Recall the Gold: The 1998 Best Supporting Actor Oscar race

luxury watch Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 09:06 PM EST

It's good! rolex watch?
luxury watch?

TiaoZao Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 04:26 AM EST

It was my pleasure to visit your Website. I am also very Website you enjoy the article.And I also have the feeling that it was really a pity that we didn’t meet each other earlier. Because the kindness and warmth in your Website can make me completely relaxed and happy. I hope that you will visit my blog too to see if you can have the same feeling.http://www.buynikeshoes.com

Ron Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:42 PM EST

Easy one for me...Duvall...great performance

Ian Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 02:04 PM EST

It's hard to say since I only saw "The Truman Show" and "Shakespeare In Love" but I have to go with Ed Harris, I don't know why, but it just gets me!

Ken A. Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:40 AM EST

Of the 5 actual nominees, a slight edge to Thornton(he truly was heartbreaking) over Coburn(who gave me the creeps and nightmares). Overlooked was Barry Pepper's memorable performance as a sniper in "Private Ryan". But my absolute first choice was Edward Furlong as Ed Norton's younger brother in "American History X", possibly the most stunning film of that year. He at least deserved a nomination!

Victor Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:17 PM EST

Actually, this was the year that Geoffrey Rush's slot in the supporting actor race should have gone to Bill Murray in 'Rushmore'..

Jim Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:45 PM EST

I have to argue that this is pointless. It's like pointing at an Olympic winner and saying -"You should've got 2nd, because the French judge votes Anti-American" or "If those 2 runners didn't collide - you would've gotten 4th." They won, why not spotlight the positives of their performance? Its not like these people injected "performance enhancing drug" that makes them cheaters.

Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM EST

What a stupid, pointless feature this is turning out to be. If it were in a paper magazine, I would call it a space filler. But the only reason I can think for its existence is as a viral advertisement sponsored by Netflix or Ballbuster. Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Rahul Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM EST

I've seen every performance in this category except for James Coburn's, unfortunately. Of the four that I did see, I thought Billy Bob Thornton's was the best. His dim-witted/greedy performance really scared me.

Kurt Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:54 AM EST

Coburn's performing was astonishing, but Ed Harris has the one people will remember long-term. All-in-all, not a real memorable contest, although the performances were excellent.

TPFly Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:50 AM EST

I voted for James Coburn, but only but default. This, to me, seemed like a "career achievement" selection, considering that there weren't any other notable performances in this batch.
I saw "Affliction" at the show - I remember thinking, "what a mean, rotten, SOB this dad is." But today, I can't recall the "Oscar moment" that makes this character stick in my memory.
Regarding the other choices - Geoffery Rush - you just got an Oscar 2 years earlier - besides, you KNEW that Judi Dench was going to win - so, we need to spread the wealth around. Billy Bob - you just got an Oscar 2 years earlier (can others get one)- besides -at the time, wasn't he going on A.Jolie (so,backlash). Duvall - you were a better lawyer in "The Godfather." Voting for you here means "we're sorry you lost in 1972." At leaves - Harris - you were good, your time IS due - but, this movie was a DOWNER and you were in cahoots against Truman, so, NO! So, mean ol' Coburn, you get my vote for those reasons.

Kim Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:59 AM EST

I too would've been happy with either Coburn or Thornton. I wonder if Billy Bob would be doing more compelling work these days if he'd been honored for those many breakout roles he was playing around this time.

Leslie Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:53 AM EST

James Coburn def deserved the win. Affliction has the honor of being my favorite movie that I don't like to see. It honestly depresses me for days afterwards - THAT'S how good both Coburn & Nick Nolte were. Amazing, heartbreaking, soulful and true cinematic gold all around. It should have won Best Picture.

Ceballos Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:23 AM EST

This is actually a rare case where I got around to seeing each of the nominated performances.

While Coburn is certainly a worthy winner, I thought the winner then should've been Thornton, and I think the winner now should've been Thornton. He's absolutely heartbreaking in what I think is Sam Raimi's best movie.

Celimene Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:49 AM EST

This one doesn't deserve a recall. Coburn won, justifiably so. A wonderful, terrifying performance. While I love "The Truman Show" and Ed Harris, Coburn's turn was spectacular.

I agree with Alex that Carrey was snubbed that year. He gave "The Truman Show" its heart, and was similarly the emotional core of "Eternal Sunshine". Ah well.

Brad Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:09 AM EST

I would have been perfectly happy with either Coburn or Thornton winning that year.

Alex Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 04:38 AM EST

James Coburn deserved his win for sure. Having read the Russell Banks novel on which the movie is based, I reviled and feared his character so much, but was quite chilled to the bone by the menace and sadism Coburn brought to this bitterest of characters.

I still cant believe Jim Carrey never got a nod for HIS role in The Truman Show. Honestly, the mind boggles. Let's recall the Best Actor from that year as well please.

john mcCANE Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 04:31 AM EST

theres something about mary - bret favre

Delon Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 04:17 AM EST

James Coburn totally deserved that award.

Kristen Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:53 AM EST

Ed Harris gave a superb performance in "The Truman Show" IMHO. I think the Oscar belonged to him in '98.

Wes Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:33 PM EST

This is the first do-over that I haven't repeated the actual winner. Billy Bob got robbed.

jeff dresback Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:10 PM EST

How about John Goodman in "Big Lebowski" or Bill Murray in "Rushmore." Not even nominated. WTFF!?

graeme Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:07 PM EST

I remember I didn't see James Coburn's performance til after the Oscars...and at the time of the Oscars, I thought "he won? no one was talking about him at all as a possible winner"...but once you actually saw his performance, he totally deserved it.

tg Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:01 PM EST

James totally deserved it for Affliction. Great performance.

Laurence Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:43 PM EST

uh joseph fiennes for Elizabeth or Shakespeare in Love. Poor guy got overlooked. I love Geoffery Rush though.

stephen Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:19 PM EST

Please do one of these "RECALL THE GOLD" on:

2000 Best Actress: should have gone to Ellen Burstyn for "Requiem for a Dream" NOT Julia Roberts for "Erin Brockevich"

Also, the 1980 Best Actress race: although Sally Field was amazing in "Norma Rae", the gold should have gone to Bette Midler in "The Rose".

Thank you.

E Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:09 PM EST

Geoffrey Rush is one of my real favorites, and is fantastic in "Shakespeare in Love", but he was better in another film that year, "Elizabeth" .

kim in kentucky Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:32 PM EST

Coburn def deserved to win - his performance, the film itself, it so rough, its almost hard to watch. But would like to have given the other 4 smaller oscars -they were all sooo good - each def deserved to be nominated.

Josh Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:04 PM EST

This might be the first time I've ever seen the words "Ed Harris" and "subtle" in the same sentence.

CC Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:31 PM EST

Broadly hammy?

Fatima Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:50 PM EST

This is why I'm glad the public doesn't vote on the Oscars.

Cara Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:03 PM EST

First, Gary, you call the movie ADDICTION in your post, but it's actually AFFLICTION... :-) And too bad you couldn't find a Shakespeare in Love clip with more Geoffrey Rush! He's fab in the movie, but he's hardly in the clip... :-(

hmmm... Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:48 PM EST

I think there might be an inherent flaw in the polls here...people will naturally gravitate towards the films that are still relevant as opposed to focusing on the performances themselves. So I think down the line, you're going to see a proportional vote to how the film did at the box office and its current place in the cultural pantheon. This is not necessarily problematic; maybe because Truman Show is still the most relevant of these films, Ed Harris should have been recognized for his part. But I'm not sure this results in a frank assessment of the actual quality of the performances.