Best Supporting Actor 1953: Jack Palance in Shane

Jack Palance received his second Oscar nomination for portraying hired gunslinger Jack Wilson in Shane.

Palance  shows up about half way into the film as a villainous gunslinger hired by a cattle baron Rufus Ryker to insure that the homesteaders leave once and for all. Palance does basically one thing in this film, but he does that one things very well, and that is looking menacingly. He is always walking with perfect posture, his hands always ready to shoot even when his hands are around a glass of alcohol. He also has a very grim face and a small smile indicating Wilson's enjoyment of killing men who are slower at the draw. I'll give credit to Palance he is a good a villain here being menacing in the right way, and adds the right amount of dread to the film. He is most evil in his performance when he shoots a hot headed homesteader, having the right pompousness with his menace, and his last scene with Shane, where his reaction to Shane's insult is perfect. Not a great performance, Wilson really is not that much of a character, but Palance really does everything he can with the role. He is not the greatest villain ever but Palance makes Wilson into at least a somewhat memorable one.

Best Supporting Actor 1953: Brand De Wilde in Shane

Brandon De Wilde received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Joey Starrett in Shane.

Shane is an interesting western about a mysterious man who helps homesteaders in their conflict with a cattle baron. It is not a perfect film for a few reasons but it always feels like a classic of sorts even in the lesser scenes.

Brandon De Wilde is a kid here playing the son of Joe Starrett (Van Heflin) who idolizes Shane (Alan Ladd).  I want to say that De Wilde definitely grew up to become a good actor, he should have been nominated for Hud, but here Wilde does not show all that much promise. His whole character is a bit odd to me, I believe he was suppose to be the heart of movie especially at the end, but all I ever saw was an annoying and dull presence throughout the film.

In the film there are always these constant cutaways to his reaction to various things in the film. His reaction is almost always the same dull expression, that never ever helps a scene. In fact the constant reactions from him are pointless because he almost always has the same impression. Except at the end and when Shane shows off his shooting skills. But than he makes a pretty poor surprised reaction that seems a little forced. He most of the time just says Shane in rather woodenly, and really adds no true emotions to any of his scenes. He does have his final scene which is almost semi okay at the very end where he properly makes a sad face but still when he says "I hate you Shane" that is pretty unbelievably said.  His performance never felt authentic to me at all, and really is a bad performance by a kid. He adds nothing to the film except his obnoxious reactions and overall his performance only harms the film, never helping it.

Best Supporting Actor 1953: Robert Strauss in Stalag 17

Robert Strauss received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Stanislas 'Animal' Kasava in Stalag 17.

Robert Strauss plays Animal one part of the comedy team within the POW barracks of one Stalag 17, his partner in comedy being Harry Shapiro (Harvey Lembeck). A comedy pair that has only grown on my in each subsequent viewing to which I thought maybe they were a little much the first time but I found I've found their bits to be increasingly endearing. Very much working as a contrast to the darker comedic material and some of the darker plot wise material throughout the film. 

 

Strauss has more than a few more scenes where he is pretty good. He is a lively presence in the film which I enjoy all by himself. Also with his wild Animal behavior I actually do not think he does not go too over the top which could be incredibly easy. His outrageous behavior is as well handled as someone could, some of what he does works better than others at times, but again I never feel he really messes up in the film. In fact he shows a bit more range too. Such as just when he is in the more serious scenes in the film, he actually makes it so his joking presence does not interfere with the more realistic scenes and really works as part of the mean. Also one other scene that works well is when he reads a letter from home to a shell shocked soldier. Strauss actually has a nice subtle scene here that adds well to his performance. The followup scene of the gift to the soldier I found especially moving in large part just because of how warm and empathetic Strauss is in that scene. It's a performance that has only grown on me over time and I've come to even enjoy the most absurdist bits all the more in large part thanks to the energy Strauss brings here.  

Best Supporting Actor 1953: Frank Sinatra in From Here to Eternity

Frank Sinatra won an Oscar from his first nomination for portraying Pvt. Angelo Maggio in From Here to Eternity.

Frank Sinatra is Angelo who basically is just the friend who hangs out with Prewitt (Montgomery Clift). He likes his drinks and his parties and his character consists of very little more than that. Really played by Sinatra, Angelo is one obnoxious character  who I did not care for in the least, which means Sinatra fails quite obviously. Angelo is just annoying in every scene with his annoying voice, and his party guy mentality. I did not find him funny or care about his character in the least I was just bugged by him. In fact the first scene with Sergeant Fatso Judson (Ernest Borgnine) I more of sympathized with Fatso, and not just because Borgnine gives the better performance either. Because Sinatra as Angelo is far more annoying that Judson's piano playing ever could be. Angelo just always is bugging people and being obnoxious and is a character I really cannot stand. That is a major problem because the viewer is suppose feel very much for Angelo later in the film. Sinatra mostly just does his obnoxious behavior of look I am drinking and I am a wacky buddy character. That is until is final scene. He does not do the same routine but I really felt his last scene was poorly handled and was a pretty overacted scene by him. You are suppose to feel a loss from his exit in the film but all I felt was relief of no longer having to see his overacting. 

Re-watching the film I will say my old thoughts are a little harsh, but not too harsh. I still don't find Maggio incredibly endearing and I do think his final scene is definitely overacted. Where I think I didn't give him enough credit is his natural chemistry with Clift. That is where his performance does work to a degree as you believe their friendship and camaraderie more than enough. Where the two together do have this certain energy where you are granted their charge as a pair effectively and really the two getting pulled along as soldiers who find the fun in part within each other. Would I call it a great performance by any means, no, as again I do think his final moment is probably the weakest bit in the film, though softened by Clift's performance of the scene, but the rest of the time I think Sinatra is more than serviceable as the soldier whose mouth is bigger than his brains, though importantly you do believe him as this guy particularly as a friend to Prewitt. 

Best Supporting Actor 1953: Eddie Albert in Roman Holiday

Eddie Albert received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Irving Radovich in Roman Holiday.

Roman Holiday is a film that I actually enjoy quite a bit. There is nothing that special about it but I liked it as a good romantic comedy.

Eddie Albert is Irving Radovich who is a photographer friend of Joe Bradley (Gregory Peck). Joe has Irving take secret pictures of runaway Princess Ann calling herself Anya Smith (Audrey Hepburn) as they all go around Rome and do various things. Albert mostly just takes pictures. He goes around in the background taking pictures secretly and takes them in many different way and angles. Well he does a few other things such as being tripped by Joe when he almost spills the truth about the Princess but that is about it. I do not exactly have a huge problem with his performance since he actually does not do anything wrong, but than again the character does not ask him to really much of anything single in the entire film. All he did was either getting beaten up by someone or taking a picture of something. Really his performance is not the problem it is the fact that the Academy nominated someone for basically taking pictures and nothing else. I really hate to give him this rating since it is not like I hate what he does, I honestly would have rather just disqualified him for not having enough of a character to be nominated.

 

Looking at my old thoughts this really is an example of my once misguided approach where I would penalize a performance for the nomination rather than looking at the performance first. As while Albert shouldn't have been nominated for this this performance, he delivers exactly what is needed from him. In that he has a little bit of comedic energy, he's not there to steal the spotlight from Hepburn or Peck, just to add a little bit of an alternative presence in a few moments. His portrayal of Irving's reaction to see Joe's choice later in the film has enough nuance in there to show Irving's own consideration does provide some depth as a true friend to really both. Then looking over the photos with Joe, he conveys that shared joy between all of them in their little adventure. He has a quiet bit of charm here about what he does here, and while I will still say that this isn't a performance that needed to be nominated, it is a good performance albeit within a fairly limited role. 

Best Supporting Actor 1953

And the Nominees Were:

Jack Palance in Shane

Brandon De Wilde in Shane

Frank Sinatra in From Here to Eternity

Eddie Albert in Roman Holiday

Robert Strauss in Stalag 17

Who do you pick? What do you predict my ranking will be?

Best Actor 2005: Results

5. Terrence Howard in Hustle and Flow- The biggest acting he tries is an accent which he fails with and the rest is just a dull, dull performance.

4. Joaquin Phoenix in Walk The Line- Phoenix gives an okay dramatic performance I suppose but he does not give one that does Johnny Cash any justice.

3. David Straithairn in Good Night and Good Luck- Straithairn lacks much of a challenge as Edward R. Murrow but I do think he gives good performance although really in only a functional fashion.

2. Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain- Ledger gives an incredibly strong performance and mixes in brilliant subtlety with genuine emotion practically perfectly.

1. Philip Seymour Hoffman in Capote- Hoffman simply is brilliant from beginning to end in this film. Every single scene he nails completely. He always is Truman Capote I never doubted it which is amazing, and if that was not enough his performance is one of the most powerful performances ever.

Deserving Performances:Viggo Mortensen in A History of Violence