Best Supporting Actor 1938: Basil Rathbone in If I Were King

Basil Rathbone received his second and final Oscar nomination for portraying King Louis XI in If I Were King.

If I Were King tells the story of a rebellious poet who ends up as Grand Constable in France.

Rathbone portrays King Louis XI who is an incompetent, and rather unintelligent King who attempts to scheme to keep power by using the Poet Francois Vilon (Ronald Colman), but the Poet constantly gets the better of him. Rathbone really plays the part rather oddly because sometimes he plays it fairly normally, but other times he acts like some sort of kooky old man for no apparent reason. There is not a consistency between these two portrayals.

Both portrayals are not particularly interesting as well. When he is the Kooky old man he is really over the top with his mannerisms, and not very amusing except for one line at the end of the film, but one line out of as many as he has is to few. When not acting kooky he is just rather dull, so either way this is just not a very interesting performance by Rathbone. Yes he gets the incompetence down, but doing that is not that hard, if he had been infused with some more humor perhaps his performance could have been something memorable but as it is his performance is rather forgettable.

Best Supporting Actor 1938

And the Nominees Were:

Gene Lockhart in Algiers 

John Garfield in Four Daughters

Walter Brennan in Kentucky

Basil Rathbone in If I Were King

Robert Morley in Marie Antoinette 

Best Supporting Actor 1974: Results

5. Fred Astaire in The Towering Inferno- Astaire is just fine in his rather limited role creating one of the two characters I had any feeling for in the film.

4. Michael V. Gazzo in The Godfather Part II- Gazzo effectively creates a very specific portrait of an old mobster. Though he is a last minute replacement in a way Gazzo still manages to sort of make his own unique mark on the film.

3. Lee Strasberg in The Godfather Part II- Strasberg gives a great performance creating both a facade of a kindly old man, as well as showing the hidden cold calculating killer underneath.

2. Jeff Bridges in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot- Bridges gives an enjoyable, entertaining, and humorous performance as the carefree Lightfoot. He creates a likable character, as well as manages his rather sad transition at the end of the film equally well.

1. Robert De Niro in The Godfather Part II- Good prediction RatedRStar. De Niro gives an excellent performance as the young Vito Corleone. He shows a very particular man, and quietly conveys the man's great determination, ambition, power, and love for his family.

Deserving Performances:
John Cazale in The Godfather Part II (Read My Review Here)
John Huston in Chinatown
Robert Shaw in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three

Best Supporting Actor 1974: Jeff Bridges in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot

Jeff Bridges received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Lightfoot in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot.

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is a Buddy road movie that turns into a heist movie.

Jeff Bridges plays one of the two friends, who accidentally runs into Thunderbolt (Clint Eastwood), where they at first run from Thunderbolt's old partners, but eventually they team up with them to rob a bank that the group had robbed previously. Bridges plays Lightfoot who is a bit of a drifting, care free joker, who happens to run into Eastwood's character after he stole a car. Bridges captures Lightfoot's carefree and youthful attitude with ease. Throughout his performance Bridges fills his performance with a great deal of energy in every scene he is in. He is always moving around making a lot of jokes and comments. Bridges does all of this energy realistically and also never becomes annoying either, in fact he makes Lightfoot a rather endearing character instead.

Bridges stays charming through the whole performance and makes Lightfoot a very likable character. He makes him an easy character to spend time with, and basically follow through his road adventure with Thunderbolt. Bridges is always charismatic, being both entertaining and humorous during the film, without every seeming to try and force himself to be either, he simply is.  A main aspect of the film though is his friendship with Thunderbolt. It is an interesting dynamic the to have together since Eastwood mostly talks when he needs to, whereas Bridges constantly is talking. They have a nice friendship that grows together with a fairly natural chemistry between the two. The best scene of their friendship though is a scene where Bridges get Eastwood to laugh, because it is a great natural moment that shows the simple camaraderie the two share. 

Later in the film when they perform a bank heist together Bridges naturally tones down his higher energy when faced with actually committing the crime. Bridges shows carefully the actual weight of the challenge baring down on Lightfoot showing his fear of the idea, as well as a recognition of responsibility which he never had before quite well. Near the end of the film Bridges shows Lightfoot in an even worse condition, no longer joking at all, with only some sparks of his charm left. He manages the physical decay of Lightfoot well, and actually gives a rather heartbreaking performance at the end, because it is such a difference from the youthful Lightfoot from the beginning. This is a memorable, and effective work from Bridges that certainly made his film a far better experience by being in it.

Best Supporting Actor 1974: Robert De Niro in The Godfather Part II

Robert De Niro won his first Oscar from his first nomination for portraying Vito Corleone in The Godfather Part II.

Robert De Niro portrays the young Vito Corleone, who is in fact the lead of his story that runs along with story focusing on Michael. I do not mind him being placed in the supporting category because really Vito's story is usually done to compare to Michael's not the other way around. Vito's story shows his very humble beginnings in the New York and his eventual rise to power.

De Niro gives a rather quiet, and restrained performance as Vito, which is quite interesting approach considering what Vito needs to eventually become later in his life. It only is an interesting approach really but the right approach for the role. De Niro also manages to turn Vito into his own character, as well as still show that it is the man who eventually becomes Marlon Brando's Vito, he has elements of Brando's performance in his own performance, but still makes his own mark on the character as well. Vito begins quite humbly in the film working for very little money although already starting his family out in Little Italy in New York. In these early moment De Niro shows a quiet dignity to his performance. There really is a certain sensibility and intelligence that he always shows in Vito. De Niro also through his almost silent reactions at home that what Vito's primary belief in life is loyalty to his family.

De Niro in fact suggests that really this belief that prevails through Vito is what eventually leads him into his life of crime. There is actually no sort of hardening shown in De Niro's performance as Vito begins to commit crimes, nor should there be. De Niro instead shows it as more of Vito's natural move to succeed for his family, De Niro always infuses a certain degree of underlying ambition in Vito, a calculated ambition, that De Niro suggest in absolutely silent way, but completely brings the ambition to life. De Niro is terrific in his moments of transition to becoming the Don of the neighborhood. As Vito commits the crime, De Niro also shows an efficiency in his efforts, particularly in his seen of his first murder. He never overacts for a moment, instead showing that Vito's power came from a business man type of efficiency. De Niro is great because he never acts like criminal with Vito, instead he does it just like a man performing his job nothing more.

After he has really come to power there is a great degree of power that De Niro conveys in Vito, that is particularly notable, becuase he has such an ease with his power over his neighborhood and the people in it. De Niro shows that Vito simply is in charge, and there is no question to it, through the way De Niro shows that Vito does not question or worry about his power, he merely is completely insured of it at all times.De Niro gives an incredibly strong performance with a rather difficult character of Vito, he not only manages to show how he becomes the character Brando was in the first film, but also still manages to present a completely different side of his character. He manages to be able to fully realize the ambition, the power, as well as the love for his family without fault in this subtle turn.

Best Supporting Actor 1974: Michael V. Gazzo in The Godfather Part II

Michael V. Gazzo received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Frank Pentangeli in The Godfather Part II.

Frank Pentangeli is basically an old school member of the mob, who controls the old Corleone territory in New York. Gazzo in his early moments effectively establishes Pentangeli as really an old style mobster, who believes very much in his Italian heritage as well as his pride. It's funny to note that this role is just a bit of sequelitis in what is one of the greatest sequels of all time since this is a replacement role. Pentangeli's part in the story was meant to be taken up by Clemenza played by Richard S. Castellano however demands by the actor prevented this. I will say with the pivotal scenes of Clemenza in the first film as the supportive loving uncle to the Corleone boys probably would have brought a more inherent weight to this aspect of the film, and I do believe had Castellano returned this aspect of the film would have naturally resonated more. I will say though that this is a challenge actually to Gazzo's performance given he has to make at least part of this impact without having that setup from the first film.

In terms of the overall structure of the film Pentangeli acts as basically a confused pawn in the whole struggle between Al Pacino's Michael, and Hyman Roth. Gazzo effectively portrays this confusion, as well as simply showing Pentangeli as a man who acts as he needs to, and as the circumstance requires it. Gazzo though always also suggests the long history of Pentangeli in the crime world, a history that developed this particularly attitude he has gained. What Gazzo does so effectively in the role, since he can't call upon Pentangeli's history with Michael, is instead to personify an old school mentality which contrasts against the cold efficiency of Michael's new methods. Gazzo from his first scenes brings real bluster to his performance, making his emotions known in an overt fashion whether it is in frustration from not being able see Michael right away, or his inability to get Michael's hired orchestra to play Italian music. Gazzo's approach is the right one as he shows a man who would've been right out at home with Vito, here with his personal style seems of a past age at odds with the new nature of the family.

In this way Gazzo's performance is an affecting work as a man attempting and failing to attune himself to those playing at a different level from himself. In this way his performance works well as a contrast to the duplicitous work of Lee Strasberg as Roth. Where Strasberg puts on a front Gazzo presents Pentangeli plain as though he knows no other way to really do so. These especially well realized in the subsequent scenes of Michael visiting the two men to discover which of them tried to have him killed. Roth is smooth, and oh so innocent. Gazzo though is terrific in seeming more guilty by being so honest in the moment. Gazzo again shows the difficulty of the man in this game by portraying only an intense disbelief, and confusion in his reactions as he fails to even understand that there is a game to even be played. As the film goes on Gazzo's work realizes the victim of the man as he's used as the pawn essentially for his straight forward ways. In the last act of the film a series of circumstances leave Pentangeli as an informant, only really due to his life being threatened than a real vendetta. Gazzo continues to present so well that old school attitude in this creating a real discomfort in the idea of both testifying and being stuck to live out his days on old army base. A remarkable moment from Gazzo's performance comes at the only genuinely duplicitous moment for Pentangeli when he testifies falsely that he knows nothing about Michael's criminal organization. Gazzo's great here that even this is overly colorful in his deflection again as this is not Pentangeli's way, and the whole act seems as fake as it is. This is in stark contrast to a single reaction of Gazzo's when he sees that his brother from Italy is with Michael, in that reaction Gazzo powerfully realizes all that this means to the man with it barely even needing to be said. What's interesting is the one time Gazzo brings a real confidence to the character is at the very end of the film, where he's left with almost no options, however it is when describing antiquity specifically the act of a Roman conspirator getting the chance to commit suicide to save his family and his property. Gazzo brings such a warmth and pride in his delivery of this speech showing the sad state of the man most comfortable with the ways of the past, only seemingly at home when deciding the way of his demise. Although I would I still would have preferred to see the return of Clemenza, Gazzo work fills in that gap beautifully by finding his own tragedy within this aspect story, different than what it would've been however still powerful.

Best Supporting Actor 1974: Lee Strasberg in The Godfather Part II

Lee Strasberg received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Hyman Roth in The Godfather Part II.

Lee Strasberg  is best known for being an acting teacher than an actual actor himself. Although Strasberg has been in a few more obscure films in smaller parts, The Godfather Part II was his first truly notable role. Strasberg's plays Hyman Roth the Jewish mobster who holds a great deal of power, and acts as the primary antagonist of the film, since he seeks to take down the Corleone family due to their murder of his friend Moe Green in the first film. Roth though does not do it ever by outright saying he is planning a war, but instead does it by saying he wishes take a business proposition together. In his first scene the powerful Roth is seen in a rather modest setting watching baseball as he talks to Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) as he talks about their business. Strasberg is excellent in immediately establishing the nature of Roth.  Strasberg shows both a friendly almost fatherly quality toward Michael as he talks to him in a quiet casual manner, yet Strasberg always suggest the cold calculating killer beneath his welcoming exterior.

Strasberg keeps up appropriately with this facade toward Michael in the rest of his scenes until he finally breaks open about why he really wants his revenge. Strasberg is again terrific in this scene as well when he shows really the true viciousness behind Roth. There is a true deep hatred Strasberg conveys in this scene, with only a small bit of hesitation since after all in his business everything is business even death. It is an amazing moment really becuase he not only conveys the hatred, but also how the hatred honestly stems from his love for his friend more than anything else. Strasberg really is not in the film a great deal, but in his few scenes he most certainly leaves a strong impact. He not only vividly brings to life this particularly sort of business man, he also manages to create a memorable villain as well. Hyman Roth perhaps could have been easily a forgotten part of this great film but Strasberg manages to stand out within the limits of his character.