I have been waiting for this year for a loooong time because besides 2005 with Crash and Brokeback Mountain, this is the first year with major controversy and lots of discussion about if the right winner was picked, which can be extended to Best Actor, too. So I finally get to watch these films and weigh in on what I think deserves to be the winner. This also isn't a very diverse group if you look at the nominees. Three films about World War II and two films about Elizabethan England. Probably the only time ever you'll see two subjects dominate the films nominated in this category.
1998 Best Picture
Shakespeare in Love
This is a film I had been wanting to see for ages. Back in 1998 is my first real rooting interest in Oscar. Before that I didn't care, but this time I had seen Saving Private Ryan (and nothing else) and wanted it to win so badly. So when Shakespeare in Love won, I was devastated! How could a stupid romantic comedy win over an epic war story?! That might still need to be answered later on but this film is one seriously funny take on Romeo and Juliet. I had no idea this film would be so enjoyable! Like I knew it was a romantic comedy but I thought it was more heavy on the romantic and light on the comedy but the comedy really rules the whole story and makes it such a fun watch. You've got these characters that make the comedy parts look so effortless that I'm howling throughout the film. The acting is top notch, which should be expected when it comes to a Best Picture winner. Fiennes and Paltrow have a very palpable and believable romance going on and you can't help but root for it, which is the sign of a good story. The story itself is very clever. It tells (fictionally) how William Shakespeare came up with the idea for Romeo and Juliet, mirroring his own love life with a woman out of his league. The thing about Shakespeare in Love is that it seems more enjoyable for those that know Shakespeare and for those that know about the theater lifestyle. There's so many jokes that I think others might miss because it's specific to the theater world and thankfully that's the majority of women I've dated. I think that's a big reason why this was such a hit with the Academy, besides the Miramax factor, because it was a fun take on acting and the whole creative process that everyone can relate to from Hollywood. Like Shakespeare's plays which had to appeal to the groundlings, the people who paid little to come stand and watch, this film appeals to the masses with comedy, a convincing love story, nudity, action, and an affinity for pleasing the common person. This is a good film, maybe even worthy of Best Picture, so don't let anyone tell you it's a travesty or one of the worst wins of all time because that person has no clue what they are talking about. Shakespeare in Love is a wonderful film.
Elizabeth
I was prepared after watching the second film for a flashy, yet boring film about Elizabeth, assuming it would have the same style. I was pleasantly surprised that this one was the stronger film overall and was just thoroughly more enjoyable. Elizabeth tells the story of how the woman ultimately went from political prisoner to the Virgin Queen, one of the most powerful women to ever live. That transformation from young, timid girl to badass Queen is part of what makes Elizabeth so entertaining. Cate Blanchett gives a very strong performance as Elizabeth and the supporting players are all pretty good, as well. This film even shares Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Fiennes with Shakespeare in Love. One of the things I didn't like about the second film (from 2007) was the direction was so flashy and more in the way than was necessary, but in this film you can see those flashes they just aren't as overbearing. At times, this film hearkens back to the old costume dramas with some of the shots which I can only assume is a nod to this film's lineage. It works in the film's favor, though, which establishes this as a serious period piece. However, the film is also at times very electric and dynamic with some of the shots and compositions. It gives a stuffy subject some fresh air and makes for a more compelling story. I read online that Christopher Eccelston (Duke of Norfolk) was instructed to constantly be on the move to give himself more sense of action sense his "villain" was more the palace intrigue type than action star. That choice works well for the film because keeping Eccleston static would have changed the tone of the film dramatically and probably not have been as effective. Elizabeth lives and dies on Blanchett's performance as she sets the example for what the film should be: strong, confident, and authoritative. Elizabeth is a good film that probably gets overlooked in a year that features controversy not involving this film. Don't let that deter you in giving this really good film a deserving watch.
Life is Beautiful
This was another film that I was looking froward to finally seeing so that I could clear up whether or not it was truly a bad film or if the hate was unwarranted or if Roberto Benigni was the worst winner ever. He may just be one of the worst Best Actor winners, though not because he's god awful or anything, it's just that the performance doesn't fit the second half of the film very well, even if I understand what he was going for. And Life is Beautiful is very much two different films splitting this one in half. The beginning is kind of the Italian screwball/slapstick comedy where Benigni keeps meeting this woman in 'cute' ways and he's a waiter that also keeps finding himself in situations he needs to quickly get out of. It's purely comedic stuff which actually isn't half bad. The slapstick nature of the humor does begin to wear thin after awhile and there's not too much of a strong plot. There are the undercurrents of the fascism movement running through the film but it's alluded to in playful, funny, mocking ways instead of addressed head on. Part of the success of this film is whether or not you can stomach Benigni for the entirety of it because that brand of comedy can only go so far and especially after the turn into the second half when we get into the Holocaust stuff, does it start to seem weird and inappropriate. I'm not sure how dealing with an event so horrid as the Holocaust with comedy, even at it's most delicate, would ever really work. I get the message of hope that's trying to be conveyed in regards to Benigni telling his son it's all a game. But I don't know if you can whitewash such an event and have it truly work well. It really loses it's comedic steam, for one, and doesn't balance in any drama or anything remotely like it. The main thing it had going for it for me was that it was very reminiscent of old Hollywood type of movies in the way it looked and the sets it had. I definitely liked some of the grandeur of the look like in the hotel and some of the homes but that's not really something that can prop this up as a Best Picture Oscar contender. A Holocaust film of this sort would never be something that I'd really want to watch, though Life is Beautiful definitely tries to make a case for itself. I won't say it's terrible and it certainly has it's merits, but I can't say I'm a fan of it all.
Saving Private Ryan
Saving Private Ryan. That name alone evokes thoughts of it being one of the greatest war films of all time. This is certainly one of Spielberg's best films he's ever made which is why he rightly won Best Director. He probably could have and should have won Best Director based on the first 30 minutes alone. The D-Day beach storming scenes were like nothing we had ever seen before. Sure, war films had been gritty and bloody and violent before, but this film made the action to be so visceral, intense, and personal that you felt you were there trying to dodge the bullets yourself. It was almost as if you could feel the sand and the bullets whizzing past, as if you could smell the smoke and the death all around you. It was sheer brilliance that really sucks you in and before you know it you're almost an hour into the film and it feels like 10 minutes. I know the criticisms have been leveled at the film for being two great long scenes bookending a boring middle part with an unlikely story but I have to disagree. The middle is where you get your character depth and learn about them personally and start to really invest in their safety. It also showcases the different situations and stories of the war that could be found in France at the time. By that I mean, it does try to cram a few interesting plot lines or quirky things into the bigger picture that still make sense overall. We hear about the 101st getting scattered about and the planes crashing, letting the German POW go only for him to end up coming back to the final battle at the end, characters dying, meeting the other Private Ryan. There's a lot going on in the middle that keeps it from being far from boring. Obviously the two big battles are the highlights of the film and rightfully so because they are terrific in both scope and execution. I think Hanks does phenomenal work, the cinematography is amazing, the sound is some of the best I've heard in a film to actually draw you in and make you think you're right there in the thick of it. Overall, this probably would have been a better Best Picture winner strictly on the strength of it's lasting appeal and contribution to popular culture. There's no denying Saving Private Ryan is a great film.
The Thin Red Line
There's one thing about Terrence Malick films and that's that they are beautiful, absolutely gorgeous to look at. So this was Malick's first film in 20 years since 1978's Days of Heaven. This has all the traditional Malick shots but they fortunately aren't done to excess like some of his future films. Here those sumptuous landscape shots really add to the atmosphere and aren't the pretentious garbage that they can/will become in later films. No endless shots of the camera twirling in the trees or gliding along grass/wheat/whatever. Yes, there are shots of trees as if taking it from ground view looking up and some grass gliding shots but they all serve to enhance the film. The thing about The Thin Red Line is that nature is a character just as much as any human is in this film. That makes sense seeing as this is a World War II film set on Guadalcanal where the jungle and thick vegetation reigns supreme. So the focus on the trees and grass and animals makes sense given that the soldiers have to deal with all of that on a daily basis. The story is still light as is Malick's style. It focuses on a large group of soldiers on Guadalcanal going through the landing and subsequent occupation. There's a lot of prominent actors who are mostly given equal screen time although some get considerably less. I feel bad for Adrien Brody who was supposed to be the main character and then in editing was chopped down to barely being in the film. I feel like this film does have a lot to say about the absurdity of war, the loneliness, the desperation, the hatred of it, the ineptitude and pointlessness of the whole thing, nature of course, and a multitude of other subjects. The action scenes are just as great as the ones in Saving Private Ryan, maybe even more so because Malick's style lends itself more to intimacy and personal connection, so seeing these guys refuse to charge up a ridge on a certain death trap or a small squad taking out a bunker feels very close and intense. It's funny because SPR shows what big set pieces and lot of money can give you for a war film while this one shows what you can get from on location shooting and a smaller scope. It's a wonder that both films were made in the same year. The music is also fantastic as Hans Zimmer's 'Journey to the Line' is something I listen to randomly because it's so beautiful and haunting. The Thin Red Line is more of an experience than any of the other nominees, one that should be savored because Malick is such a dense director. This is a really amazing film that I'm glad got some recognition.
This has got to be the hardest Best Picture race to call so far. I'm really fucking stumped right now. So Life is Beautiful is my obvious 5th choice. I would never have nominated it in the first place but laughing at the Holocaust is just a no go. Elizabeth is 4th because while it is really interesting and entertaining, it doesn't hold a candle to the other three. And here is the problem: which of the remaining three do I make the winner and in what order? I was really surprised at liking Shakespeare in Love. It was hilarious and a worthy enough winner even if I would probably take one of the two war films ahead of it. But which one? Saving Private Ryan is a classic everyone has seen and is really great. But The Thin Red Line is so cerebral and introspective that it totally works for me. SPR would stand the test of time as a classic Oscar winner, for sure, so that would be a fine choice. But I'm kinda leading towards The Thin Red Line just because it is a bit more involved and less studio war film-like. I reserve the right to switch them at any time, though!
Oscar Winner: Shakespeare in Love
My Winner: The Thin Red Line
Saving Private Ryan
Shakespeare in Love
Elizabeth
Life is Beautiful
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Leading Actor 1998
Finally I get to one of the most controversial acting wins ever, honestly. I remember that I thought Hanks was going to win his 3rd way back in 1998 only to be surprised by Benigni winning. It wasn't completely shocking as for some reason Hollywood fell in love with his awful schtick with all his appearances on TV. But that's the power of Miramax in the 90s and I'm sure if the Academy voted on it today, they'd quickly change their vote. I've not seen 3 of these, including the winner so I'm looking forward to how it will play out for me.
1998 Best Actor
Roberto Benigni - Life is Beautiful
Ah, Roberto Benigni, the fool who embarrassed his way to an Oscar win and the stage itself. It's hard to not let prejudice seep into a review even before I've actually seen the performance. I hated his persona from the Oscar race even back in 1998 and there are many people I've read online who I respect that still call this win a travesty and feel the Academy were duped by his campaigning and nuzzling up to Hollywood. So obviously after watching the actual film and performance, how do I feel about Benigni now? I don't hate the performance for one thing. It's a very annoying portrayal, no doubt, but I can absolutely understand the appeal. Benigni turns in a slapstick performance that's a throwback to the old Hollywood days. He talks a mile a minute and is hyper active, constantly in motion doing all sorts of things much like a clown or circus entertainer. It's dedicated performance but it's purely entertaining in the first hour, after that it does take on a bit more meaning and depth but I don't really know if I'd call it Best Actor worthy. The whole Holocaust thing is weird even if I do understand what he was trying to do with the film and making it a game for his son to survive and not be affected by the awful place. Thing is, the mucking it up becomes grating after awhile, even draining as for two hours he does the same rapid fire jokes and gesticulations and comedy bits. It's overpowering in a bad way though I give him props for trying something so daring even if I'm not sure he knew it was daring. I also can see why the Academy voted for him (besides the campaigning) because it hearkens back to old Hollywood and reminds me of a lot of screwball performances. This isn't the worst nominee ever, though I question it being included here, but is certainly not a good winner in my book, especially when this category had other more worthy candidates to replace him with. I am glad that I've finally watched it so I can weigh in on all those internet debates!
Tom Hanks - Saving Private Ryan
This is trademark Tom Hanks acting. I'm sure other might point to Apollo 13 or Forrest Gump or maybe another film, but I feel this has set the stage for his acting ever since. It hits all the right notes in a performance from one of the greatest living actors ever. He's the consummate leader, fair and moral, and even with his faults and moments of weakness he shines bright as a more than capable man. His performance is full of humility and intelligence and he does seem to come off like your favorite teacher or coach. Hanks brings the realism without slopping it on and making the character too sappy or too stern or too much like a character in a film. He also is great at the comedic moments that are warm and human, bringing much needed levity to a very serious film without disrupting the tone of the film. Hanks also excels at the physical demands of the role. He never looks out of place commanding a unit and doing all the things necessary to look the part of a soldier. His running around, firing weapons, yelling on the battlefield under intense fire, directing his troops, being the leader at all times - he's as good a soldier as you'll find. I read that Hanks took this role very seriously and it shows in the reverence of his performance. There's not much else I can say about it other than it seems very familiar when you watch it 18 years later since the performance is so Tom Hanks. I don't think that should be a knock against him, though, since it is a great one. This was my favorite to win back in 1998 when I was watching the ceremony only to get that embarrassing display by Benigni. No doubt this is one of Hanks' best in a career full of bests.
Ian McKellen - Gods and Monsters
It's surprising that McKellen hasn't won an Oscar yet, especially with the iconic characters he's portrayed through the years. And when he has an exceptional film like Mr. Holmes and doesn't get nominated, you wonder what's up with the Academy. McKellen plays James Whale, the director of the Frankenstein movies of early Hollywood who has suffered a stroke and is gay and inviting young men over to be sketched and hopefully disrobed.I know that makes it sound kind of awful but it's an interesting little film, for sure. McKellen is good at portraying all the underlying chaos in Whale's life without outwardly showing any of it. He's dealing with the effects of his stroke and is in pain and turmoil from being lonely yet this is communicated in subtle ways that is done effectively by McKellen. He's sort of a calm actor where it looks like he's not doing much yet with the way he delivers a line or gives a certain look, he says all that he needs to say about the character. It's a comfortable performance from McKellen which is his greatest strength as an actor, quickly and easily inhabiting a character and making them his own. The ending scene really shows off what McKellen is capable of in the film and it's the most flashy part of a non flashy film and performance. This is by no means a wow type performance, just a steadfast piece of acting by McKellen. I like the fact that McKellen was finally nominated here even if this one wasn't going to win because he deserved a nomination for his career. This one might get overlooked and that's okay, but there's no denying McKellen is a gifted actor.
Nick Nolte - Affliction
I always get Nick Nolte and Gary Busey confused. I'm glad this was Nolte, though, because he's the better actor.I was unsure of what to write for a long time, mostly because I wasn't sure how Nolte's performance registered with me. It's always easier to write about someone if you really love what they did or really hate what they did. This performance is somewhere in the middle. There's parts I like and parts I dislike which I think leaves me a little ambivalent about Nolte here. He plays a small town cop in New Hampshire whose personal life is not going well and then takes on trying to solve a hunting accident. I feel like Nolte's acting style has to be an acquired taste. He's very gruff with his raspy voice and his mannerisms which make him seem like he's either detoxing or trying to hide an illness. I know that sounds kinda weird and vague but you'll catch him with his hands in his pockets during scenes and I'm not entirely convinced that's a deliberate choice for the character. His more tender and intimate moments with his girlfriend and daughter all ring a bit hollow which I think might be the point because his character is such a mess mentally and is dealing with a lot of anger because of his childhood. He's a pathetic character that everyone else seems to either despise or not respect, so Nolte plays him as this sad sack guy with a lack of self confidence, failing at every chance to impress people (his daughter, ex-wife, father, etc.). As the film goes on, Nolte ratchets up the intensity which is where I think he does his best work with the character. The character becomes increasingly agitated and paranoid and angry about what's going on around him until he finally explodes. I think Nolte is effective at getting the intent of the character across but it just simply doesn't do much for me. It's not a bad performance at all, just one that doesn't resonate with me no matter how hard I tried to connect with him. I'll have to see if his other nomination does anything for me now.
Edward Norton - American History X
I was looking forward to re-watching Norton because I knew that this could possibly end up as being my choice for the winner and I needed to see if that still hold true. Yeah, it still holds true. Norton gives a powerhouse performance, one that is both quiet and electric at the same time. He plays a neo-nazi skinhead in the flashbacks and a reformed skinhead in the present. I think the structure of the story allows Norton to show off his range as we see three different versions of his character. We get the very early high school kid before his father is killed who is a brilliant student, then after his father dies he deals with his anger by becoming a skinhead and living that lifestyle. Then in the present he is reformed and out of jail and trying to get his life straight and his brother to join him. So there are these different moments of his character that Norton gets to portray and he is just as convincing at the sensitive ones as he is at the hardass, nazi ones. He's actually very charismatic as the neo-nazi especially when he's spouting off his rhetoric and comes off as a natural born leader. He's all bulked up with a shaved head and goatee and big swastika on his left chest totally looking the part with ease. Just as naturally that he can pull off being a skinhead, he is able to transition into being a normal, levelheaded person who is keenly sensitive to the effect his actions has had on his family and others. He can have these intimate moments with his family and in prison after being raped with his old teacher that show the humanity that is still left inside of him. Contrast that to the pure evil we see when he makes the black guy who was burgling his car bite the curb so he can stomp him to death and you see just how effective Norton is in the role. He's able to combine the two elements into one cohesive performance that is incredibly strong despite a weak film around him. Norton is certainly in consideration for my winner because of this great performance.
For a group that was somewhat mired in controversy, the Academy managed to vote for the one I least liked overall. Benigni has his moments where he is funny but that just can't be sustained over a 2 hour film that's partially about the Holocaust. Nolte edges him out because he is a bit more tolerable even if his performance doesn't do much for me at all, either. McKellen is as good as usual, giving a really interesting performance that I liked. Hanks is my runner up because I think Norton just out does him but Hanks is also very good. Norton just does a tremendous job and should be rewarded for that. All in all, not a bad category with some really strong performances. Plus, I got to finally say I've seen Benigni and can argue about that without being a fraud!
Oscar Winner: Roberto Benigni - Life is Beautiful
My Winner: Edward Norton - American History X
Tom Hanks
Ian McKellen
Nick Nolte
Roberto Benigni
1998 Best Actor
Roberto Benigni - Life is Beautiful
Ah, Roberto Benigni, the fool who embarrassed his way to an Oscar win and the stage itself. It's hard to not let prejudice seep into a review even before I've actually seen the performance. I hated his persona from the Oscar race even back in 1998 and there are many people I've read online who I respect that still call this win a travesty and feel the Academy were duped by his campaigning and nuzzling up to Hollywood. So obviously after watching the actual film and performance, how do I feel about Benigni now? I don't hate the performance for one thing. It's a very annoying portrayal, no doubt, but I can absolutely understand the appeal. Benigni turns in a slapstick performance that's a throwback to the old Hollywood days. He talks a mile a minute and is hyper active, constantly in motion doing all sorts of things much like a clown or circus entertainer. It's dedicated performance but it's purely entertaining in the first hour, after that it does take on a bit more meaning and depth but I don't really know if I'd call it Best Actor worthy. The whole Holocaust thing is weird even if I do understand what he was trying to do with the film and making it a game for his son to survive and not be affected by the awful place. Thing is, the mucking it up becomes grating after awhile, even draining as for two hours he does the same rapid fire jokes and gesticulations and comedy bits. It's overpowering in a bad way though I give him props for trying something so daring even if I'm not sure he knew it was daring. I also can see why the Academy voted for him (besides the campaigning) because it hearkens back to old Hollywood and reminds me of a lot of screwball performances. This isn't the worst nominee ever, though I question it being included here, but is certainly not a good winner in my book, especially when this category had other more worthy candidates to replace him with. I am glad that I've finally watched it so I can weigh in on all those internet debates!
Tom Hanks - Saving Private Ryan
This is trademark Tom Hanks acting. I'm sure other might point to Apollo 13 or Forrest Gump or maybe another film, but I feel this has set the stage for his acting ever since. It hits all the right notes in a performance from one of the greatest living actors ever. He's the consummate leader, fair and moral, and even with his faults and moments of weakness he shines bright as a more than capable man. His performance is full of humility and intelligence and he does seem to come off like your favorite teacher or coach. Hanks brings the realism without slopping it on and making the character too sappy or too stern or too much like a character in a film. He also is great at the comedic moments that are warm and human, bringing much needed levity to a very serious film without disrupting the tone of the film. Hanks also excels at the physical demands of the role. He never looks out of place commanding a unit and doing all the things necessary to look the part of a soldier. His running around, firing weapons, yelling on the battlefield under intense fire, directing his troops, being the leader at all times - he's as good a soldier as you'll find. I read that Hanks took this role very seriously and it shows in the reverence of his performance. There's not much else I can say about it other than it seems very familiar when you watch it 18 years later since the performance is so Tom Hanks. I don't think that should be a knock against him, though, since it is a great one. This was my favorite to win back in 1998 when I was watching the ceremony only to get that embarrassing display by Benigni. No doubt this is one of Hanks' best in a career full of bests.
Ian McKellen - Gods and Monsters
It's surprising that McKellen hasn't won an Oscar yet, especially with the iconic characters he's portrayed through the years. And when he has an exceptional film like Mr. Holmes and doesn't get nominated, you wonder what's up with the Academy. McKellen plays James Whale, the director of the Frankenstein movies of early Hollywood who has suffered a stroke and is gay and inviting young men over to be sketched and hopefully disrobed.I know that makes it sound kind of awful but it's an interesting little film, for sure. McKellen is good at portraying all the underlying chaos in Whale's life without outwardly showing any of it. He's dealing with the effects of his stroke and is in pain and turmoil from being lonely yet this is communicated in subtle ways that is done effectively by McKellen. He's sort of a calm actor where it looks like he's not doing much yet with the way he delivers a line or gives a certain look, he says all that he needs to say about the character. It's a comfortable performance from McKellen which is his greatest strength as an actor, quickly and easily inhabiting a character and making them his own. The ending scene really shows off what McKellen is capable of in the film and it's the most flashy part of a non flashy film and performance. This is by no means a wow type performance, just a steadfast piece of acting by McKellen. I like the fact that McKellen was finally nominated here even if this one wasn't going to win because he deserved a nomination for his career. This one might get overlooked and that's okay, but there's no denying McKellen is a gifted actor.
Nick Nolte - Affliction
I always get Nick Nolte and Gary Busey confused. I'm glad this was Nolte, though, because he's the better actor.I was unsure of what to write for a long time, mostly because I wasn't sure how Nolte's performance registered with me. It's always easier to write about someone if you really love what they did or really hate what they did. This performance is somewhere in the middle. There's parts I like and parts I dislike which I think leaves me a little ambivalent about Nolte here. He plays a small town cop in New Hampshire whose personal life is not going well and then takes on trying to solve a hunting accident. I feel like Nolte's acting style has to be an acquired taste. He's very gruff with his raspy voice and his mannerisms which make him seem like he's either detoxing or trying to hide an illness. I know that sounds kinda weird and vague but you'll catch him with his hands in his pockets during scenes and I'm not entirely convinced that's a deliberate choice for the character. His more tender and intimate moments with his girlfriend and daughter all ring a bit hollow which I think might be the point because his character is such a mess mentally and is dealing with a lot of anger because of his childhood. He's a pathetic character that everyone else seems to either despise or not respect, so Nolte plays him as this sad sack guy with a lack of self confidence, failing at every chance to impress people (his daughter, ex-wife, father, etc.). As the film goes on, Nolte ratchets up the intensity which is where I think he does his best work with the character. The character becomes increasingly agitated and paranoid and angry about what's going on around him until he finally explodes. I think Nolte is effective at getting the intent of the character across but it just simply doesn't do much for me. It's not a bad performance at all, just one that doesn't resonate with me no matter how hard I tried to connect with him. I'll have to see if his other nomination does anything for me now.
Edward Norton - American History X
I was looking forward to re-watching Norton because I knew that this could possibly end up as being my choice for the winner and I needed to see if that still hold true. Yeah, it still holds true. Norton gives a powerhouse performance, one that is both quiet and electric at the same time. He plays a neo-nazi skinhead in the flashbacks and a reformed skinhead in the present. I think the structure of the story allows Norton to show off his range as we see three different versions of his character. We get the very early high school kid before his father is killed who is a brilliant student, then after his father dies he deals with his anger by becoming a skinhead and living that lifestyle. Then in the present he is reformed and out of jail and trying to get his life straight and his brother to join him. So there are these different moments of his character that Norton gets to portray and he is just as convincing at the sensitive ones as he is at the hardass, nazi ones. He's actually very charismatic as the neo-nazi especially when he's spouting off his rhetoric and comes off as a natural born leader. He's all bulked up with a shaved head and goatee and big swastika on his left chest totally looking the part with ease. Just as naturally that he can pull off being a skinhead, he is able to transition into being a normal, levelheaded person who is keenly sensitive to the effect his actions has had on his family and others. He can have these intimate moments with his family and in prison after being raped with his old teacher that show the humanity that is still left inside of him. Contrast that to the pure evil we see when he makes the black guy who was burgling his car bite the curb so he can stomp him to death and you see just how effective Norton is in the role. He's able to combine the two elements into one cohesive performance that is incredibly strong despite a weak film around him. Norton is certainly in consideration for my winner because of this great performance.
For a group that was somewhat mired in controversy, the Academy managed to vote for the one I least liked overall. Benigni has his moments where he is funny but that just can't be sustained over a 2 hour film that's partially about the Holocaust. Nolte edges him out because he is a bit more tolerable even if his performance doesn't do much for me at all, either. McKellen is as good as usual, giving a really interesting performance that I liked. Hanks is my runner up because I think Norton just out does him but Hanks is also very good. Norton just does a tremendous job and should be rewarded for that. All in all, not a bad category with some really strong performances. Plus, I got to finally say I've seen Benigni and can argue about that without being a fraud!
Oscar Winner: Roberto Benigni - Life is Beautiful
My Winner: Edward Norton - American History X
Tom Hanks
Ian McKellen
Nick Nolte
Roberto Benigni
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Leading Actress 1998
Starting to get to more and more categories where I've not seen a single performance and I love it. Endless possibilities. Curves being thrown at us by the Academy with foreign actresses and Streep's eleventy billionth nomination. I'm eager to dive in, so let's go!
1998 Best Actress
Gwyneth Paltrow - Shakespeare in Love
Paltrow is incredibly likable in this film but her performance was the hardest one for me to write about for the film. That's not saying she did a bad job or anything, in fact, she surprised me with how good she actually was. It's just that she was an IT girl for a couple years and I feel like the Academy really wanted to reward her, as they do lots of women in this category, as part of the moment of her being hot as an actress. Paltrow more than holds her own in this and does not feel out of place at all. She delivers her Shakespeare lines with dramatic effect and her accent is perfectly fine, too. The chemistry she has with Joseph Fiennes is probably the best part of her performance because it's like those two are totally hot for each other in every scene which makes for some really entertaining scenes. I also thought she was able to pull off the dual role of being a boy and a girl even if it wasn't that challenging. That's the thing about her performance is that it's not overwhelming and doesn't knock you out so to speak but it's a more than capable stand in for Juliet. I went in wondering if she could really pull it off but was pleasantly surprised that she did a pretty damn good job. She makes her muse come to life and not just be a one dimensional character for the men to ogle and act around. It's basically a fully realized character which is impressive because let's be honest you don't really think Paltrow can achieve that. Harsh, but true. Paltrow, however, does a fantastic job as the inspiration for Juliet and at least makes a claim for the Best Actress award - I'm not sure if she's quite there yet or not.
Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth
This was the first of her two nominations for the same role. I reviewed her second one back in the 2007 year and felt that Blanchett didn't have much to do but look like a Queen and occasionally have these serious moments that were in contrast to the rest of the film. I wasn't really that impressed. But her performance here in Elizabeth is quite different and more fully realized. Whereas the 2007 one felt more lazy and uninspired, been there done that kind of thing - this performance is startling in it's transformation from bastard daughter to the confident, powerful Virgin Queen. I've got to say Blanchett is incredible. She fits every iteration of Elizabeth as she navigates into the throne perfectly, from the somewhat timid political prisoner to the new Queen testing out her new found authority before finally settling in and becoming comfortable as one of the most powerful women in history. Blanchett succeeds in giving such a well rounded version of Elizabeth, which is why her performance is so good. She makes the woman seem real and grounded at times, while also being authoritarian and regal at others. And she never over does the idea of playing a Queen, either, which many actresses can get caught up in. Her transformation felt natural and realistic and she looks like she's figuring out how to rule as we watch her onscreen. It's a site to behold, for sure. I think Blanchett also benefits from the direction which transcends the stuffy costume period piece in favor of something more electric and dynamic so we don't get a bunch of the same, familiar beats of previous British Royalty dramas. Blanchett is free to make the character human and not this idealized, mythical version of a woman everyone knows about from history class. This was Blanchett's coming out party, as it helped launch her career. Obviously, she's been handsomely rewarded ever since with two Oscar wins and a few more nominations. This is a fitting start to what's been a great acting career so far.
Fernanda Montenegro - Central Station
A complete unknown before or since she was nominated, I had no idea what to expect from this performance. She's an older woman in a Brazilian film I'm certain about only 50 people in America has actually seen, now make it 51. The Academy does have a history with an older, foreign female performance getting nominated (see Emmanuelle Riva in Amour as the recent example) but I guess what is surprising to me is that I've never heard a word about this woman, film, or performance ever. Especially for it being a relatively recent nomination, the fact that even on Oscar blogs and comment sections no one has ever mentioned her name, which makes me think this is probably one of the most overlooked and unknown nominees of recent times. One thing about the foreign nominations is I never know what I'm missing in the translation. Between constantly reading the dialogue and watching the actors do their thing, I wonder if I'm missing out on the subtle things like inflections, tone of voice, word choices, pauses, or even body language and gesticulations. All of those things help shape a performance and if I can't discern what's going on in the acting, how can I accurately judge a performance? I'm not sure I can ever really answer that and so I'll have to just be honest with what I saw as my review. Montenegro is an older woman who writes letters at the railway station for illiterate travelers and doesn't actually mail them. She meets a boy whose mother is run over by a bus and then offers to take him to his father after the mother had a letter written to the father. When we first meet her, she is this gruff old bird doing her job to make a living and seemingly not caring about her customers. Yet she takes pity on the boy and eventually they travel to where his father is supposed to be. The performance is very maternal, which is to be expected, and Montenegro runs the gamut of tough, stern caretaker to loving, sensitive, emotional mother figure. This is obviously a good performance just from the range Montenegro shows and you don't need to know Portuguese to figure that out. It's a touching performance, but not one that really blew me away. I wish there was a little bit more to the performance, however, rather than just the maternal protector one that we got here.
Meryl Streep - One True Thing
I guess it was only natural at some point that Streep would play a woman with cancer and so here we are with her 11th nomination for that very thing. What's strange about this nomination is that this wasn't really Streep's movie, Renee Zellweger was the main focus with how she deals with all this turmoil in her life. For the first 30 minutes, Streep is essentially a background character not doing a whole lot besides playing chippy housewife. I don't like that version of Streep. She's too precious and acts like Super Mom which I guess is supposed to make her inevitable demise hit you all that much harder. But it doesn't for me. Sure, Streep is very warm and natural in her performance as the perfect mother, but it's too superficial. I read online that people were criticizing Streep of being too cold and technical as an actress so maybe this was her response that she can actually do any role in any way. Maybe that's why it feels so superficial to me or maybe because the story just let's her down and doesn't giver anything to do other than to be perfect mom and then die. So yes, Streep accomplished the ability to play a cancer patient and was able to check that box off her list. It's just that when I look at this performance as a whole, it does nothing but reiterate that yeah, Streep can do all kinds of things and make them look professional and that this isn't a leading performance! Streep is clearly supporting because Zellweger is the lead by far even if the story revolves around Streep's character especially since the film never focuses on what's going on in Streep's head. We don't know anything about her character other than she tries to keep the family happy and together and is graceful in death. That's why this is such a superficial role and the main reason why I'm not a big fan of this performance as a nominee. Put it in Supporting where it belongs and then we can talk.
Emily Watson - Hilary and Jackie
Oh joy, a musical performance that turns into a debilitating disease portrayal, how can this not be cliche? That was my big concern going into this movie, how can Watson make her world famous cellist who then gets ravaged by a disease that affects her ability to play different from all the similar type of roles we've seen throughout the years? My answer would be that I don't think she did too much to differentiate herself unfortunately. Watson is the Jackie from the title an plays second fiddle to her older sister when younger who is better at music than she is but then she practices hard and becomes one of the best cello players in the world. The movie looks at each sister and how the interact as adults and it's mostly a boring story for me. Watson at least has more to do than Griffiths, and is able to parlay that into being interesting even if the story isn't. Watson had played the cello as a child so she looks natural when playing it in the film which can be an issue when an actor doesn't look comfortable with their instrument or the director has to hide their hands because they can't play. So Watson has the look down and also has to contend with a seemingly bipolar character who is all over the place scene to scene. She's like a live wire at times, then she has bouts of melancholy and can't handle her touring schedule and misses her family and stays with Hilary. There she disrupts her sister's life, talks about longing for love and says that her sister should share her husband so someone will love her. It's weird speaks to how all over the place Watson has to be for her character. It's a bait-y role no doubt, one where she gets to portray all sorts of emotions, though I'd argue they are all mostly superficial to the character, never getting to the heart of why she feels certain ways and acts out. We don't even really get to the heart of the sisterhood, neither actually feel like real sisters, and the younger versions have more chemistry than the adults. That's ultimately why I think the movie fails for me is because there's such a disconnect between the sisters that it's like two different stories playing out at the same time and neither connect to the other. Watson is doing her thing while Griffiths is doing her own thing and we never understand the why of any of it. So what we are left with is Watson delivering a big performance without any real emotion to it.
The thing about this category is that so far, I've been getting some stinker movies to watch, ones that are just not that interesting. Maybe it's partly because I'm a guy but women centric films can be and should be just as entertaining. It might be due to there not being enough strong female leads and films geared towards those ideals, I understand that, but I just want to watch good, interesting films! I don't think that's so much to ask for! I can only hope for some great ones as I keep going on. As for this group Blanchett stands out as the best closely followed by a surprisingly good Paltrow. Montenegro is the definition of the middle. When a foreign actress is nominated for a small film, I'm expecting the performance to blow me away every time. When it doesn't, I feel gipped, much like I do here. Watson is next for at least being interesting even in a very boring film and then Streep rounds it out with category fraud and a superficial performance. Liking two of these choices should probably be considered a win nowadays.
Oscar Winner: Gwyneth Paltrow - Shakespeare in Love
My Winner: Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth
Gwyneth Paltrow
Fernanda Montenegro
Emily Watson
Meryl Streep
1998 Best Actress
Gwyneth Paltrow - Shakespeare in Love
Paltrow is incredibly likable in this film but her performance was the hardest one for me to write about for the film. That's not saying she did a bad job or anything, in fact, she surprised me with how good she actually was. It's just that she was an IT girl for a couple years and I feel like the Academy really wanted to reward her, as they do lots of women in this category, as part of the moment of her being hot as an actress. Paltrow more than holds her own in this and does not feel out of place at all. She delivers her Shakespeare lines with dramatic effect and her accent is perfectly fine, too. The chemistry she has with Joseph Fiennes is probably the best part of her performance because it's like those two are totally hot for each other in every scene which makes for some really entertaining scenes. I also thought she was able to pull off the dual role of being a boy and a girl even if it wasn't that challenging. That's the thing about her performance is that it's not overwhelming and doesn't knock you out so to speak but it's a more than capable stand in for Juliet. I went in wondering if she could really pull it off but was pleasantly surprised that she did a pretty damn good job. She makes her muse come to life and not just be a one dimensional character for the men to ogle and act around. It's basically a fully realized character which is impressive because let's be honest you don't really think Paltrow can achieve that. Harsh, but true. Paltrow, however, does a fantastic job as the inspiration for Juliet and at least makes a claim for the Best Actress award - I'm not sure if she's quite there yet or not.
Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth
This was the first of her two nominations for the same role. I reviewed her second one back in the 2007 year and felt that Blanchett didn't have much to do but look like a Queen and occasionally have these serious moments that were in contrast to the rest of the film. I wasn't really that impressed. But her performance here in Elizabeth is quite different and more fully realized. Whereas the 2007 one felt more lazy and uninspired, been there done that kind of thing - this performance is startling in it's transformation from bastard daughter to the confident, powerful Virgin Queen. I've got to say Blanchett is incredible. She fits every iteration of Elizabeth as she navigates into the throne perfectly, from the somewhat timid political prisoner to the new Queen testing out her new found authority before finally settling in and becoming comfortable as one of the most powerful women in history. Blanchett succeeds in giving such a well rounded version of Elizabeth, which is why her performance is so good. She makes the woman seem real and grounded at times, while also being authoritarian and regal at others. And she never over does the idea of playing a Queen, either, which many actresses can get caught up in. Her transformation felt natural and realistic and she looks like she's figuring out how to rule as we watch her onscreen. It's a site to behold, for sure. I think Blanchett also benefits from the direction which transcends the stuffy costume period piece in favor of something more electric and dynamic so we don't get a bunch of the same, familiar beats of previous British Royalty dramas. Blanchett is free to make the character human and not this idealized, mythical version of a woman everyone knows about from history class. This was Blanchett's coming out party, as it helped launch her career. Obviously, she's been handsomely rewarded ever since with two Oscar wins and a few more nominations. This is a fitting start to what's been a great acting career so far.
Fernanda Montenegro - Central Station
A complete unknown before or since she was nominated, I had no idea what to expect from this performance. She's an older woman in a Brazilian film I'm certain about only 50 people in America has actually seen, now make it 51. The Academy does have a history with an older, foreign female performance getting nominated (see Emmanuelle Riva in Amour as the recent example) but I guess what is surprising to me is that I've never heard a word about this woman, film, or performance ever. Especially for it being a relatively recent nomination, the fact that even on Oscar blogs and comment sections no one has ever mentioned her name, which makes me think this is probably one of the most overlooked and unknown nominees of recent times. One thing about the foreign nominations is I never know what I'm missing in the translation. Between constantly reading the dialogue and watching the actors do their thing, I wonder if I'm missing out on the subtle things like inflections, tone of voice, word choices, pauses, or even body language and gesticulations. All of those things help shape a performance and if I can't discern what's going on in the acting, how can I accurately judge a performance? I'm not sure I can ever really answer that and so I'll have to just be honest with what I saw as my review. Montenegro is an older woman who writes letters at the railway station for illiterate travelers and doesn't actually mail them. She meets a boy whose mother is run over by a bus and then offers to take him to his father after the mother had a letter written to the father. When we first meet her, she is this gruff old bird doing her job to make a living and seemingly not caring about her customers. Yet she takes pity on the boy and eventually they travel to where his father is supposed to be. The performance is very maternal, which is to be expected, and Montenegro runs the gamut of tough, stern caretaker to loving, sensitive, emotional mother figure. This is obviously a good performance just from the range Montenegro shows and you don't need to know Portuguese to figure that out. It's a touching performance, but not one that really blew me away. I wish there was a little bit more to the performance, however, rather than just the maternal protector one that we got here.
Meryl Streep - One True Thing
I guess it was only natural at some point that Streep would play a woman with cancer and so here we are with her 11th nomination for that very thing. What's strange about this nomination is that this wasn't really Streep's movie, Renee Zellweger was the main focus with how she deals with all this turmoil in her life. For the first 30 minutes, Streep is essentially a background character not doing a whole lot besides playing chippy housewife. I don't like that version of Streep. She's too precious and acts like Super Mom which I guess is supposed to make her inevitable demise hit you all that much harder. But it doesn't for me. Sure, Streep is very warm and natural in her performance as the perfect mother, but it's too superficial. I read online that people were criticizing Streep of being too cold and technical as an actress so maybe this was her response that she can actually do any role in any way. Maybe that's why it feels so superficial to me or maybe because the story just let's her down and doesn't giver anything to do other than to be perfect mom and then die. So yes, Streep accomplished the ability to play a cancer patient and was able to check that box off her list. It's just that when I look at this performance as a whole, it does nothing but reiterate that yeah, Streep can do all kinds of things and make them look professional and that this isn't a leading performance! Streep is clearly supporting because Zellweger is the lead by far even if the story revolves around Streep's character especially since the film never focuses on what's going on in Streep's head. We don't know anything about her character other than she tries to keep the family happy and together and is graceful in death. That's why this is such a superficial role and the main reason why I'm not a big fan of this performance as a nominee. Put it in Supporting where it belongs and then we can talk.
Emily Watson - Hilary and Jackie
Oh joy, a musical performance that turns into a debilitating disease portrayal, how can this not be cliche? That was my big concern going into this movie, how can Watson make her world famous cellist who then gets ravaged by a disease that affects her ability to play different from all the similar type of roles we've seen throughout the years? My answer would be that I don't think she did too much to differentiate herself unfortunately. Watson is the Jackie from the title an plays second fiddle to her older sister when younger who is better at music than she is but then she practices hard and becomes one of the best cello players in the world. The movie looks at each sister and how the interact as adults and it's mostly a boring story for me. Watson at least has more to do than Griffiths, and is able to parlay that into being interesting even if the story isn't. Watson had played the cello as a child so she looks natural when playing it in the film which can be an issue when an actor doesn't look comfortable with their instrument or the director has to hide their hands because they can't play. So Watson has the look down and also has to contend with a seemingly bipolar character who is all over the place scene to scene. She's like a live wire at times, then she has bouts of melancholy and can't handle her touring schedule and misses her family and stays with Hilary. There she disrupts her sister's life, talks about longing for love and says that her sister should share her husband so someone will love her. It's weird speaks to how all over the place Watson has to be for her character. It's a bait-y role no doubt, one where she gets to portray all sorts of emotions, though I'd argue they are all mostly superficial to the character, never getting to the heart of why she feels certain ways and acts out. We don't even really get to the heart of the sisterhood, neither actually feel like real sisters, and the younger versions have more chemistry than the adults. That's ultimately why I think the movie fails for me is because there's such a disconnect between the sisters that it's like two different stories playing out at the same time and neither connect to the other. Watson is doing her thing while Griffiths is doing her own thing and we never understand the why of any of it. So what we are left with is Watson delivering a big performance without any real emotion to it.
The thing about this category is that so far, I've been getting some stinker movies to watch, ones that are just not that interesting. Maybe it's partly because I'm a guy but women centric films can be and should be just as entertaining. It might be due to there not being enough strong female leads and films geared towards those ideals, I understand that, but I just want to watch good, interesting films! I don't think that's so much to ask for! I can only hope for some great ones as I keep going on. As for this group Blanchett stands out as the best closely followed by a surprisingly good Paltrow. Montenegro is the definition of the middle. When a foreign actress is nominated for a small film, I'm expecting the performance to blow me away every time. When it doesn't, I feel gipped, much like I do here. Watson is next for at least being interesting even in a very boring film and then Streep rounds it out with category fraud and a superficial performance. Liking two of these choices should probably be considered a win nowadays.
Oscar Winner: Gwyneth Paltrow - Shakespeare in Love
My Winner: Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth
Gwyneth Paltrow
Fernanda Montenegro
Emily Watson
Meryl Streep
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Supporting Actor 1998
I've only seen one of these performances and I'm very excited to see the rest since this has become my favorite category. It's mostly due to interesting performances but also really interesting films that otherwise don't get nominated in the Best Actor or Picture categories. So I love it for that reason alone!
1998 Best Supporting Actor
James Coburn - Affliction
When I was going down the list of winners before the project many moons ago, this was one of the first names I didn't recognize as a winner. I knew of James Coburn but had no idea he won an Oscar, especially in 1998. So obviously my interest was peaked and with some research, peaked even more when you find out he basically had no precursor awards traction. So would this be another veteran win or is this well deserved? Coburn plays an overbearing, alcoholic father who we see primarily in flashbacks at first before meeting him in the present day. I must say that he nails the intimidating factor perfectly, snarling his words and stumbling around drunk during these flashbacks. Sometimes drunk acting can look so ridiculous and fake that it takes you out of the film, but Coburn succeeds in making it seem natural and visceral. When we meet him in the present day, he's still a stinker but just a more muted one because his sons are grown and he can't domineer them as much. These scenes he plays more of the antagonist, sticking in the craw of Nolte's character, acting as a reminder of his childhood and upbringing. He's that constant reminder of why Nolte is where he is today. The flashbacks are the more interesting scenes for the viewer as they are a bit more violent and explain the tone of the film. However, the ending is the most explosive part of both Nolte's and Coburn's performances. I honestly think it's both actors at their best in this film and it coincides with such a pivotal moment. Coburn is his same ornery self and is being a drunk asshole and confronts Nolte but ends up getting his just desserts. It's great acting because it's not overdone at all and it feels very real. It's just done right and Coburn's performance never feels forced or exaggerated. I think he did a great job with his character.
Robert Duvall - A Civil Action
This seems like a prestige film featuring Duvall and John Travolta (and lots of other good actors) that I've legitimately never heard of until now. It's the kind of film that I think if done today would carry more weight, especially with the Flint water crisis going on. These are the kind of films I'm looking for from unknown acting performances. I always want them to be good and I want them to be interesting. This covers both and I really enjoyed Duvall's performance to boot. Is there much to the performance, though? Not really. Duvall plays a lawyer for a huge conglomerate who are part of a lawsuit about contaminated water from a tannery. He's the old, wise lawyer that kinda does whatever he wants because he's so brilliant. His character has these quirky things he does like taking a pen from a meeting, listening to the Red Sox in like a basement, and just being an affable guy. I was never sure if he was supposed to be a villain or if he was a good guy, I think he was just presented as is. He gives some advise to Travolta's character and just seems like he's so content with how things go. I think Duvall does a great job with the character even if there's not much to the performance. Pretty much all else that I can say about it is that I liked it but I would never vote for it to win.
Ed Harris - The Truman Show
Ed Harris plays a megalomaniacal director who has experienced years of good fortune as a director because everyone was interested in his star. The thing with this performance is that you can't separate it from the film at all or it will fail. Meaning, Harris succeeds in the scope of the film. If you were to remove his director character, you wouldn't get the same response because Carrey's Truman makes Harris that much more of a scumbag, or at least a hated figure. So what I'm saying is that this performance can't stand alone but works well within the film. Harris is this God persona, having created the idea of the TV series and having cultivated Truman to his whimsy, knowing he could do whatever he wanted to Truman at anytime and Truman would respond in kind. I think that's probably what most directors would want from their actors! Do this and don't question my way of thinking. This is obviously the ultimate directorship because you have complete control over someone's life and can manipulate it however you see fit. That's a lot of power! Harris is good in the role because of his look and because he's good at portraying the authority figure. He looks like a villain and is easy to root against. I feel like people really wanted to vote for the film as a whole and even though Jim Carrey didn't get nominated, this is sort of the payoff for his film. It's a good performance, though not strong, and makes for a decent nominee.
Geoffrey Rush - Shakespeare in Love
I know I've been a little harsh on Mr. Rush in the past but I've got to say that I really liked his performance here! It's a comedic relief type performance in a comedic film and hits the spot time and again. Rush gets these great, sarcastic one liners and also is pretty adept at the physical comedy aspect of the role, as well. And that's what surprised me a little about Rush is that he's really a physical actor when he wants to be. There's a part after the opening scene when his feet are getting burnt that he's waiting for Shakespeare and is chilling in a tub of water and gets out of it as Will comes out of a building and Rush kind of pratfalls his way after Shakespeare. And when he's standing in the middle of the actor fight and reading the new act and telling them not to destroy his props, well it's fantastic comedy that not everyone could pull off. Not to make it sound like only Rush could do it, but he does have an ability for the humor. I like to think he's sort of the representative of the film which this spot could have been as easily filled by Tom Wilkinson or even Ben Affleck...okay, not Ben Affleck but point stands. Wilkinson and Rush are kind of a misfit duo that play off each other so well and are absolutely hilarious. It's an easily likable performance, very funny, and very supporting. It might not be the best ever, but it's highly entertaining.
Billy Bob Thornton - A Simple Plan
This was back when Billy Bob was getting nominations left and right during the 90s. I find once someone gets nominated a first time, they seem to have a window where they can get nominated for anything they do as long as it's decent because the Academy loves going back to the well and they love creating stars. Thornton is a very gifted actor, especially back then, which can seem like a surprise when you watch some of his more recent stuff (though he's been great in TV). I think part of what makes a memorable supporting performance is the unique look of a character. Thornton's character is a simple minded guy who gets caught up in something that spirals out of control when he only wants to do the right thing. He has a distinctive look with a beanie and big, dorky glasses and long, unkempt hair. He stands out amongst the other characters and naturally you gravitate towards watching his performance. Thornton's character is a naive, trusting, do-the-right-thing kinda guy but Thornton doesn't recycle his Sling Blade character and make this performance of an unintelligent man into one focused on his shortcomings. What makes it good is that Thornton portrays Jacob very honestly and sweetly, focusing on making him a real person trying to navigate what life is throwing at him. Thornton never overplays or exaggerates any of Jacob's traits and give a genuine performance of a simple man caught up in a bad situation. He's also the moral center of the film and his equivocating is displayed wonderfully and heartbreakingly. The last scene puts an exclamation point on an already great performance from Thornton.
As always, my favorite category delivers some pretty good performance, one especially that I probably would have missed out on. I think if I were ranking this back in 1998, I would have been rooting for both Thornton and Rush - for different reasons. Thornton gives the all around best performance of the group and Rush gives us a very funny performance in a very funny film. Thornton would win because his is more fully realized, but I did like Rush a lot. If Tom Wilkinson was nominated, it might have been even closer. I like Coburn as the win for the Academy, as 3 of the 5 already had Oscars and his somewhat of a veteran win is deserving. He gives a strong performance but one I'm not sure I would have actively rooted for back then. Duvall gives a decent performance in a very relaxed kinda role which was interesting to see. Then I'd have Harris, who just doesn't really wow me all that much even though the performance is fine. All in all, another great year for this category just because of what it introduced me to and how all of the guys were pretty good. I like having no stinkers in this list.
Oscar Winner: James Coburn - Affliction
My Winner: Billy Bob Thornton - A Simple Plan
Geoffrey Rush
James Coburn
Robert Duvall
Ed Harris
1998 Best Supporting Actor
James Coburn - Affliction
When I was going down the list of winners before the project many moons ago, this was one of the first names I didn't recognize as a winner. I knew of James Coburn but had no idea he won an Oscar, especially in 1998. So obviously my interest was peaked and with some research, peaked even more when you find out he basically had no precursor awards traction. So would this be another veteran win or is this well deserved? Coburn plays an overbearing, alcoholic father who we see primarily in flashbacks at first before meeting him in the present day. I must say that he nails the intimidating factor perfectly, snarling his words and stumbling around drunk during these flashbacks. Sometimes drunk acting can look so ridiculous and fake that it takes you out of the film, but Coburn succeeds in making it seem natural and visceral. When we meet him in the present day, he's still a stinker but just a more muted one because his sons are grown and he can't domineer them as much. These scenes he plays more of the antagonist, sticking in the craw of Nolte's character, acting as a reminder of his childhood and upbringing. He's that constant reminder of why Nolte is where he is today. The flashbacks are the more interesting scenes for the viewer as they are a bit more violent and explain the tone of the film. However, the ending is the most explosive part of both Nolte's and Coburn's performances. I honestly think it's both actors at their best in this film and it coincides with such a pivotal moment. Coburn is his same ornery self and is being a drunk asshole and confronts Nolte but ends up getting his just desserts. It's great acting because it's not overdone at all and it feels very real. It's just done right and Coburn's performance never feels forced or exaggerated. I think he did a great job with his character.
Robert Duvall - A Civil Action
This seems like a prestige film featuring Duvall and John Travolta (and lots of other good actors) that I've legitimately never heard of until now. It's the kind of film that I think if done today would carry more weight, especially with the Flint water crisis going on. These are the kind of films I'm looking for from unknown acting performances. I always want them to be good and I want them to be interesting. This covers both and I really enjoyed Duvall's performance to boot. Is there much to the performance, though? Not really. Duvall plays a lawyer for a huge conglomerate who are part of a lawsuit about contaminated water from a tannery. He's the old, wise lawyer that kinda does whatever he wants because he's so brilliant. His character has these quirky things he does like taking a pen from a meeting, listening to the Red Sox in like a basement, and just being an affable guy. I was never sure if he was supposed to be a villain or if he was a good guy, I think he was just presented as is. He gives some advise to Travolta's character and just seems like he's so content with how things go. I think Duvall does a great job with the character even if there's not much to the performance. Pretty much all else that I can say about it is that I liked it but I would never vote for it to win.
Ed Harris - The Truman Show
Ed Harris plays a megalomaniacal director who has experienced years of good fortune as a director because everyone was interested in his star. The thing with this performance is that you can't separate it from the film at all or it will fail. Meaning, Harris succeeds in the scope of the film. If you were to remove his director character, you wouldn't get the same response because Carrey's Truman makes Harris that much more of a scumbag, or at least a hated figure. So what I'm saying is that this performance can't stand alone but works well within the film. Harris is this God persona, having created the idea of the TV series and having cultivated Truman to his whimsy, knowing he could do whatever he wanted to Truman at anytime and Truman would respond in kind. I think that's probably what most directors would want from their actors! Do this and don't question my way of thinking. This is obviously the ultimate directorship because you have complete control over someone's life and can manipulate it however you see fit. That's a lot of power! Harris is good in the role because of his look and because he's good at portraying the authority figure. He looks like a villain and is easy to root against. I feel like people really wanted to vote for the film as a whole and even though Jim Carrey didn't get nominated, this is sort of the payoff for his film. It's a good performance, though not strong, and makes for a decent nominee.
Geoffrey Rush - Shakespeare in Love
I know I've been a little harsh on Mr. Rush in the past but I've got to say that I really liked his performance here! It's a comedic relief type performance in a comedic film and hits the spot time and again. Rush gets these great, sarcastic one liners and also is pretty adept at the physical comedy aspect of the role, as well. And that's what surprised me a little about Rush is that he's really a physical actor when he wants to be. There's a part after the opening scene when his feet are getting burnt that he's waiting for Shakespeare and is chilling in a tub of water and gets out of it as Will comes out of a building and Rush kind of pratfalls his way after Shakespeare. And when he's standing in the middle of the actor fight and reading the new act and telling them not to destroy his props, well it's fantastic comedy that not everyone could pull off. Not to make it sound like only Rush could do it, but he does have an ability for the humor. I like to think he's sort of the representative of the film which this spot could have been as easily filled by Tom Wilkinson or even Ben Affleck...okay, not Ben Affleck but point stands. Wilkinson and Rush are kind of a misfit duo that play off each other so well and are absolutely hilarious. It's an easily likable performance, very funny, and very supporting. It might not be the best ever, but it's highly entertaining.
Billy Bob Thornton - A Simple Plan
This was back when Billy Bob was getting nominations left and right during the 90s. I find once someone gets nominated a first time, they seem to have a window where they can get nominated for anything they do as long as it's decent because the Academy loves going back to the well and they love creating stars. Thornton is a very gifted actor, especially back then, which can seem like a surprise when you watch some of his more recent stuff (though he's been great in TV). I think part of what makes a memorable supporting performance is the unique look of a character. Thornton's character is a simple minded guy who gets caught up in something that spirals out of control when he only wants to do the right thing. He has a distinctive look with a beanie and big, dorky glasses and long, unkempt hair. He stands out amongst the other characters and naturally you gravitate towards watching his performance. Thornton's character is a naive, trusting, do-the-right-thing kinda guy but Thornton doesn't recycle his Sling Blade character and make this performance of an unintelligent man into one focused on his shortcomings. What makes it good is that Thornton portrays Jacob very honestly and sweetly, focusing on making him a real person trying to navigate what life is throwing at him. Thornton never overplays or exaggerates any of Jacob's traits and give a genuine performance of a simple man caught up in a bad situation. He's also the moral center of the film and his equivocating is displayed wonderfully and heartbreakingly. The last scene puts an exclamation point on an already great performance from Thornton.
As always, my favorite category delivers some pretty good performance, one especially that I probably would have missed out on. I think if I were ranking this back in 1998, I would have been rooting for both Thornton and Rush - for different reasons. Thornton gives the all around best performance of the group and Rush gives us a very funny performance in a very funny film. Thornton would win because his is more fully realized, but I did like Rush a lot. If Tom Wilkinson was nominated, it might have been even closer. I like Coburn as the win for the Academy, as 3 of the 5 already had Oscars and his somewhat of a veteran win is deserving. He gives a strong performance but one I'm not sure I would have actively rooted for back then. Duvall gives a decent performance in a very relaxed kinda role which was interesting to see. Then I'd have Harris, who just doesn't really wow me all that much even though the performance is fine. All in all, another great year for this category just because of what it introduced me to and how all of the guys were pretty good. I like having no stinkers in this list.
Oscar Winner: James Coburn - Affliction
My Winner: Billy Bob Thornton - A Simple Plan
Geoffrey Rush
James Coburn
Robert Duvall
Ed Harris
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Supporting Actress 1998
This is actually the first category that I can remember for this project where I haven't seen one of the 5 performances nominated. That's exciting because it means endless possibilities for what I might see! I'm always hoping to find a new favorite and always curious to scratch an itch for a film I've been interested in seeing for a long time like Shakespeare in Love.
1998 Best Supporting Actress
Judi Dench - Shakespeare in Love
This is one of the shortest winning performances of all time. I'd have to set my watch but it can't be more than 5 or 6 minutes. Dench plays Queen Elizabeth I and only has three total scenes in the film. I think with the performance being so short that I would expect something that completely wows me and knocks me on my ass. Dench doesn't do that but she does dominate every scene she's in, which shouldn't be hard given she's the Queen. The first scene is quick, she's watching a Shakespeare play and is hacking up a lung, has bad teeth, and looks bald while enjoying a dog do tricks. Then she gives the blessing for Paltrow to marry Colin Firth and gets in some stinging one liners. Then she reveals herself to be at the showing of Romeo and Juliet at the end and comes on stage and says that Paltrow is in fact a man to save her from any trouble and then walks out and has a nice, funny moment where she waits for her entourage to throw their coats down over a puddle but they take too long so she walks in it anyway into her carriage. The fact that I could sum up her entire performance in detail for this blurb should let you know how short it was. Did she dominate? Yes, but is that enough to give her the Oscar? I'm not sure because while she was good and entertaining, I could imagine someone else putting in lots of work giving a more well rounded performance. This was just Judi Dench playing the Queen and when everyone bows and defers to you, of course you dominate scenes. It's possible she was swept up in the Miramax lead charge of Shakespeare in Love winning a whole bunch of awards, for being older, and for not having an Oscar yet. She would go on to get 5 more nominations and counting, some of which were better, so how important was this win exactly? It's an entertaining role just like the film, but I don't think a 5 minute performance deserves an Oscar.
Kathy Bates - Primary Colors
What an interesting film to watch in this day and age, with Hillary Clinton vying for the Democratic Nomination for President. Makes it seem a little extra poignant since it basically tells the story of Bill's run in 1992. You could draw parallels with Obama or even Bernie Sanders in some regards but I'm not here to talk politics, I'm here to talk about Kathy Bates. Bates plays a friend of the Stanton's who is a no-nonsense, ball busting information gatherer. She's got a history with the Stanton's and they need her to help dig up some rumors and dirt, which she seems to be an expert at doing. Her being a lesbian is really just a throwaway gag meant to illicit a response of surprise from the audience since it has absolutely no bearing on her character or the film. Bates is as you would expect her to be. She has played this type of character quite a few times so the role seems familiar and she gives the film a little pop that is much needed. She's a smart mouthed, take no shit, southern woman who gets the job done when needed. Bates is at ease with her character and is in full command of her role, which means she comes into a scene, kicks it's ass, then leaves. What I didn't like was the story sacrificing her character for a little shock value that felt so emotionally wasted and forced and so contrary to her character that you wonder where the moment came from even though you see it coming from a mile away. I think she was a victim of the script that wanted to be so many different things that it became a jumble at the end and we got a weirdly mixed performance from Bates. It's not her fault as I thought she was great until the end when she became a little too disturbed by the game she'd been playing for decades. Either way, this was really the only competition for Judi Dench. I personally liked it (it vaguely reminded me of her character on The Office in a roundabout way) even if it could have been better.
Brenda Blethyn - Little Voice
Yikes, this is a tough performance to suffer through because Blethyn's character is so irredeemably awful. Blethyn portrays a woman whose daughter is very quiet and a shut in but can sing as well as all the famous women in music. Like I said, the character is so awfully annoying that it's hard to get past her and even want to focus on the performance and the film. Her character literally never shuts the hell up, continually squawking about anything and everything and nothing and just being an overall lewd, crude, and loud woman. I get that this is what the character is supposed to be like but if you can stomach sitting through her screen time, good on you. She talks in this highly annoying English accent and must say every British slang word known to man, so it can be hard to follow if you don't have captions on. I guess you can commend Blethyn's dedication to such a shitty woman and for creating a character I instantly disliked because she excels at doing both of those things. Obviously, that's more to do with the story than Blethyn but by association I just don't like it. Honestly, it's hard to get past how awful and annoying the character is which is kind of unfair in judging the performance. Blethyn is good at being bad but I never want to watch this weird little movie ever again, in large part because of her character. You can take that as praise if you want to or not, but watch it and you'll see what I mean.
Rachel Griffiths - Hilary and Jackie
I had the hardest time finding this movie which has made me start worrying about how soon I'm going to run into not being able to find a certain film/performance. All that effort to watch it on a Chinese website and the movie was pretty blah and this performance was mostly meh. Griffiths plays the Hilary part of the title and is the older sister of the two women. She was a highly regarded flautist when she was a kid but eventually her sister surpassed her in ability playing the cello. So what we get is a movie about sisterhood and jealousy and family and ambition. As Hilary gets older she isn't as interested in continuing to perform music and is content to settle down and get married and raise a family in the country. Jackie goes on to be world famous yet when visiting her sister we see she is somewhat jealous of Hilary's normal life and wants to be loved like she is, even asking to sleep with Hilary's husband. Eventually Jackie gets sick and the two, who have been estranged, make up before she kicks the bucket. Griffiths doesn't get a lot to do in this picture, as most of the heavy lifting is from Jackie. Griffiths settles down and tries to placate her sister throughout the movie as she also tries to live her life. Thing is, neither of them feel like actual sisters, more like actresses playing sisters as their is no legit chemistry between them which of course makes their sisterly scenes fall flat. There's no big Oscar moment, either, for Griffiths unless you want to count the ending scene. She just kinda moves through scene after scene acting mostly the same: either concerned for her sister or happy for her sister and not much else. It's a satisfactory performance, one that I would have liked more variation out of Griffiths but I guess it's okay for what it is. It's certainly not the worst performance of the group!
Lynn Redgrave - Gods and Monsters
I'm not really sure what all to say about this brief performance. She's in the whole film but she never really does all that much of note. Redgrave plays a maid to Ian McKellen's character and besides doing maid things, doesn't really register on the story. She is only notable because she has either an Eastern European or Russian accent and sometimes chides McKellen for his dalliances. She is stooped over and certainly looks the part and has the air of the maid down pat but obviously I'm finding it difficult to say much more about her performance. It doesn't stand out which suggests to me that this was a veteran nomination for a respected member of a historic acting family and this was the Academy's chance to reward her again in a very weak year. I wish I could understand what people saw in this to nominate it, as I was really hoping for a lot more than just a maid.
This has got to be one of the worst categories I've come across on my journey so far. And of course it's the category I like the least. There's honestly not much to these performance and this is just a super weak year. I can't believe there weren't other, more deserving performances out there somewhere. The bottom three is a jumbled mess. Blethyn is one of the worst characters I've seen so far, to the point I wanted to stop watching the movie. Redgrave barely does anything, maybe supplying a little bit of comic relief but really just being a maid on camera. Griffiths sleepwalks through her performance and refuses to wrestle any of the moments from Emily Watson. Then you've got the two who were clearly going head to head for a win and I can't really hype either of them too much. Dench has limited screen time but at least makes the most out of it. Bates' character is screwed over by the story thus limiting her performance. At least Bates has an adequate amount of screen time to establish her character, though. As far as the Academy goes, Dench's win is fine by me if it means her other, future nominations stay as just nominations. Bates already has an Oscar so how do you pick a winner? I probably would have wanted Bates to win back in 1998, but I'm okay with Dench getting the win. I really don't care about this race or category, honestly, which hurts to say.
Oscar Winner: Judi Dench - Shakespeare in Love
My Winner: Judi Dench - Shakespeare in Love
Kathy Bates
Rachel Griffiths
Lynn Redgrave
Brenda Blethyn
1998 Best Supporting Actress
Judi Dench - Shakespeare in Love
This is one of the shortest winning performances of all time. I'd have to set my watch but it can't be more than 5 or 6 minutes. Dench plays Queen Elizabeth I and only has three total scenes in the film. I think with the performance being so short that I would expect something that completely wows me and knocks me on my ass. Dench doesn't do that but she does dominate every scene she's in, which shouldn't be hard given she's the Queen. The first scene is quick, she's watching a Shakespeare play and is hacking up a lung, has bad teeth, and looks bald while enjoying a dog do tricks. Then she gives the blessing for Paltrow to marry Colin Firth and gets in some stinging one liners. Then she reveals herself to be at the showing of Romeo and Juliet at the end and comes on stage and says that Paltrow is in fact a man to save her from any trouble and then walks out and has a nice, funny moment where she waits for her entourage to throw their coats down over a puddle but they take too long so she walks in it anyway into her carriage. The fact that I could sum up her entire performance in detail for this blurb should let you know how short it was. Did she dominate? Yes, but is that enough to give her the Oscar? I'm not sure because while she was good and entertaining, I could imagine someone else putting in lots of work giving a more well rounded performance. This was just Judi Dench playing the Queen and when everyone bows and defers to you, of course you dominate scenes. It's possible she was swept up in the Miramax lead charge of Shakespeare in Love winning a whole bunch of awards, for being older, and for not having an Oscar yet. She would go on to get 5 more nominations and counting, some of which were better, so how important was this win exactly? It's an entertaining role just like the film, but I don't think a 5 minute performance deserves an Oscar.
Kathy Bates - Primary Colors
What an interesting film to watch in this day and age, with Hillary Clinton vying for the Democratic Nomination for President. Makes it seem a little extra poignant since it basically tells the story of Bill's run in 1992. You could draw parallels with Obama or even Bernie Sanders in some regards but I'm not here to talk politics, I'm here to talk about Kathy Bates. Bates plays a friend of the Stanton's who is a no-nonsense, ball busting information gatherer. She's got a history with the Stanton's and they need her to help dig up some rumors and dirt, which she seems to be an expert at doing. Her being a lesbian is really just a throwaway gag meant to illicit a response of surprise from the audience since it has absolutely no bearing on her character or the film. Bates is as you would expect her to be. She has played this type of character quite a few times so the role seems familiar and she gives the film a little pop that is much needed. She's a smart mouthed, take no shit, southern woman who gets the job done when needed. Bates is at ease with her character and is in full command of her role, which means she comes into a scene, kicks it's ass, then leaves. What I didn't like was the story sacrificing her character for a little shock value that felt so emotionally wasted and forced and so contrary to her character that you wonder where the moment came from even though you see it coming from a mile away. I think she was a victim of the script that wanted to be so many different things that it became a jumble at the end and we got a weirdly mixed performance from Bates. It's not her fault as I thought she was great until the end when she became a little too disturbed by the game she'd been playing for decades. Either way, this was really the only competition for Judi Dench. I personally liked it (it vaguely reminded me of her character on The Office in a roundabout way) even if it could have been better.
Brenda Blethyn - Little Voice
Yikes, this is a tough performance to suffer through because Blethyn's character is so irredeemably awful. Blethyn portrays a woman whose daughter is very quiet and a shut in but can sing as well as all the famous women in music. Like I said, the character is so awfully annoying that it's hard to get past her and even want to focus on the performance and the film. Her character literally never shuts the hell up, continually squawking about anything and everything and nothing and just being an overall lewd, crude, and loud woman. I get that this is what the character is supposed to be like but if you can stomach sitting through her screen time, good on you. She talks in this highly annoying English accent and must say every British slang word known to man, so it can be hard to follow if you don't have captions on. I guess you can commend Blethyn's dedication to such a shitty woman and for creating a character I instantly disliked because she excels at doing both of those things. Obviously, that's more to do with the story than Blethyn but by association I just don't like it. Honestly, it's hard to get past how awful and annoying the character is which is kind of unfair in judging the performance. Blethyn is good at being bad but I never want to watch this weird little movie ever again, in large part because of her character. You can take that as praise if you want to or not, but watch it and you'll see what I mean.
Rachel Griffiths - Hilary and Jackie
I had the hardest time finding this movie which has made me start worrying about how soon I'm going to run into not being able to find a certain film/performance. All that effort to watch it on a Chinese website and the movie was pretty blah and this performance was mostly meh. Griffiths plays the Hilary part of the title and is the older sister of the two women. She was a highly regarded flautist when she was a kid but eventually her sister surpassed her in ability playing the cello. So what we get is a movie about sisterhood and jealousy and family and ambition. As Hilary gets older she isn't as interested in continuing to perform music and is content to settle down and get married and raise a family in the country. Jackie goes on to be world famous yet when visiting her sister we see she is somewhat jealous of Hilary's normal life and wants to be loved like she is, even asking to sleep with Hilary's husband. Eventually Jackie gets sick and the two, who have been estranged, make up before she kicks the bucket. Griffiths doesn't get a lot to do in this picture, as most of the heavy lifting is from Jackie. Griffiths settles down and tries to placate her sister throughout the movie as she also tries to live her life. Thing is, neither of them feel like actual sisters, more like actresses playing sisters as their is no legit chemistry between them which of course makes their sisterly scenes fall flat. There's no big Oscar moment, either, for Griffiths unless you want to count the ending scene. She just kinda moves through scene after scene acting mostly the same: either concerned for her sister or happy for her sister and not much else. It's a satisfactory performance, one that I would have liked more variation out of Griffiths but I guess it's okay for what it is. It's certainly not the worst performance of the group!
Lynn Redgrave - Gods and Monsters
I'm not really sure what all to say about this brief performance. She's in the whole film but she never really does all that much of note. Redgrave plays a maid to Ian McKellen's character and besides doing maid things, doesn't really register on the story. She is only notable because she has either an Eastern European or Russian accent and sometimes chides McKellen for his dalliances. She is stooped over and certainly looks the part and has the air of the maid down pat but obviously I'm finding it difficult to say much more about her performance. It doesn't stand out which suggests to me that this was a veteran nomination for a respected member of a historic acting family and this was the Academy's chance to reward her again in a very weak year. I wish I could understand what people saw in this to nominate it, as I was really hoping for a lot more than just a maid.
This has got to be one of the worst categories I've come across on my journey so far. And of course it's the category I like the least. There's honestly not much to these performance and this is just a super weak year. I can't believe there weren't other, more deserving performances out there somewhere. The bottom three is a jumbled mess. Blethyn is one of the worst characters I've seen so far, to the point I wanted to stop watching the movie. Redgrave barely does anything, maybe supplying a little bit of comic relief but really just being a maid on camera. Griffiths sleepwalks through her performance and refuses to wrestle any of the moments from Emily Watson. Then you've got the two who were clearly going head to head for a win and I can't really hype either of them too much. Dench has limited screen time but at least makes the most out of it. Bates' character is screwed over by the story thus limiting her performance. At least Bates has an adequate amount of screen time to establish her character, though. As far as the Academy goes, Dench's win is fine by me if it means her other, future nominations stay as just nominations. Bates already has an Oscar so how do you pick a winner? I probably would have wanted Bates to win back in 1998, but I'm okay with Dench getting the win. I really don't care about this race or category, honestly, which hurts to say.
Oscar Winner: Judi Dench - Shakespeare in Love
My Winner: Judi Dench - Shakespeare in Love
Kathy Bates
Rachel Griffiths
Lynn Redgrave
Brenda Blethyn
Monday, February 8, 2016
Best Picture 1999
After the 2000s I was really wondering if I should do like a ranking for each category and maybe sum up each decade I do but I decided against that. I might do that after I'm done (if that ever happens!) or just one big summary of my thoughts on the whole thing. I mention this because entering a new decade - and century! - is awesome but also kind of daunting. I have so much more to go so maybe breaking it up would have been one thing to do. But I think just diving in and keeping it going is the way to go. I did a basic calculation of one movie a day for 365 days and figured it'd net me 18 years which would put me into the early 80s. I'd love to be in the 80s at the end of the year but I don't know how realistic that is with life getting in the way. Also, I'd only be in the 80s after doing this for almost 7 years and that seems awful! Oh well. I'll just have to stay motivated and realize this is a marathon project. On to the films though!
1999 Best Picture
American Beauty
This was a strong winner back in 1999 and people loved it. Nowadays, you can read a lot online and anywhere else that say this film is highly overrated and how it shouldn't have won Best Picture and that it's one giant cliche. I think that's a case of we loved it so much for awhile that now we have to find a way to tear it down to make us not seem so persuaded by it's charm. American Beauty is a wryly comical film that makes fun of middle American ideals and has some really funny moments that don't call attention to themselves. It's about a man undergoing what you could call a mid-life crisis in response to his family being all kinds of screwed up. I love that the film skewers so much of society in one fell swoop and does it with such ease and intelligence. It makes fun of everything from the phony working woman, loveless marriages, the retired military man who can't adjust to real life, to the woman who sits in a near catatonic state who apologizes for no reason who is married to said military guy, the corporate world, high school popular kids, and a whole bunch of other little things. It takes aim and lets fire at a whole magnitude of the American population which is why I think the film is relatable. I also feel like it hit very close to home for a lot of the Academy voters and they thought it was an important film based off that reason. I don't believe that it's a very important film, it just peels back the cover and shines a light on what life is like for lots of people and let's you gaze on in horror and wonder and disbelief and hilarity. And I think that works right near the turn of the Century, as we were a bit more introspective going into a new Millennium and it gave us a good idea of our true selves - to some degree. I like American Beauty as a Best Picture winner because it's so different from what the Academy normally goes for. As a matter of fact, I saw that it was only the 2nd film of the 90s that wasn't a period piece. I would prefer more films like this one, especially if it meant fewer films like The Cider House Rules. I'd say American Beauty is a worthy winner.
The Cider House Rules
I'm struggling to come up with a reason as to why this was nominated. I feel I might sit here for eternity and never know. I mean, I don't know...besides it's cloying, cliche story what does it say? Oh, it talks about abortions? Ooohhhoohhhhhh! That's just cosmetic bullshit. It could have been polio or SARS or that disease from Soderbergh's Contagion. Point being this is one of the worst Best Picture nominees I've encountered so far. It's so obvious in it's desire for a nomination anywhere that it boggles my mind how they didn't see that back in 1999. There are some real human moments scattered throughout the film, but they are few and far between. It's like you start to say okay, here's something decent and then they pull the laughtastic Negro knife fight. Like where did that come from and who approved it?? There's many other scenes that just land with a thud and you wonder is this actually a serious Oscar movie? Because there's a lot of cringe worthy scenes that I know I would have cringed at just as hard back then as I did now. And this isn't just a generational thing, this is a truly bad movie. Fuck it. I'm done pretending for tonight that there's any merit to this movie because there isn't. This is laughable, right down to the paralyzed Paul Rudd, the apple picker leader who bones his daughter and gets her preggo, the whole Michael Caine terrible accent Dr who does ether. There's just so many cliches in this film that I can't believe people actively defend this. I still read about this film getting warm accolades and I wonder what the hell those people were watching. That's why I think the actual Oscar race is just people hoping they are the first to pimp a film so they can brag about that on the way to a website or a column. Anyway, The Cider House Rules does not rule. I saw this was a Miramax film and that seems to explain everything, since the Weinstein Bros can buy anything, especially during this time period. What a truly awful nomination.
The Green Mile
At first, you glance through the list of Best Picture nominees and you see The Green Mile on it and you're like, okay yeah that seems like a no brainer. I like Tom Hanks and it's a feel good movie and I like Stephen King's work. And you convince yourself it belongs and you move on down the list. But then you really think about it and does this movie scream Best Picture to you? It does have all the hallmarks of one but is the sum greater than it's parts here? I kinda think so but 1999 is such an odd year when you really look into it. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike The Green Mile. I find it to be quite an enjoyable watch for long stretches, though I wouldn't want to sit down and just watch it start to finish. That's one of the knocks I have is that it is so long, over 3 hours, and could be trimmed down to make a tighter, possibly better paced film. There are times where it feels glacial but then the acting hooks you and you keep sitting there watching. The acting is indeed pretty good in this, from Tom Hanks and Michael Clarke Duncan to all the supporting guys and gals who probably do elevate the film above what it really is. It's a very Stephen King non-horror story film, too, where it's fantastical and magical in a sense and very visual. You just know that reading some of the scenes in the book must have been quite an immersive and engaging experience. Sometimes that translates here onscreen, other times it falls a little flat. The story can be a little too cutesy and on the nose sometimes as well, which almost disrupts the flow of the film. There's a whole lot going on here which is why I kinda find this an odd choice for Best Picture. At it's core, The Green Mile is an emotional film, somewhat manipulative, but with a good heart. It's easy to see why the Academy was swayed by it.
The Insider
It had been a long time since I saw this film and didn't know it was directed by Michael Mann. After watching it for a bit, I really was enjoying the direction and camera work and looked up the director and saw it was Mann and it made sense. While at times the direction feels showy, there's other times where it really suits the intense nature of the film. The camera gets right in the face of characters and falls them around for a bit and adds another element to the final product. The Insider tells the story of a whistleblower who leaks some info about tobacco being addictive when Big Tobacco has been denying it for years. A 60 Minutes producer catches wind of this and convinces Crowe's character to talk about it and it eventually snowballs from there. It's a very serious subject and it's treated as such in the film, which is intense from the acting right down to the music and cinematography. I think if done just a little bit wrong, The Insider would have failed miserably because it is so serious and important feeling. All the characters seem angry and on edge and it makes the world seem like such a terrible, greedy place where the truth costs you everything. But it has some energy that helps keep it from being so dour and boring. Plus, it's got some really great acting, especially from Al Pacino and Christopher Plummer, that keeps you really engaged with the story. One odd thing I noticed about the film is that 2005 Best Picture winner, Crash, steals some dramatic flourishes from the film such as a character driving by a burning car seemingly out of nowhere and the vocal music that plays occasionally throughout. When I noticed this it kinda pulled me out of the film a little because it seemed to me like Crash blatantly ripped it off, since I don't know if it's an honest nod to this film or not. Watch them and tell me that doesn't strike you as similar. But besides that issue, I could see myself wanting this film to win back in 1999 because it's the type of film I generally like. It certainly makes my decision for this year a tough one.
The Sixth Sense
I can remember watching this one in theaters and what a cultural phenomenon it became. Something about it just pressed the right buttons with the public and soon it was everywhere. You couldn't escape the "I see dead people" phrase no matter how hard you tried. I think that America was just hungry for a good ghost story again and something fresh in the horror/ghost/mystery genre was exactly what they wanted. This is of course before the public became aware of every M. Night Shyamalan film having some twist, so the ending wasn't expected and probably hit that much harder because you weren't looking and waiting for it. The Sixth Sense also offered up a really great performance from Haley Joel Osment who made the film what it was. It also benefited from being a great second watch film because you can pick up on all the things you missed the first time around after you found out what the twist was. So I think that helped add to the love the film received. The story itself is pretty good but I do think it loses steam at the end when we see that the ghosts are using him to tie up their loose ends and let loved ones know things. That clashes with the overall horror feel that the ghosts are evil and bad and here to take away Osment or at least torture and torment him that keeps getting alluded too. I'm also not a fan of the jump scares that films like to use which this one does, as well. But that's probably because I'm not a big fan of horror/scary films in general. I'm not sure The Sixth Sense is a great film. I think it's a very good genre film that exceeded expectations and gave us a great child actor performance but I think the hype certainly elevated it past where it should be. I remember there being a lot of Top 100 Film lists coming out at the end of the decade and The Sixth Sense kept getting mentioned as one of the best films ever after it had just come out, which even then I thought was absurd. So that's what I mean when I say the hype got out of control and people kept making it out to be better than it really was. I'm actually happy that it's included in this category, though, because the Academy is so adverse to genre films. So while I don't think it's a great or even Oscar caliber film, I'm fine with it's inclusion for Best Picture simply because it's such a different choice for Oscar, especially at that time.
Not sure why the winner couldn't have been called The American Beauty, ya know, for continuity sake. Not a bad year if you don't include The Cider House Rules which is a really terrible movie that seems more like a parody than a legit Oscar film. Blame Miramax for that one. The other 4 are all good and provide an interesting group. You've got a Stephen King adaptation, The Green Mile, that's like magical realism which would be my 4th. Then you have a kind of mystery/horror/thriller in The Sixth Sense that I'm not sure the Academy will ever go with again, if so it will be awhile anyway. Then it's a hard choice: American Beauty or The Insider. Honestly, it's a toss up. I like each of them for different reasons and wouldn't mind re-watching them both. Slight edge to American Beauty for being unique and different, though, at least for now. Pretty good year that I wish I could replace the bottom feeder with a legit Oscar film.
Oscar Winner: American Beauty
My Winner: American Beauty
The Insider
The Sixth Sense
The Green Mile
The Cider House Rules
1999 Best Picture
American Beauty
This was a strong winner back in 1999 and people loved it. Nowadays, you can read a lot online and anywhere else that say this film is highly overrated and how it shouldn't have won Best Picture and that it's one giant cliche. I think that's a case of we loved it so much for awhile that now we have to find a way to tear it down to make us not seem so persuaded by it's charm. American Beauty is a wryly comical film that makes fun of middle American ideals and has some really funny moments that don't call attention to themselves. It's about a man undergoing what you could call a mid-life crisis in response to his family being all kinds of screwed up. I love that the film skewers so much of society in one fell swoop and does it with such ease and intelligence. It makes fun of everything from the phony working woman, loveless marriages, the retired military man who can't adjust to real life, to the woman who sits in a near catatonic state who apologizes for no reason who is married to said military guy, the corporate world, high school popular kids, and a whole bunch of other little things. It takes aim and lets fire at a whole magnitude of the American population which is why I think the film is relatable. I also feel like it hit very close to home for a lot of the Academy voters and they thought it was an important film based off that reason. I don't believe that it's a very important film, it just peels back the cover and shines a light on what life is like for lots of people and let's you gaze on in horror and wonder and disbelief and hilarity. And I think that works right near the turn of the Century, as we were a bit more introspective going into a new Millennium and it gave us a good idea of our true selves - to some degree. I like American Beauty as a Best Picture winner because it's so different from what the Academy normally goes for. As a matter of fact, I saw that it was only the 2nd film of the 90s that wasn't a period piece. I would prefer more films like this one, especially if it meant fewer films like The Cider House Rules. I'd say American Beauty is a worthy winner.
The Cider House Rules
I'm struggling to come up with a reason as to why this was nominated. I feel I might sit here for eternity and never know. I mean, I don't know...besides it's cloying, cliche story what does it say? Oh, it talks about abortions? Ooohhhoohhhhhh! That's just cosmetic bullshit. It could have been polio or SARS or that disease from Soderbergh's Contagion. Point being this is one of the worst Best Picture nominees I've encountered so far. It's so obvious in it's desire for a nomination anywhere that it boggles my mind how they didn't see that back in 1999. There are some real human moments scattered throughout the film, but they are few and far between. It's like you start to say okay, here's something decent and then they pull the laughtastic Negro knife fight. Like where did that come from and who approved it?? There's many other scenes that just land with a thud and you wonder is this actually a serious Oscar movie? Because there's a lot of cringe worthy scenes that I know I would have cringed at just as hard back then as I did now. And this isn't just a generational thing, this is a truly bad movie. Fuck it. I'm done pretending for tonight that there's any merit to this movie because there isn't. This is laughable, right down to the paralyzed Paul Rudd, the apple picker leader who bones his daughter and gets her preggo, the whole Michael Caine terrible accent Dr who does ether. There's just so many cliches in this film that I can't believe people actively defend this. I still read about this film getting warm accolades and I wonder what the hell those people were watching. That's why I think the actual Oscar race is just people hoping they are the first to pimp a film so they can brag about that on the way to a website or a column. Anyway, The Cider House Rules does not rule. I saw this was a Miramax film and that seems to explain everything, since the Weinstein Bros can buy anything, especially during this time period. What a truly awful nomination.
The Green Mile
At first, you glance through the list of Best Picture nominees and you see The Green Mile on it and you're like, okay yeah that seems like a no brainer. I like Tom Hanks and it's a feel good movie and I like Stephen King's work. And you convince yourself it belongs and you move on down the list. But then you really think about it and does this movie scream Best Picture to you? It does have all the hallmarks of one but is the sum greater than it's parts here? I kinda think so but 1999 is such an odd year when you really look into it. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike The Green Mile. I find it to be quite an enjoyable watch for long stretches, though I wouldn't want to sit down and just watch it start to finish. That's one of the knocks I have is that it is so long, over 3 hours, and could be trimmed down to make a tighter, possibly better paced film. There are times where it feels glacial but then the acting hooks you and you keep sitting there watching. The acting is indeed pretty good in this, from Tom Hanks and Michael Clarke Duncan to all the supporting guys and gals who probably do elevate the film above what it really is. It's a very Stephen King non-horror story film, too, where it's fantastical and magical in a sense and very visual. You just know that reading some of the scenes in the book must have been quite an immersive and engaging experience. Sometimes that translates here onscreen, other times it falls a little flat. The story can be a little too cutesy and on the nose sometimes as well, which almost disrupts the flow of the film. There's a whole lot going on here which is why I kinda find this an odd choice for Best Picture. At it's core, The Green Mile is an emotional film, somewhat manipulative, but with a good heart. It's easy to see why the Academy was swayed by it.
The Insider
It had been a long time since I saw this film and didn't know it was directed by Michael Mann. After watching it for a bit, I really was enjoying the direction and camera work and looked up the director and saw it was Mann and it made sense. While at times the direction feels showy, there's other times where it really suits the intense nature of the film. The camera gets right in the face of characters and falls them around for a bit and adds another element to the final product. The Insider tells the story of a whistleblower who leaks some info about tobacco being addictive when Big Tobacco has been denying it for years. A 60 Minutes producer catches wind of this and convinces Crowe's character to talk about it and it eventually snowballs from there. It's a very serious subject and it's treated as such in the film, which is intense from the acting right down to the music and cinematography. I think if done just a little bit wrong, The Insider would have failed miserably because it is so serious and important feeling. All the characters seem angry and on edge and it makes the world seem like such a terrible, greedy place where the truth costs you everything. But it has some energy that helps keep it from being so dour and boring. Plus, it's got some really great acting, especially from Al Pacino and Christopher Plummer, that keeps you really engaged with the story. One odd thing I noticed about the film is that 2005 Best Picture winner, Crash, steals some dramatic flourishes from the film such as a character driving by a burning car seemingly out of nowhere and the vocal music that plays occasionally throughout. When I noticed this it kinda pulled me out of the film a little because it seemed to me like Crash blatantly ripped it off, since I don't know if it's an honest nod to this film or not. Watch them and tell me that doesn't strike you as similar. But besides that issue, I could see myself wanting this film to win back in 1999 because it's the type of film I generally like. It certainly makes my decision for this year a tough one.
The Sixth Sense
I can remember watching this one in theaters and what a cultural phenomenon it became. Something about it just pressed the right buttons with the public and soon it was everywhere. You couldn't escape the "I see dead people" phrase no matter how hard you tried. I think that America was just hungry for a good ghost story again and something fresh in the horror/ghost/mystery genre was exactly what they wanted. This is of course before the public became aware of every M. Night Shyamalan film having some twist, so the ending wasn't expected and probably hit that much harder because you weren't looking and waiting for it. The Sixth Sense also offered up a really great performance from Haley Joel Osment who made the film what it was. It also benefited from being a great second watch film because you can pick up on all the things you missed the first time around after you found out what the twist was. So I think that helped add to the love the film received. The story itself is pretty good but I do think it loses steam at the end when we see that the ghosts are using him to tie up their loose ends and let loved ones know things. That clashes with the overall horror feel that the ghosts are evil and bad and here to take away Osment or at least torture and torment him that keeps getting alluded too. I'm also not a fan of the jump scares that films like to use which this one does, as well. But that's probably because I'm not a big fan of horror/scary films in general. I'm not sure The Sixth Sense is a great film. I think it's a very good genre film that exceeded expectations and gave us a great child actor performance but I think the hype certainly elevated it past where it should be. I remember there being a lot of Top 100 Film lists coming out at the end of the decade and The Sixth Sense kept getting mentioned as one of the best films ever after it had just come out, which even then I thought was absurd. So that's what I mean when I say the hype got out of control and people kept making it out to be better than it really was. I'm actually happy that it's included in this category, though, because the Academy is so adverse to genre films. So while I don't think it's a great or even Oscar caliber film, I'm fine with it's inclusion for Best Picture simply because it's such a different choice for Oscar, especially at that time.
Not sure why the winner couldn't have been called The American Beauty, ya know, for continuity sake. Not a bad year if you don't include The Cider House Rules which is a really terrible movie that seems more like a parody than a legit Oscar film. Blame Miramax for that one. The other 4 are all good and provide an interesting group. You've got a Stephen King adaptation, The Green Mile, that's like magical realism which would be my 4th. Then you have a kind of mystery/horror/thriller in The Sixth Sense that I'm not sure the Academy will ever go with again, if so it will be awhile anyway. Then it's a hard choice: American Beauty or The Insider. Honestly, it's a toss up. I like each of them for different reasons and wouldn't mind re-watching them both. Slight edge to American Beauty for being unique and different, though, at least for now. Pretty good year that I wish I could replace the bottom feeder with a legit Oscar film.
Oscar Winner: American Beauty
My Winner: American Beauty
The Insider
The Sixth Sense
The Green Mile
The Cider House Rules
Leading Actor 1999
The always prestigious Best Actor race with some notable names here except for one that I'm not familiar with at all. As I go back, I'm loving that I'm coming up on these unknowns (to me) because it keeps the excitement of the project going.
1999 Best Actor
Kevin Spacey - American Beauty
There are a lot of people, young and old, that can relate to Spacey's character in American Beauty. I think it's a daily fantasy for many people to dream about quitting the job they hate to pursue whatever goal they have, whether it be impressing a girl to have sex with or spiting their spouse or just to enjoy the little things in life. I'd wager that's a universal thing and one that is cleverly acted here by Spacey. I don't feel you have to be a middle aged white man in suburbia to hate your life so much that you fantasize about change. Spacey portrays that pathetic man in the beginning with a certain sly ease, meaning his character has been resigned to his shitty life for so long that he just goes through the motions no matter how farcical it might be. Where Spacey excels in this film is in the turn, the realization that he doesn't have to put up with that kind of lifestyle and he can in fact do whatever he wants, just like when he was a young kid. This part seems to fit more true to life for Spacey as I can easily see him just being this cool, laid back dude who smokes pot and buys a dream car and chills all day doing whatever makes him happy. That's why I think he fits so well into the role, not to mention he is such a great subtle comedian. He does things so dryly and sarcastically that you feel they don't work but I just absolutely love. Like when he tells Bening he bought the Firebird out front and then quietly pumps a fist and says "I rule," it's a moment that really works for me in believing the character. He is a man who has given up caring and is fed up with playing his familial role when he gets nothing out of it. I'd say he's a bit selfish but how many of us aren't when it comes to being happy? Spacey is so subtly funny throughout this film and is one reason I like his character so much, probably because it matches my own sense of humor. Another thing to note is that Spacey is probably one of the best at doing voice over work, to the point that it adds to his overall performance and makes it stronger. This is a really great performance overall and Spacey really did deserve his second Oscar win for this role.
Russell Crowe - The Insider
This is kind of interesting to watch again after seeing Crowe's other performances because you see pieces of those characters in this role. Crowe plays a tobacco scientist who is fired but also blew the whistle on cigarettes being addictive which Big Tobacco denied repeatedly. Crowe's character has this pulsing, just under the surface anger that comes out every so often and also demonstrates some paranoid tendencies. So this character is sort of the primer for his roles in Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind. The thing about this performance is that it seems too much like acting, like each little thing he does is a deliberate choice whether it's shrugging his shoulders when he's upset or tumbling down his front yard when running after some detectives. It can be especially noticeable when Al Pacino is acting opposite him in a very free flowing, natural style. I think Crowe is best at externalizing his pain and anguish and anger after keeping them bottled up for a bit. That's essentially where his character stays, too, right on the edge of exploding or breaking down. After a while you just want him to take a deep breath in and relax because watching his performance is almost exhausting for you, the viewer. It's a decent enough performance but I'd like a bit more range from the character than just brooding and angry. There's a couple moments with the family that try to humanize and bring the character back to a more relatable figure but I don't think it succeeds too well. It's an intense film but Crowe doesn't have to match the intensity to give a good performance. For the record, I much prefer Al Pacino as the better choice for a Best Actor nomination. I thought he was great as usual so maybe the Academy just wanted to anoint Crowe as their new man.
Richard Farnsworth - The Straight Story
I had never heard of this film or performance or actor until I started this project, and once I did, I couldn't wait to finally watch it because it's the first unknown (as far as the men are concerned) that I've come across. Then you realize it's a Disney film directed by David Lynch of all people, well that just piqued my curiosity even more! It reminds me of an Alexander Payne story and I could see this being shot in black and white, a la Nebraska. I'm glad it was done by Lynch, though, because it has some really great direction. This was Farnsworth's second Oscar nomination and would be his last film ever. Knowing the background of the film makes his performance even more poignant and interesting. Farnsworth was diagnosed with terminal bone cancer yet did the film anyway and his performance is magnificent. He is a man of few words in this film, preferring to let his acting do the talking and it's quite admirable. It's as authentic a performance as you'll ever find and that's because if I never knew Farnsworth was an actor before I would have sworn this was a real life portrayal. His stories while out driving his tractor seem personal in nature and not scripted, which speaks to his acting ability and just how raw and real the performance really is. It's really heartbreaking at times and just a genuine performance. Shit, if you don't cry at least once, you have no heart. Farnsworth is so unbelievably honest and real in his performance that I guarantee you will love it. To think this is a film and performance I never would have watched, yet I like it so, so much!
Sean Penn - Sweet and Lowdown
I feel I have to preface any Sean Penn nomination with I think he's a shitty person but a pretty great actor and it's unfortunate I have to do that. I must say that I was somewhat surprised that Penn was a leading man in a Woody Allen film but I guess also not so surprised. He actually fits extremely well into the typical Allen leading man role which I don't think I would have guessed. Penn plays a man who is the second best guitar player in the world (after Django Reinhardt) and is a womanizer, alcholic, overall miserable human being getting by on his immense talent. I think going backwards in this project affords me the ability to make this connection between Penn's Oscar nominated performances: this performance kinda reminds me of his I am Sam character. There are similar mannerisms and vocal inflections/intonations and it's almost a gateway between regular Penn and retard Penn. I don't mean that in a disparaging way, it's just that the two characters do seem to share a lot of similar styles almost, so I can see where Sam was developed from this possibly since I don't know for sure. But besides that, Penn does have an old school Hollywood leading man vibe going on which I kinda like. It doesn't surprise me that this was pretty much written in the 70s but shelved until now and feels like it could have been written in the 50s or at least portrayed by a 50s era leading man with ease. That's why I could see a George Clooney type excelling in the role. There are times when Penn is too quirky and eccentric with his acting but I think he does a good enough job with the character so that I wasn't completely turned off at the mention of his name. He's a great actor and he shows it time and again, just like he does in this film.
Denzel Washington - The Hurricane
I hate to say this but how many angry black man performances are too many when it comes to watching Denzel? I know that's a terribly loaded question because I don't want to be confused with slighting black actors but when you've seen him play an angry black man once, what's new that he can bring to the 5th time he's played that character in a different film? Part of that is the fact that those are the roles that black men get to play and is a major part of our cultural heritage and identity. We have a long way to go before we stop giving slave, prisoner, gangster, and radical roles to blacks and something else becomes the new norm. So obviously my point is that these are the roles that Denzel gets to choose from and that's just what we are going to get for right now. It's also the type of roles he seems best suited for anyway. Ones where he can tap into the submerged anger with ease and bring an intensity to a character that needs a voice. It's no different in The Hurricane where he portrays a once promising boxer who gets wrongly sent to jail on a triple murder charge. You can already tell how angry Denzel is from just reading that line. He does have his moments of redemption and towards the end he becomes this scholarly, peace spouting man that feels too sanctimonious for the film but at least Denzel can make the turn look effortless. There's also a scene where he is in solitary and has to act against his imaginary self and actually kinda surprised me that Denzel could pull that off without looking too ridiculous. I can't say I'm a big fan of this performance because I've seen Denzel pull this off better in Malcolm X and a couple of his other films, even if you leave the post 1999 ones out of the equation. It's just too familiar for me to give it much love.
Best Actor always seems to provide a pretty good group of actors year in, year out and this year is no exception. Just by name alone it's big with 4 Oscar winners in the group. Sean Penn was decent, surprisingly enough, in a Woody Allen film I actually enjoyed. If that's my 5th best, then it's not a bad year. I'd put Crowe as 4th just because it's so underwhelming and almost a primer for his future work, plus I just don't think I'm a fan of his acting style, honestly. Next would be Denzel, right in the middle for his not as good as he can be work. It's not bad, but I've felt I've seen him do the role better already. Now comes the tough part: Spacey and Farnsworth. I'll say I'm very happy with Spacey winning this year in real life. I love the performance and think it's really great. But damn, if Farnsworth didn't blow me away! Making him my number one is a bit easier seeing as how Spacey already had an Oscar before this one. If the Academy is going to do veteran and lifetime Oscars, why the hell not with a performance like Farnsworth's? Quite the year.
Oscar Winner: Kevin Spacey - American Beauty
My Winner: Richard Farnsworth - The Straight Story
Kevin Spacey
Denzel Washington
Russell Crowe
Sean Penn
1999 Best Actor
Kevin Spacey - American Beauty
There are a lot of people, young and old, that can relate to Spacey's character in American Beauty. I think it's a daily fantasy for many people to dream about quitting the job they hate to pursue whatever goal they have, whether it be impressing a girl to have sex with or spiting their spouse or just to enjoy the little things in life. I'd wager that's a universal thing and one that is cleverly acted here by Spacey. I don't feel you have to be a middle aged white man in suburbia to hate your life so much that you fantasize about change. Spacey portrays that pathetic man in the beginning with a certain sly ease, meaning his character has been resigned to his shitty life for so long that he just goes through the motions no matter how farcical it might be. Where Spacey excels in this film is in the turn, the realization that he doesn't have to put up with that kind of lifestyle and he can in fact do whatever he wants, just like when he was a young kid. This part seems to fit more true to life for Spacey as I can easily see him just being this cool, laid back dude who smokes pot and buys a dream car and chills all day doing whatever makes him happy. That's why I think he fits so well into the role, not to mention he is such a great subtle comedian. He does things so dryly and sarcastically that you feel they don't work but I just absolutely love. Like when he tells Bening he bought the Firebird out front and then quietly pumps a fist and says "I rule," it's a moment that really works for me in believing the character. He is a man who has given up caring and is fed up with playing his familial role when he gets nothing out of it. I'd say he's a bit selfish but how many of us aren't when it comes to being happy? Spacey is so subtly funny throughout this film and is one reason I like his character so much, probably because it matches my own sense of humor. Another thing to note is that Spacey is probably one of the best at doing voice over work, to the point that it adds to his overall performance and makes it stronger. This is a really great performance overall and Spacey really did deserve his second Oscar win for this role.
Russell Crowe - The Insider
This is kind of interesting to watch again after seeing Crowe's other performances because you see pieces of those characters in this role. Crowe plays a tobacco scientist who is fired but also blew the whistle on cigarettes being addictive which Big Tobacco denied repeatedly. Crowe's character has this pulsing, just under the surface anger that comes out every so often and also demonstrates some paranoid tendencies. So this character is sort of the primer for his roles in Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind. The thing about this performance is that it seems too much like acting, like each little thing he does is a deliberate choice whether it's shrugging his shoulders when he's upset or tumbling down his front yard when running after some detectives. It can be especially noticeable when Al Pacino is acting opposite him in a very free flowing, natural style. I think Crowe is best at externalizing his pain and anguish and anger after keeping them bottled up for a bit. That's essentially where his character stays, too, right on the edge of exploding or breaking down. After a while you just want him to take a deep breath in and relax because watching his performance is almost exhausting for you, the viewer. It's a decent enough performance but I'd like a bit more range from the character than just brooding and angry. There's a couple moments with the family that try to humanize and bring the character back to a more relatable figure but I don't think it succeeds too well. It's an intense film but Crowe doesn't have to match the intensity to give a good performance. For the record, I much prefer Al Pacino as the better choice for a Best Actor nomination. I thought he was great as usual so maybe the Academy just wanted to anoint Crowe as their new man.
Richard Farnsworth - The Straight Story
I had never heard of this film or performance or actor until I started this project, and once I did, I couldn't wait to finally watch it because it's the first unknown (as far as the men are concerned) that I've come across. Then you realize it's a Disney film directed by David Lynch of all people, well that just piqued my curiosity even more! It reminds me of an Alexander Payne story and I could see this being shot in black and white, a la Nebraska. I'm glad it was done by Lynch, though, because it has some really great direction. This was Farnsworth's second Oscar nomination and would be his last film ever. Knowing the background of the film makes his performance even more poignant and interesting. Farnsworth was diagnosed with terminal bone cancer yet did the film anyway and his performance is magnificent. He is a man of few words in this film, preferring to let his acting do the talking and it's quite admirable. It's as authentic a performance as you'll ever find and that's because if I never knew Farnsworth was an actor before I would have sworn this was a real life portrayal. His stories while out driving his tractor seem personal in nature and not scripted, which speaks to his acting ability and just how raw and real the performance really is. It's really heartbreaking at times and just a genuine performance. Shit, if you don't cry at least once, you have no heart. Farnsworth is so unbelievably honest and real in his performance that I guarantee you will love it. To think this is a film and performance I never would have watched, yet I like it so, so much!
Sean Penn - Sweet and Lowdown
I feel I have to preface any Sean Penn nomination with I think he's a shitty person but a pretty great actor and it's unfortunate I have to do that. I must say that I was somewhat surprised that Penn was a leading man in a Woody Allen film but I guess also not so surprised. He actually fits extremely well into the typical Allen leading man role which I don't think I would have guessed. Penn plays a man who is the second best guitar player in the world (after Django Reinhardt) and is a womanizer, alcholic, overall miserable human being getting by on his immense talent. I think going backwards in this project affords me the ability to make this connection between Penn's Oscar nominated performances: this performance kinda reminds me of his I am Sam character. There are similar mannerisms and vocal inflections/intonations and it's almost a gateway between regular Penn and retard Penn. I don't mean that in a disparaging way, it's just that the two characters do seem to share a lot of similar styles almost, so I can see where Sam was developed from this possibly since I don't know for sure. But besides that, Penn does have an old school Hollywood leading man vibe going on which I kinda like. It doesn't surprise me that this was pretty much written in the 70s but shelved until now and feels like it could have been written in the 50s or at least portrayed by a 50s era leading man with ease. That's why I could see a George Clooney type excelling in the role. There are times when Penn is too quirky and eccentric with his acting but I think he does a good enough job with the character so that I wasn't completely turned off at the mention of his name. He's a great actor and he shows it time and again, just like he does in this film.
Denzel Washington - The Hurricane
I hate to say this but how many angry black man performances are too many when it comes to watching Denzel? I know that's a terribly loaded question because I don't want to be confused with slighting black actors but when you've seen him play an angry black man once, what's new that he can bring to the 5th time he's played that character in a different film? Part of that is the fact that those are the roles that black men get to play and is a major part of our cultural heritage and identity. We have a long way to go before we stop giving slave, prisoner, gangster, and radical roles to blacks and something else becomes the new norm. So obviously my point is that these are the roles that Denzel gets to choose from and that's just what we are going to get for right now. It's also the type of roles he seems best suited for anyway. Ones where he can tap into the submerged anger with ease and bring an intensity to a character that needs a voice. It's no different in The Hurricane where he portrays a once promising boxer who gets wrongly sent to jail on a triple murder charge. You can already tell how angry Denzel is from just reading that line. He does have his moments of redemption and towards the end he becomes this scholarly, peace spouting man that feels too sanctimonious for the film but at least Denzel can make the turn look effortless. There's also a scene where he is in solitary and has to act against his imaginary self and actually kinda surprised me that Denzel could pull that off without looking too ridiculous. I can't say I'm a big fan of this performance because I've seen Denzel pull this off better in Malcolm X and a couple of his other films, even if you leave the post 1999 ones out of the equation. It's just too familiar for me to give it much love.
Best Actor always seems to provide a pretty good group of actors year in, year out and this year is no exception. Just by name alone it's big with 4 Oscar winners in the group. Sean Penn was decent, surprisingly enough, in a Woody Allen film I actually enjoyed. If that's my 5th best, then it's not a bad year. I'd put Crowe as 4th just because it's so underwhelming and almost a primer for his future work, plus I just don't think I'm a fan of his acting style, honestly. Next would be Denzel, right in the middle for his not as good as he can be work. It's not bad, but I've felt I've seen him do the role better already. Now comes the tough part: Spacey and Farnsworth. I'll say I'm very happy with Spacey winning this year in real life. I love the performance and think it's really great. But damn, if Farnsworth didn't blow me away! Making him my number one is a bit easier seeing as how Spacey already had an Oscar before this one. If the Academy is going to do veteran and lifetime Oscars, why the hell not with a performance like Farnsworth's? Quite the year.
Oscar Winner: Kevin Spacey - American Beauty
My Winner: Richard Farnsworth - The Straight Story
Kevin Spacey
Denzel Washington
Russell Crowe
Sean Penn
Friday, February 5, 2016
Leading Actress 1999
I like when I have a lot of nominees that I haven't seen because it opens up the possibility that among them is a hidden gem. That's kind of become my aim or goal now with this project. To finish it obviously, but to also find some film or performance I've never seen that I can eventually call one of my favorites of all time. It's only a matter of time before that becomes reality.
1999 Best Actress
Hilary Swank - Boys Don't Cry
I was always wondering just how I'd receive this performance after reading about it for so long. Yes, I knew Swank de-glamorized herself and became as boyish as possible. And yes, I know the Academy LOVES when an actress steps out of the norm and plays something ugly, or in this case, manish. From that, it looks like an easy win but how does it really measure up, especially after going toe to toe with some Oscar giants in Bening, Moore, and Streep? I'd say Swank held her own against the others pretty damn well. She undergoes quite the physical transformation to the point where there were times if I didn't know better, I'd swear Brandon was actually a man. Swank threw herself full force into the physical part of the role but we all know physical doesn't make a performance click, so how does that play out? There's a lot to like because it is so much more than looking like a man. Swank is still a great actress when she wants to be and can handle the anxious, amped up nature of Brandon who is always on the alert and defensive for being found out that he never quite settles in or down comfortably. There's a longing that's very tangible, too, and drives home the point that Brandon wants nothing more than to belong and fit in. There's also the delusion that he's convincing enough and that his lifestyle won't matter much because his dreams and goals are so big. That's a heck of a lot for a woman to externalize as a man without coming off as forcing anything untrue. For every bit of confidence, Swank has to round it out with self conscious loathing. There's so many things that Swank has to do right so that the character of Brandon succeeds that it's amazing she doesn't sink under the weight of it all. It makes the physical part seem easy in comparison. It's a character that at once understands that society isn't accepting of his true self and incredulous that he can't just go out and live his life and have fun with the chicks he encounters. This is a layered performance that you can keep peeling back the layers and find something new to appreciate over and over. I wasn't sure how I'd like this performance and I'd have to say I like it very much.
Annette Bening - American Beauty
Up until this point, I've been kinda harsh on Annette Bening's performances. I stand by my previous reviews but I'd like to say that I actually like her performance here as the career driven wife and mother who is out of touch with her family. I know the performance has it's detractors, that Bening is a shrill caricature of a woman who is made to exist in a male fantasy dominated world. But I think that's part of the point of her character and Bening knows this and executes her character's flaws to almost perfection. She is the career driven woman who pretends things are good while living in a sexless marriage with a daughter who hates her and a job that doesn't quite satisfy. She has her material possessions and her phony familial rituals but we all know deep down she is defeated. I think Bening portrays this remarkably well and her suburban woman character is as it should be: a shrill caricature of a working woman. She sleeps around with a more successful man because she wants to be with someone important and in charge, not like the passenger her husband has become. Bening plays the role at full steam during most of the scenes, the point that looking and acting the part means you are the part in regards to being the successful wife and mother. Keeping up that fake smile while showing a run down house, congratulating her daughter and abruptly saying it's time go, calling out her husband at dinner in the happily sarcastic tone. These are all choices by Bening to bring her character to greater life and she succeeds. The film focuses more on Spacey's character so we don't get to see the full breakdown or change in Bening's character but that's not her fault. She does well with the material she is given and creates a very vivid portrait of the phony suburbanite working woman. It's a performance I enjoyed, and even more so because this is a wholly created character and not just becoming some real life person. I find roles like these to be a little more interesting. Bening was close to winning and it's hard to deny she was one of the best performances of the year.
Janet McTeer - Tumbleweeds
When a performance like this gets into the Best Actress group that usually seems to mean one of two things: either it's a very strong, can't miss performance or it's an incredibly weak year. This is the weak year nomination. There were two women duking it out for the win this year (Swank and Bening) and the rest of the nominations were essentially just filler. That's pretty harsh to say, but just take a look at those performances and tell me they blow you away. McTeer was interesting because I last saw her as a man in Albert Nobbs (pukes) so this is like my first introduction to her as a woman and it's a bit jarring. She plays a flighty blonde woman with a strong southern accent who is constantly on the move because of failed marriage after failed marriage with her daughter in tow. It's very much a mother-daughter movie and the two women feed off each other really well. They have great chemistry together and make for an enjoyable watch. McTeer's character kinda says and does what she wants in that southern style and quickly becomes very annoying because of that fact. She cares about her daughter somewhat and cares about being with someone more so but she doesn't seem to make the concerted effort to build a real family life. When things get tough, she just packs up and leaves and her character is just so flighty and like a dimwitted blonde that it's grating to watch. The performance as a whole is fine but if you really start to look into it, there's a lot of fault to be found in the character which McTeer is unable to overcome. Yes, the mother-daughter relationship is really great and the single mother thing is interesting, but everything else just doesn't work for me. I want to slap some sense into her at times because she's so ditzy and off in her own world. This is a movie I would have never watched if not for the project and I'm always grateful that I get to watch these little films, but I also wish that if these get nominated that I'll be watching great, memorable performances and not one's like this. McTeer is alright and that's about as praiseworthy as I can be.
Julianne Moore - The End of the Affair
It's funny that a couple blogs I read about this performance both said pretty much the same thing about Julianne Moore. It was basically oh here's Moore getting nominated again for a weepy role and one where she gets naked a lot in. They mentioned how she was the darling of the Academy and seemed to express exhaustion at yet another inclusion of one of her performances at the Oscar's. It's interesting how over saturation can do that to you and frame how you feel about a certain actress because the Academy keeps going to them time after time. The same can be said for the woman under this one, who routinely gives great performances but could get nominated for simply just showing up if she wanted. Moore's performance here is very derivative of a lot of her other nominated work. She obviously plays a type and that can work well at times but at other times it can be quite boring. I'd call her performance here as a woman who has an affair, cuts it off, then rekindles it mostly boring. The first half of the film sort of tells Ralph Fiennes version of events and Moore is given nothing to do other than have sex and act melodramatic. Once it flips perspectives in the second half, Moore is able to do a bit more but not that much more. We see that there is more going on than just having sex and being weepy. She struggles internally with guilt and longing and with a promise to God. Unfortunately, that doesn't bring too much out of Moore who remains somewhat the same the whole way through the film. I feel Moore is to vague in her emotions and portrayal and it makes for a performance that you just can't get behind. She offers you no reason to care about her as a character and that's a huge issue for me. Why do two men fall so in love with her when I can't stand to see her on screen because she's so boring? I don't know and I suspect the Academy just voted the name in and not the performance.
Meryl Streep - Music of the Heart
It's hard to get mad at another Streep nomination when she gives such an earnest performance like this one. If you'll excuse the bad wordplay, this is a performance from the heart. You can tell Streep really wanted to bring her best to this message film about how music can change lives and open doors, especially for inner city kids. Obviously this is a film you've seen countless times before, usually with the same message and another actor giving an impassioned performance as the music teacher. Streep brings her gravitas and genuine likability to her role and you get sucked into the film as a result. Would I choose to watch this on purpose? Probably not, but with Streep it becomes something you have to check out at least once. It's a good performance, standard Streep fare that belies just how good she really is. She learned how to play the violin for this and she gives another accent that you don't even notice is an actual accent. I'm not going to try to make this out to be better than it is, but really there's not much to dislike about Streep here. It's a feel good performance made just a little bit better by Streep's involvement and you can understand with this role why the Academy keeps rewarding her with nominations.
This was a two women fight from the beginning with both Swank and Bening fighting it out for the win. Bening was the veteran who was due and Swank was the up-and-comer who uglified herself and became a man. The Academy went with Swank and I probably would, too. Hard to watch her performance and not come away extremely impressed. That's why she wins for me. Bening is the runner up but I did like her role, as well. Everyone else was just filler and it honestly looked like that's what the three were. I liked Streep's role a bit more than I thought but it would never have been close to a win even in a weak year - still, I liked it. Then McTeer who was decent but also annoying comes in 4th before we get to a truly boring performance from Moore and one I'll never watch again. Not the best year for Best Actress, but I'm coming to expect that now.
Oscar Winner: Hilary Swank - Boys Don't Cry
My Winner: Hilary Swank - Boys Don't Cry
Annette Bening
Meryl Streep
Janet McTeer
Julianne Moore
1999 Best Actress
Hilary Swank - Boys Don't Cry
I was always wondering just how I'd receive this performance after reading about it for so long. Yes, I knew Swank de-glamorized herself and became as boyish as possible. And yes, I know the Academy LOVES when an actress steps out of the norm and plays something ugly, or in this case, manish. From that, it looks like an easy win but how does it really measure up, especially after going toe to toe with some Oscar giants in Bening, Moore, and Streep? I'd say Swank held her own against the others pretty damn well. She undergoes quite the physical transformation to the point where there were times if I didn't know better, I'd swear Brandon was actually a man. Swank threw herself full force into the physical part of the role but we all know physical doesn't make a performance click, so how does that play out? There's a lot to like because it is so much more than looking like a man. Swank is still a great actress when she wants to be and can handle the anxious, amped up nature of Brandon who is always on the alert and defensive for being found out that he never quite settles in or down comfortably. There's a longing that's very tangible, too, and drives home the point that Brandon wants nothing more than to belong and fit in. There's also the delusion that he's convincing enough and that his lifestyle won't matter much because his dreams and goals are so big. That's a heck of a lot for a woman to externalize as a man without coming off as forcing anything untrue. For every bit of confidence, Swank has to round it out with self conscious loathing. There's so many things that Swank has to do right so that the character of Brandon succeeds that it's amazing she doesn't sink under the weight of it all. It makes the physical part seem easy in comparison. It's a character that at once understands that society isn't accepting of his true self and incredulous that he can't just go out and live his life and have fun with the chicks he encounters. This is a layered performance that you can keep peeling back the layers and find something new to appreciate over and over. I wasn't sure how I'd like this performance and I'd have to say I like it very much.
Annette Bening - American Beauty
Up until this point, I've been kinda harsh on Annette Bening's performances. I stand by my previous reviews but I'd like to say that I actually like her performance here as the career driven wife and mother who is out of touch with her family. I know the performance has it's detractors, that Bening is a shrill caricature of a woman who is made to exist in a male fantasy dominated world. But I think that's part of the point of her character and Bening knows this and executes her character's flaws to almost perfection. She is the career driven woman who pretends things are good while living in a sexless marriage with a daughter who hates her and a job that doesn't quite satisfy. She has her material possessions and her phony familial rituals but we all know deep down she is defeated. I think Bening portrays this remarkably well and her suburban woman character is as it should be: a shrill caricature of a working woman. She sleeps around with a more successful man because she wants to be with someone important and in charge, not like the passenger her husband has become. Bening plays the role at full steam during most of the scenes, the point that looking and acting the part means you are the part in regards to being the successful wife and mother. Keeping up that fake smile while showing a run down house, congratulating her daughter and abruptly saying it's time go, calling out her husband at dinner in the happily sarcastic tone. These are all choices by Bening to bring her character to greater life and she succeeds. The film focuses more on Spacey's character so we don't get to see the full breakdown or change in Bening's character but that's not her fault. She does well with the material she is given and creates a very vivid portrait of the phony suburbanite working woman. It's a performance I enjoyed, and even more so because this is a wholly created character and not just becoming some real life person. I find roles like these to be a little more interesting. Bening was close to winning and it's hard to deny she was one of the best performances of the year.
Janet McTeer - Tumbleweeds
When a performance like this gets into the Best Actress group that usually seems to mean one of two things: either it's a very strong, can't miss performance or it's an incredibly weak year. This is the weak year nomination. There were two women duking it out for the win this year (Swank and Bening) and the rest of the nominations were essentially just filler. That's pretty harsh to say, but just take a look at those performances and tell me they blow you away. McTeer was interesting because I last saw her as a man in Albert Nobbs (pukes) so this is like my first introduction to her as a woman and it's a bit jarring. She plays a flighty blonde woman with a strong southern accent who is constantly on the move because of failed marriage after failed marriage with her daughter in tow. It's very much a mother-daughter movie and the two women feed off each other really well. They have great chemistry together and make for an enjoyable watch. McTeer's character kinda says and does what she wants in that southern style and quickly becomes very annoying because of that fact. She cares about her daughter somewhat and cares about being with someone more so but she doesn't seem to make the concerted effort to build a real family life. When things get tough, she just packs up and leaves and her character is just so flighty and like a dimwitted blonde that it's grating to watch. The performance as a whole is fine but if you really start to look into it, there's a lot of fault to be found in the character which McTeer is unable to overcome. Yes, the mother-daughter relationship is really great and the single mother thing is interesting, but everything else just doesn't work for me. I want to slap some sense into her at times because she's so ditzy and off in her own world. This is a movie I would have never watched if not for the project and I'm always grateful that I get to watch these little films, but I also wish that if these get nominated that I'll be watching great, memorable performances and not one's like this. McTeer is alright and that's about as praiseworthy as I can be.
Julianne Moore - The End of the Affair
It's funny that a couple blogs I read about this performance both said pretty much the same thing about Julianne Moore. It was basically oh here's Moore getting nominated again for a weepy role and one where she gets naked a lot in. They mentioned how she was the darling of the Academy and seemed to express exhaustion at yet another inclusion of one of her performances at the Oscar's. It's interesting how over saturation can do that to you and frame how you feel about a certain actress because the Academy keeps going to them time after time. The same can be said for the woman under this one, who routinely gives great performances but could get nominated for simply just showing up if she wanted. Moore's performance here is very derivative of a lot of her other nominated work. She obviously plays a type and that can work well at times but at other times it can be quite boring. I'd call her performance here as a woman who has an affair, cuts it off, then rekindles it mostly boring. The first half of the film sort of tells Ralph Fiennes version of events and Moore is given nothing to do other than have sex and act melodramatic. Once it flips perspectives in the second half, Moore is able to do a bit more but not that much more. We see that there is more going on than just having sex and being weepy. She struggles internally with guilt and longing and with a promise to God. Unfortunately, that doesn't bring too much out of Moore who remains somewhat the same the whole way through the film. I feel Moore is to vague in her emotions and portrayal and it makes for a performance that you just can't get behind. She offers you no reason to care about her as a character and that's a huge issue for me. Why do two men fall so in love with her when I can't stand to see her on screen because she's so boring? I don't know and I suspect the Academy just voted the name in and not the performance.
Meryl Streep - Music of the Heart
It's hard to get mad at another Streep nomination when she gives such an earnest performance like this one. If you'll excuse the bad wordplay, this is a performance from the heart. You can tell Streep really wanted to bring her best to this message film about how music can change lives and open doors, especially for inner city kids. Obviously this is a film you've seen countless times before, usually with the same message and another actor giving an impassioned performance as the music teacher. Streep brings her gravitas and genuine likability to her role and you get sucked into the film as a result. Would I choose to watch this on purpose? Probably not, but with Streep it becomes something you have to check out at least once. It's a good performance, standard Streep fare that belies just how good she really is. She learned how to play the violin for this and she gives another accent that you don't even notice is an actual accent. I'm not going to try to make this out to be better than it is, but really there's not much to dislike about Streep here. It's a feel good performance made just a little bit better by Streep's involvement and you can understand with this role why the Academy keeps rewarding her with nominations.
This was a two women fight from the beginning with both Swank and Bening fighting it out for the win. Bening was the veteran who was due and Swank was the up-and-comer who uglified herself and became a man. The Academy went with Swank and I probably would, too. Hard to watch her performance and not come away extremely impressed. That's why she wins for me. Bening is the runner up but I did like her role, as well. Everyone else was just filler and it honestly looked like that's what the three were. I liked Streep's role a bit more than I thought but it would never have been close to a win even in a weak year - still, I liked it. Then McTeer who was decent but also annoying comes in 4th before we get to a truly boring performance from Moore and one I'll never watch again. Not the best year for Best Actress, but I'm coming to expect that now.
Oscar Winner: Hilary Swank - Boys Don't Cry
My Winner: Hilary Swank - Boys Don't Cry
Annette Bening
Meryl Streep
Janet McTeer
Julianne Moore
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Supporting Actor 1999
Ya know, sometimes I get so geeked about this project where I'll be at work bored and start thinking about all the stuff I've got left to watch and then maybe I'll read about the films or peruse other blogs and I just get so pumped and excited about it. It's an awesome feeling and I finally feel like I'm starting to get into the part of this project where I'm not bored. Not that I was before, but I was more anxious to get to films I haven't seen 5 times already. Now I'm getting to those films and I'm stoked to watch things I've been wanting to watch for years. I haven't seen 3 of these nominees yet and that's a wonderful feeling to finally tick the box of having seen them.
1999 Best Supporting Actor
Michael Caine - The Cider House Rules
Okay, let's be honest: the first thing you noticed about this performance (if you've even seen this dreadful movie) is that accent! It drifts in and out of Caine's normal accent to that of a New Englander. It kinda pulls your attention away from the film and you start to try to catch the slip ups. Besides the accent thing, what is there to the performance? Not much. Caine is a doctor in Maine who works at an orphanage and also helps deliver babies and does abortions. He teaches Tobey Maguire's character how to do the same and sleeps with the nurses and is addicted to ether. All of that sounds more interesting than it really is. This is purely the Academy wanting to reward Caine the man instead of rewarding the best performance of the year because this one doesn't even come close! I would rather vote for everyone else on this list first and I hate that he won here because he already had an Oscar! It's not like he was due and he would be nominated again a couple years later, so I don't understand the push to reward him again. I did read somewhere that he really wanted to win another one so he could accept it in person since he was doing like Jaws 12 or something when he won his first one but that's a weak reason to give him another Oscar. I would love to hear someone try and convince me he was worthy of the win because I'm just not seeing anything in this performance that looks worthy enough.
Tom Cruise - Magnolia
This should have been your 1999 winner and is a really great performance from Tom Cruise. The whole film itself is really interesting and a big part of that is Cruise's character. He plays a pick up artist who commands a seminar on how to get women to like you through any means necessary. He's a charismatic public speaker, intoning all those self help/religious fanatic/motivational speaker types who are electric on stage getting people to believe anything they say. It's somewhat of a departure from what you are used to from Cruise as it's not the leading man role and not an action packed role, either. He fits extremely well within the Paul Thomas Anderson landscape and adheres to his supporting role without trying to become the main focus. To go along with the pick up artist scumbag vibe, we get another side of him through an interview where we see he's a bit frenetic and full of himself, putting on a show whether on stage or not. The interviewer asks some deeply personal questions and we see the change inside of Cruise as he thinks things over. Cruise doesn't reveal too much here but it still works to show how much depth the character has and then we see Cruise go to his father's death bed and get even more honesty from him. It's seriously one of Cruise's best performances because it's so low key and so honest and so unexpected. This was leagues better than the crap that did win and it's unfortunate that Cruise was robbed. Just watch it and you'll see what I mean.
Michael Clarke Duncan - The Green Mile
On another blog I read, this performance was labeled as the "magical Negro" role and yeah, that pretty much sums up Duncan in The Green Mile. It was kind of a slight but also an admission that this is what the Academy nominates for black actors. That's kind of a sad truth but I'm sure Duncan didn't mind. You take what you can get and make the most of it. That's exactly what he did, too, in a role that seem perfectly fitted just for him. I mean really, can you imagine anyone else in this role? This was Duncan's and Duncan's alone. He brought the humanity to a character that's a bit dimwitted but full of so much heart. Duncan makes all of those competing versions of John Coffey work tremendously well together. He can be powerful and menacing as well as meek and child-like. It might get laid on a little too thick at times, but it's the story and writing asking that of Duncan. There's an obvious Jesus Christ correlation with John Coffey (JC, come on) that's not too subtle and speaks to Coffey's righteousness. He works miracles and seems to dole out his own righteous indignation when it's deserved. Duncan may not be truly Christ-like, but he is far better than a simple "magical Negro" that's for sure. This is a pretty tough role that could have ended up looking like a giant mess, but Duncan made sure we got a magical performance instead.
Jude Law - The Talented Mr. Ripley
What an interesting film! Was not expecting that much intrigue but I guess I should have known a Patricia Highsmith film would have a lot of it. In fact she wrote the story Carol is based on, which makes sense, and I saw The Two Faces of January which is by her as well and looks strikingly like this film, setting and plot. Anyway, this one concerns Law as an American ex-patriot living in Italy and enjoying his cavalier lifestyle. Matt Damon shows up after duping Law's father into going to Italy to track Law down and bring him back to America since Law's mom is ill and his dad wants him to not be a playboy anymore. So what we get is Law being a carefree, jazz loving, womanizing American enjoying the benefits of a rich life in Italy with a beautiful woman who seems to forgive his indiscretions and stays with him. This is basically the role Jude Law was born to play, although if he could use his British accent it might be even better. He is the carefree ex-pat who is totally engrossed in his own life and loves every second of not having responsibilities. He's a fit, handsome, charismatic man who does whatever he likes and lives a life of luxury you and I could only dream of. Damon's character takes note and wants to be him and creepily invades his life. The whole point is that Law is this ideal man: is rich, handsome, plays jazz, has a beautiful girl, can speak the local language, and everyone loves him. Law plays that role perfectly. He begins to question Damon's intentions and then pays for that but for that hour that Law is onscreen, he gives a good performance as the prima donna rich guy who is great at everything in life. I can definitely see why he was nominated and I feel there may be some envy behind it, but Law is good and this is a decent performance.
Hayley Joel Osment - The Sixth Sense
Okay, so I get that Bruce Willis was considered the lead actor for this film, but come one let's be real, Osment is the true lead since the entire story and film focuses on him and what he sees and does. I think this was more of wanting to reward Osment for his performance and knowing he'd have a tough time even getting nominated for Best Actor with that group, so Supporting seemed like the easier route. Anyway, that rant over with Osment delivers a very impressive performance. The kid came out of nowhere and really wowed people with his very serious turn as the kid who sees dead people. It's a juicy part and Osment does exactly what was needed for the role. It's something that could have easily gone off the rails. I think any other kid actor might have been too child actor-y, you know where the child wants to pretend he's acting like a grown up and comes off too polished and on the nose about everything. Osment is believable which is a necessity for this type of role. We need to really think he can see ghosts and we also need to be able to empathize with his plight. Osment allows us to do both and while his big watery eyes sometimes flirts with being too precious, I think he nails most of the performance. He still comes off as a kid instead of a child actor which allows the film to succeed and he also holds his own opposite of Bruce Willis and Toni Collette. I think Osment's performance makes the entire film and without his ability the film wouldn't have been as big a hit as it was, so kudos to him. He definitely belongs as an Oscar nominated actor.
A pretty good group if you can overlook the bullshit that won. Seriously, it pisses me off that Caine won for that garbage and prevented Tom Cruise from getting a well deserved Oscar. Like why the hell did the Academy find the need to reward him for a second time for something like that? Ugh! Obviously Caine is one of the worst winners I've seen yet, so last he will be. Cruise wins outright because he was so damn good and it's such a departure from his norm. Osment is a well deserved second because without him, that movie fails miserably. Duncan in his iconic role is the 3rd followed by Law who was interesting and a worthy supporting player but just not as good as the others. I'm hoping that these type of categories are few and far between because I'd rather be happy after finishing a group than angry because of the results.
Oscar Winner: Michael Caine - The Cider House Rules
My Winner: Tom Cruise - Magnolia
Hayley Joel Osment
Michael Clarke Duncan
Jude Law
Michael Caine
1999 Best Supporting Actor
Michael Caine - The Cider House Rules
Okay, let's be honest: the first thing you noticed about this performance (if you've even seen this dreadful movie) is that accent! It drifts in and out of Caine's normal accent to that of a New Englander. It kinda pulls your attention away from the film and you start to try to catch the slip ups. Besides the accent thing, what is there to the performance? Not much. Caine is a doctor in Maine who works at an orphanage and also helps deliver babies and does abortions. He teaches Tobey Maguire's character how to do the same and sleeps with the nurses and is addicted to ether. All of that sounds more interesting than it really is. This is purely the Academy wanting to reward Caine the man instead of rewarding the best performance of the year because this one doesn't even come close! I would rather vote for everyone else on this list first and I hate that he won here because he already had an Oscar! It's not like he was due and he would be nominated again a couple years later, so I don't understand the push to reward him again. I did read somewhere that he really wanted to win another one so he could accept it in person since he was doing like Jaws 12 or something when he won his first one but that's a weak reason to give him another Oscar. I would love to hear someone try and convince me he was worthy of the win because I'm just not seeing anything in this performance that looks worthy enough.
Tom Cruise - Magnolia
This should have been your 1999 winner and is a really great performance from Tom Cruise. The whole film itself is really interesting and a big part of that is Cruise's character. He plays a pick up artist who commands a seminar on how to get women to like you through any means necessary. He's a charismatic public speaker, intoning all those self help/religious fanatic/motivational speaker types who are electric on stage getting people to believe anything they say. It's somewhat of a departure from what you are used to from Cruise as it's not the leading man role and not an action packed role, either. He fits extremely well within the Paul Thomas Anderson landscape and adheres to his supporting role without trying to become the main focus. To go along with the pick up artist scumbag vibe, we get another side of him through an interview where we see he's a bit frenetic and full of himself, putting on a show whether on stage or not. The interviewer asks some deeply personal questions and we see the change inside of Cruise as he thinks things over. Cruise doesn't reveal too much here but it still works to show how much depth the character has and then we see Cruise go to his father's death bed and get even more honesty from him. It's seriously one of Cruise's best performances because it's so low key and so honest and so unexpected. This was leagues better than the crap that did win and it's unfortunate that Cruise was robbed. Just watch it and you'll see what I mean.
Michael Clarke Duncan - The Green Mile
On another blog I read, this performance was labeled as the "magical Negro" role and yeah, that pretty much sums up Duncan in The Green Mile. It was kind of a slight but also an admission that this is what the Academy nominates for black actors. That's kind of a sad truth but I'm sure Duncan didn't mind. You take what you can get and make the most of it. That's exactly what he did, too, in a role that seem perfectly fitted just for him. I mean really, can you imagine anyone else in this role? This was Duncan's and Duncan's alone. He brought the humanity to a character that's a bit dimwitted but full of so much heart. Duncan makes all of those competing versions of John Coffey work tremendously well together. He can be powerful and menacing as well as meek and child-like. It might get laid on a little too thick at times, but it's the story and writing asking that of Duncan. There's an obvious Jesus Christ correlation with John Coffey (JC, come on) that's not too subtle and speaks to Coffey's righteousness. He works miracles and seems to dole out his own righteous indignation when it's deserved. Duncan may not be truly Christ-like, but he is far better than a simple "magical Negro" that's for sure. This is a pretty tough role that could have ended up looking like a giant mess, but Duncan made sure we got a magical performance instead.
Jude Law - The Talented Mr. Ripley
What an interesting film! Was not expecting that much intrigue but I guess I should have known a Patricia Highsmith film would have a lot of it. In fact she wrote the story Carol is based on, which makes sense, and I saw The Two Faces of January which is by her as well and looks strikingly like this film, setting and plot. Anyway, this one concerns Law as an American ex-patriot living in Italy and enjoying his cavalier lifestyle. Matt Damon shows up after duping Law's father into going to Italy to track Law down and bring him back to America since Law's mom is ill and his dad wants him to not be a playboy anymore. So what we get is Law being a carefree, jazz loving, womanizing American enjoying the benefits of a rich life in Italy with a beautiful woman who seems to forgive his indiscretions and stays with him. This is basically the role Jude Law was born to play, although if he could use his British accent it might be even better. He is the carefree ex-pat who is totally engrossed in his own life and loves every second of not having responsibilities. He's a fit, handsome, charismatic man who does whatever he likes and lives a life of luxury you and I could only dream of. Damon's character takes note and wants to be him and creepily invades his life. The whole point is that Law is this ideal man: is rich, handsome, plays jazz, has a beautiful girl, can speak the local language, and everyone loves him. Law plays that role perfectly. He begins to question Damon's intentions and then pays for that but for that hour that Law is onscreen, he gives a good performance as the prima donna rich guy who is great at everything in life. I can definitely see why he was nominated and I feel there may be some envy behind it, but Law is good and this is a decent performance.
Hayley Joel Osment - The Sixth Sense
Okay, so I get that Bruce Willis was considered the lead actor for this film, but come one let's be real, Osment is the true lead since the entire story and film focuses on him and what he sees and does. I think this was more of wanting to reward Osment for his performance and knowing he'd have a tough time even getting nominated for Best Actor with that group, so Supporting seemed like the easier route. Anyway, that rant over with Osment delivers a very impressive performance. The kid came out of nowhere and really wowed people with his very serious turn as the kid who sees dead people. It's a juicy part and Osment does exactly what was needed for the role. It's something that could have easily gone off the rails. I think any other kid actor might have been too child actor-y, you know where the child wants to pretend he's acting like a grown up and comes off too polished and on the nose about everything. Osment is believable which is a necessity for this type of role. We need to really think he can see ghosts and we also need to be able to empathize with his plight. Osment allows us to do both and while his big watery eyes sometimes flirts with being too precious, I think he nails most of the performance. He still comes off as a kid instead of a child actor which allows the film to succeed and he also holds his own opposite of Bruce Willis and Toni Collette. I think Osment's performance makes the entire film and without his ability the film wouldn't have been as big a hit as it was, so kudos to him. He definitely belongs as an Oscar nominated actor.
A pretty good group if you can overlook the bullshit that won. Seriously, it pisses me off that Caine won for that garbage and prevented Tom Cruise from getting a well deserved Oscar. Like why the hell did the Academy find the need to reward him for a second time for something like that? Ugh! Obviously Caine is one of the worst winners I've seen yet, so last he will be. Cruise wins outright because he was so damn good and it's such a departure from his norm. Osment is a well deserved second because without him, that movie fails miserably. Duncan in his iconic role is the 3rd followed by Law who was interesting and a worthy supporting player but just not as good as the others. I'm hoping that these type of categories are few and far between because I'd rather be happy after finishing a group than angry because of the results.
Oscar Winner: Michael Caine - The Cider House Rules
My Winner: Tom Cruise - Magnolia
Hayley Joel Osment
Michael Clarke Duncan
Jude Law
Michael Caine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)