Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2003: Kiefer Sutherland in Phone Booth

Kiefer Sutherland did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying The Caller in Phone Booth.

Phone Booth is an effective thriller, though as with any Joel Schumacher film to describe it as purely good is always difficult, about a man Stu (Colin Farrell) who is forced to stay in a phone booth as he is tormented by an unseen sniper. 

Although there are other characters in this film the essential drama is carried by two performance, one being the near one man show offered by Colin Farrell as the man seeing his life of lies unraveling around him while also being terrified, and the voice of a sniper. Originally played by Ron Eldard, whose other work suggests to me why he was replaced by Kiefer Sutherland. Sutherland is an actor who I am getting to in this endeavor of mine for the first time, and he might one of the most random actors ever in terms of what he is going to bring to a role. On the outset of this film though we know that Sutherland will be bringing something special, that being his deep cutting voice. This for all essential purposes is a vocal performance, and I won't treat that as any kind of limitation in this instance, because it isn't for Sutherland. He plays the unseen sniper who begins to antagonize Farrell's Stu, a man we see as a somewhat amoral huckster who is contemplating cheating on his wife and in general seems to have a selfish attitude towards life. Sutherland comes as the threat of the film, and that is instantly obvious from just the innate intensity of his work, as he begins by speaking of Stu's mistake by turning down a pizza he sent him. Sutherland's voice work is remarkable in that he opens without obvious intensity, in that he's not yelling or anything, however the particular tone of his voice instantly puts one on edge. 

Sutherland's voice is of the true voyeur, in that one tweak away and he'd be the voice on an adult phone sex line. It is the brilliance of his performance really that the almost alluring quality in his voice in itself also is the threat of it. This as the caller speaks towards Stu with a familiarity, even honestly a kind of seductive quality that makes his initial slip-ins of his knowledge of Stu's personal life, including his wife and potential mistress, all the more unnerving as his intention is clearly not just to make Stu scared, but to also oddly entice him into following his orders. Although the caller's motivations are stated sorta later on, a point I will get to, and state what is perhaps the worst aspect of the film, I think one can more so garner this from Sutherland's performance than what his character states bluntly later on. This as Sutherland portrays this sense of self-satisfaction from every word he speaks to Stu and names all of Stu's secrets. Sutherland portrays the caller as someone who obviously gets his kicks from the activity of this particular torture. This as Sutherland is nearly orgasmic in the voice, and wholly in turn creates this disturbing psychopathic tendency of the caller. The caller who Sutherland crafts as very much a predator playing with his prey, this particular as he reveals that he has a sniper rifle. Revealed so potently by Sutherland "Doesn't that just torque your jaws", and speaks it with this wonderful delight as it sparks such fear into Stu.  

Now Phone Booth is not a film I consider great, and not exactly good in the most precise turn, as if you scratch it all it crumbles, however it is often compelling, and the reason why are the two central performances. While Farrell I think shows both signs of his later greater work, and some of the limitations of his earlier work, Sutherland however is simply on point throughout. When the film works is when Sutherland is speaking, and he takes the concept of the man stuck into the phone booth with a killer on the phone to its promise. Sutherland's sinister playfulness captures the right tone for every beat to create menace, while also being an entertaining villain. When the caller claims to be Vietnam vet Sutherland brings the expected darkness as he speaks towards the trauma, before bluntly laughing it off as an obvious falsehood based upon his age. Sutherland accentuates every point of the drama that is there to great effect, and I'd say Sutherland was entirely primed to make a great film based on this premise, as he has the technique down all in just his voice. Now there is briefly one live action portion of the Sutherland at the end of the film, which I hate the most. This where Stu has seemingly escaped the ordeal though sedated and visited by the caller. The caller who reveals himself to be a morality serial killer, a trope that I hate so much when played straight by the filmmakers which will obviously be the case for Schumacher. Anyway aside from that plot point, which I don't like, Sutherland doesn't play into that which I appreciate, playing the caller as purely a fiend. This right down for his brief live action scene of just is there really there just for glance, a well performed glance of sinister intent, however that isn't the point of this performance. The point of this work is a weapon in vocal form, a mental weapon, and there Sutherland is a brilliant tormentor, and this is great performance, that makes the most of a premise, that the film itself can't quite live up to wholly.

Another Year and Another Official Lineup

Well like last year I have less information than usual at this point for predictions, as SAG (the only acting precursor that gives any direct information with actually overlapping voters in terms of nomination) did not readjust their schedule for some reason. Of course last year I did relatively well, only off by one with each lineup, so maybe it is best this way. Anyway, you have the top three of Smith, Cumberbatch and Washington that seem safe. Smith the populist (though his film flopped, however par for course with almost all Oscar contenders) Cumberbatch the critical darling (which has been proved true) and Washington (the academy darling). The latter hasn't been killing it, however his film has yet to hit wide, but he's Washington. He got in for Roman J. Israel, and typically gets in with the right role and reviews. He has both of those, so I'm not going to doubt him, though it has been awhile since  a Shakespearean performance made it, however Washington definitely seems like the guy to break that trend. Then there are really I feel only 4 contenders left who are probably vying for the last two spots. The Academy golden boys and the musical golden boys. The former being DiCaprio and Cooper, who the academy loves, however are showing weakness in the meaningless precursors, and the latter being Garfield and Dinklage who have done well so far. I go with DiCaprio now, because sadly I can only hope Don't Look Now will flop with the academy but must prepare for the worst. Also while Cooper's role is very showy actually, it is showier in a subtler way than DiCaprio's. Out of Dinklage and Garfield, Dinklage I'd feel more willing to predict if his Thrones tenure had ended sooner and on better circumstances. It isn't quite Cranston with Trumbo, who I think definitely ensured his nomination through Breaking Bad. Garfield has a banner year, plus I feel there may be some Sondheim indirect goodwill of some sort. I think of the four you could shuffle them several ways however. Maybe Cyrano's late break helps as well. Maybe it is both musicals in favor of the two academy favorites? Or the other way around, we shall see. 

Supporting Actor seems "academy" thin, in terms of contenders they'll consider, then again we haven't seen SAG, so this could get seriously shaken up. Smit-McPhee is the critical darling so far, and seems safe enough. He's about equal with Hinds in the right role in the right film. I'd actually go Dornan for the same film next, as the Academy after that 25 year hiatus has decided they're cool with doubling down in supporting actor. After that I think it is Troy Kotsur based on his success so far, and seems likely even if his film flops otherwise. Fifth spot though, hands up, as I could see so many films having above the line goose eggs. Jared Leto, maybe. Jenkins for The Humans, doesn't seem like it, same with Isaacs for Mass, SAG would be a must for all three I'd say. Simmons for Ricardos? Maybe, but he'd seem like someone to get SAG then miss out. Cooper as a long shot (and if you want to say "wishful thinking" fair enough), but he is Cooper and his role definitely makes an impression. If the film is big, and actress is too tight, it ought to get in somewhere in the acting lineups I think. But sadly I have to be putting someone from Don't Look Up in, as it is a legitimate trend of DiCaprio getting in his supporting actors (since it has happened with ALL of his lead nominations), particularly when the corresponding Tom Hardy, Jonah Hill and Alan Alda nominations were all late breaking "dark horses" in those respective years. Given this actually made me considering switching to Cooper or Dinklage for fifth in lead, in order to be able to ignore the trend. However I won't and because Rob Morgan and to a lesser extent Jonah Hill are typically favored in the film by those who dislike the film, therefore I have to go with the man those who love the film love, therefore must predict Mark Rylance's second Oscar nomination.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1954: Alastair Sim in An Inspector Calls

Alastair Sim did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Inspector Poole in An Inspector Calls. 

An Inspector Calls follows an upper class family as they face charges over their mistreatment of a recently deceased working class woman. 

Alastair Sim essentially portrays the master of ceremonies for this piece as the titular inspector we learn little of, rather he used for us to learn of each family member's relation, and in turn related "crime", with the young woman who he informs them has ingested a kind of poison. It is upon Sim's performance much to create what is captivating about the Inspector. An actor who has an advantage that being his distinctive face, which makes quite the impressive as he suddenly appears in the film without entering. Sim's initial delivery of the death of the woman is striking in his manner. Sim speaks bluntly of the invents with this certain though inherent sympathy within the death even as he is so matter of act. Sim speaks with more than one card to play as it seems. Still though he appears but an inspector until the patriarch of the family speaks to being unaware of the woman. Sim's expression changes to a kind ghoulish smile as he indicates that the man should most certainly know her. There is an accusation in the grin, and almost something quite sinister even in Sim's portrayal. There is more though than that as the man explains himself, shirking responsibility claiming it would be awkward to maintain any responsibility. Sim's speaking of "oh yes, very awkward" carries a duality of complete lack of sympathy for the man and irony for the statement of a man clearly trying to avoid any connection with the person he wronged. 

Sim's performance carries still this kind of nearly monstrous quality, as he almost seems like a shark when another member of the family enters the room who he is going to accuse of their crime against the young woman next. Sim's eyes carry a quick accusation in them, and this incisive stare. The grin that he carries with them seeming a man just waiting to reveal his truth, and knowing the weaknesses that will be revealed within the family. Sim though has this calm about him that is quite unnerving in this way, but what makes it so remarkable is the particular edge his performance sits on. This as we see his reactions towards the family with this vindictive joyful quality in his attacks, however that isn't all there is. This as he speaks of the woman, of any success, there is some greater sense of care about it properly to some one. He doesn't make it even then as an easy sympathy, rather almost this sort of tragedy within any notion of good news. Sim speaks the Inspectors news always with this certain almost laughing manner towards the woman, not out of hate, but this kind of bemusement that she could possibly attempt to find any success in this particular world. Sim brilliantly colors the exposition with dynamic depth within every moment of it. Sim as much as the inspector is just telling the story, never is doing it so simply as that. The texture he brings to every line creates such a palatable sense of the nature of this story through the seemingly lack of sympathy of the family and the tragedy in the young woman's story. 

Now the film itself, based on a play that makes its allegory even more obvious than it is here, I would is repetitious in its point and characters too much pawns per the scenario to exist. The one aspect of the film that is wholly successful is in the overarching dramatic device of the inspector, this as it grants a certain haunting mood to the whole drama, though with Sim being the most essential ingredient. Frankly director Guy Hamilton unnecessarily overplays the supernatural nature of the inspector (literally named Goole in the play which is painfully on the nose), because Sim already has it entirely in hand. Every scene with Sim is compelling due to Sim as you can just watch him throughout every one of these scenes, as he brings this quietly terrifying ethereal omnipotent quality within his work. This as Sim never simply sits and stare, rather there is this judgment that is being inflicted whether it is through a turn down of the nose to imply a bit of exhaustion at the family's dodges, to a penetrating glare when forcing a bit of information out of his given target in a moment. Sim himself is compelling to watch as this essential force for truth, which to his credit again finds the right balance. Sim plays the part perhaps as some supernatural force implying this inquisition, however he does so with the right humanity even as the inspector seems so all knowing. Sim brings, for the lack of a better word, this sort of nearly playful sense of exhaustion in the inspector. This sort of weariness upon his duties, less so as an obvious vengeful spirit, but rather a man there to deliver a painful message, a message he has seemingly delivered far too many times before. Sim gives a great performance, that really realizes every virtue of the material, and creates this captivating portrait of the accuser who both thrives within the allegory, but also successfully exists beyond it.

Best Actor Backlog Volume 3

 And the Overlooked Performances Are:

Kiefer Sutherland in Phone Booth

 

Alastair Sim in An Inspector Calls

 

Uttam Kumar in Nayak

Clint Eastwood in The Beguiled

 

Vincent Price in Theater of Blood

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1942: Cecil Kellaway in I Married a Witch, Jules Berry in The Devil's Envoys & Results

Cecil Kellaway did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Daniel in I Married a Witch. 

 

Jules Berry did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the Devil in The Devil's Envoys. 

I Married a Witch a fairly enjoyable screwball comedy about the descendant of an old witch persecutor (Fredric March) cursed by a witch to fail in love, however things get in a bit of knot when the witch (Veronica Lake) escapes from her imprisonment and falls in love with the man. 

 

The Devil's Envoys is a splendid fantasy about two servants of the devil, tasked with seduction and then destruction, infiltrating the court of a castle.

Cecil Kellaway is a character best known really for his warm and affable characters, as found in his two Oscar nominations for example. This though is a far cry from that, and more evocative of his career best turn found in his guest spot on The Twilight Zone as a most unusual curator of sorts. Kellaway's performance here is as Lake's warlock father who we initially meet, along with Lake, as a disembodied voice. Kellaway's vocal performance alone is memorable in the sheer degree of the deviousness of it as he encourages Lake's Jennifer to essentially be her worst self. Kellaway playing this with a wonderful, and fitting devilishness within the character, and finds the right combination between the comical and the sinister. Kellaway really is the essential ingredient within the film as his consistent appearances take what is an enjoyable romantic comedy and really turning up the latter nicely. I mention these two performances in tandem though as much as the films are different, they are in some way companion pieces about supernatural "creatures" engaging in romance even though the intention is the opposite. As Kellaway is the wrench in the romantic clockwork, as is Jules Berry, who is the titular devil. Where first we establish each romantic pairing or triangle, that involves misleading and maybe some genuine love, this is turned on its head when the actual devil appears to mess things up for all. Berry's performance is one of literal devilishness. He comes in with the right fanfare of someone just loving his state as the prince of darkness and of all lies. Berry shows just the greatest of joys in this state of the man just eager to make all the lovers suffer in any way in which he devise. His expression only brimming with this sinister glee, similar to Kellaway in bringing this sense of fun within the nefarious nature of the character. 

As the romance goes along for both film these two act as the antagonists at any path that leads towards some sort of true love, though in very different ways. Berry's performance is one actually that is of a shift towards the more dramatic as the devil foresees a certain plan and has a distaste when it starts to go away from his chosen path. Berry bringing this quiet egotistical pompousness to the devil's assurance that all will be left unhappy and in his own words "belong to him". There is a certainty of the fiend, however he effectively brings a certain annoyed demeanor as the plan isn't quite going to plan. He still brings this confidence as though it is something that he's seen before and will again, and in that sense is sure, while still creating this slowly growing undercurrent of cause of concern that everything isn't in his power. Kellaway on the other hand is just whole lot of fun in portraying Daniel ever trying to be fiendish and keep anyone from falling in love as well, though his methods decidedly less suave or confident than the devil's. Kellaway is a hoot in portraying the sort of mania in Daniel as he goes about his schemes with this sort of craziness that is befitting a creature of a truly chaotic disposition. Kellaway is just fun to watch whether he's incompetently framing March's character for his own murder, or trying to drive the lovers to their doom. There is just this hilarious sort of insanity he brings to every line though with the right demonic glee of his own. Kellaway's performance brings the right extra ingredient overall to the film that really takes it up a notch overall by providing not just a proper antagonist, but also such a source of fun. Of course this is true for both performances which provide this nice swerve in both film's romantic narratives. Each giving their own memorable turns as sinners with a smile.

Updated Overall Lead

Updated Overall Supporting

Next: Backlog Vol. 3 & Recommendations 

Alternate Best Actor 1942: Chishū Ryū in There Was a Father

Chishū Ryū did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Shuhei Horikawa in There Was a Father.

There Was a Father tells the story of a single father raising his son, however rare is it that he finds time to spend with him regularly. 

Frequent collaborator of director Yasujirō Ozu, Chishū Ryū stars here and it is no surprise that he was so frequently cast as Ozu seeks the simple truths of life, Ryū's a performer who does the same with his wholly sincere and always authentic feeling presence. This is a film on the surface that is very muted, yet in that muted tone is what is so special, and what we also find within the ending of the film. For much of the film we follow Ryū's Shuhei as he raises his son with a simple dignity, however within the simple dignity of Japanese culture of the time where he must uphold certain values of consistent hard-work over the natural needs of familial connection. What then is the film as we follow the ease in which Ryū's creates really the conflict with this without actually ever denoting it towards more expected melodrama or even drama really. Ryū's delivery after all is one of calmness as he explains each time to his less understanding son of why the two must be so frequently separated, as he must pursue work while also having his son be raised. The two's presumed duties leaving them in this state of perpetual separation through the years. This as this film is one through years not days, a week or a month. We rather see the long extension of this practice as the father does what he believes is right by his son, and right by his family, which is two so commonly not be among him. As off-putting as this even seems as though it may be Ryū's performance is what makes it work, and creates this understanding within the logic of the father. 

 

Ryū's delivery is of a calm passion towards the belief and speaks it as an expected truth. It is with a calm duty and an unassuming belief. It isn't something that he has randomly come up with, rather with Ryū he speaks it as though it was just speaking towards any responsbiltiy one would just assume is part of life. I am honestly surprised Ozu was able to get away with this film during World War II in Japan, given what for example Kurosawa's typical individualistic spirit was reduced to in The Most Beautiful. Although it is perhaps because while the text says one thing, and perhaps that is all potential government officials really read into this piece, this being that one should work hard in life, the subtext seems to indicate otherwise. Although Ryū's Shuhei repeatedly speaks one's devotion to work. That though would be ignoring the whole of it, which is every silent moment within Ryū's work. This as even as he doesn't speak his love towards his son, as they interact when he's a boy, to when he's a young adult, to an adult, but it is ever apparent in every moment of interaction in Ryū's performance. The happiness within Ryū's portrayal is of pure warmth when the two go fishing together or just speak towards one another in their home. It is with a gentle love that is simply the truth of their relationship. There is a sense of conflict in Ryū's performance even though it is never something that is emphasized specifically. It is rather within how much appreciation and pride we see in Ryū as he has his moments with his son. There are no moments where there is a more powerful sense of happiness then in these scenes. Again though the beauty of this work is that it is in the briefest of moments, such as his son attending to the shrine of his mother, we in just a look Shuhei's deep affection for his wife, and the love for his son in a singular moment. We see this as a truly loving father who embraces every moment of being a father with his son, while always being trapped within the beliefs of societal expectation. Again this where one could argue quite the subversion, as the true happiness of Shuhei's life and as expressed within Ryū's performance is when the father and son are reunited, not when he is elsewhere. Again though this is never spoken within the film rather in the silence, where there is the truth of it all. In turn we are also granted the classic devastating ending from Ozu that hits you in a way that is most unexpected, yet so palatable when it does. This isn't through theatrics however, it is rather through that calm. Here in really understanding this relationship, and seeing every intimate moment of connection, so wonderfully realized here by Chishū Ryū. We find the loss of the two's time apart not from a big speech to say this, but rather through every gentle reminder that the father and son simply love one another. Ryū's work not defined by every big scene, rather every quiet moment that reveals the moving intimate truth of this reserved man.

Alternate Best Actor/Supporting Actor 1933 Update

Updated Overall

 

 Next: 1942 Lead/Supporting again a lineup is unlikely.