Orson Welles in Touch of Evil
Burl Ives in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Showing posts with label 1958 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1958 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Best Supporting Actor 1958: Results
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Orson Welles in Touch of Evil
Burl Ives in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Best Supporting Actor 1958: Lee J. Cobb in The Brothers Karamazov
Lee J. Cobb received his second and final Oscar nomination for portraying Fyodor Karamazov in The Brothers Karamazov.
The Brothers Karamazov details tensions involving
the brothers over their fathers decision for his heir.
Lee J. Cobb portrays the father of the brothers and you know there is a problem when he makes Burl Ives's father in The Big Country look like a good father, but Fyodor comes close to doing this. He is a rather lowly man who fathered several sons but clearly cares very little for them. In many ways Fyodor is villainous character in the film as he really is the cause of most of the problems in the film. Lee J. Cobb very memorably and effectively portrayed the villainous Johnny Friendly in On The Waterfront who was the cause of most of the problems in that film, this performance is not on that level, but it is an interesting performance nonetheless that has some of the same strengths found in that performance.
Lee J. Cobb is really the perfect brutish buffoon, and does indeed the same powerful presence he showed in his earlier stronger nominated performance. It is clear that Fyodor has a command even if he he the most lowly sort of a man. Cobb is really quite effective in his portrayal of his feelings toward his sons as he shows the nature of the man. Cobb makes absolutely no excuses for his character he is a bad man, and Cobb handles this rather realistically as he does not make his emotions toward his sons one dimensional. Cobb certainly conveys the idea that he does not care for them, but does not exactly hate them either. He instead just seems to show that he really has no love to really convey to them, he does treat them with a bit of descent as he does recognize them, but Cobb acts it as just something he feels he is required to do than any form of love he has for his children.
As the manipulator Fyodor Cobb again does excel in his own fashion because he never overplays Fyodor's rather villainous role in the proceedings. Yes he is always pushing and attempting to control his sons in his own way, but Cobb actually creates Fyodor into a rather realistic manipulator because he never makes Fyodor into being overly intelligent man but just someone who basically knows how to make people tick in his particular way. It is an interesting way to portray a manipulator as he does in such a rather crude manipulator, but it is an effective portrayal. Cobb realizes exactly how easy it would be for the brothers to desire to murder him. It is a good performance by Cobb that creates Fyodor in the buffoonish antagonist that he should be. It would have easy to come off as too evil or too buffoonish, but Cobb finds just the right balance.
the brothers over their fathers decision for his heir.
Lee J. Cobb portrays the father of the brothers and you know there is a problem when he makes Burl Ives's father in The Big Country look like a good father, but Fyodor comes close to doing this. He is a rather lowly man who fathered several sons but clearly cares very little for them. In many ways Fyodor is villainous character in the film as he really is the cause of most of the problems in the film. Lee J. Cobb very memorably and effectively portrayed the villainous Johnny Friendly in On The Waterfront who was the cause of most of the problems in that film, this performance is not on that level, but it is an interesting performance nonetheless that has some of the same strengths found in that performance.
Lee J. Cobb is really the perfect brutish buffoon, and does indeed the same powerful presence he showed in his earlier stronger nominated performance. It is clear that Fyodor has a command even if he he the most lowly sort of a man. Cobb is really quite effective in his portrayal of his feelings toward his sons as he shows the nature of the man. Cobb makes absolutely no excuses for his character he is a bad man, and Cobb handles this rather realistically as he does not make his emotions toward his sons one dimensional. Cobb certainly conveys the idea that he does not care for them, but does not exactly hate them either. He instead just seems to show that he really has no love to really convey to them, he does treat them with a bit of descent as he does recognize them, but Cobb acts it as just something he feels he is required to do than any form of love he has for his children.
As the manipulator Fyodor Cobb again does excel in his own fashion because he never overplays Fyodor's rather villainous role in the proceedings. Yes he is always pushing and attempting to control his sons in his own way, but Cobb actually creates Fyodor into a rather realistic manipulator because he never makes Fyodor into being overly intelligent man but just someone who basically knows how to make people tick in his particular way. It is an interesting way to portray a manipulator as he does in such a rather crude manipulator, but it is an effective portrayal. Cobb realizes exactly how easy it would be for the brothers to desire to murder him. It is a good performance by Cobb that creates Fyodor in the buffoonish antagonist that he should be. It would have easy to come off as too evil or too buffoonish, but Cobb finds just the right balance.
Best Supporting Actor 1958: Gig Young in Teacher's Pet
Monday, March 5, 2012
Gig Young received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Dr. Hugo Pine in Teacher's Pet.
Teacher's Pet is an enjoyable comedy about a newspaper editor who learned his way solely through working the job James Gannon (a very physically haggard but still charming Clark Gable) who tricks and later romances a journalism instructor Erica Stone (Doris Day) into thinking he is just a pupil.
Gig Young appears later in a film as the colleague of Day's character who Gable's Gannon assume is a rival suitor. Dr. Hugo Pine is a well educated, well read, and well experienced psychology professor. The Dr. know a whole lot, and does not mind telling others about that fact all the time. Young is quite enjoyable in the part of Hugo perfectly finding just the right way to portray his "perfectness". Young shows that Hugo certainly likes to flaunt his knowledge, but he portrays it with a degree of naivety to show that Hugo almost can't help it. Young turns him into certainly a well into himself fellow, but a slightly by accident into himself fellow.
He is funny with his distinct sort of somewhat earned pompousness that is enjoyable and an effective contrast to the gruffer less sure of himself Gable. He effectively stays this way into a single reaction that instantly makes him fall from grace, which is a very amusing single physical reaction by Young. The rest of his performance involves Hugo suffering from a hangover from the alcohol that caused his fall, and actually helping Gable's character as it turns out Hugo and Erica are just friends, and he really is not any sort of rival to Gable's James Gannon after all.
The hungover Dr. Hugo Pine is as enjoyable as overly the sure of himself one. The difference in them is especially made amusing by Young through just how much he loses in the exchange. Young still shows Hugo to be quite intelligent as he tries to help Gable's character in the end, and tries to bring the two romantic leads together despite the fact their relationship is built on a lie. Young comes in at the right moment in the film as he acts as an negotiator between the two, as the film could easily fell almost completely into drama at the end.
Young though keeps the humor alive near the end with his comedic presence. Whether it is his constant handover that pains him, or his reactions to the rather bad decisions made by Gable's character are all quite funny and perfectly timed by Young. It is simply a very enjoyable supporting performance that appears exactly when it needs to in the film, and succeeds completely in preventing the film from having the slump that it very well could have had without him. It is the exact sort of supporting performance right for a romantic comedy like this that I maybe could have used even more of actually.
Gig Young appears later in a film as the colleague of Day's character who Gable's Gannon assume is a rival suitor. Dr. Hugo Pine is a well educated, well read, and well experienced psychology professor. The Dr. know a whole lot, and does not mind telling others about that fact all the time. Young is quite enjoyable in the part of Hugo perfectly finding just the right way to portray his "perfectness". Young shows that Hugo certainly likes to flaunt his knowledge, but he portrays it with a degree of naivety to show that Hugo almost can't help it. Young turns him into certainly a well into himself fellow, but a slightly by accident into himself fellow.
He is funny with his distinct sort of somewhat earned pompousness that is enjoyable and an effective contrast to the gruffer less sure of himself Gable. He effectively stays this way into a single reaction that instantly makes him fall from grace, which is a very amusing single physical reaction by Young. The rest of his performance involves Hugo suffering from a hangover from the alcohol that caused his fall, and actually helping Gable's character as it turns out Hugo and Erica are just friends, and he really is not any sort of rival to Gable's James Gannon after all.
The hungover Dr. Hugo Pine is as enjoyable as overly the sure of himself one. The difference in them is especially made amusing by Young through just how much he loses in the exchange. Young still shows Hugo to be quite intelligent as he tries to help Gable's character in the end, and tries to bring the two romantic leads together despite the fact their relationship is built on a lie. Young comes in at the right moment in the film as he acts as an negotiator between the two, as the film could easily fell almost completely into drama at the end.
Young though keeps the humor alive near the end with his comedic presence. Whether it is his constant handover that pains him, or his reactions to the rather bad decisions made by Gable's character are all quite funny and perfectly timed by Young. It is simply a very enjoyable supporting performance that appears exactly when it needs to in the film, and succeeds completely in preventing the film from having the slump that it very well could have had without him. It is the exact sort of supporting performance right for a romantic comedy like this that I maybe could have used even more of actually.
Best Supporting Actor 1958: Burl Ives in The Big Country
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Burl Ives won his Oscar from his only nomination for portraying Rufus Hannassey in The Big Country.
The Big Country is a bit of an overblown western about an easterner (Gregory Peck) who tries to calm tensions between two families who fight over land rights.
Burl Ives nomination here is a little strange in that he was not nominated for his most famous role as Big Daddy in Cat on the Hot Tin Roof. It is strange certainly since Ives was terrific in that film, but it is even stranger because The Big Country only received tw o nominations total whereas Cat On the Hot Tin Roof received far more including Picture, Actor and Actress. This is one example where it is hard to see why he was nominated here instead of there. I do assume that Cat on the Hot Tin Roof gave him the voting edge though. This misplaced nomination though is not really in the same league of other incorrect nominations because if an actor could be nominated twice Ives would have been a deserving double nominee.
The Big Country is not a particularly good film with many problems particularly in the writing which has a whole bunch of one dimensional characters filled in by rather dull performances the exception though is with Burl Ives' Rufus Hannassey. This is not to say Rufus Hannassey is written any better than any of the other character, I am not sure that he is actually, rather Burl Ives' brings a three dimensional quality to his character mainly through his performance. Ives has a forceful presence on screen which is instantly notable here when he is on screen you take notice, Ives absolutely owns every scene he is in even if he is not the focus of a particular scene.
Burl Ives's strong presence that instantly establish the power of Hannassey from the first scene he is in. When Ives appears he makes it abundantly clear that he is the most interesting part of the film. He really shows just a man with a history right from his initial appearance a crusty old cattleman who certainly has worked hard to get where he is. Ives is able to convey this without being singularly one note in his depiction. He does not just merely show a hatred of his land rival the major (Charles Bickford) as Bickford rather dully shows toward him, but rather Ives really shows more honestly a pain with the hatred over no only for treated as a lesser man, as well having his own livelihood threatened.
Ives' portrayal of this hatred really sort of undermines the film as the film seems to want to treat him as the sort of a villain as the major, but Ives won't allow that since he refuses to portray the hatred as Hannassey's only character trait. Ives is able to really bring out the conflict and the troubles of the man realistically that allows us to see his point of view so well that he becomes the most sympathetic in the film as Ives is the only actor in the film who allows us to honestly understand what his character feels. Ives is never content to let Hannessey be just a simple incarnation of one idea but a genuine man who exists beyond the central conflict of the film.
I think the best aspect of Ives performance though is actually Rufus Hannassey's troubled relationship with his hot headed and crude son (Chuck Conners). Naturally the relationship is written rather simply Hannassey does not care much for his son, but Ives really does find truth to the relationship simply through his performance. He conveys an actual disappointment in the father over his son, not just hatred for his son's action, but Ives is able to actually realize the father difficulty really in almost believing that the man is his son.
His best moment in his performance comes though when he is forced to kill his own son, and really it is an incredible moment. It could have been nothing just the death of a villain especially if the father only ever conveyed hatred to begin with, but Ives actually in his realistic depiction of the relationship with his son actually makes it quite heartbreaking. Yes you really don't care about the son, but Ives makes the sorrow of the father's action tragic. As he does show it as something Rufus had to do, and even though he hated his son for his actions there was still a fatherly love for him that still remained. Ives gives a very good performance that could have been the mediocrity of the rest of the film in lesser hands. It is a strong performance from Ives that only really is held back by his material and his co-stars it is a wonderful example though of an actor's ability to make something memorable out of film that offers mostly lackluster material.
Burl Ives nomination here is a little strange in that he was not nominated for his most famous role as Big Daddy in Cat on the Hot Tin Roof. It is strange certainly since Ives was terrific in that film, but it is even stranger because The Big Country only received tw o nominations total whereas Cat On the Hot Tin Roof received far more including Picture, Actor and Actress. This is one example where it is hard to see why he was nominated here instead of there. I do assume that Cat on the Hot Tin Roof gave him the voting edge though. This misplaced nomination though is not really in the same league of other incorrect nominations because if an actor could be nominated twice Ives would have been a deserving double nominee.
The Big Country is not a particularly good film with many problems particularly in the writing which has a whole bunch of one dimensional characters filled in by rather dull performances the exception though is with Burl Ives' Rufus Hannassey. This is not to say Rufus Hannassey is written any better than any of the other character, I am not sure that he is actually, rather Burl Ives' brings a three dimensional quality to his character mainly through his performance. Ives has a forceful presence on screen which is instantly notable here when he is on screen you take notice, Ives absolutely owns every scene he is in even if he is not the focus of a particular scene.
Burl Ives's strong presence that instantly establish the power of Hannassey from the first scene he is in. When Ives appears he makes it abundantly clear that he is the most interesting part of the film. He really shows just a man with a history right from his initial appearance a crusty old cattleman who certainly has worked hard to get where he is. Ives is able to convey this without being singularly one note in his depiction. He does not just merely show a hatred of his land rival the major (Charles Bickford) as Bickford rather dully shows toward him, but rather Ives really shows more honestly a pain with the hatred over no only for treated as a lesser man, as well having his own livelihood threatened.
Ives' portrayal of this hatred really sort of undermines the film as the film seems to want to treat him as the sort of a villain as the major, but Ives won't allow that since he refuses to portray the hatred as Hannassey's only character trait. Ives is able to really bring out the conflict and the troubles of the man realistically that allows us to see his point of view so well that he becomes the most sympathetic in the film as Ives is the only actor in the film who allows us to honestly understand what his character feels. Ives is never content to let Hannessey be just a simple incarnation of one idea but a genuine man who exists beyond the central conflict of the film.
I think the best aspect of Ives performance though is actually Rufus Hannassey's troubled relationship with his hot headed and crude son (Chuck Conners). Naturally the relationship is written rather simply Hannassey does not care much for his son, but Ives really does find truth to the relationship simply through his performance. He conveys an actual disappointment in the father over his son, not just hatred for his son's action, but Ives is able to actually realize the father difficulty really in almost believing that the man is his son.
His best moment in his performance comes though when he is forced to kill his own son, and really it is an incredible moment. It could have been nothing just the death of a villain especially if the father only ever conveyed hatred to begin with, but Ives actually in his realistic depiction of the relationship with his son actually makes it quite heartbreaking. Yes you really don't care about the son, but Ives makes the sorrow of the father's action tragic. As he does show it as something Rufus had to do, and even though he hated his son for his actions there was still a fatherly love for him that still remained. Ives gives a very good performance that could have been the mediocrity of the rest of the film in lesser hands. It is a strong performance from Ives that only really is held back by his material and his co-stars it is a wonderful example though of an actor's ability to make something memorable out of film that offers mostly lackluster material.
Best Supporting Actor 1958: Theodore Bikel in The Defiant Ones
Friday, March 2, 2012
Theodore Bikel received his only Oscar nomination at the moment for portraying Sheriff Max Muller in The Defiant Ones.
Theodore Bikel portrays the Sheriff who leads the posse who is searching for the two escaped chain gang convicts (Sidney Poitier, Tony Curtis). Bikel's role is a rather simple one to say the least in terms of the film. It on occasion cuts from the story of the escaping men to the posse lead by Bikel's Sheriff who wishes only to recapture the men without incident. He merely wants to catch them not kill them making it necessary for him to basically calm down some of his party who think he is being too easy on the men.
Bikel really isn't asked to do very much in the role of the Sheriff. I suppose a southern accent maybe was wanted since he sort of tries to do one in just his first scene than proceeds to pretty much give right afterwards. Other than that he just needs to be a rather kindly Sheriff which Bikel shows in a very relaxed fashion. He is anything but intense and I suppose he is properly humane I guess in his portrayal, as he makes the Sheriff just a nice guy.
The whole point of the performance and the character seemed really just to show the audience that if Poitier and Curtis will be captured they won't be mistreated by those chasing them. Bikel is technically just fine at doing this there is nothing wrong with his portrayal. There just is not much to it either, he is there does his piece every so often sets up the humanness of the man nothing more. He never takes your interest from the main story line but that was not the point of the Sheriff either. It is a satisfactory performance in a functional role no more no less.
Bikel really isn't asked to do very much in the role of the Sheriff. I suppose a southern accent maybe was wanted since he sort of tries to do one in just his first scene than proceeds to pretty much give right afterwards. Other than that he just needs to be a rather kindly Sheriff which Bikel shows in a very relaxed fashion. He is anything but intense and I suppose he is properly humane I guess in his portrayal, as he makes the Sheriff just a nice guy.
The whole point of the performance and the character seemed really just to show the audience that if Poitier and Curtis will be captured they won't be mistreated by those chasing them. Bikel is technically just fine at doing this there is nothing wrong with his portrayal. There just is not much to it either, he is there does his piece every so often sets up the humanness of the man nothing more. He never takes your interest from the main story line but that was not the point of the Sheriff either. It is a satisfactory performance in a functional role no more no less.
Best Supporting Actor 1958: Arthur Kennedy in Some Came Running
Arthur Kennedy received his fifth and final Oscar nomination for portraying Frank Hirsh in Some Came Running.
Some Came Running depicts the problems faced by a returning war veteran Dave Hirsh (Frank Sinatra).
After watching all of Kennedy's supporting nominations I must say he is not in the league of Claude Rains, and in fact most of his nominations are pretty standard supporting performance that have absolutely no real distinction to them. This is probably the most true about his performance here though as Frank Sinatra's character's brother. The brother who tries his best to defend his brother, and tries to talk to him but has very little success either way. His whole character does feel a bit dispensable, particularly when the film attempts to give him a sub plot involving affair with his secretary caused by the coldness of his wife.
His character is rather repetitive and by the end of the film one could care less about him. Kennedy's follows suit with his performance which is equally repetitive. His performance is basically a one note of awkwardness around his defense of his character's brother. There is not any special connection ever shown between him and Sinatra in fact the way they were together you'd think they weren't brothers at all. After all there should be some small history between the two even if a small one, but the way the two interact suggests absolutely nothing. It does not even suggest estrangement even, since Kennedy plays his part in such a superficial fashion throughout his performance.
It just a terribly uninteresting performance for a terribly uninteresting character. Even when he has his affair, which the film barely cares about, Kennedy still does not make anything out of Frank. He still stays on the same basic note, and the affair just feels like something written for him to do rather than passionate action by Frank. I suppose the fact that Frank is boring does have a great deal in the way the part is written, really Kennedy has very little to work with to be perfectly honest, but still there was probably something more one could have done with the part than Kennedy does. This is not to say that Kennedy truly awful in the part, but at the same time it is a very dull performance from an actor seemed better suited for lead roles, at least when it comes to his Oscar nomination performances.
After watching all of Kennedy's supporting nominations I must say he is not in the league of Claude Rains, and in fact most of his nominations are pretty standard supporting performance that have absolutely no real distinction to them. This is probably the most true about his performance here though as Frank Sinatra's character's brother. The brother who tries his best to defend his brother, and tries to talk to him but has very little success either way. His whole character does feel a bit dispensable, particularly when the film attempts to give him a sub plot involving affair with his secretary caused by the coldness of his wife.
His character is rather repetitive and by the end of the film one could care less about him. Kennedy's follows suit with his performance which is equally repetitive. His performance is basically a one note of awkwardness around his defense of his character's brother. There is not any special connection ever shown between him and Sinatra in fact the way they were together you'd think they weren't brothers at all. After all there should be some small history between the two even if a small one, but the way the two interact suggests absolutely nothing. It does not even suggest estrangement even, since Kennedy plays his part in such a superficial fashion throughout his performance.
It just a terribly uninteresting performance for a terribly uninteresting character. Even when he has his affair, which the film barely cares about, Kennedy still does not make anything out of Frank. He still stays on the same basic note, and the affair just feels like something written for him to do rather than passionate action by Frank. I suppose the fact that Frank is boring does have a great deal in the way the part is written, really Kennedy has very little to work with to be perfectly honest, but still there was probably something more one could have done with the part than Kennedy does. This is not to say that Kennedy truly awful in the part, but at the same time it is a very dull performance from an actor seemed better suited for lead roles, at least when it comes to his Oscar nomination performances.
Best Supporting Actor 1958
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Theodore Bikel in The Defiant Ones
Lee J. Cobb in The Brothers Karamazov
Burl Ives in The Big Country
Gig Young in Teacher's Pet
Arthur Kennedy in Some Came Running
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
