Best Scene: Rolling a cigarette. 

Best Supporting Actor 2021: Troy Kotsur in CODA

Troy Kotsur won his Oscar from his first Oscar nomination for portraying Frank Rossi in CODA.

CODA tells the story of the child of deaf parents as she deals with that whole thing while trying to pursue singing. 

Here's a film I was I feel pretty diplomatic with my feelings the first time I watched it given its praise and how many people were moved by it, I thought "I must be missing something" so I didn't jump down its throat. Well after watching it again, I hate this stupid movie. I was immediately reminded of such the first ten minutes into this cesspool of goodish intentions by examining the film mostly to focus on this performance. Kotsur has kind of stoic energy in the first scene as we see him, his son and the titular character Ruby (Emilia Jones) working on their family fishing boat and then frustrated by the costs local administration. It feels real, and the attention to giving a deaf actor the ability to perform through ASL is great casting. Then we get his next scene where his character of Frank Rossi, a relatively realistic seeming dad, becomes a cartoon. Frank picks his daughter up at school while loud rap music plays which he feels he needs to explain his love for it as coarsely as possible. This is immediately followed by him needing to explain his testicles burning at the doctors also as coarsely as possible. This is immediately followed by him farting and explaining why it is a good thing as coarsely as possible. I mean is this movie serious with this? Couldn't this deaf person be an actual person, not some ridiculous notion of a human. I have no idea what the intention of this is but creates a feeling insincerity, like a deaf person to seem real needs to be a ridiculous caricature to be accepted as a main character. 

Now what about Kotsur's portrayal of the cartoon? Well I'm torn, because the material is clearly so bad but obviously it is the material he's stuck with. Kotsur throws himself into the supposed comedy of the scene, and well, it's not funny even remotely, and it does come off as ridiculous. It is one that is difficult to judge for me because the material is so atrocious, but I can't say I don't think it infects Kotsur's work. He too is a bit ridiculous in these scenes, going for the over the top laugh, because that is what the scene is going for. Neither works however. And one can fairly say "but it's the directing" and it is, but every performance is a combination of both, so I have to criticize both just as both deserve the praise when they work in tandem to create something special. But hey, maybe there are better scenes between him and seasoned performer Marlee Matlin as his wife. Maybe their relationship is in-depth and complicated. Maybe you really get a sense of who these two people are as people and as life partners. No, they're just really really horny for one another. They are so horny for one another, so horny that their horniness is basically the only thing they seem to share with one another. This leading to a scene of them having sex followed by Frank instructing Ruby's potential boyfriend how to proceed by using a condom and proceeding to visually portray this. Again Frank becomes this complete cartoon, and there's no reality in Kotsur's performance. I guess if it was hilarious it would be fine, but it's not, it's incredibly stupid. 

Thankfully Kotsur isn't always the "comedic" cartoon though, he sadly begins so strongly as such. There are the scenes where we see Frank dealing with the fishing boat and the economic hardships. Kotsur's performance is so much more internalized and subdued, it frankly feels like a different character at these times. Kotsur is genuinely very good in these scenes. In his performance you really get a sense of the deep rooted frustration of the system. When he communicates with his kids these frustrations and difficulties, there is such a sense of the weight of his responsibility in his eyes, and this subtle sadness recognizing a certain kind of defeat with how many things are against him. Even the bigger moments, such as signing his outrage to yet another cost Kotsur portrays in each moment an earnest intensity that clearly stems from just having had enough. In these scenes we get a real sense of the hardships of this life, but we also get an actual sense of a real person. They're bigger emotions by Kotsur, but bigger in a way that feels natural in his performance. Even if they do apparently live in a reality where the American With Disabilities Act doesn't exist, but I digress. Kotsur's work wears the weight of the life but also within it that sense of responsibility towards trying to hold it together for his family. Eventually this leads to the main conflict of the film which is Ruby being pulled between the responsibility she feels to help her family, and her own dreams. 

 

Kotsur is genuinely terrific in these scenes he shares with Jones. Although they don't move me per se, as I'm far too checked out when the film eventually gets to them and even then they are very obvious in their manipulation at times, Kotsur's performance embodies the conflict and sense of love in the situation. His eyes speak towards the heartbreak at his daughter moving on, yet in the same sense it is filled with this ever supportive love. He is affecting in these moments where he is convincing in creating the sense of this relationship, the challenge of being the dad, by being the dad who has to let his daughter go. When portraying this aspect the reality is there, and the conflict is given a sense of depth in his performance. He does earn his one big line of English with "Go" that Kotsur puts his all into, and it doesn't fall onto deaf ears. I remain conflicted over this performance however. In all those comedy scenes, that are bad, Kotsur is also bad in them. He is very good though whenever he's not trying to be funny. It's a weird situation because in a way him being good makes the bad scenes even worse because they do feel like two different characters with the far more reserved and complicated man we see in the dramatic moments against the over the top cartoon we see in comedic scenes. This is a weird situation as usually an inconsistent performance is inconsistent throughout a film, or it is more in waves. Here it is separated entirely by tone, if there's comedy Kotsur is bad, if its drama he's very good. There is far more drama here than comedy, and additionally the best drama in the film is when Kotsur is the one being dramatic. It also helps the comedic scenes stop being a thing about half way through the film, so this becomes more so a performance that starts rough but gets better the longer the film goes on. Kotsur does successfully go from being just an absurd depiction of a man to a genuine one.

Best Supporting Actor 2021: Kodi Smit-McPhee in The Power of the Dog

Kodi Smit-McPhee received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Peter Gordon in The Power of the Dog. 

Kodi Smit-McPhee portrays the son of Rose (Kirsten Dunst) who marries the milquetoast George Burbank (Jesse Plemons) brother of the bullying and domineering cowboy Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch). Smit-McPhee initially appears as potential just another victim of Phil as he is initially acting as a waiter in his mother's restaurant where Phil berates him for his general demeanor that is not what one would describe as a man's man, unlike Phil, or at least as Phil presents himself. Smit-McPhee's performance establishes the innate sort of uncertainty, even strangeness, at least within this atmosphere of Peter. As a man not ready to deal with Phil as his eyes filled with a discomfort upon in his reactions as he's mocked by Phil. There is something else that Smit-McPhee does though that perhaps speaks all the greater to who Peter is before the restaurant scene and afterward as he retires to a hula hoop of all things, and moving down his comb with his thumb in this repeated and unnerving intensity. We see Peter making specific flowers looking over detailed books, and Smit-McPhee accentuates this sort of stare and manner that is best described as methodological. In the moment of so carefully preparing his flowers and putting them at his father's grave, there is a way in his walk, and manner in his hands that has this strange kind of specificity. The specificity of someone who isn't exactly on the same wavelength of the average man in this old western town he inhabits. 

Smit-McPhee early on prods along like a man who is in his own world. The way he walks around it is with this almost zombie esque saunter, and when asking things of his mother it is with a detached matter of fact quality that Smit-McPhee speaks each word with. When she speaks of joining her at the ranch of George and Phil, Peter just asks for petals from her roses. A non sequitur statement, that frankly doesn't seemingly make sense if it weren't for Smit-McPhee's performance once again that speaks it as Peter living in his own experience. Now why this is so essential is what Smit-McPhee is doing is making sense of Peter as a figure who often seems enigmatic, however what he does is use every clue to craft this character as someone tangible by the end of the film. We see this as Peter first arrives late to the farm, and his physical manner while walking around the grounds is the perfect sort of awkwardness. He seems completely out of place yet Smit-McPhee walks with this intention that has a degree of eeriness by how out of place he is while doing so. When Peter captures a rabbit, seemingly at first just for fun, however he kills the rabbit and dissects it. Smit-McPhee's delivery in and around this act is with an unpleasant straightforwardness. This as he presents it not only that Peter has no hesitation towards the act, but more so sees no reason why anyone should either. 

Smit-McPhee presents for much of the film this directness of Peter as someone who is being himself with nearly this kind of detached zen quality, whether that be killing a rabbit, looking over homoerotic pictures or observing a naked Phil bathing in a stream. Smit-McPhee portrays this confidence, even if so differently from say Phil's, as someone who can act with specific intention and is a way wholly himself unlike so many. Eventually, and quite suddenly, Phil changes his tune towards Peter and invites him into his company. As much as Smit-McPhee was compelling as the seeming enigma, this is where the performance in many ways truly gets started. Smit-McPhee's performance in these scenes are fascinating. This as his delivery and manner still carries this observational quality even as he seems to become friendlier towards Phil. Smit-McPhee, as much as Phil sees him, isn't this young buck taking the lessons like a student, rather Smit-McPhee has still that watching quality towards Phil as he would less so a friend, a mentor, more so a specimen if reserved in this at first. Peter though appears ever the dutiful listener however, and takes on to the skills taught by Phil, though he never exactly loses that idiosyncratic nature. Smit-McPhee is never less than methodological, and notable is the moment where he captures a Rabbit with Phil killing the rabbit again. The calm in which Smit-McPhee speaks to the rabbit before snapping his neck, is unnerving as his performance reveals the truth of Peter.

The truth of Peter being essentially a psychopath and Smit-McPhee's performance is informed by this every step of the way. This as he speaks with his mother his intention to take care of her issues with Phil through this quiet certainty, an internalized emotion, though not a natural one, and alludes though to the thought of the psychopath determining his task essentially to assassinate Phil. Smit-McPhee creates the truth of the enigma by so effectively portraying this truth throughout, a truth though that you only slowly realize near the end of the film. When he speaks of his father's death via suicide, it is not of the grieving son, though there is some muted emotion, what is better defined is again the degree of detachment even with such a powerful emotion. In turn the relationship with Phil is that he is basically putting on and speaking whatever Phil wants to hear, that will turn to manipulation. The greatness of Smit-McPhee's performance being the way he unleashes his true nature it eventually when he basically enacts the final parts of his plan. When suggesting the poisoned hide Smit-McPhee is overly assured in saying he's doing it for Phil, in stark contrast against his peering eyes as he looks upon Phil, who is being sorta loving in the moment. As he gets closer to essentially killing Phil, Smit-McPhee looks upon him with this keen and really diabolical interest. While he is killing the man to save his mother, Smit-McPhee is genuinely chilling by showing the murderer slowly appreciating his dying prey. Smit-McPhee loses the sense of really any phony weakness, at least as to appear as the mentee to Phil, as he rolls a cigarette and questions essentially if Phil and his old mentor Bronco Henry were lovers. Smit-McPhee's simple way of saying "Naked?" is absolutely brilliant because he outwardly expresses the now control Peter has of the situation and no longer is faking that in the way he's made Phil his pet, or again more correctly specimen. Smit-McPhee delivers a terrific and dynamic turn here. The character of Peter could've been easy to muck-up, either making the truth of him too obvious, or to be too vague that the revelations don't work. Smit-McPhee never makes a misstep into slowing threading this atypical needle in order to create these developments. Every action of the character is given sense through this performance and Smit-McPhee does so in a way that is powerful, surprises you, yet feels wholly earned.

Best Supporting Actor 2021: Ciarán Hinds in Belfast

Ciarán Hinds received his first Oscar nomination for portraying "Pop" in Belfast. 

Belfast is Kenneth Branagh's semi-autobiographical film about his time as a young boy in Belfast during the time of "the troubles" between protestants and Catholics. An imperfect, but wholly affable, film that works best when it is lower key in its largely sentimental and nostalgic approach. 

The always reliable character actor Ciarán Hinds takes on the essential role of so many coming of age stories, that of the loving grandfather. This actually is a pretty big departure for the type of roles Hinds is known best for, those being the often cold or at least stoic authority figure. Hinds though makes you instantly forget all that, and steps right into the role of the loving grandfather as though he's been playing this role his whole career. Hinds really is fantastic in crafting this role, that is technically very mannered, but you really wouldn't know it unless you know Hinds from elsewhere. Hinds alters his accent as well as his overall voice to be reflective of this elder man of Belfast from an older time. This delivering the Belfast accent while also accentuating a greater age within his deeper more labored voice. His physical manner is much the same as exudes the age of the character. He moves around with this natural difficulty. He moves around as a man who needs to be mindful of his steps and careful of his movements. He simply is this grandfatherly type who has that age of his life as simply a part of him and Hinds's performances grants that gradualness as a part of who Pop is. What is again impressive about this is that if you've never seen Hinds before you just simply accept it, but honestly what's even more impressive is that if you have he instantly makes you forget that you've seen him before. At the very least you wonder if Hinds simply aged a great deal since you've seen him last, as he's so comfortable in this role. 

 

Hinds comes in and out of the film most frequently providing some kind of council to his grandson Buddy, typically as Buddy struggles to get close to a girl in his class he has a crush on. Hinds has such a wonderful sincerity in the role, despite again technically being a mannered performance, but you don't think of any of that as he inhabits this loving natural state of Pop. Hinds's delivery is filled with warmth and a loving mischievousness as he attempts to offer Buddy a few pointers. Hinds has this wonderful tone as he brings this sort of eagerness to match the energy of the boy, and a playfulness in his eyes. Hinds shows that as much as the old man is in a way playing on the boy's field of thought, he's also loving to do so and so overjoyed to be able to give him a bit of his perspective. Hinds brings the right sort of fun in this as Pop teachers Buddy the valuable lesson of cheating slightly in math via bad handwriting or just suggesting he try to see his crush outside of school. In each instance Hinds has this wonderful way of showing the way Pop is processing Buddy's problems with this keen thoughtfulness of a man truly thinking for his grandson whom he loves. Hinds is in so many ways the representative of the major virtue of the film, which is when the sentiment completely works. Again so often it is when it is low key. This as Pop serenading Granny (Judi Dench) with "How to Handle a Woman" from Camelot, I think could have gone wrong, but Hinds's delivery of it is filled with such striking earnestness. 

 

There is no pushing for the lovely moment, he just simply makes it by singing the song with such an easy grace and honest love. Every one of his scenes is a little bit of a gem, largely just through how good Hinds is here in making all the material here work. The highlight of such being when Buddy comes to visit Pop while he's in the hospital. Hinds is amazing in this scene and shows not only the virtues of his performance but the virtues that do exist within his film. Hinds, for a lack of a better word, is lovely in this scene. Again the warmth he brings and the sweetness of his performance is here. This in the earned humor of commenting on a old story about robbing the rent man which Hinds delivers with this spirited remembrance so filled with personal nostalgia and again that playfulness as he's actively entertaining the boy with the tale. There is a greater depth though in Hinds's work, this as in the scene Buddy is speaking about the family moving from Belfast, where Pop obviously will not be coming too. Hinds so naturally brings just in these momentary glances a quiet sense of the concern and unease that Pop is feeling for himself to lose that family, that the man actively hides within him to try to do what will be best for his children and grandchildren. This subtle distress makes his encouraging words towards his grandson all the more powerful. Hinds's delivery though is filled with warmth as he advises the boy against fear and reminding him that he has so much no matter where he is. Hinds delivers the speech just so simply and in that way so powerfully by showing a man foregoing any of his own loss, but just trying to wholly comfort his grandson. Hinds finds just that right tone where of course there's sentiment there, the right sentiment as he so honestly portrays this sense of familial love. This is true for every second of Hinds's work here that represents the film's greatest virtues through the honest ease in which he realizes this loving old man from Belfast.

Best Supporting Actor 2021: J.K. Simmons in Being the Ricardos

J.K. Simmons received his second Oscar nomination for portraying William Frawley in Being the Ricardos. 

J.K. Simmons is a good character actor, and often well cast as an irascible grump. Here he is cast as the classic irascible grump of William Frawley who became known late in his career for appearing as off-screen/onscreen couple Lucille Ball/Lucy (Nicole Kidman) and Desi Arnaz/Ricky (Javier Bardem)'s onscreen neighbor in their popular sitcom I Love Lucy. Frawley is depicted here mostly as the grump off screen. There was definitely some potential there in the contentious relationship Frawley shared with his onscreen wife in Vivian Vance (Nina Arianda), but the film doesn't really explore that other than an early questionably written argument, that I assume are supposed to be comedic, about a cast member in the Danny Thomas show signing a loyalty oath and few poorly implemented random asides. Otherwise we get just some grumpy asides. Simmons has had some great moments in his past at being grumpy, Spider-man, Burn After Reading, his Oscar winning turn, not here though. It is largely the material and the directing by Aaron Sorkin that seems intent on making every joke seem painfully labored. Simmons knows his way around a blunt delivery of the material, but it just isn't funny. Simmons, despite physically not matching Frawley to the point it seems like they gave him oversized suits thinking he was going to wear a fat suit, does do a little to be more than just his typical presence. This is largely by protruding his lips into a Frawley frown, which he accentuates a bit more when portraying Frawley, portraying his character Fred Mertz, into an even bigger frown. When portraying Fred his grumpy delivery is a bit more overly grumpy. The only other task given to Simmons is when Frawley decides to ask Desi randomly about his background and gives advice to Lucille about Desi, because in Aaron Sorkin's reality no one ever minds their own business. Simmons delivers these scenes, that are so awkward in conception, by being a little less grumpy in his delivery though still grumpy. Simmons doesn't make these scenes work particular the former scene that comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere, but he's fine in showing a slightly different side to Frawley. He's fine altogether as Frawley but just fine. The role doesn't really challenge him, nor does it exploit his potential as a performer in a comedic sense or dramatically. It's nothing notable, but he's fine in a mediocre film.

Best Supporting Actor 2021: Jesse Plemons in The Power of the Dog

Jesse Plemons received his first Oscar nomination for portraying George Burbank in The Power of the Dog. 

Jesse Plemons is one of the most dynamic young actors of his generation and one of the most prolific. Already in his very young career he's played such a rich variety of roles and complex characters for such a interesting variety of directors. This yet another example of such with Jane Campion casting him here as the younger "good" brother to the domineering cowboy Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch). Now as much as Plemons is often cast by great directors it sometimes has not been in the most interesting or engaging roles, well this is one of those examples. He's here really to be overshadowed by the other performances, particularly Cumberbatch. From their first scene together Cumberbatch is doing everything in the scene, while Plemons is giving straight forward responses as the more internalized man. He conveys the slight unease with his brother's manner but largely shows a man just kind of keeping to the expectation of his life as a rancher. Phil brow beats George just like he does everyone else. Plemons's reaction is effective in showing in his eyes his hatred for Phil just as his face maintains the passive indifference of a man who will never stand up to his far stronger willed brother. He's the odd gentleman out of the whole rowdy crew. He doesn't join in with his brother's act of terrors, but he doesn't exactly stand against them. 

 

Plemons's performance is instead is one of a calm disappointment but also resignation to his fate of being under the thumb of this seemingly stronger man. One such terror is at the expense of a local restaurateur and single mother Rose (Kirsten Dunst) who is left in tears after a day of Phil's antics. George goes to comfort her and Plemons portrays the passive man reaching out to this woman. There's a nice modest moment he shows at first of the man nearly breaking down himself in empathy and speaking his words of comfort as a man who will try to make up for his brother even if he won't step up to stop him. He then courts her which is depicted largely with Plemons carrying the same expression of passivity and resignation. The same act that carries as he even tells Phil he's marrying Rose much to Phil's dismay. Where Plemon's performance succeeds is you do understand the history of George with Phil, this as the brother used to his brother and settled with it. He still has emotion regarding the man's bullying but it is in the form of being just a man resigned to his fate as always being under his brother's will in at least some way. Plemons portrays a man bottled up as a defense mechanism for his life, with minor cracks as his only forms of expression. 

 

We see this perhaps most realized in his one major romantic moment with Rose as she sorta dances with him and he says how nice it is to not be alone. Plemons's delivery is absolutely fine in showing this escape of warmth, but I have to admit, the impact feels a touch muted, the emotion kind of cold even as the scene seems designed for a bit more poignancy. Of course this is all just the first third of the film, and after this point Plemons falls largely into the background, even though much of the film concerns Phil terrorizing George's new wife. Plemons's performance, no matter how dire Rose gets or any revelations of the plot, stays in the same passive state. Whether Rose is drowning in a depression fueled by booze or Phil well dies, George stays basically the same. I guess that's just who George is, or is it that Plemons's own performance might just be a touch too passive here. I'd say it is kind of both. Plemons establishes well who George is, what his relationship is with Phil and Rose, and that's all there is to him. This is in part the story ends up not being about George, but at the same time there are opportunities, even within the limitations presented the writing that aren't explored. Extremely subtle performances can say more than this one does, though this does say a few things. Plemons however is consistent to a fault, in that George ends up not being terribly interesting, and as much as he works as a cog within the film's storytelling machine, I doubt it would've distracted from the overall drama if he had been more interesting as well whether that be through conveying more within the repression or breaking away from that repression a bit more. This is not example though of Plemons ever being bad in a role, he creates a strong foundation within the film, within the character, but he and Campion leave it as such, which feels like a missed opportunity both for the film and for the actor. 

Best Supporting Actor 2021

And the Nominees Are:

Ciarán Hinds in Belfast

 

Jesse Plemons in The Power of the Dog

 

Kodi Smit-McPhee in The Power of the Dog 

 

Troy Kotsur in CODA

 

J.K. Simmons in Being the Ricardos