Review of Oscar Nominees 2020: Best Supporting Actor

Why He Should Win:

Hanks is such a natural fit for Mr. Rogers that I was initially resistant to seeing A Beautiful Day in The Neighborhood because I couldn’t shake the, “Didn’t I already see that movie?” feeling I had from the moment I heard about the project.

In a way I can’t rationally explain, I had this odd sense that Tom Hanks has always been Fred Rogers, that somehow they have been the same person right from the beginning. I mention this because my husband independently confessed to having the same surreal feeling, and I can’t believe we’re alone. This casting is so perfect that it’s almost aggravating.

Now this is really weird because Tom Hanks is not Fred Rogers, and he never has been. Hanks is a two-time Oscar winner, equally adept at playing both comedy and drama. Rogers was an ordained Presbyterian minister who viewed television as a useful medium for reaching out to young minds and having a positive influence on hearts. They’re both known for being “nice,” but nice is sort of a vague, broad term that doesn’t actually tell you much about a person at all.

Before seeing the film, I was concerned that Hanks would just kind of lean in to the whole niceness thing and give us a superficial take on Mr. Rogers we would all recognize, which didn’t sound very interesting to me.

But Hanks does far more than that. He brings a (very welcome) complexity and humanity to Mr. Rogers, an interiority that we don’t usually see when people imitate him, but something that was highlighted in the recent documentary Won’t You Be My Neighbor. This depth and complexity to Mr. Rogers can be teased out of the Tom Junod article on which Beautiful Day was based, as well, and is, of course, also discoverable if you actually watch and listen to the real Mr. Rogers. He was an open book, and like any good book, could be easily misunderstood at a glance.

Hanks shows us the passion (including anger), and persistence of Fred Rogers, a man who chose every day to live a life of service, to show kindness and thoughtfulness that his viewers could mirror. I love the way Hanks gives us a hint of some of the powerful feelings of anger and frustration lurking beneath that placid persona. (The frustration is easy to understand. So often, people totally misunderstood his goals and methods. He showed children how to listen attentively, how to engage with others respectfully and productively, yet so often other adults dismissively ignored or willfully mischaracterized his message.)

What I really love about Hanks’s performance is the way he lets us see the unusual and essential relationship between Fred Rogers and Daniel Tiger. Hanks draws back the veil and shows us genuine psychological complexity, but he does so respectfully, making Mr. Rogers look deep, not weird.

Hanks should have been nominated for Best Actor in 2014 for Captain Phillips. His breakdown at the end as he experiences post traumatic shock is some of the most powerful, natural, memorable acting I have ever seen, and that snub is the most egregious of my lifetime.  (I heard that he campaigned harder for co-star Barkhad Abdi than for himself, and it’s awesome that Abdi won Best Supporting Actor, but they were in different categories! A win for someone deserving shouldn’t cost the nomination of someone else deserving!)

To make up for a snub of that glaring magnitude, the Academy ought to give Hanks a third Oscar as soon as possible. But I’ll be stunned if he wins this one since Brad Pitt is poised to win his very first acting Oscar for what may become an iconic performance in Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood.

Why He Might Not Win:

I expect Brad Pitt to win, and I hope he does. Why it has taken this long (nineteen years!!!) for Hanks to get another nomination is a baffling mystery, especially since he’s done so much good work in that time. (I’ll confess, though, that Captain Richard Phillips aside, my favorite character Hanks has played in the last twenty years is David Pumpkins. “Any questionsssss???”)

But his real prize this season is reaching a career total of five acting nominations. If he continues working, that total will only climb. I’m not sure what Hanks will have to do to win a third Oscar, though. Maybe he should try playing Margaret Thatcher. Or maybe he could play Meryl Streep! That sounds fun! (“Starring Tom Hanks as Meryl Streep and Scarlett Johansson as Everyone Else.”) I’d watch that movie.

Anthony Hopkins
Age: 82
Film: The Two Popes
Role: Pope Benedict XVI, in the latter days of his papacy, straining to hear the voice of God, but hearing only the repetitive drone of the Fitbit that continuously chides him to “keep moving.”  When Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio asks for permission to retire, Benedict calls him to the Vatican for a series of conversations about retirement that Bergoglio does not expect.

Nomination History:
Won Best Actor Oscar in 1992 for The Silence of the Lambs (1991).

Previously nominated for Best Actor for The Remains of the Day (1993) and Nixon (1995).

Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Amistad (1997).

Why He Should Win:

The world does not love Pope Benedict. (Of course, he is a devout Catholic. If the world hates him, he probably takes that as a good thing, and, who knows, maybe it is.)

But you can get an idea of popular opinion about the Pope Emeritus when people are putting together a movie about him and muse, “Who can we get that the public will believe in this role? I know! Hannibal Lecter!”

All joking aside, though, I think this is easily Hopkins’s most special performance since he played Hannibal. And the intensity of his gazes sometimes reminded me of that other iconic character.

When grieving for her late husband, horror novelist Anne Rice wrote a book about Jesus as a child. She drew from existing legend and wrote it from a place of reverence. I personally love that book because it highlights the specialness, the eerie, odd Otherness of being (and having) a child who is God. Sometimes the routines of practicing faith make us too used to this concept and we forget how strange a thing it actually is.

I mention this because for me, the tone of Rice’s novel, the mood (and the goosebumps) it elicits have something in common with the magic Hopkins creates on screen as he channels (or, if you prefer, interprets) Pope Benedict.

Sure sometimes he’s just cute and charming, tottering around with his Fitbit and grinning at his show about the lovable dog detective. But, then, at other times he looks at Cardinal Bergoglio, and then at us, like he’s able to see something beyond our ordinary world. He speaks as if he is channeling the actual Pope, who in turn is prophetically passing on the words of God Himself. There’s just this palpable, eerie quality to his performance, and what’s really odd is that it’s endearingly eerie. We hang on his every word and want to hear more.

In the “mutual confession” scene, Hopkins is absolutely electrifying as he describes a communication issue he has been experiencing. I actually find it morally reprehensible for the writer and director to include material like this without reminding audiences at the start of the film that neither pope was interviewed and these dialogues are imagined by the screenwriter. Still, Hopkins’s performance is spellbinding and powerful. He’s far more impressive than his scene partner, (the also excellent) Jonathan Pryce. If looking simply at the merit of the performance, Hopkins would make a deserving Best Supporting Actor winner.

Why He Might Not Win:

Hopkins is the oldest nominee in the category this ear. At 82, he might not have many more chances to win. Still, there’s no great need to reward him. He has already won an Oscar. His Meet Joe Black co-star Brad Pitt has never won (for acting).

To be honest, I’m of two minds even about his nomination. On the one hand, I’m thrilled for him because I loved the performance, but I do feel a bit of regret for snubbed SAG nominee Jamie Foxx. I also wish there could have been room for Shia LaBeouf, though I do think having positive buzz around his work again is a reward in and of itself. And realistically, not everyone can be nominated every year. 

I have no complaints about the performance Hopkins gives as Benedict.  He looks like him.  He moves like him.  His line delivery is superb since he handles the gentle, mundane comedy and soaring, searing, theological drama with equal aplomb.  I am troubled that all of the personal meetings in The Two Popes are entirely fictional, the conversations ventriloquized by the screenwriter.  But the performances are excellent, and Hopkins’s performance is the best in the film.

He certainly deserves the nomination, but I will be stunned if he wins.

Al Pacino
Age: 79
Film: The Irishman
Role: Jimmy Hoffa, tragically flawed union boss who has an explosive temper and a regrettable overestimation of his own power and security.  Like the similarly confident and grandiloquent Julius Caesar, Hoffa has no idea that his most trusted friend will kill him.  He also loves ice cream and is great at making friends with little girls.

Nomination History:
Won Best Actor Oscar in 1993 for The Scent of a Woman (1992).

Previously nominated for Best Actor for Serpico (1973), The Godfather: Part II (1974), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), And Justice for All (1979).

Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actor for The Godfather (1972), Dick Tracy (1990), and Glengarry Glen Ross (1992).

Why He Should Win:

Al Pacino has nine Oscar nominations for a reason. He brings something to the screen that no one else can. In Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman, Pacino is acting alongside fellow giants like Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, and Harvey Keitel. Thanks to their capable work, Scorsese’s proven skill, and the invisible brilliance of editor Thelma Schoonmaker, this three-and-a-half hour behemoth never once feels slow and is consistently engaging.

But it only feels electrifying and energized when Pacino’s larger-than-life Jimmy Hoffa explodes onto the screen. I wish I could have seen The Irishman on the big screen (which here in Texas was pretty impossible), because Pacino makes Hoffa big enough for even the stage. He plays the part like it’s Shakespeare. Imagine a Julius Caesar who refuses to be killed in Act III and just keeps showing up and stealing the spotlight for the rest of the play, not as a ghost, but as a towering figure ignoring the knife wounds and soldiering on toward the greatness he believes he is due.

To me, that’s the best thing about The Irishman, actually, that Pacino is playing it like it’s Julius Caesar. It helps that the screenplay sets this up for him. (As far as I’m concerned, Steve Zaillian deserves his nomination for Adapted Screenplay for precisely that reason. He turns the dubious confession of an aging hired killer into a brilliant riff on Julius Caesar.)

Al Pacino is Al Pacino. At this stage of his life and in this role, he’s not concerned with reinventing the wheel or journeying to a place he’s never explored (like the inside of his refrigerator!  That’s a young man’s game). The film is set up for a big Jimmy Hoffa, and nobody could make him bigger than Pacino who gives him enough energy to explode off the screen. Sometimes I felt like he was there in my living room, yelling right at me and eating all my ice cream. Pacino has such star power and raw acting talent, plus a lifetime of honing his craft behind him. And he brings a dazzling vitality to The Irishman every single time he show up.  His scenes of conflict with Tony Pro are darkly hilarious and completely mesmerizing.  And those final tense conversations with Russell Bufalino…Wow.

The film is always solid, good. But it becomes a high energy joy to watch in scenes featuring Pacino’s Jimmy Hoffa. It’s worth noting, too, that for me, the digital de-aging worked best on Pacino. While he does not look like his younger self, he does look weirdly ageless, timeless, and that’s something.

Why He Might Not Win:

This is Pacino’s ninth nomination, and frankly, that’s a bit ridiculous. I think respect for him as an actor won him this nomination more than his specific performance in The Irishman.  (I mean, he’s great, but he’s…you know…Pacino.)  (Don’t get me wrong, though.  I love him.  I’ve so enjoyed watching clips of his appearance on the Jimmy Kimmel show.)

We watched The Irishman at home on Netflix with my mother who kept saying, “This is nothing I haven’t seen him do before!” and “He’s acting just like Big Boy in Dick Tracy.” Now as for that last criticism, I have read that Pacino tried to play Hoffa at different ages by remembering what he (Pacino) was like at that age. So perhaps he is acting like Big Boy because he’s trying to recapture the age at which he played him. That sort of makes sense.

I can’t help thinking of Shia LaBeouf and Jamie Foxx and Willem Dafoe and Tracy Letts and Sam Rockwell and Timothée Chalamet (and Noah Jupe!) and so many other actors doing fascinating supporting work this year. And what they are doing may be more fresh, more different. But none of them is Al Pacino.

Of course, fellow nominee Anthony Hopkins is actually even older than Pacino, and Hopkins is creating a performance very specific to the real life character her plays. I think my mother is not entirely wrong when she says that Pacino is just being Pacino, but still, nobody else can do that, and it works perfectly in this film. He won’t win, but he is a worthy nominee.

Joe Pesci
Age: Turns 77 the day of the ceremony
Film: The Irishman
Role: Russell Bufalino, an understated, quietly dangerous man who is terrible at making friends with innocent little girls but surprisingly effective at convincing a man to kill one of his closest friends.

Nomination History:
Won Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 1991 for Goodfellas (1990).

Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Raging Bull (1980).

Why He Should Win:
Like Al Pacino, Joe Pesci is also nominated for The Irishman. Unlike Pacino, Pesci is showing the audience a side of himself that we haven’t ever seen before. He’s not yelling, discomposed, enraged, dialed up to 125. Instead, he’s quiet, calm, deliberate, sometimes sympathetic and always menacing. It seems weird to me that in a mob movie also starring De Niro and Pacino, Joe Pesci is by far the scariest. But he really is. His Russell Buffalino consistently unnerved me. He seems like a real mobster, not a colorful tough guy in a movie. (Admittedly, though, my entire knowledge of what real mobsters are like comes from movies.) Pesci’s Russell Buffalo intimidated and chilled me, yet somehow, I also weirdly liked the guy.

Probably my favorite aspect of Pesci’s performance is his unsuccessful courting of De Niro’s character’s daughter Peggy. I love the scene in the bowling alley when Russell gives Frank some heartfelt parenting advice. Childless but paternalistic, Russell obviously genuinely desires a bond with the girl. She hates him.

This aspect alone is enough to make the character fascinating because, as far as I could tell, his attempts to win the girl over are heartfelt. He doesn’t appear (on the surface) to have any sort of insidious intent toward her. I believe he just wishes he had children. From a certain point of view, though, he’s a very evil man, and Peggy not only never warms to him, she pointedly detests him. This is a fascinating dynamic.  In many ways, De Niro’s Frank Sheeran models himself on a man his daughter despises until finally, he becomes that man.

As I mentioned before, The Irishman owes a lot to Julius Caesar, and Russell is the Cassius of the film, spurring on Frank (his Brutus) to betray and murder close friend Jimmy Hoffa.

Like Cassius, Russell really gains very little from this murder–except that he forces Frank to show loyalty to him rather than to Hoffa (which potentially saves Frank’s life.  It’s deliciously hard to determine precisely how much pressure Russell feels from higher ups and how much power he may actually wield himself.)  Pesci’s final scenes with Pacino are among the best in the movie, and he certainly does convince Frank to side with him rather than Hoffa.  But then he grows older and diminishes until he dies. Pesci is also fabulous in these scenes, playing age and infirmity with surprising raw honesty.


Why He Might Not Win:
The same week that I saw The Irishman, we also watched the episode of the Netflix show The Movies That Made Us about the making of Home Alone. Realizing just how much Pesci’s performance enhanced that film, I kept thinking, “I love Joe Pesci, and I’m starting to suspect that he’ll take the Oscar from Pitt.”

But then buzz for The Irishman quieted down. Way down. Way, way, way, way down. The Oscar nominations are misleading, I think. The project was clearly not the mind-blowing success that everyone eagerly anticipated. The film is certainly not a failure, but it is a disappointment to many people. My personal feeling is that the digital de-aging didn’t exactly work. The technology is cool and all, but think of Jurassic Park. Just because we can use digital de-aging doesn’t mean we should.  (I’m fairly certain that the alterations to his face and eyes are what cost De Niro an acting nomination.  So much of his performance is obscured by the technology.  The de-aging doesn’t hurt Pesci as much because he’s supposed to be playing a man older than Frank from the start.)

The bottom line is, Pitt is on a winning streak, and I think there’s no way for Pesci to change that momentum now.  But if he does win, I will be happy for him.

Brad Pitt
Age: 56
Film: Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood
Role: Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton’s personal stuntman and best friend who “carries the load,” by supporting Rick in movies but ends up as the star of a real-life Western unfolding in the Hollywood hills.

Nomination History:
Won Oscar in 2014 as producer of Best Picture 12 Years a Slave (2013).

Previously nominated for producing Moneyball (2011) and The Big Short (2015).

Previously nominated for Best Actor for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) and Moneyball (2011).

Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Twelve Monkeys (1995).

Why He Should Win:

Brad Pitt deserves an Oscar for acting. Now obviously, winning Oscars is a privilege and any number of actors do brilliant work that is never recognized. But what I mean is, when you compare Pitt’s work to the work of Oscar winning actors, he fits right in. Like his co-star Leonardo DiCaprio, Pitt spent a good stretch of his youth not being taken entirely seriously as an actor because of his good looks. And maybe not every one of his “serious” films worked as well as he’d hoped, but my younger sister was so obsessed with him as a teen that she had what was practically a shrine to him in her bedroom, so all Pitt’s movies were hits at our house. I’ve watched Brad Pitt in Oscar baity roles for decades now, and I’m pretty sure his time has come.

Unlike my sister, I’ve never loved Brad Pitt. (I like him well enough. I think he’s talented and engaging. I’ve just never had a burning obsession.) But I do love him in Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood. The moment I saw the film in the theater, I began to believe that Pitt’s time to win an acting Oscar had come. (He is technically an Oscar winner for producing Twelve Years a Slave, but I’m sure it is important to actors to win for acting.) At this point, momentum should carry Pitt across the finish line. He’s been winning all the precursor awards. I expect him to win the Oscar, too, and if there is an acting upset that night, I hope it’s not in this category.

As I watched that wonderful scene at the Spahn Ranch, I thought, “Pitt is too good in this movie not to get nominated. Basically all he’s doing is Brad Pitting around, but nobody else can do that. He has such unique charisma.”

I loved Pitt in the role but thought he was just kind of leaning in to his natural charms on screen. Then I saw his other big film this year, the far less successful Ad Astra, and I had a kind of revelation about how much Pitt was actually doing in his performances.

On paper, Hollywood‘s Cliff Booth and Ad Astra‘s Roy McBride sound so alike that they might as well be the same character. Identical descriptors could aptly describe either–strong, silent, traditionally masculine, curt, willing to break rules, struggling with personal relationships, mysterious past, calm in a crisis…

But when you watch the actual movies, you never think, “Wow Cliff Booth sure does remind me of Roy McBride,” or vice versa. They do not at all seem like the same man. You would never confuse them.

Realizing this, I began to appreciate Pitt’s performance a little more. Just this year he has played two characters who sound identical on paper but seem nothing at all alike up on the screen. So if he truly is just playing himself, then he must be one extraordinarily multifaceted guy.

For most people I’ve talked to, Cliff Booth steals the movie. Almost everyone seems to agree that the suspenseful scenes at Spahn Ranch are the best (except my daughter who was impressed by the layers of DiCaprio’s dive into metadrama…and possibly me since I have such strong, positive feelings about the way the film treats Sharon Tate). But Pitt definitely gets to star in the most exciting, suspenseful sequence of the film, and he certainly makes the most of it.

To be perfectly honest, if he doesn’t win at this point, I will be emotionally destroyed.

Why He Might Not Win: