5. Daniel Massey in Star!- Massey does a slight Noel Coward imitation, and that is it. The film he is in is downright terrible, and he does not rise above that material.
4. Jack Wild in Oliver!- Jack Wild I feel does certainly fully fit the role of the Artful Dodger. Now the role is not that much, but Wild handles it well enough.
3. Seymour Cassel in Faces- A realistically handled and played performance, that works incredibly well in Faces, he adds a good amount to the film, and he an Lynn Carlin work perfectly together.
2. Gene Wilder in The Producers- A performance I will admit may not be for everyone, and it all contingent on whether or not you find his antics funny, which I did.
1. Jack Albertson in The Subject Was Roses- Albertson is truly great as the father of a small dysfunctional family. His performance really contains some truly great acting, and creates a very fascinating character.
Deserving Performances:Jason Robards in Once Upon a Time in the West
Henry Fonda in Once Upon a Time in the West
Timothy Dalton in A Lion in Winter
|
|
---|
Showing posts with label 1968 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1968 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Best Supporting Actor 1968: Jack Albertson in The Subject Was Roses
Jack Albertson won an Oscar from his only nomination for portraying John Clearly in The Subject Was Roses.
The Subject was Roses is a decent film about that usual type of Oscar nominated family, a dysfunctional one. It is not great, and it has some problems, but it also has strong acting, and some very interesting moments.
Jack Albertson's win here is rather interesting, because it usually is well praised, but rarely talked about, I would probably attribute that to the film being somewhat difficult to find. His performance here is most certainly not supporting, it is lead, all the main players are leading Martin Sheen as the son, Jack Albertson as the father and Patricia Neal as the mother, not a single one is supporting in the least. The most supporting a characters get are two people they briefly talk to in a night club, and the extras I suppose. Something interesting about it is technically he could have traded places with Ron Moody in Oliver since Albertson is far more a lead in his film, than Moody is in his.
John Clearly is a stern father, who certainly wants things his way, even his way is rather selfish, the fascinating part about the character, and Albertson's performance is that he is not at all simplistic despite how these character can sometimes be portrayed. Albertson really just works well in the role, always acting appropriately stern as if this is something that John, has done and always must do. Albertson perfectly shows his directness and his way of always wanting a certain amount of control over his situation and family. Albertson though does not always show him in this single light and it is amazing how well Albertson shows the depth of this man.
I particularly found it interesting how Albertson perfectly shows the different sides throughout the film, and how he acts differently when he just with his wife at the beginning of the film. Where they immediately bicker about their different ways of dealing with their sons. It is fascinating how both actors in their first scene together clearly show a long history between them, without really even saying all that much about their history. Albertson and Neal simply create the right amount of knowing and distance from each other that works incredibly well. In fact all three of the actors work perfectly together to show them together like a true family. Albertson though is the most complex in this in that John Clearly is the one who tries to hide some of his though and emotions, and tries to be a different person when he is with his son, with his wife or when he is alone.
I like how well Albertson brilliantly shows the way his character's mixed emotions about his son, and wife. It is fascinating the way he seems to love both of them in actuality but has some inherit hatred for them too. Albertson handles the complex nature of a character like this well, he never switches obviously from hating to loving, but rather carefully combines the emotions to create a truly fascinating character. I think his best scenes are when he shows Clearly in his happier moments. I particular think he is truly great in the night club scene. Albertson is just brilliant especially in his brief singing scene. He does so much in these scenes when he talks about his love for his wife, but also tries to hide the fact that he is unfaithful. Then later when he truly desires his wife, but she rejects him, the switch from his love to hate, is truly great acting from Albertson.
Now criticism could be leveled against this performance, that it is too theatrical and loud, but I would disagree. His loudness comes from his attempts to always be strict not from over acting, and Albertson does not over act, and in fact gives a brilliantly subtle performance despite the fact that his character is not a quiet character. Albertson always uses both his voice, and facial expressions to great effect. I though in particular scenes where he listened and did not talk. Especially his first scene where he admires his army jacket, and even stronger his powerful reaction to when his son says he loves him. Albertson is never dull in this performance, or underacting, he never stops telling us more about his character, and I find due to Albertson his performance itself is far more complete than the actual film.
The Subject was Roses is a decent film about that usual type of Oscar nominated family, a dysfunctional one. It is not great, and it has some problems, but it also has strong acting, and some very interesting moments.
Jack Albertson's win here is rather interesting, because it usually is well praised, but rarely talked about, I would probably attribute that to the film being somewhat difficult to find. His performance here is most certainly not supporting, it is lead, all the main players are leading Martin Sheen as the son, Jack Albertson as the father and Patricia Neal as the mother, not a single one is supporting in the least. The most supporting a characters get are two people they briefly talk to in a night club, and the extras I suppose. Something interesting about it is technically he could have traded places with Ron Moody in Oliver since Albertson is far more a lead in his film, than Moody is in his.
John Clearly is a stern father, who certainly wants things his way, even his way is rather selfish, the fascinating part about the character, and Albertson's performance is that he is not at all simplistic despite how these character can sometimes be portrayed. Albertson really just works well in the role, always acting appropriately stern as if this is something that John, has done and always must do. Albertson perfectly shows his directness and his way of always wanting a certain amount of control over his situation and family. Albertson though does not always show him in this single light and it is amazing how well Albertson shows the depth of this man.
I particularly found it interesting how Albertson perfectly shows the different sides throughout the film, and how he acts differently when he just with his wife at the beginning of the film. Where they immediately bicker about their different ways of dealing with their sons. It is fascinating how both actors in their first scene together clearly show a long history between them, without really even saying all that much about their history. Albertson and Neal simply create the right amount of knowing and distance from each other that works incredibly well. In fact all three of the actors work perfectly together to show them together like a true family. Albertson though is the most complex in this in that John Clearly is the one who tries to hide some of his though and emotions, and tries to be a different person when he is with his son, with his wife or when he is alone.
I like how well Albertson brilliantly shows the way his character's mixed emotions about his son, and wife. It is fascinating the way he seems to love both of them in actuality but has some inherit hatred for them too. Albertson handles the complex nature of a character like this well, he never switches obviously from hating to loving, but rather carefully combines the emotions to create a truly fascinating character. I think his best scenes are when he shows Clearly in his happier moments. I particular think he is truly great in the night club scene. Albertson is just brilliant especially in his brief singing scene. He does so much in these scenes when he talks about his love for his wife, but also tries to hide the fact that he is unfaithful. Then later when he truly desires his wife, but she rejects him, the switch from his love to hate, is truly great acting from Albertson.
Now criticism could be leveled against this performance, that it is too theatrical and loud, but I would disagree. His loudness comes from his attempts to always be strict not from over acting, and Albertson does not over act, and in fact gives a brilliantly subtle performance despite the fact that his character is not a quiet character. Albertson always uses both his voice, and facial expressions to great effect. I though in particular scenes where he listened and did not talk. Especially his first scene where he admires his army jacket, and even stronger his powerful reaction to when his son says he loves him. Albertson is never dull in this performance, or underacting, he never stops telling us more about his character, and I find due to Albertson his performance itself is far more complete than the actual film.
Best Supporting Actor 1968: Gene Wilder in The Producers
Gene Wilder received his only acting Oscar nomination for portraying Leo Bloom in The Producers.
The Producers I find to be a very enjoyable comedy, where there are plenty of jokes that find their mark very well.
Gene Wilder plays Leo Bloom a nervous accountant who ends up working with a has been Broadway producer Max Bialystock (Zero Mostel) to produce a play they want to fail that way they can embezzle the funds given by the share holders of the profits for the play. Wilder begins the film as a very worried and nervous accountant, and I find he is just hilariously perfect in his first scene. He plays Bloom's nervousness just to perfection in my opinion. Now a performance like his could get old quickly but I never feel his does at all. I find he is just finds the perfect tone in this scene, to maximize hilarity caused by his performance. I just like everything he does the way he gets red and flails around when his blue blanket is taken away, and I especially like just the little things he does such as when he shakes his head up and down when Max asks if he hurt his feeling, just perfect for me.
I do believe Wilder adds a lot to his performance, even more than just the jokes, which is all he technically needed to do. I really like how he shows how Bloom is a man who never really had any respect, and really enjoys finally being like by someone. It really works for me, he never forgets the comedy. He always puts the right manic energy into these scenes when he really gets to let loose especially in the "I'm Leo Bloom" scene. I feel his performance just simply works as well as it could. He works very well with Zero Mostel and I find they play off each other very well in every scene, especially in the first scene where they are more adverse to each other. They work well though still throughout and I was actually surprised that they made an honest friendship in such a crazy comedy.
My only real problem with the performance, and it really is not a problem exactly, that is he and Mostel really are pushed off into the background for many scenes of the film. I feel that they do not let themselves stay quiet but they merely properly allow the other more obvious comedy bits to be performed such as Kenneth Mars as the ex-nazi or the play "Springtime for Hitler". They properly step aside and let those people and scenes be funny on their own. That is not to say that they still do not still add to scenes, they certainly do, they simply are not the focus of the comedy. That is how the film work until the end of the film.
Again the comedy comes back to The Producers, and once again Wilder shines in his scenes, and tries and succeeds quite well to be very amusing. I really found it amusing when he crazily fought with Max and called him fatty fat fat, and then Wilder brilliantly stated later to Max that he was sorry for calling him fatty fat fat. I just think his performance is great, especially his ending speech where Bloom both gives a funny speech but an oddly heartfelt speech about how Max. The speech could have not worked at all, in fact this whole performance could have not worked at all, but I find that Wilder did find the perfect way of playing his character, and succeeded completely.Yes he was not always "on" but when he needed to be he was completely up to the task.
The Producers I find to be a very enjoyable comedy, where there are plenty of jokes that find their mark very well.
Gene Wilder plays Leo Bloom a nervous accountant who ends up working with a has been Broadway producer Max Bialystock (Zero Mostel) to produce a play they want to fail that way they can embezzle the funds given by the share holders of the profits for the play. Wilder begins the film as a very worried and nervous accountant, and I find he is just hilariously perfect in his first scene. He plays Bloom's nervousness just to perfection in my opinion. Now a performance like his could get old quickly but I never feel his does at all. I find he is just finds the perfect tone in this scene, to maximize hilarity caused by his performance. I just like everything he does the way he gets red and flails around when his blue blanket is taken away, and I especially like just the little things he does such as when he shakes his head up and down when Max asks if he hurt his feeling, just perfect for me.
I do believe Wilder adds a lot to his performance, even more than just the jokes, which is all he technically needed to do. I really like how he shows how Bloom is a man who never really had any respect, and really enjoys finally being like by someone. It really works for me, he never forgets the comedy. He always puts the right manic energy into these scenes when he really gets to let loose especially in the "I'm Leo Bloom" scene. I feel his performance just simply works as well as it could. He works very well with Zero Mostel and I find they play off each other very well in every scene, especially in the first scene where they are more adverse to each other. They work well though still throughout and I was actually surprised that they made an honest friendship in such a crazy comedy.
My only real problem with the performance, and it really is not a problem exactly, that is he and Mostel really are pushed off into the background for many scenes of the film. I feel that they do not let themselves stay quiet but they merely properly allow the other more obvious comedy bits to be performed such as Kenneth Mars as the ex-nazi or the play "Springtime for Hitler". They properly step aside and let those people and scenes be funny on their own. That is not to say that they still do not still add to scenes, they certainly do, they simply are not the focus of the comedy. That is how the film work until the end of the film.
Again the comedy comes back to The Producers, and once again Wilder shines in his scenes, and tries and succeeds quite well to be very amusing. I really found it amusing when he crazily fought with Max and called him fatty fat fat, and then Wilder brilliantly stated later to Max that he was sorry for calling him fatty fat fat. I just think his performance is great, especially his ending speech where Bloom both gives a funny speech but an oddly heartfelt speech about how Max. The speech could have not worked at all, in fact this whole performance could have not worked at all, but I find that Wilder did find the perfect way of playing his character, and succeeded completely.Yes he was not always "on" but when he needed to be he was completely up to the task.
Best Supporting Actor 1968: Daniel Massey in Star!
Daniel Massey received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Noel Coward in Star!.
Star! is a very bad film about the career of British performer Gertrude Lawrence played by Julie Andrews. There is nothing special about it, the characters are very dull, and the film just goes on and on.
Daniel Massey plays fellow performer, and playwright Noel Coward who is her friend, who makes remarks that are supposed to be witty about her life and career, with his distinct voice, and his distinct way of holding his cigarette. I say this since that is all there really is to his performance. Massey just stands and talks in his imitation of Coward. He is not bad at this exactly but there is nothing else to his character. Just remarks that are intended to be witty that is about it. In one scene he acts out anger because he is playing a character in a play but that still is not much. He adds nothing what so ever to add complex to the character as he is in the script who is written incredibly simply. Massey simply gives an incredibly forgettable performance, he technically is not bad at all, but I have trouble saying that he was good either. Perhaps if Coward was given any depth in the script his performance could have been something but that simply is not the case.
Star! is a very bad film about the career of British performer Gertrude Lawrence played by Julie Andrews. There is nothing special about it, the characters are very dull, and the film just goes on and on.
Daniel Massey plays fellow performer, and playwright Noel Coward who is her friend, who makes remarks that are supposed to be witty about her life and career, with his distinct voice, and his distinct way of holding his cigarette. I say this since that is all there really is to his performance. Massey just stands and talks in his imitation of Coward. He is not bad at this exactly but there is nothing else to his character. Just remarks that are intended to be witty that is about it. In one scene he acts out anger because he is playing a character in a play but that still is not much. He adds nothing what so ever to add complex to the character as he is in the script who is written incredibly simply. Massey simply gives an incredibly forgettable performance, he technically is not bad at all, but I have trouble saying that he was good either. Perhaps if Coward was given any depth in the script his performance could have been something but that simply is not the case.
Best Supporting Actor 1968: Seymour Cassel in Faces
Seymour Cassel received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Chet in Faces.
Faces is certainly an interesting film, although I found the part of the film focusing on Lynn Carlin was far more interesting than when she is not on screen.
Luckily for Cassel he is only on the screen in scenes with Carlin. Cassel's Chet meets Carlin's Maria as she goes out with her friends to a bar, after she was left by her husband (John Marley). Cassel performance as with almost all of the other performers in the film is incredibly realistic. With Cassel here there is no obvious "acting" to be seen despite the fact that his character is one of the least just normal performance. There is never a hint of falseness with his performance which is needed which allows him to work very well with Carlin's performance which is as truly honest as a performance really can be.
Chet is a young hippie who goes home with Maria and her friends where they talk about various things at
at her home. Cassel is really great here as Chet always completely truthful in his performance, and always adding as much to his performance as possibly. His external delivery is already spot on perfect but Cassel shows much internally with his eyes that is just wonderful. As Chet speaks to the women, than later to just Maria, you really learn about him, no such much because of the dialogue, although that is part of it but more so because of how much effort Cassel honestly puts in to the role and adds to it. He shows so much of Chet in such a short time that it really is pretty amazing. All of his scenes are great even if they are brief. His especially strong scene is his last scene with Carlin. Both actors just create such a truthful, and honest scene together, their efforts make their final scene one I shall remember for awhile. A very strong performance, a performance of simplicity, and realism at some of its finest.
Faces is certainly an interesting film, although I found the part of the film focusing on Lynn Carlin was far more interesting than when she is not on screen.
Luckily for Cassel he is only on the screen in scenes with Carlin. Cassel's Chet meets Carlin's Maria as she goes out with her friends to a bar, after she was left by her husband (John Marley). Cassel performance as with almost all of the other performers in the film is incredibly realistic. With Cassel here there is no obvious "acting" to be seen despite the fact that his character is one of the least just normal performance. There is never a hint of falseness with his performance which is needed which allows him to work very well with Carlin's performance which is as truly honest as a performance really can be.
Chet is a young hippie who goes home with Maria and her friends where they talk about various things at
at her home. Cassel is really great here as Chet always completely truthful in his performance, and always adding as much to his performance as possibly. His external delivery is already spot on perfect but Cassel shows much internally with his eyes that is just wonderful. As Chet speaks to the women, than later to just Maria, you really learn about him, no such much because of the dialogue, although that is part of it but more so because of how much effort Cassel honestly puts in to the role and adds to it. He shows so much of Chet in such a short time that it really is pretty amazing. All of his scenes are great even if they are brief. His especially strong scene is his last scene with Carlin. Both actors just create such a truthful, and honest scene together, their efforts make their final scene one I shall remember for awhile. A very strong performance, a performance of simplicity, and realism at some of its finest.
Best Supporting Actor 1968: Jack Wild in Oliver!
Jack Wild received his only Oscar nomination for portraying the Artful Dodger in Oliver!.
The Artful Dodger is the lead of Fagin's (Ron Moody) boys who pick pocket for him and stay at his place. The Artful Dodger is a memorable character of Dickens' more for his image I would say than the character himself. For the look I think Wild has the perfect look for Dodger, especially Dodger in the musical where the character is far lighter. He does completely look like the Dodger with his blue coat, dirty face, big hat, and to Wild's credit the right expressions that work perfectly for Dodger, with all of his sly grins and such.
I certainly like his performance as Dodger, and do think he is the proper personification of the character. He just seems like Dodger to me. He does one thing very well which is he does steal all of his scenes away from Oliver (Mark Lester) making him far more interesting than the main character, although that does largely come from Oliver being a dullard of a character, and made even duller by Mark Lester's portrayal of him. He does not steal the scenes though away from Ron Moody therefore he does not qualify as a true scene stealer. Wild certainly has the right energy for the part that does work well for all his numbers, which he sings properly well with the right energy with his peculiar way of moving around in those scenes that work well enough.
Is there anything special about his characterization of Dodger, no, such as in the more dramatic scenes all he does is make the same surprised face as the rest of the boys, but he certainly is right for the part. He handles the part well, and his performance did leave a good impression on me at the end of the film. I do like all that he does in the film, he is not amazing but is truly completely right for the role, and plays it completely as this should be played in this film. I must admit I really liked his performance the first time I watched the film, but for some reason my admiration has waned, even though it still certainly exists, I particularly did like his last scene where he and Fagin dance off into the distance, they certainly both do have a good exit, and in fact their exit seemed to be a more fitting end to the film than that the brief last scene of Oliver's. Jack Wild's performance is not great but he certainly kept Dodger's memorability and possibly added to it in a small way.
The Artful Dodger is the lead of Fagin's (Ron Moody) boys who pick pocket for him and stay at his place. The Artful Dodger is a memorable character of Dickens' more for his image I would say than the character himself. For the look I think Wild has the perfect look for Dodger, especially Dodger in the musical where the character is far lighter. He does completely look like the Dodger with his blue coat, dirty face, big hat, and to Wild's credit the right expressions that work perfectly for Dodger, with all of his sly grins and such.
I certainly like his performance as Dodger, and do think he is the proper personification of the character. He just seems like Dodger to me. He does one thing very well which is he does steal all of his scenes away from Oliver (Mark Lester) making him far more interesting than the main character, although that does largely come from Oliver being a dullard of a character, and made even duller by Mark Lester's portrayal of him. He does not steal the scenes though away from Ron Moody therefore he does not qualify as a true scene stealer. Wild certainly has the right energy for the part that does work well for all his numbers, which he sings properly well with the right energy with his peculiar way of moving around in those scenes that work well enough.
Is there anything special about his characterization of Dodger, no, such as in the more dramatic scenes all he does is make the same surprised face as the rest of the boys, but he certainly is right for the part. He handles the part well, and his performance did leave a good impression on me at the end of the film. I do like all that he does in the film, he is not amazing but is truly completely right for the role, and plays it completely as this should be played in this film. I must admit I really liked his performance the first time I watched the film, but for some reason my admiration has waned, even though it still certainly exists, I particularly did like his last scene where he and Fagin dance off into the distance, they certainly both do have a good exit, and in fact their exit seemed to be a more fitting end to the film than that the brief last scene of Oliver's. Jack Wild's performance is not great but he certainly kept Dodger's memorability and possibly added to it in a small way.
Best Supporting Actor 1968
Gene Wilder in The Producers
Daniel Massey in Star!
Jack Albertson in The Subject Was Roses
Jack Wild in Oliver!
Seymour Cassel in Faces
This year looks like it could be quite interesting. What do you think? Who is your pick and prediction?
Daniel Massey in Star!
Jack Albertson in The Subject Was Roses
Jack Wild in Oliver!
Seymour Cassel in Faces
This year looks like it could be quite interesting. What do you think? Who is your pick and prediction?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)