One Category at a Time: Best Supporting Actor

Strangely enough, before the critics started announcing their winners back in December, this seemed like the most nebulous category. Now it's one of the most galvanized, with one name dominating the conversation (give or take an odd Golden Globes loss).

One Category at a Time: Actor

What more can really be said? Everyone who follows movie awards (and even those who don't!) knows that Colin Firth is winning an Academy Award on February 27th. And not without good reason. His turn as the Duke of York is a heartfelt portrayal of damaged self-esteem, and he handles his character's transformation into a humble but unafraid leader with grace and emotion.

Even though it's a foregone conclusion that Firth has it in the bag, it's still worth tipping the hat to his fellow nominees, who comprise a stellar lineup. It's pleasing to see Javier Bardem's understated but devastating work in Biutiful didn't go unrewarded (even if it came at the expense of Ryan Gosling). Jesse Eisenberg and James Franco are on hand to represent the younger Hollywood generation with a pair of outstanding performances -- in The Social Network and 127 Hours respectively -- that paint vivid portraits of human nature and the consequences of our failure to connect with others (or the pleasures of our succeeding to do so). And of course, coming off his long-time-coming victory last year, Jeff Bridges is back in vogue for an unforgettable and highly enjoyable scenery-chewing outing in True Grit.

It's a scene-stealer to be sure, but not an Oscar-stealer. Having won nearly every critics award, the Golden Globe, the Critics' Choice, and soon the SAG, I'll be shocked if anyone other than Colin Firth wins it.

Will win: Colin Firth, The King's Speech
Runner-up: Jeff Bridges, True Grit

Should win: Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network
Should have been nominated: Ryan Gosling, Blue Valentine

Review - True Grit

If it weren't for the end credits, one would never have guessed that True Grit had been made by the Coen brothers, for it has less of their cinematic idiosyncrasies than any film they've ever done. And maybe that was the best way to go about it.

Young Mattie Ross (wonderfully played by Hailee Steinfeld) has a blood vendetta against one Tom Chaney for gunning down her father. As determined as she is foolhardy, Mattie hires an acerbic U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to help her track down the felon and bring him to justice, with the aid of a Texas ranger named LaBoeuf (Matt Damon) who also wants to see Chaney hanged, but with more fiscal motivations in mind.

While I do bemoan the film's overall lack of personality (surprising for the famously quirky Coens), I'd be lying if I denied that I had a great time watching it. This is an old-fashioned Western from top to bottom, and depending on how much you enjoy the genre, that may suit you just fine. The tradition of a group of lovable characters (if somewhat rough around the edges) on a rollicking adventure always brought a smile to my face in the films of Budd Boedecker and John Ford, and the Coens' adaptation of the Charles Portis novel is similarly delightful, even if artistically unremarkable.

It is a lovingly made picture, with detailed period sets and costumes from Jess Gonchar and Mary Zophres, a fine score from Carter Burwell, and elegant photography from the one-and-only Roger Deakins.

Nominations are probably coming for some of the craftspeople mentioned above, and also one for Haille Steinfeld, but I don't buy that Supporting Actress bullshit the studio is plugging. The role is a leading role, plain and simple. If she does indeed earn a Supporting Actress nomination (as some of us have been predicting since spring), it'll be a simultaneous triumph and embarrassment. I'm also hesitant on the Best Picture nomination so many see coming. Maybe I'm wrong, but somehow I don't quite see the Academy going for this.

*** out of ****