John Goodman in The Big Lebowski
Giovanni Ribisi in Saving Private Ryan
Showing posts with label 1998 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1998 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Best Supporting Actor 1998: Results
Sunday, May 6, 2012
John Goodman in The Big Lebowski
Giovanni Ribisi in Saving Private Ryan
Best Supporting Actor 1998: James Coburn in Affliction
James Coburn won his Oscar from his only nomination for portraying Glen Whithouse in Affliction.
Although never nominated before his win should not have been the greatest surprise since three of competitors were already Oscar winners, Coburn was a veteran actor deserving of recognition, and frankly Ed Harris' part was not nearly as Oscary as Coburn's. James Coburn portrays an alcoholic father whose mental and physical cruelty toward his family which causes his eldest son to have serious mental problems, his younger son to become passive aggressive, and his daughter to become a one dimensional evangelical christian. Glen Whithouse is not a part that is without cliche and to not be one dimensional himself is quite up to Coburn. Everyone of his scenes could go extremely poorly, and especially over the top if he portrayed them incorrectly.
He has an effective visceral power, and there really is no surprise that he was chosen for the part since Coburn's strong screen presence is on full display here. It is doubtful that any other actor of Coburn's age really could have seemed physically imposing enough to seem threatening to Nick Nolte as Glen's troubled son Wade. Coburn though is always absolutely convincing particularly with his remarkable power he brings to the screen. Coburn always stands strong in every scene, and easily controls most of them that he is in. James Coburn absolutely does command the way Glen needs to for the film.
Glen caused all of this trauma in the kids and in the flashbacks Coburn makes it unbundantly clear why. He is striking in these flashbacks where we see how horrible his cruelty was. Coburn realistically portrays the overwhelming quality of Glen's behavior. It cannot be ignored and it is constant a brutality that Coburn brings to life here. Coburn shows it as something uncontrollable, and something that is always aimed to pierce deeply into his victims. James Coburn never fails to make the fact that Glen's cruelty lead to the delusional behavior of Wade. He succeeds in bringing this terrible man to life.
James Coburn does also have his non drunken scene, where he does show quite a different man in Glen Whitehouse. He actually does not really show a better man exactly, but really just a small and sad man showing that drink is the only way he can cope with his own weaknesses. In his particularly sober scene where he talks about his wife Coburn shows a weak weak man barely able to interact in any meaningful way. He shows the drink as his defense mechanism to be able to stand life itself, his scene where he almost begs to be allowed to get more alcohol, Coburn realizes just how small of a man Glen really is.
Coburn never is one dimensional in the role even though he very well could particularly in his drunken rages, the type of scenes actors usually use as excuse to be so. Coburn though interestingly attempts to show how much of the derangement that creates his cruelty is derived from his perverse sense of masculinity. James Coburn creates a complexity in that he shows that some of Glen's terrible behavior merely is Glen believing he is doing the right thing for children no matter how bad in reality it may be. It is very interesting that Coburn actually finds some logic in this twisted mind, but he does which works almost perfectly for the film. This is a strong performance from Coburn, limited in terms of his time on screen, but substantial in his impact on the film.
He has an effective visceral power, and there really is no surprise that he was chosen for the part since Coburn's strong screen presence is on full display here. It is doubtful that any other actor of Coburn's age really could have seemed physically imposing enough to seem threatening to Nick Nolte as Glen's troubled son Wade. Coburn though is always absolutely convincing particularly with his remarkable power he brings to the screen. Coburn always stands strong in every scene, and easily controls most of them that he is in. James Coburn absolutely does command the way Glen needs to for the film.
Glen caused all of this trauma in the kids and in the flashbacks Coburn makes it unbundantly clear why. He is striking in these flashbacks where we see how horrible his cruelty was. Coburn realistically portrays the overwhelming quality of Glen's behavior. It cannot be ignored and it is constant a brutality that Coburn brings to life here. Coburn shows it as something uncontrollable, and something that is always aimed to pierce deeply into his victims. James Coburn never fails to make the fact that Glen's cruelty lead to the delusional behavior of Wade. He succeeds in bringing this terrible man to life.
James Coburn does also have his non drunken scene, where he does show quite a different man in Glen Whitehouse. He actually does not really show a better man exactly, but really just a small and sad man showing that drink is the only way he can cope with his own weaknesses. In his particularly sober scene where he talks about his wife Coburn shows a weak weak man barely able to interact in any meaningful way. He shows the drink as his defense mechanism to be able to stand life itself, his scene where he almost begs to be allowed to get more alcohol, Coburn realizes just how small of a man Glen really is.
Coburn never is one dimensional in the role even though he very well could particularly in his drunken rages, the type of scenes actors usually use as excuse to be so. Coburn though interestingly attempts to show how much of the derangement that creates his cruelty is derived from his perverse sense of masculinity. James Coburn creates a complexity in that he shows that some of Glen's terrible behavior merely is Glen believing he is doing the right thing for children no matter how bad in reality it may be. It is very interesting that Coburn actually finds some logic in this twisted mind, but he does which works almost perfectly for the film. This is a strong performance from Coburn, limited in terms of his time on screen, but substantial in his impact on the film.
Best Supporting Actor 1998: Billy Bob Thorton in A Simple Plan
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Billy Bob Thorton received his second acting Oscar nomination for portraying Jacob Mitchell in A Simple Plan.
A Simple Plan tells of three men who find money in a crashed airplane, and decide to keep it themselves, but find their simple plan becomes quite complex very quickly.
Thorton's Jacob is one of three men, the one of the three who is always in the middle of the group. He is the brother of the educated Hank (Bill Paxton) who wants to to plan out the use of the money carefully, and his best friend of the rather crude Lou Chambers (Brent Briscoe), who want to use the money for instant gratification. Thorton's Jacob is always being the one pulled by the other two to be pushed into their way of thinking, as well as is being continually used by the both of them as well. Jacob stands as the man in the middle largely as he really is a very simple and not particularly intelligent man.
This is the second nomination for Thorton for portraying a simple man, but unlike his performance Sling Blade Thorton does not have a constrained set of mannerisms to try to make a unique character as he did in that film. In fact with his far more natural performance here, I find he makes Jacob into a far more memorable character than that of Karl Childers. Thorton is terrific in the role as this simple man, because he does not have an excuses or mannerisms. Jacob is a unique character for a film, as portrayed by Thorton, because he is a very unintelligent man, but it is not due to a mental defect, nor does Thorton play him for laughs.
Thorton instead gives an honest portrait of this man in what might be the most remarkable aspect of this great film. Thorton always plays the part of Jacob as genuinely as possible. In the role of the goodhearted but not very bright brother. Thorton is actually very likable here especially sense he could have just seemed obnoxious. Thorton avoids this by showing how much Jacob actually wants to try to do the right thing, and be on good terms with both his friend and his brother. His performance has the right sort of enthusiasm behind this man that really shows that Jacob only wants what is best for everyone, even though his good intentions rarely work.
Thorton is excellent in the way he creates Jacob's unique dynamic in the group of three men, as he is always being pulled by both of them. He is excellent in how he portrays his relationship with both of the men. With Lou Thorton shows a camaraderie Jacob has with him mainly because they simply share the same sort of hobbies as each other, and are at the same time of social, and intellectual standing. His relationship with Paxton's Hank is far more complex though, but Thorton's flawlessly brings to life their troubled relationship as brothers. Thorton is terrific here because he never simplifies the relationship between the two, which becomes a central part of the film.
Thorton realistically shows just how confused Jacob is over their relationship. He shows that Jacob just never quite knows what to really feel about his brother. Thorton is quite good in both types of moments with Paxton. Thorton effectively conveys the jealously and disconnect with his brother well. He shows that Jacob always does know that they have very very little alike, and it is always a troubling pain in him that he and his brother have such a difference between them. Thorton though shows this is something that only really comes out at his worst times, and it is not really a deep seeded hatred but something that will manifest itself when Hank takes his brother a little too much for granted.
Thorton though exceeds just as well in his moments of showing his love he does have for his brother in all reality. He does not overplay it in any way, but just shows quietly how he does really care for his brother, and that he does mean a whole lot to him. Thorton manages to always convince us that Jacob would always come through for his brother when he truly needs him to. It is a terrific portrayal of this man who never can fully understand his own feelings for his brother. It is a very complex relationship he has with his brother, but he always makes their relationship believable in each and every facet of it.
The best part of his performance though is the way Thorton makes Jacob the moral center of the film, even if he commits the first violent act of the film. Thorton though shows that even that act came from just the inability of Jacob to really think clearly when under pressure. Thorton makes us easily sympathize with Jacob's plight, and his reason for wanting the money. It is an absolutely heartbreaking portrait of this sad man Thorton creates. He shows that all Jacob wants is some of the smallest pleasure in life to himself, and all he wants is to rid himself out of the sad state in his life. His story of his one time "girlfriend" Thorton particularly makes a sad moment, because Thorton doesn't show Jacob as bitter over the experience, but instead believably shows him happy over the fact that he received any attention at all.
Thorton never fails for a moment to show how the weight of moral decisions made in the film. Thorton brings to life the way the immoral decisions begin to pain him. Thorton shows these stages effectively though as he tries at first to avoid even thinking about what they have done, and tries to hide it best he can within himself. Thorton subtly shows how he begins to be unable to avoid his feelings of wretchedness. Thorton realistically shows that he can barely believe they have gone the road they have, and Thorton brings us effectively bring Jacob to his final scene. His last moment is absolutely gut wrenching as he reveals just how Jacob just cannot accept what he and his brother have done. Thorton fully brings to life the horrendous pain that overwhelms Jacob to his very core that makes a tremendous impact on the film, and exceedingly heartbreaking due to how well Thorton realized Jacob up until this point.
Thorton's Jacob is one of three men, the one of the three who is always in the middle of the group. He is the brother of the educated Hank (Bill Paxton) who wants to to plan out the use of the money carefully, and his best friend of the rather crude Lou Chambers (Brent Briscoe), who want to use the money for instant gratification. Thorton's Jacob is always being the one pulled by the other two to be pushed into their way of thinking, as well as is being continually used by the both of them as well. Jacob stands as the man in the middle largely as he really is a very simple and not particularly intelligent man.
This is the second nomination for Thorton for portraying a simple man, but unlike his performance Sling Blade Thorton does not have a constrained set of mannerisms to try to make a unique character as he did in that film. In fact with his far more natural performance here, I find he makes Jacob into a far more memorable character than that of Karl Childers. Thorton is terrific in the role as this simple man, because he does not have an excuses or mannerisms. Jacob is a unique character for a film, as portrayed by Thorton, because he is a very unintelligent man, but it is not due to a mental defect, nor does Thorton play him for laughs.
Thorton instead gives an honest portrait of this man in what might be the most remarkable aspect of this great film. Thorton always plays the part of Jacob as genuinely as possible. In the role of the goodhearted but not very bright brother. Thorton is actually very likable here especially sense he could have just seemed obnoxious. Thorton avoids this by showing how much Jacob actually wants to try to do the right thing, and be on good terms with both his friend and his brother. His performance has the right sort of enthusiasm behind this man that really shows that Jacob only wants what is best for everyone, even though his good intentions rarely work.
Thorton is excellent in the way he creates Jacob's unique dynamic in the group of three men, as he is always being pulled by both of them. He is excellent in how he portrays his relationship with both of the men. With Lou Thorton shows a camaraderie Jacob has with him mainly because they simply share the same sort of hobbies as each other, and are at the same time of social, and intellectual standing. His relationship with Paxton's Hank is far more complex though, but Thorton's flawlessly brings to life their troubled relationship as brothers. Thorton is terrific here because he never simplifies the relationship between the two, which becomes a central part of the film.
Thorton realistically shows just how confused Jacob is over their relationship. He shows that Jacob just never quite knows what to really feel about his brother. Thorton is quite good in both types of moments with Paxton. Thorton effectively conveys the jealously and disconnect with his brother well. He shows that Jacob always does know that they have very very little alike, and it is always a troubling pain in him that he and his brother have such a difference between them. Thorton though shows this is something that only really comes out at his worst times, and it is not really a deep seeded hatred but something that will manifest itself when Hank takes his brother a little too much for granted.
Thorton though exceeds just as well in his moments of showing his love he does have for his brother in all reality. He does not overplay it in any way, but just shows quietly how he does really care for his brother, and that he does mean a whole lot to him. Thorton manages to always convince us that Jacob would always come through for his brother when he truly needs him to. It is a terrific portrayal of this man who never can fully understand his own feelings for his brother. It is a very complex relationship he has with his brother, but he always makes their relationship believable in each and every facet of it.
The best part of his performance though is the way Thorton makes Jacob the moral center of the film, even if he commits the first violent act of the film. Thorton though shows that even that act came from just the inability of Jacob to really think clearly when under pressure. Thorton makes us easily sympathize with Jacob's plight, and his reason for wanting the money. It is an absolutely heartbreaking portrait of this sad man Thorton creates. He shows that all Jacob wants is some of the smallest pleasure in life to himself, and all he wants is to rid himself out of the sad state in his life. His story of his one time "girlfriend" Thorton particularly makes a sad moment, because Thorton doesn't show Jacob as bitter over the experience, but instead believably shows him happy over the fact that he received any attention at all.
Thorton never fails for a moment to show how the weight of moral decisions made in the film. Thorton brings to life the way the immoral decisions begin to pain him. Thorton shows these stages effectively though as he tries at first to avoid even thinking about what they have done, and tries to hide it best he can within himself. Thorton subtly shows how he begins to be unable to avoid his feelings of wretchedness. Thorton realistically shows that he can barely believe they have gone the road they have, and Thorton brings us effectively bring Jacob to his final scene. His last moment is absolutely gut wrenching as he reveals just how Jacob just cannot accept what he and his brother have done. Thorton fully brings to life the horrendous pain that overwhelms Jacob to his very core that makes a tremendous impact on the film, and exceedingly heartbreaking due to how well Thorton realized Jacob up until this point.
Best Supporting Actor 1998: Geoffrey Rush in Shakespeare in Love
Friday, May 4, 2012
Geoffrey Rush received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Philip Henslowe in Shakespeare in Love.
Shakespeare in Love is about well Shakespeare falling in love while writing, and putting on Romeo and Juliet.
Geoffrey Rush portrays Philip Henslowe the owner of the Theater where Shakespeare writes for. Henslowe is deep in debt, and desperately wants Shakespeare to write him a successful comedy to payoff his debtors. I should say right off that Rush really has a very limited role as Philip Henslowe. Like Ed Harris in The Truman Show I suppose most of the performance is in his character creation. Rush makes Henslowe a usually whimpering confused fellow constantly begging for things to be going his way, and he is a rather meek fellow in Rush's portrayal.
I would say really the whole point of Henslowe is just to be comic relief in the film. After all after just a couple of early scenes where he talks to his debtors, and tries to convince Shakespeare to write him his play, Rush mostly just has small reactions that are always suppose to comedic. I would say he overplay's the part with his sloppy way of speaking, and almost always surprised look, but really that is the point of Henslowe. Henslowe is just suppose to be a wacky character just for a couple of laughs nothing more. There is not any sort of drive to his character, or purpose besides that.
I guess one could argue he does a little more when he calls on the tavern crowd to be his actors, but even then Rush portrays in very much the same way. I would say his performance is repetitive but really but really there is always enough of a space between his short reactions that it is not. Rush is actually entirely fine int he role, he is sort of humorous, but not all that funny. I don't have problem with his performance, its energetic, Rush certainly isn't boring, but there just is not anything special or notable in the role. Frankly if a supporting actor needed to be nominated here I think Tom Wilkinson probably would have been the better choice.
Geoffrey Rush portrays Philip Henslowe the owner of the Theater where Shakespeare writes for. Henslowe is deep in debt, and desperately wants Shakespeare to write him a successful comedy to payoff his debtors. I should say right off that Rush really has a very limited role as Philip Henslowe. Like Ed Harris in The Truman Show I suppose most of the performance is in his character creation. Rush makes Henslowe a usually whimpering confused fellow constantly begging for things to be going his way, and he is a rather meek fellow in Rush's portrayal.
I would say really the whole point of Henslowe is just to be comic relief in the film. After all after just a couple of early scenes where he talks to his debtors, and tries to convince Shakespeare to write him his play, Rush mostly just has small reactions that are always suppose to comedic. I would say he overplay's the part with his sloppy way of speaking, and almost always surprised look, but really that is the point of Henslowe. Henslowe is just suppose to be a wacky character just for a couple of laughs nothing more. There is not any sort of drive to his character, or purpose besides that.
I guess one could argue he does a little more when he calls on the tavern crowd to be his actors, but even then Rush portrays in very much the same way. I would say his performance is repetitive but really but really there is always enough of a space between his short reactions that it is not. Rush is actually entirely fine int he role, he is sort of humorous, but not all that funny. I don't have problem with his performance, its energetic, Rush certainly isn't boring, but there just is not anything special or notable in the role. Frankly if a supporting actor needed to be nominated here I think Tom Wilkinson probably would have been the better choice.
Best Supporting Actor 1998: Robert Duvall in A Civil Action
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Robert Duvall received his sixth Oscar nomination for portraying Jerome Facher in A Civil Action.
A Civil Action tells about a lawyer Jan Schlichtmann (John Travolta) who goes all in a civil lawsuit for families effected by the dumping of chemicals in the local water supply.
Robert Duvall portrays a part similar to those portrayed by George C. Scott in Anatomy of a Murder, and James Mason in The Verdict (Both my winners of their respective years) which is that of the legal adversary to the main character running the lawsuit. Like Mason Duvall portrays the defense lawyer in a civil lawsuit trying to protect his big pocketed clients. Unlike Mason and Scott, Duvall shows the veteran lawyer has a very different sort of approach in his methods as a lawyer. Where Scott was loudly confrontational, and Mason was quietly confrontational, Duvall's Facher never seems to be confrontational in the least.
Duvall is brilliant in his portrayal of Jerome Facher, because he is this man from his very first scene. Duvall effortlessly conveys the years of experience of this man. From just his first moment Duvall shows us an intelligent adversary who surely will be nothing but trouble for Travolta's character, simply through the ease in which Duvall portrays the part. He is this career lawyer from the start, he creates this man's long studied history in Duvall's simple manner in which he approaches the role. Even though he is high powered lawyer, and working for wealthy clients, Duvall shows Facher never phased for a moment by what he is doing, he simply has become that accustomed to it.
Duvall is excellent as an adversary against Travolta's Schlichtmann because of how nonchalant Duvall is in the role. Duvall shows that Facher methods are simple, very simple, but very effective. Facher never says very much, and never lets on much either. Duvall shows that really Facher's whole method as a lawyer is to seem like he never is doing much of anything, even though Duvall does always properly suggest that Facher does in fact know just about everything about the law, and really he is so well versed in it there is no effort from him than is even required. Facher in lesser hands could have been just a strange character, that made little sense, but Duvall succeeds by always conveying the intelligence behind Facher's method.
Duvall is great in all of his scenes particularly when Facher actually strikes, or threatens to do so. Duvall is completely matter of fact of how sure of himself Facher is. Duvall though is careful not to actually be at all pompous as Facher, he is completely sure of himself and he should be. His scene where he basically says simply, without any hesitation to Travolta's character that he is going to win because he simply says that he will never let him use his ace in the whole simple as that. Duvall brings to life Facher's careful threats completely, even in their great simplicity. Duvall makes it clear that it is easy to underestimate Facher, but than something in his manner shows that one should never do so.
Duvall creates an original and effective opponent here with his very unique style in which he gets what he wants, but his very best scene though is when he tries to just explain things, and the law itself to Travolta's character. Duvall is excellent in this scene as he shows Facher spell out exactly how things are in the law. Facher is most certainly trying to teach Travolta's character a lesson, but it is not in a cruel fashion. He is merely trying to come to an understanding with his character. Duvall here shows that Facher does not necessarily believe what is right will happen, or that his client is correct in anyway, but rather that it does not matter. Duvall is not cold here, but really is understanding as Facher, but he portrays it is Facher merely attempting to convince this man of the truth of the situation. This is strong work from Duvall, I only wish actually that we got to see Facher maneuver in the courtroom, as these scenes are pretty much glazed over in montage. Nevertheless Duvall efficiently creates a powerful adversary that never makes you second guess the legal loses in the film facilitated by his character.
Robert Duvall portrays a part similar to those portrayed by George C. Scott in Anatomy of a Murder, and James Mason in The Verdict (Both my winners of their respective years) which is that of the legal adversary to the main character running the lawsuit. Like Mason Duvall portrays the defense lawyer in a civil lawsuit trying to protect his big pocketed clients. Unlike Mason and Scott, Duvall shows the veteran lawyer has a very different sort of approach in his methods as a lawyer. Where Scott was loudly confrontational, and Mason was quietly confrontational, Duvall's Facher never seems to be confrontational in the least.
Duvall is brilliant in his portrayal of Jerome Facher, because he is this man from his very first scene. Duvall effortlessly conveys the years of experience of this man. From just his first moment Duvall shows us an intelligent adversary who surely will be nothing but trouble for Travolta's character, simply through the ease in which Duvall portrays the part. He is this career lawyer from the start, he creates this man's long studied history in Duvall's simple manner in which he approaches the role. Even though he is high powered lawyer, and working for wealthy clients, Duvall shows Facher never phased for a moment by what he is doing, he simply has become that accustomed to it.
Duvall is excellent as an adversary against Travolta's Schlichtmann because of how nonchalant Duvall is in the role. Duvall shows that Facher methods are simple, very simple, but very effective. Facher never says very much, and never lets on much either. Duvall shows that really Facher's whole method as a lawyer is to seem like he never is doing much of anything, even though Duvall does always properly suggest that Facher does in fact know just about everything about the law, and really he is so well versed in it there is no effort from him than is even required. Facher in lesser hands could have been just a strange character, that made little sense, but Duvall succeeds by always conveying the intelligence behind Facher's method.
Duvall is great in all of his scenes particularly when Facher actually strikes, or threatens to do so. Duvall is completely matter of fact of how sure of himself Facher is. Duvall though is careful not to actually be at all pompous as Facher, he is completely sure of himself and he should be. His scene where he basically says simply, without any hesitation to Travolta's character that he is going to win because he simply says that he will never let him use his ace in the whole simple as that. Duvall brings to life Facher's careful threats completely, even in their great simplicity. Duvall makes it clear that it is easy to underestimate Facher, but than something in his manner shows that one should never do so.
Duvall creates an original and effective opponent here with his very unique style in which he gets what he wants, but his very best scene though is when he tries to just explain things, and the law itself to Travolta's character. Duvall is excellent in this scene as he shows Facher spell out exactly how things are in the law. Facher is most certainly trying to teach Travolta's character a lesson, but it is not in a cruel fashion. He is merely trying to come to an understanding with his character. Duvall here shows that Facher does not necessarily believe what is right will happen, or that his client is correct in anyway, but rather that it does not matter. Duvall is not cold here, but really is understanding as Facher, but he portrays it is Facher merely attempting to convince this man of the truth of the situation. This is strong work from Duvall, I only wish actually that we got to see Facher maneuver in the courtroom, as these scenes are pretty much glazed over in montage. Nevertheless Duvall efficiently creates a powerful adversary that never makes you second guess the legal loses in the film facilitated by his character.
Best Supporting Actor 1998: Ed Harris in The Truman Show
Ed Harris received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Christof in The Truman Show.
The Truman Show tells of Truman (Jim Carrey) who is unaware that he is the star of a reality television show in a fabricated world.
Ed Harris portrays Christof who is the mastermind behind the Truman Show, holding over it with absolute sway. Harris besides a brief moment at the beginning of the film does not appear again into well into the film. Harris' performance here is all in his character creation of Christof. Christof certainly does not change throughout the film, and stays consistent in his role of controller. He is almost one note really until the very end of the film where he senses a loss of his power.
Harris's portrayal is interesting in the way he portrays Christof. He portrays him outwardly as some sort of sensitive artist very devoted to his passion project, the only problem is he seems to suffer from delusions of grandeur which is an interesting dynamic Harris creates within his performance. Harris always shows an incredible devotion in Christof to his show, and his position as the god of his world that he has created. Harris stays as a stoic figure, almost as if Christof is trying to be otherworldly even in the eyes of his colleagues.
Harris stays this way as Christof until the ending of the film when Truman attempts to escape the show. Harris is good actually as he shows Christof still attempting to be stoic, but with a great deal of urgency to get things back to order in his world. Harris carefully shows that Christof's derangement will actualyl bring him to kill his own creation, merely because it is not being controlled by him. Harris still keeps Christoff as a controlling individual, but there is a viciousness now behind his methods of control.
Harris's best scene though is his last one when Christof tries personally to convince Truman to stay in his world. Harris is very effective in this scene, still trying to play god, but this time with an attempt of almost fatherly warmth. It is a well handled scene, and in this moment Harris shows just how much this world, and Truman do mean to Christof, as it shows him shed the otherworldly quality he earlier always tried to convey. I must say I do like this performance, although I must say I do not find it amazing by any means, it is a fine performance from Harris.
Ed Harris portrays Christof who is the mastermind behind the Truman Show, holding over it with absolute sway. Harris besides a brief moment at the beginning of the film does not appear again into well into the film. Harris' performance here is all in his character creation of Christof. Christof certainly does not change throughout the film, and stays consistent in his role of controller. He is almost one note really until the very end of the film where he senses a loss of his power.
Harris's portrayal is interesting in the way he portrays Christof. He portrays him outwardly as some sort of sensitive artist very devoted to his passion project, the only problem is he seems to suffer from delusions of grandeur which is an interesting dynamic Harris creates within his performance. Harris always shows an incredible devotion in Christof to his show, and his position as the god of his world that he has created. Harris stays as a stoic figure, almost as if Christof is trying to be otherworldly even in the eyes of his colleagues.
Harris stays this way as Christof until the ending of the film when Truman attempts to escape the show. Harris is good actually as he shows Christof still attempting to be stoic, but with a great deal of urgency to get things back to order in his world. Harris carefully shows that Christof's derangement will actualyl bring him to kill his own creation, merely because it is not being controlled by him. Harris still keeps Christoff as a controlling individual, but there is a viciousness now behind his methods of control.
Harris's best scene though is his last one when Christof tries personally to convince Truman to stay in his world. Harris is very effective in this scene, still trying to play god, but this time with an attempt of almost fatherly warmth. It is a well handled scene, and in this moment Harris shows just how much this world, and Truman do mean to Christof, as it shows him shed the otherworldly quality he earlier always tried to convey. I must say I do like this performance, although I must say I do not find it amazing by any means, it is a fine performance from Harris.
Best Supporting Actor 1998
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Robert Duvall in A Civil Action
Billy Bob Thorton in A Simple Plan
James Coburn in Affliction
Geoffrey Rush in Shakespeare in Love
Ed Harris in The Truman Show
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
