Kenneth Branagh
Age: 51
Film: My Week with Marilyn
Role: Sir Laurence Olivier
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actor for Henry V (1989).
Previously nominated for Best Director for Henry V (1989).
Previously nominated for Best Adapted screenplay for Hamlet (1996).
Previously nominated for Best Live-Action Short Film for Swan Song (1992).
Why He Should Win
In some cases, the nomination is the award. In Branagh’s case, I think the part is the award. Think about it. Kenneth Branagh as Sir Laurence Olivier? The casting is inspired and a confirmation of his talent. It’s almost stunt casting—the premiere British Shakespearean actor of our day playing the premiere British Shakespearean actor of Hollywood in its heyday.
Now, I’m sure some people will argue that Branagh isn’t the premiere Shakespearean actor of our day. But you can’t argue that he’s one of the most high profile Shakespeare buffs working in film. His adaptation of Henry V is rightly acclaimed and most people have at least heard of his well respected if insanely long version of Hamlet. There’s also a lot of love out there for his adaptation of Much Ado about Nothing (1993), and even his lesser known Shakespearean adaptations have their fans. When average movie watchers think Shakespeare, they think Kenneth Branagh.
It’s fun to watch Branagh playing Olivier because you know he’s got to be enjoying it. What a challenge and a thrill!
He’s at his best when in his dressing room, whether ranting about Marilyn or slipping into a soliloquy of his own frustrations (even if his best lines are sometimes stolen from Shakespeare). Well, I take that back. The best line is the one comparing directing Marilyn to “trying to teach Urdu to a badger.” Not only is it a priceless quip, but Olivier actually said it, or at least something very like that, according to the Monroe biographies that I’ve read.
Branagh makes a more than passable Olivier (at least, compared to his onscreen persona. Believe it or not, I’ve never met Sir Laurence Olivier in person, so I have no idea how he behaved in private). He delivers his lines with a marvelous precision and a delectable snark. It’s terribly amusing and also somewhat sad to watch him patronizing Marilyn without realizing why she’s not responding well.
Why He Might Not Win
The performance is fantastic, but it’s better if you have some knowledge of Olivier, and even then it’s not the kind of big, explosive, passionate role that normally allows actors to win awards. Since Albert Brooks wasn’t even nominated (bafflingly), I have trouble imagining that anyone other than Max von Sydow could conceivably beat Christopher Plummer (another acclaimed Shakespearean actor, though not a British one). Either Plummer or von Sydow would make Oscar history by winning by virtue of being 82 years old. I can’t imagine that one of the young whippersnappers like Branagh or Hill will win it this year. Plus compared to the other supporting actors nominated this year, Branagh has relatively little screentime.
Jonah Hill
Age: 28
Film: Moneyball
Role: Peter Brand, the young Yale graduate in economics who causes Billy Beane to consider a new way to put together a winning team on a tight budget by suggesting that baseball players don’t necessarily need charisma or talent to win; they just need to get on base.
Nomination History:
This is Hill’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win
I’m amazed that Hill got a nomination. He’s been racking up the precursor nominations, but I’m still quietly stunned that so many people noticed his work. He’s a talented actor, and in every performance I’ve seen him give, he brings a lot vocally, altering his pitch, inflection, and volume in ways that memorably infuse his dialogue with the personality of the character he’s playing. I loved him as Seth in Superbad and thought he brought a winning sweetness to a character who could have been unsympathetically obnoxious in the hands of a less gifted actor.
In Moneyball, Hill similarly humanizes Peter Brand. On paper, Brand sounds pretty dry, maybe even odd and unappealing. He’s a recent economics graduate from Yale who sleeps with a poster of Plato above his bed and has an idea for how to improve baseball by making it more boring. How would the average movie goer connect with a character like that? When Hill plays him, surprisingly easily. He’s probably the one character in the movie the audience can absolutely trust, the one guy whose motives seem pure.
Hill is at his best in his scenes opposite Brad Pitt’s Billy Beane because the two have such diametrically different styles of interaction. As always, Hill brings a lot of humor to his scenes, but he’s significantly more subdued here than in most of his comedies, possibly why the role is getting him so much attention.
Why He Might Not Win
Of the five nominees, I think Hill gives the weakest performance of anybody who is not Max von Sydow. (No offense to von Sydow intended. He’s playing a character who’s criminally underdeveloped in the screenplay. True, he manages to offset this weakness by being Max von Sydow, but still.)
It’s not that Hill does anything wrong. He and co-star Brad Pitt face the same dilemma. Their movie does not include any over-the-top scenes of heart-wrenching emotionality. He’s not playing Medea. He’s playing a young economist who thinks statistics are more satisfying than knocking one out of the ballpark. He doesn’t do anything wrong. He nails the performance. But nailing the performance is (relatively) not that difficult (or at any rate, it doesn’t appear that difficult), and it’s certainly not that showy.
Nick Nolte
Age: 71
Film: Warrior
Role: Paddy Conlon, recovering alcoholic and estranged father of two exceptional MMA fighters, Brendan and Tommy.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actor twice for The Prince of Tides (1991) and Affliction (1999).
Why He Should Win
All this time, I thought that Nick Nolte won for The Prince of Tides, but he couldn’t have because Jack Palance won for City Slickers and did that famous set of push-ups. I watched the show that year. I guess my memory just created an extra award for Nolte.
In reality, he’s one of the three aged veterans nominated this year who’s never won an Oscar. (In fact, none of this year’s nominees has ever won an Oscar, but Branagh and Hill aren’t old enough to be considered aged veterans yet.)
Nolte is good as Paddy Conlon, a character who gets exactly the kind of the over-the-top, emotional moments that voters typically love and Hill’s and Branagh’s characters lack. A recovering alcoholic, Paddy struggles to atone for his failings as a father and husband by reconnecting with his estranged, adult sons, no easy feat since he once abused them and their now deceased mother.
Nolte’s portrayal of the character feels painfully realistic. The “Moby Dick moment” when he falls off the wagon after a confrontation with his son Tommy is definitely his showiest scene, and as the miserable, raging, frustrated, broken Paddy, Nolte puts on quite a show. Personally, however, I prefer his quieter misery as he attempts and fails to reconnect with his older son in a conversation in the street in front of Brendan’s house. Warrior is oozing with raw, often inarticulate emotion. When Nolte’s Paddy tries to put his pain and desperation into words, it’s impossible not to feel for him, even though Brendan’s stance is easy enough to understand and even defend.
Nolte’s good here. It’s easily the best performance he’s given in a long time, probably largely because he’s given such a juicy role.
Why He Might Not Win
No offense to Nick Nolte intended, but thinking of him stumbling around as a broken, old drunk isn’t much of a stretch. If he had failed to connect with the character, that would have been news. Of course, Nolte is good in a part like this. Detractors will tell you that the character has quite a lot in common with the actor. Still, Nolte has a powerful charisma and an emotive screen presence that allows him to leave an indelible impression on the film and its viewers. Many older men recovering from a life of substance abuse are tormented and broken, but that doesn’t mean an audience would enjoy watching them. Not all tormented people can move a film audience to tears. That takes talent and, usually, training. Nolte definitely has both screen presence and skill, and in any other year, those fine qualities might be enough to get him an Oscar, particularly because he’s an aging veteran of the silver screen.
But he’s not as old as Christopher Plummer, and he’s also not quite as good. Plummer has a (chuckle chuckle) particularly plum role because even though he’s not the lead in the film, in many ways he’s the dominating character. Paddy doesn’t dominate in Warrior, but he does give a performance every bit as entrancing as the show his sons put on in the MMA ring.
Christopher Plummer
Age: 82
Film: Beginners
Role: Hal Fields, the recently deceased father who surprised his son by coming out of the closet and finding happiness with a younger boyfriend and new circle of friends just months before dying of cancer.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actor for The Last Station (2009).
Why He Should Win
Speaking of elite Shakespearean actors, Christopher Plummer’s definitely on that list, too (though he can’t be called the premiere British Shakespearean actor because he’s from Canada—unless you think that counts). He’s given some marvelous performances over the years. Everybody remembers him as Captain Von Trapp in The Sound of Music (1965). As a kid, I was quite fond of his performances in Star Trek VI (1991) and An American Tail (1986). And just recently he’s played some very memorable characters like Charles Muntz in Up (2009), Leo Tolstoy in The Last Station (2010), and Henrik Vanger in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011). My husband will gleefully tell you that he also voices a key character in the video game Skyrim (2011). To put it mildly, Plummer has an impressive body of work.
In a fair world, an actor wouldn’t win a competitive Oscar for body of work, but in our world this happens all the time, particularly in the Supporting Actor category. Christopher Plummer is a talented actor, and he deserves an Academy Award. He’s probably going to get it this year.
To be honest, I think Supporting Actor is the weakest of the major categories this year. Albert Brooks should have gotten a nomination for Drive. That he didn’t isn’t shocking (because the Academy is always making weird, whimsical choices like this), but it is disappointing. Still, I honestly think that alongside the competition, Plummer actually does deserve to win the award based mostly on his actual performance in Beginners. (His age, veteran status, and impressive filmography are always going to be factors, even if we pretend they aren’t.)
Even though Plummer jokingly called co-star Ewan McGregor “that scene-stealing swine from the Outer Hebrides” in his Globes acceptance speech, it is actually Plummer who steals every scene from McGregor, who is, after all, the protagonist of the film. McGregor’s Oliver Fields is supposedly the movie’s main character, but Plummer’s Hal is, nevertheless, the heart of the film and probably the main reason that most people will watch the movie. (No disrespect meant to Ewan McGregor or Mélanie Laurent. I love them both, especially Laurent, but Plummer owns this film.)
As I watched Beginners (late enough in the season to know Plummer was on a winning-streak), I kept a careful eye on his performance. At first, it seemed merely good. I mean, yes, Hal is a captivating character. He’s whole-heartedly obsessed with his newfound liberation and immerses himself in a new lifestyle with the inquisitive gusto of an actor preparing for a role or a college student spending a semester finding himself. His enthusiasm is infectious and kind of adorable, its appeal oddly enhanced by the fact that it’s so frustrating and baffling to Oliver, who lugs around a childhood full of memories of a distant, reserved father and a dissatisfied, sad mother.
It’s a fun performance but it doesn’t seem great—until Plummer’s Hal sits down with his son and explains directly why he married his mother. That’s a wonderful scene, poignant, powerful, and definitely worthy of recognition from the Academy. I hope Plummer does win. I think he deserves it.
Why He Might Not Win
I’ve heard rumors that Christopher Plummer can be prickly (to put it politely), and it’s possible that some people don’t like him. That’s possible in everyone’s case, so I guess I’m being a little too tactful here, but I’ve never met Christopher Plummer and can’t speak to any of these rumors of his prickliness (although, like everyone, I’ve heard about his recent refusal to pose with Uggie the dog because he thinks the dog from Beginners was better and deserves more attention).
The main reason he might not win is Max von Sydow who seems to have been thrown into the race principally as an acceptable alternative to Christopher Plummer. Both men are 82. A win from either of them would make Oscar history. And despite an impressive career of his own, von Sydow doesn’t have an Oscar yet, either.
I hope Christopher Plummer does win because the only other possible winner is Max von Sydow, and he doesn’t deserve it for this particular role. Plummer’s probably going to pull it off, but he has been winning for a while now, and sometimes people get bored and want to mix things up, so you never know.
Max von Sydow
Age: 82
Film: Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
Role: The Renter, a mysterious stranger who moves in with Oskar’s grandmother after Oskar’s father’s death and one evening offers to help the boy with his investigation despite the fact that he never speaks and has not spoken for years.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actor for Pelle the Conqueror (1987/88).
Why He Should Win
Max von Sydow is a great candidate for an honorary Oscar. I believe he deserves a statue for his body of work, more so than he does for any one, particular performance (although I say that without having seen The Exorcist (1973) or any of his highly respected collaborations with Ingmar Bergman). Who doesn’t love von Sydow? He lends a kind of creepy gravitas to every role and never seems cheapened by less than stellar material. (Take a film with great potential but iffy results like What Dreams May Come (1998). I loved the movie on a first viewing, but it doesn’t hold up very well over time. It seems too emotional, too messy. But within the film, von Sydow retains all of his impressive dignity. Whether he’s playing a shady character in Rush Hour Three (2007) or Jesus Christ in The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), he brings the same dignity and imposing presence to the role.
He probably should have an Oscar.
As The Renter in Extremely Loud, he dominates every scene he’s in, and he does it without saying a word. Of course, part of the reason that viewers find him so captivating is that he’s sharing the screen with a child. Of course, von Sydow dominates the screen. He has almost intimidating charisma in any situation, but next to a child (however talented) in his first film, of course this seasoned veteran is going to dominate the screen.
What I found most captivating about von Sydow’s performance is that his character always seems to be on the verge of speaking. His mannerisms are those of a man who may burst into speech at any time. It makes all of his scenes suspenseful and all the more compelling, as we watch him, wondering, Is he going to say something after all this time, after all?
Why He Might Not Win
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is the weakest of the Best Picture nominees this year. Christopher Plummer’s film Beginners is not exactly an epic masterpiece, either (though I liked it), but Beginners isn’t nominated for Best Picture.
Please do not take this the wrong way. I love Max von Sydow. I think he’s awesome. He’s been in some classic films, and he makes even the most terrible movies watchable and enjoyable (while he’s on screen). But in his case, I truly feel this award would be almost entirely for the career and not much at all for the performance. I’m not saying that the performance isn’t good, but I am suggesting that the character is underwritten, and that the film is not as good as it could be, particularly given the richness of the source material.
From what I understand, in the book, the Renter’s character is explored in great depth, and his story is a parallel for Oskar’s experiences, not just a side-note in the boy’s adventures. Von Sydow makes the Renter intriguing, but the film doesn’t give the character much to do or time to develop. If Max von Sydow wins an Oscar for this performance, he’ll be winning Best Max von Sydow in a Movie That Needed His Help.
I think von Sydow absolutely deserves recognition for his extraordinary body of work, but although he has the best chance of anyone to upset Christopher Plummer, I would rather see him get an honorary Oscar next year. Still, a win for him wouldn’t be the worst change of pace. All other factors aside, he is a wonderful actor.