If I Picked the Winners: Best Supporting Actor 2007

     Among film critics and film historians, 1939 is commonly cited as "The Golden Year" of cinema. You had all-time classics such as  "Gone With the Wind", the film that sold more tickets than any other movie in history, to "The Wizard of Oz", which may be cinema's number 1 fantasy film, to "Mr. Smith Goes Washington", my personal favorite from the year and maybe the most passionate and beautiful argument in favor of democracy in the history of mankind (with all due respect to Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence" and Thomas Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense"). As great as the year 1939 was for movies though, it is not my own "Golden Year" of cinema. No, if I had to pick one year to stand atop all others in terms of cinematic output, it would not be 1939, but 2007 (which had a grand total of six films appear in my "Top 100" list, more than any other year). Now being very recent, this means 2007 has an advantage in that I could actually see many of its films as they came out, which wasn't the case for say 1976, to pick a year at random, and as I catch up with films from years that preceded my birth or at a time when they were not "age appropriate", my "year of all years" my change. In all honesty though, I'm not sure how much of advantage this really is, because there are many recent years in cinema that a look at with much disdain. In particular, 2005 stands out as possibly the worst year at the movies since the early days of sound, when filmmakers were still finding their feet on how to properly incorporate this new technology. In other words, the fact that 2007 was just four short years ago should not diminish the amazing accomplishment that the year was for films.

     In line with the achievement that was 2007 for the film industry, in the Best Supporting Actor category, the Academy put together a great lineup of performances. Out of the five nominees, there is really only one that I have negative words for. Having said this though, being such a great year also means there were many great performances the Academy failed to acknowledge. For supporting actors in 2007, the non-nominated performance that seemed most awards worthy in my mind is probably Robert Downy Jr. in David Fincher's "Zodiac". Playing an alcoholic reporter at the San Francisco Chronicle (which could be any of their reporters, am I right folks?) who is driven mad by the case, Downey Jr's manic madness draws the audience into the world of the newspaper business, and perfectly illustrates the large radial impact of serial killings. Downey Jr.'s costar in the film, Mark Ruffalo, playing the detective in charge of catching the Zodiac killer, is another prime candidate for "missed opportunity" Oscar nominee. Others that I would have considered as well include Tommy Lee Jones in "No Country for Old Men" (Josh Brolin in "No Country for Old Men" would be my first choice of anyone, but I believe his performance would qualify for lead), Paul Dano and Dillion Freasier in "There Will Be  Blood", Adrien Brody and Jason Swartzmen in "The Darjeeling Limited", Nick Frost in "Hot Fuzz", and if not considered a lead performance, Kurt Russell in "Deathproof". Like I said though, the list of nominees is actually pretty decent, so let's break the category down.

5. Tom Wilkinson in "Michael Clayton"

     Tom Wilkinson, why so many people like you, I will never know. This is the one contender among the bunch that drags the category down from the heights it could have reached. Like the movie itself, I never understood the critics admiration of this performance. In the film, Wilkinson plays a corporate lawyer turned whistle blower, after he can no longer bare covering up the tracks for the misdeeds of a chemical company he represents. Now, being a corporate lawyer (albeit a repentant one), I understand the character would have tendencies to grand stand, over-exaggerate a bit, but if you looked up the word "blowhard" in the dictionary, you would not only find a picture of Tom Wilkinson's Arthur Edens there as an example, the picture would be the whole definition. This is not some one-time mishap either. Wilkinson's entire career has been built on delivering blustering emphatic speeches of men who constantly appear to be on the verge of having a heart attack or stroke. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on Mr. Wilkinson, but time and time again, there is just something about his over-dramatic delivery that rubs me wrong. For example, in this film, you may remember the line he delivers that goes like, "I am Shiva, the god of death" (even if you didn't see the film, you may possibly remember the line from the trailer). The histrionics with which accompany his reading of the line, along with bugged out eyes that resemble those of a rabid raccoon, illustrate "scenery chewing" to the extreme (to the point it becomes "scenery swallowing" and "scenery digesting"). Over-the-top characters will always have a place in cinema, but there is a right way to do it (i.e. Daniel Day-Lewis' Daniel Plainview, also from 2007) and there is a wrong way to it. Unfortunately, Tom Wikinson in "Michael Clayton" (and in anything else), falls in the latter category, despite what the Academy thinks.

4. Hal Holbrook in "Into the Wild"

     The Academy loves the elderly (which likely has something to do with the fact that a significant portion of their members are AARP members) and they show their love for all things geriatric by commonly rewarding actors past their prime for less-than-deserving performances due to past injustices against the actor early in his/her career (which was probably due to fact they had to reward some other older actor who they had also previously wronged, thus creating a never-ending cycle that rewards seniority over merit). I am happy to say though, that in the case of Hal Holbrook, his nomination is wholly deserved. "Into the Wild", directed and written by actor Sean Penn, based on the book by Jon Krakauer, tells the story of Christopher McCandless, a young man who, after graduating from college, gives up civilized life to become a wanderer of the earth, hitch-hiking across the United States making friendships with all types of people for a short-time before he goes on his way. One of the friends he meets in his adventures is an elderly man by the name Ron Franz, Hal Holbrook's character. An old man with no one left to communicate with and not much to live for, Ron begins to view Christopher like his son. Holbrook's performance is quiet understated one, but nonetheless powerful. The inevitability of death always creeping closer to the forefront of his mind, and nostalgia becoming more meaningful than the here and now, Christopher's sojourn into Ron's life is a semblance of life as living, instead of life as lived. When Christopher decides to leave the old man and go about his way, it makes the separation all the more painful, as we know this is the death of Ron as a man living, as he once again becomes Ron, a man waiting to die. The film overplays its hand at times in terms of sap, but Holbrook's performance is almost always on target, and the nomination for the actor who started out on television series in the 1950's was well earned.

3. Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Charlie Wilson's War"

    I think it must be a prerequisite for anyone who wants to work at the CIA to be a little crazy, or maybe just quirky. At least this must be the case if Hollywood's portrayal of the agencies' employees is anywhere near accurate, because in countless films throughout history, this is how they are portrayed. Even if this not true, and Hollywood has yet again exercised its right to artistic license, that's okay by me, because if it didn't, we wouldn't have the likes of Philip Seymour Hoffman's Gust Avrakotos in "Charlie Wilson's War". The film, based on the book by George Crile, tells the true story of long-time Democratic representative from Texas, Charlie Wilson, and his battle to secretly fund the Afghan mujahideen in their battle against Soviet occupation (including some people who would later become members of Al-Qaeda). The film, which was directed by Mike Nichols ("The Graduate") and written by Aaron Sorkin ("The Social Network"), takes a sort of screwball look at serious subject matter. Part of the fun of the film is Philip Seymour Hoffman playing the nerdy eccentric CIA agent sidekick to Charlie Wilson, going to extreme measures in order to see their mission fulfilled. Before becoming a household name, Philip Seymour Hoffman made a career playing small character parts to a tee in film after film, and although since winning the Oscar for "Capote" in 2005 he has seemed to delve heavily into starring in "art-house" roles, this reprieve shows why people had admired him from afar for years. Gust Avrakotos is the perfect character role, as is Hoffman the perfect character actor, and the two meet in the perfect chocolate-and-peanut-butter mix. What I love about the performance is how Hoffman completely envelops himself in the character. Not only in speech, but in mannerisms and most importantly, in how he carries himself, Hoffman is the geeky CIA agent who will bend to rules to get things done. The tone and timing of the performance is the essential piece of the puzzle that allows the film to pull off its tricky juggling act. It's the intangible qualities such as presence that differentiates the great thespians from the good, and as he proves here, Philip Seymour Hoffman has the qualities of the great ones.

2. Casey Affleck in "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"

     This nomination is actually somewhat controversial, not because of any reservations of the award-worthiness of the performance, as it was widely praised by film critics and aficionados alike, but rather because many view it as "category fraud". As the film's full title spells out (although most people simply refer to it as "The Assassination of Jesse James"), Casey Affleck plays Robert Ford, the eventual killer of famed Western outlaw Jesse James, and the movie is as much about Robert Ford as it is about Jesse James (played by Brad Pitt). In fact, I believe Casey Affleck has more screen time than Brad Pitt, all pointing to the conclusion that Casey Affleck is not a "supporting" actor by any measure, but the lead. Why then did he get nominated in this category and not as Best Actor? That's pretty simple to answer, because Brad Pitt's Brad Pitt, and Casey Affleck's Casey Affleck, which all but insured that as long as Brad Pitt's role was bigger than a cameo, he would be considered the lead and Casey would be considered a supporting actor. This article isn't about the Academy's inane eligibility rules though, so regardless of what category Casey Affleck should be in, let's deal with the category he actually did get nominated in: Best Supporting Actor. Casey Affleck's meek, unassuming nature would not make him the most obvious choice for a tour de force performance, but his milquetoast personality is exactly what is called for in the role of the passive-aggressive Robert Ford. As a child, Robert Ford adored Jesse James to the point of fanaticism, able to call up any and all random facts about his life (like a Star War's fan rattling off alien species) and dreaming of one day joining his gang. As a young man though, when the opportunity finally presents itself to join the gang of his childhood hero, Robert feels nothing but resentment towards Jesse. The film explores the dangers of idolatry, and how humans seem to have an insatiable need to tear down their gods when they are inevitably disappointed by their flaws and imperfections. The hurt felt by the disappointment of a fallen god is a deep one that can fuel an unending feeling of hatred, and this complex and sensitive emotional quality is rendered with amazing deftness by Casey Affleck. I have to admit that I was taken aback by the level of depth and nuance to Casey's portrayal, but whatever your view of him or his brother is, only someone as resentful as Mr. Ford would be reticent to proclaim Casey Affleck's brilliance in this role.

1. Javier Bardem in "No Country For Old Men"

     As good as some of the performances of the other contenders were, only a select few performances in cinema history would have been able to beat this rightful Oscar-winning performance. Javier Bardem's psychopathic existentialist serial killer Anton Chigurh, in the Coen Brother's adaptation of the Cormac McCarthy novel, is one of the most memorable characters in cinema over the last decade, and one of the few characters that left an imprint on the country's (perhaps the world's) cultural consciousness. I know very few people will ever see a compressed air gun without thinking of this movie and Javier Bardem's performance. As much as we all cheer for the heroes to win, it's the villains of films that really interest us. They consistently live outside the norms of societal thinking, thus challenging us and our very existence. This challenge, along with their unorthodox way of thinking that usually has at least an element of truth, can not help but fascinate us, forcing us to reconsider the ground we stand on. The thing that makes Javier Bardem's performance so amazing, and the character so unforgettable, is his relentlessness and, oxymoronically, his pureness (like a philosophical version of The Terminator). Bardem plays the man as an absolute, and idealist with a strict moral outlook, even if it's one drastically different from our own. This means, despite being a man of few words, Anton Chigurh is one of the most intense characters you will ever run across in cinema. This is done with Bardem's great acting prowess, for he does not play the idea of Anton Chigurh, like far too many actors inclinations would lead them to do, but embodies the man. The result is greatest villain this decade outside of Heath Ledger's The Joker. Every word, every twitch, every glance Bardem's character makes puts us on edge, because the reality of his character threatens our own.

     That's it this week, so until next week, leave any comments you have down below.