Have I mentioned lately how glad I am that this category is only 5 films? Because I am. Though it would be awesome to see what other films would have made a 5-10 film list, this is plenty enough for me. By the time I get here, I'm usually a bit burnt out on the year and am glad I only have one or two left to watch since these get filtered out through the other categories. I'm always eager to move on to the next year and also watch films I've seen listed forever that seem larger than life to me. It's a cool feeling when I finally do both.
1995 Best Picture
Braveheart
There is certainly a lot to discuss when it comes to Braveheart. I'd be remiss if I didn't start off by mentioning the tons of historical inaccuracies this film propagates about William Wallace and history in general. Unforgivable is the fact that the Scots didn't even where kilts until hundreds of years after the events of the film. Then you can go down the list and mention that names, events, dates, characters meeting and existing are all inaccurate or just plain made up. It's almost too much to ignore. Yes, the film is compelling and full of action and adventure and beautiful scenery and amazing battles but if a historical epic isn't very accurate at all, should that detract from the film even if it's a fun watch? I say yes. It's all about William Wallace yet doesn't get all that much right about his life or the time period so this becomes just a fun, manly movie to watch instead of look to as some sort of high water mark for cinema. Then you can also talk about Mel Gibson's behavior toward gays and all of his controversies that were already very prevalent back in 1995. The treatment of gays in this film is obviously very laughable but not in the good comedic way. They are treated as a cheap joke and props instead of real characters. But that's more to Gibson's personality rather than the film though the film does no favors in that regard. With all of these issues, the film is still wildly entertaining. It may not be historically accurate but it is a fun ride to go on. It's beautifully shot and deserved it's Oscar for Cinematography. There's no doubt that Gibson has a good eye as a director even if he sacrifices reality for entertainment. I think as with all Director's who direct themselves in a film, most of the juicy, actorly moments go to Gibson himself. He gets all these big, flashy moments that work for the most part but can feel like scenes designed to showcase Gibson instead of William Wallace. All of the big speeches and soundbites sort of drive that theory home. But these are memorable scenes, too, so what does that say about Gibson as both actor and director? That he's very good at both! I think everyone has seen Braveheart at least once and it's one of those films that has entered the public's collective mind so everyone remembers at least something about it which is pretty remarkable. I don't mind Braveheart getting a nomination but I'm with a lot of others that say it's not a good winner just based on all of the above. A lot of blogs and people rank it as one of the worst Oscar winners in history because of all of that and I agree it's not a good winner. Not sure if it's one of the worst as I have a whole lot more to watch but I can see their point. I definitely wish something else had won this year.
Apollo 13
It had been so long since I had watched this film, so I was pretty pumped to finally watch it again. As I figured, it didn't disappoint at all. Apollo 13 has a lot of great things going for it. The main thing I like about it is that it takes the first 30 minutes and gets all the boring family stuff out of the way. We also see some of the training and have Gary Sinise get replaced by Kevin Bacon. Then it spends the remainder of the time focused on the mission itself and the three astronauts as they have to deal with their crisis. We do get some reactionary shots of the families every once in awhile and some fun scenes of mission control scrambling around and trying to figure out solutions to the problems the guys are facing. That's all fine but I'm glad that Ron Howard kept the focus on the astronauts without too much superfluous crap. The story sells itself. It doesn't need any extra familial tensions or whatever else you could throw in to make it I guess more accessible or something. Stay with the story and you'll have everyone on the edge of their seat as to what's going to happen next even when we already know they make it home safely. So I think that was a good choice by Howard because those scenes are so tense and captivating. The film also gets some great acting out of its leads and supporting players. Though I think my one main issue is that any female in this film gets short shrift because they don't have anything else to do other than look worried. Kathleen Quinlan got a nomination out of it but that's simply because the film itself did well. I think the women could have been better handled instead of relegated to nothing status. But I kinda get it because it's a manly movie about astronauts. I also have to say that the film looks wonderful, even after all these years. The space shots were remarkable and still impressive even though we've been spoiled in recent years with some great space films. I just wonder if this film were made today if it could be improved upon, because I'm not sure. Maybe some of the shots would look better and we'd spend more time looking at the spacecraft from the outside or something but Apollo 13 did a great job with it's effects. One other thing I wanted to mention is that it doesn't feel too rah rah American. The subject allows for that to happen but Howard doesn't overplay that side of the story instead sticking with a group of men trying to solve a problem and get home alive. I like that about Apollo 13. This is a film that easily could have won Best Picture and may get my vote after it's all said and done.
Babe
You might look down the list of Best Picture nominees and see this one and say what the heck, Babe?? That's a kids movie! And you'd be stating the obvious, but Babe is one hell of a film, no doubt about it and it totally deserves it's Best Picture nomination. Watching it just makes you feel good because it's that kind of film. It's about a pig that goes to a farm and thinks he's a sheep pig, rounding up the sheep like a sheepdog. It's told in these vignettes, which break the film up in about 10 minute or so increments though the story throughout is consistent. The film is only an hour and a half but it packs a great deal of story in those 90 minutes. There's so much going on that is really entertaining that I wish some other films would take note about the economy of force going on here. You don't need 3 hours if you can tell it in 90 minutes. The film also has great animatronic animal work by the Jim Henson Company to the point that I have no idea where the actual special effects are besides the mouths of the animals. Like did they use fake animals at any point? I don't know because the effects are so good and it never takes you out of the film in trying to guess where it is. It all feels natural and organic to the film which is great. The direction is actually fantastic, getting lots of great shots of the farm and the animals up close and capturing the action of the animals out in the fields. It's unobtrusive but also very dynamic which makes the film hum along at a great pace. The film is sad and dark at times but also heart warming, funny, and extremely likable. The sad parts are the selling of the sheep dogs and the killing of Maa and almost killing of Babe. I love that this kids film is willing to go to the dark places to tell it's story and get the point across about belonging and accepting and not rushing to judgment. I also love that a lot of scenes look like they are out of a kids book because it adds to the overall tone of the film as this small kids film but elevates it to this grandiose, important film. Babe is a credible film and a great addition to the list of Best Picture nominees and I'm so glad the Academy decided to reward it. I love this film.
Il Postino
Alright, so I wasn't really wanting to say more than like two sentences for this film. One, it doesn't deserve to be a Best Picture nominated film, at all. Two, it's Oscar nominated actor is not very good or interesting. I wanted to leave it at that but I must keep up appearances. The film is about Massimo Troisi's character who starts delivering mail, hence Il Postino (or The Postman), to Chilean poet, Pablo Neruda. It's kind of a slow film and it's only an hour and forty minutes. Troisi pesters Neruda to explain poetry and metaphors to him and then try and help him to win over Beatrice, a bar maid he likes. Troisi keeps to the background while the Neruda character dominates the story and the audience's attention. The story is also most entertaining when Neruda is around because he disappears in the last 30 minutes and the film just absolutely flounders. The time jumps considerably and often in the last 30 minutes that you forget that the characters have gone through years and years of change and I hate it. The end is sort of this wash of the story where everything is rushed through to get to the character dying. It runs out of steam when Neruda leaves the story because Troisi isn't interesting enough to sustain the film. It's also a very light film which isn't necessarily a bad thing but here it works against the film. Troisi is so sedated in his performance that it drags the film down for me. Like, okay he's learning what metaphors are - how cute. But then it goes on and on and then all the sudden the guy is married and having a kid and then dead. I don't care if that ruins it for you because you're not even going to watch it. It's really not all that interesting except for Neruda and besides that the film fails to entertain. If not for the sad circumstances surrounding this one since Troisi died the day after it wrapped filming, well, it wouldn't even have sniffed the Oscars. It's boring and very casual stuff. Not a good look for the Academy giving in to yet another Miramax bullying.
Sense and Sensibility
When it comes to thinking about 90s films, these are the type of films I first think about. Those old fashioned period pieces and Merchant-Ivory films that everyone lampoons but I'm highly looking forward to because they are always put down for being boring and for old women. Sense and Sensibility is a Jane Austen book and this adaptation (which won Emma Thompson an Adapted Screenplay Oscar) was filmed by Ang Lee. That's a lot of things going for it that keep it from being the stuffy old period pieces made strictly for women. From what I've read, Thompson changed the characters a bit to make them more likable and appealing for modern audiences and made the family more poor to highlight the depths of their fall. These changes work so well because the film and the story does feel more modern even though it is a period piece. The story is more relatable and the dialogue is not the stilted, wooden 18th Century word salad that other films are. It's nice to understand the characters and their motivations without having to digest dialogue meant to sound intelligent and proper. The acting is great throughout as the sisters are the standouts but also the suitors as well to some extent. We do get Hugh Grant's bumbling persona though it is tapered down quite a bit and Alan Rickman gives his Colonel Brandon some warmth and compassion you forget he's capable of after seeing him as a villain so much. The set pieces look great and Ang Lee does bring a bit of liveliness to the direction contributing to the modern feel. Most of all I found the story to be rather engaging. I wasn't sure if this would be a film I'd sit down and watch and get bored and have to finish over 2-3 days, but once I started it I was very much engrossed on what was going to happen to the sisters. The ending is a bit of a rushed let down but if the story is faithful to Austen's vision then that's more an indictment on her than on Lee or Thompson. This is one of the period piece films that makes sense as a Best Picture nominee and doesn't feel out of place in the slightest. I liked Sense and Sensibility a lot and am glad I've undertaken this project as I probably wouldn't have given it a chance otherwise.
A pretty interesting year when you really look at it, especially when you compare it to 1996. Big studio films winning out here over the indies, though Miramax does shoehorn one in on us. I definitely disliked Il Postino the most and really believe that without it's tragic backstory, it would never have made it on this list - and shouldn't have made it on here. It's not that good and it's not Oscar quality stuff. Would have loved to see Leaving Las Vegas or something else in this spot. Surprisingly, Braveheart is my 4th spot. It's inaccuracies are hard to forgive even if the film is entertaining. Not a good Best Picture winner. My middle film is Sense and Sensibility which I liked way more than I thought I would. It has a very modern feel even today so that was a nice bonus. Babe is such a likable film and very entertaining and a surprising Best Picture nominee. I can't quite pick it for my winner because it's so slight but I still love it anyway. My winner would be Apollo 13 which still holds up well years later for it's technical achievements. It's a very good film and an easy winner in this group. I think it would have held up as a good Oscar winner if it was chosen. All in all, not a bad year with some good surprises. Very much looking forward to 1994!
Oscar Winner: Braveheart
My Winner: Apollo 13
Babe
Sense and Sensibility
Braveheart
Il Postino
Friday, April 29, 2016
Friday, April 22, 2016
Leading Actor 1995
This year has felt like it's lasted really long because of my film festival and birthday and work all getting in the way. Finally almost done with 1995 and the Best Actor category offers up some very interesting dudes. I've wanted to see Nicolas Cage's winning performance forever and now I get to do so. I'm interested in seeing if Massimo Troisi is as bad and unwarranted as everyone says so. And then you get Dreyfuss, Hopkins, and Penn in performances they didn't win but some people love and hate. So a good group and hopefully I can get through this quickly.
1995 Best Actor
Nicolas Cage - Leaving Las Vegas
Not a good film to watch while having a beer and relaxing, that's for sure. I've always looked at this year and wondered just how good Cage was to get a win, especially with his current money grabbing roles in forgettable films lately. It's easy to forget he was a great, great actor which he still is when he wants to be. But I always looked at this and wondered if I'd like it. I heard great things about it over the years so I was glad to finally see for myself. Cage definitely knocks it out of the park. He's so good and so convincing that if someone told me he was constantly drunk for this film that I would believe them. Acting drunk in a film is tough. A lot of great actors really suck at it and make it so comically unbelievable you wonder if they've ever been drunk. But Cage is so utterly believable that it's scary. He plays a screenwriter who gets fired and decides to go to Vegas to drink himself to death. He meets Shue's hooker and they have a little romance. It's a really depressing and sad look at alcoholism and the honesty with which Cage portrays his character is admirable. He's not this super charming, likable, relatable guy. He's a pathetic, creepy, loser that has accepted he hates life and is going to kill himself. Even when he and Shue get together, there's no happy ending with him stopping drinking. He just looks at it as a nice distraction on his way to death. I like that Cage continues to drink until he dies because it feels more honest and real. He looks the part of a guy drinking himself to death with the pale skin and the sunken eyes that are half open shuffling around and having tremors when he wakes up. Thing is, this being Cage there is an opportunity for him to overact or at least act like some of his recent films but he never does this. He plays his character exactly how he should be played. There's never the portrayal that him being drunk is funny or noble or easy to be around. We are shown all the different stages of his alcoholism and Cage is great in each one from the eager to drink one, to the soused and talking in accents and cracking jokes, to the rage of losing control, to the blacking out and passing out stages. I don't think you can call this a romantic performance. It's a thing of beauty to watch and reminds me that Cage was/is a gifted actor. I wish we'd get more performances like this and not his roles for cash. This is definitely a great performance, though, and even though it's a tough watch I'm glad I saw it.
Richard Dreyfuss - Mr. Holland's Opus
This is a pretty cliched movie, one you've probably seen countless times. In this iteration, we have Dreyfuss as the reluctant music teacher who eventually settles into his job and ends up touching the lives of his students and fighting with the establishment to keep the curriculum and then the students give him a big ol thank you at the end when he's made to retire. It's basically the male version of Music of the Heart minus the inner city stuff going on. The Academy loves these type of movies and really, for whoever the lead role is, it's a showcase for them to shine. Dreyfuss is in almost all of this two plus hour movie and has to do a lot of leg work to keep this movie from going off the rails into sappy, cliche, boring territory. He also has to cover a bunch of different decades and change his appearance to match it. To say this is a dedicated performance would be an understatement. Dreyfuss definitely carries the movie and elevates it to something a little more dignified than cliche music teacher story. It's solid, veteran work but it's not something that's going to truly inspire and amaze you. You watch it and recognize he's a great actor but I don't think anyone is going to form an emotional attachment to the movie unless they are a music teacher or something. Not to denigrate Dreyfuss's work, though, since he is clearly the only reason to watch the movie. The story goes through different interactions with his students through the years focusing on one person who gets extra attention for various reasons. It's almost episodic so we see Dreyfuss teach a girl how to play an instrument and control her breathing, help a black kid find his rhythm and be able to keep wrestling because it helps him academically, showing another kid that he's not too good to do the little things and appreciate music, and mentors a talented singer who has a crush on him. Dreyfuss is very good in these one on one interactions and is very believable as a music teacher giving advice that applies not only to music, but to life. There's also the family life that causes big issues for Dreyfuss's character. His son is deaf and he doesn't think he can appreciate what dad does for a living and doesn't quite connect with his son until the end of the movie. Dreyfuss handles that inner growth and relationship well and it shows how natural he can be as an actor. The best I can say is that Dreyfuss is technically competent in this role, a solid veteran in a cliched movie that helps make it just slightly better.
Anthony Hopkins - Nixon
Hopkins had the difficult task of taking on such a mythologized man who everyone has an idea of in their head. Most people have also seen a ton of Nixon impersonations in the media so there is a lot riding against portraying such a unique looking and sounding man. That's without throwing the whole political angle into it, as well. I think the main thing to judge, fairly or not, is how well does Hopkins pull off looking and sounding like Nixon. For the most part, Hopkins looks like Hopkins and doesn't sound quite right. I do feel like that's partially a huge knock against Hopkins. I liken it to Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon who looks nothing like Nixon and just always sticks out in a negative way. Hopkins is at least more believable than Langella but there are lots of time where I'm paying more attention to the look and sound of the character than the film itself and it shouldn't be that way. I get that unless through CGI or amazing make-up that that will never happen but it's always going to be a point of contention. I do think that there are plenty of times in the film where Hopkins' acting really takes over and causes you to overlook the appearance thing and focus on the man underneath. I like a lot of his acting in the film honestly and feel he captures the vibe Oliver Stone is going for in making Nixon into a power drunk man who thinks he can't fail and shouldn't fail. I like how Hopkins keeps Nixon from being too crazy and paranoid at the end. Though I do want to note that there are times where the performance is more like imitating than true acting, more focused on getting the look down than in fully inhabiting the character. But there are times when Hopkins is able to give us something interesting. It's probably hard, too, to do in this Oliver Stone film that is highly stylized and doesn't leave a lot of opportunity for your normal biopic tendencies. That can be a good and bad thing but I think a film about Nixon needs to allow the main character some room to have a performance. I just think that President Nixon is an extremely tough character to pull off because it already comes with preconceived notions of the man. He is larger than life nowadays and that takes a strong performance along with a strong visual likeness to successfully pull off. I think Hopkins gives it his best shot which isn't quite good enough, but in a lesser actor's hands would have been a catastrophe. Faint praise, yes, but Hopkins does what he can to make the performance work. It just doesn't work all that much for me.
Sean Penn - Dead Man Walking
Sean Penn's first Oscar nomination. It's vintage Sean Penn stuff and it's easy to see why he was nominated here. He plays a death row inmate in Louisiana and his performance is a slick one. It's a fine, solid enough performance but I think the Sean Penn charm comes into play and might contribute to his being on this list. He'd been a bad boy in Hollywood and in some comedies and other minor things but this seemed to be his dramatic breakout along with Carlito's Way not that long before this one. So the Academy wants to hitch itself to a rising star and nominate him for an Oscar, something we've seen time and again from them. That's all conjecture on my part but it makes sense. His performance is good like I said and Penn does do a pretty good Louisiana accent in this. I'd say that's the standout thing about his performance. Penn puts up a facade of a tough guy in the beginning but does let down his guard when talking to Sarandon's character gradually and exposes the human being underneath the murderous criminal. I do like that Penn humanizes his character and is consistent with his performance. He does come off like a cool guy but it's genuine and apart from the other aspects of the performance. The relationship with Sarandon works well and they have an interesting chemistry between them. And Penn really sells to us that he's a dead man walking especially leading up to his execution. It doesn't ring as convoluted or false. There's no big pronouncements or overacting, just a nervous man who accepts his fate but doesn't want to die. I'd say this is one of the more subtle Penn performances I've watched and I can say I liked it. Like I said, easy to see why he was nominated for Best Actor.
Massimo Troisi - Il Postino
This was slightly difficult to find a decent English subtitled copy of, though nowhere near the worst so far to track down. I have heard a lot of bad things about this film and this performance which obviously makes me question whether it belongs even before I see it. But I know I need to watch it first to make up my own mind as the hive mind has been wrong before. My big issue with foreign nominations is something I've touched on before which is am I missing anything in the performance because I don't get the subtleties of a different culture or language? I think Troisi's performance translates well. I think my issue with his performance is that at times, the Pablo Neruda character (Philippe Noiret) takes over and Troisi fades to the background. Neruda is the star of the film and is the impetus for the whole story. And Noiret is able to carry the importance of Neruda well. Troisi gets relegated to a fanboy and I don't think it's worth a Best Actor nomination. Now, unfortunate circumstance is that Troisi died the day after the film wrapped of a heart attack after putting off heart surgery to finish the film. This is plainly and obviously a nod to an actor basically dying for his craft. If he doesn't die, I bet he doesn't get nominated and neither does the film. I failed to mention that Troisi is a postman (duh) who delivers mail to Neruda and then pesters him about how to write poems and how to get the girl he loves to fall in love with him. I just don't think Troisi carries the film all that well which is why I gravitate to Neruda. Troisi's character is kind of a meek guy, afraid to confront the woman he loves and unable to excite the viewer to keep interested. It's a very subdued performance but one that doesn't become stronger because of it's subtlety. Didn't really care for this performance and sorry, but if not for his death, this doesn't get nominated.
This is a pretty decent Best Actor group. Not the best, mind you, but decent. Troisi doesn't belong at all but he's the only one. Dreyfuss buoys a cliche film with a decent job at the music teacher changes lives role. We've seen it before and since but Dreyfuss is good. Hopkins is all over the place as Richard Nixon and it shows in the performance. It's good at times and kinda bad at others. Definite middle. Penn actually surprises and gives a really good performance as a death row inmate. I shouldn't say surprises because I've liked a lot of his stuff but I didn't think he'd be as good. Easy to see why he'd win 2 Oscars later. Cage is the pleasant surprise. I'd heard of his performance being great but wanted to find out for myself. Yeah, it's great. Really deserving win for him despite his recent crappy films. So glad I got to watch that one because I probably wouldn't have otherwise. A decent year, not great. Hoping 94 blows me away.
Oscar Winner: Nicolas Cage - Leaving Las Vegas
My Winner: Nicolas Cage - Leaving Las Vegas
Sean Penn
Anthony Hopkins
Richard Dreyfuss
Massimo Troisi
1995 Best Actor
Nicolas Cage - Leaving Las Vegas
Not a good film to watch while having a beer and relaxing, that's for sure. I've always looked at this year and wondered just how good Cage was to get a win, especially with his current money grabbing roles in forgettable films lately. It's easy to forget he was a great, great actor which he still is when he wants to be. But I always looked at this and wondered if I'd like it. I heard great things about it over the years so I was glad to finally see for myself. Cage definitely knocks it out of the park. He's so good and so convincing that if someone told me he was constantly drunk for this film that I would believe them. Acting drunk in a film is tough. A lot of great actors really suck at it and make it so comically unbelievable you wonder if they've ever been drunk. But Cage is so utterly believable that it's scary. He plays a screenwriter who gets fired and decides to go to Vegas to drink himself to death. He meets Shue's hooker and they have a little romance. It's a really depressing and sad look at alcoholism and the honesty with which Cage portrays his character is admirable. He's not this super charming, likable, relatable guy. He's a pathetic, creepy, loser that has accepted he hates life and is going to kill himself. Even when he and Shue get together, there's no happy ending with him stopping drinking. He just looks at it as a nice distraction on his way to death. I like that Cage continues to drink until he dies because it feels more honest and real. He looks the part of a guy drinking himself to death with the pale skin and the sunken eyes that are half open shuffling around and having tremors when he wakes up. Thing is, this being Cage there is an opportunity for him to overact or at least act like some of his recent films but he never does this. He plays his character exactly how he should be played. There's never the portrayal that him being drunk is funny or noble or easy to be around. We are shown all the different stages of his alcoholism and Cage is great in each one from the eager to drink one, to the soused and talking in accents and cracking jokes, to the rage of losing control, to the blacking out and passing out stages. I don't think you can call this a romantic performance. It's a thing of beauty to watch and reminds me that Cage was/is a gifted actor. I wish we'd get more performances like this and not his roles for cash. This is definitely a great performance, though, and even though it's a tough watch I'm glad I saw it.
Richard Dreyfuss - Mr. Holland's Opus
This is a pretty cliched movie, one you've probably seen countless times. In this iteration, we have Dreyfuss as the reluctant music teacher who eventually settles into his job and ends up touching the lives of his students and fighting with the establishment to keep the curriculum and then the students give him a big ol thank you at the end when he's made to retire. It's basically the male version of Music of the Heart minus the inner city stuff going on. The Academy loves these type of movies and really, for whoever the lead role is, it's a showcase for them to shine. Dreyfuss is in almost all of this two plus hour movie and has to do a lot of leg work to keep this movie from going off the rails into sappy, cliche, boring territory. He also has to cover a bunch of different decades and change his appearance to match it. To say this is a dedicated performance would be an understatement. Dreyfuss definitely carries the movie and elevates it to something a little more dignified than cliche music teacher story. It's solid, veteran work but it's not something that's going to truly inspire and amaze you. You watch it and recognize he's a great actor but I don't think anyone is going to form an emotional attachment to the movie unless they are a music teacher or something. Not to denigrate Dreyfuss's work, though, since he is clearly the only reason to watch the movie. The story goes through different interactions with his students through the years focusing on one person who gets extra attention for various reasons. It's almost episodic so we see Dreyfuss teach a girl how to play an instrument and control her breathing, help a black kid find his rhythm and be able to keep wrestling because it helps him academically, showing another kid that he's not too good to do the little things and appreciate music, and mentors a talented singer who has a crush on him. Dreyfuss is very good in these one on one interactions and is very believable as a music teacher giving advice that applies not only to music, but to life. There's also the family life that causes big issues for Dreyfuss's character. His son is deaf and he doesn't think he can appreciate what dad does for a living and doesn't quite connect with his son until the end of the movie. Dreyfuss handles that inner growth and relationship well and it shows how natural he can be as an actor. The best I can say is that Dreyfuss is technically competent in this role, a solid veteran in a cliched movie that helps make it just slightly better.
Anthony Hopkins - Nixon
Hopkins had the difficult task of taking on such a mythologized man who everyone has an idea of in their head. Most people have also seen a ton of Nixon impersonations in the media so there is a lot riding against portraying such a unique looking and sounding man. That's without throwing the whole political angle into it, as well. I think the main thing to judge, fairly or not, is how well does Hopkins pull off looking and sounding like Nixon. For the most part, Hopkins looks like Hopkins and doesn't sound quite right. I do feel like that's partially a huge knock against Hopkins. I liken it to Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon who looks nothing like Nixon and just always sticks out in a negative way. Hopkins is at least more believable than Langella but there are lots of time where I'm paying more attention to the look and sound of the character than the film itself and it shouldn't be that way. I get that unless through CGI or amazing make-up that that will never happen but it's always going to be a point of contention. I do think that there are plenty of times in the film where Hopkins' acting really takes over and causes you to overlook the appearance thing and focus on the man underneath. I like a lot of his acting in the film honestly and feel he captures the vibe Oliver Stone is going for in making Nixon into a power drunk man who thinks he can't fail and shouldn't fail. I like how Hopkins keeps Nixon from being too crazy and paranoid at the end. Though I do want to note that there are times where the performance is more like imitating than true acting, more focused on getting the look down than in fully inhabiting the character. But there are times when Hopkins is able to give us something interesting. It's probably hard, too, to do in this Oliver Stone film that is highly stylized and doesn't leave a lot of opportunity for your normal biopic tendencies. That can be a good and bad thing but I think a film about Nixon needs to allow the main character some room to have a performance. I just think that President Nixon is an extremely tough character to pull off because it already comes with preconceived notions of the man. He is larger than life nowadays and that takes a strong performance along with a strong visual likeness to successfully pull off. I think Hopkins gives it his best shot which isn't quite good enough, but in a lesser actor's hands would have been a catastrophe. Faint praise, yes, but Hopkins does what he can to make the performance work. It just doesn't work all that much for me.
Sean Penn - Dead Man Walking
Sean Penn's first Oscar nomination. It's vintage Sean Penn stuff and it's easy to see why he was nominated here. He plays a death row inmate in Louisiana and his performance is a slick one. It's a fine, solid enough performance but I think the Sean Penn charm comes into play and might contribute to his being on this list. He'd been a bad boy in Hollywood and in some comedies and other minor things but this seemed to be his dramatic breakout along with Carlito's Way not that long before this one. So the Academy wants to hitch itself to a rising star and nominate him for an Oscar, something we've seen time and again from them. That's all conjecture on my part but it makes sense. His performance is good like I said and Penn does do a pretty good Louisiana accent in this. I'd say that's the standout thing about his performance. Penn puts up a facade of a tough guy in the beginning but does let down his guard when talking to Sarandon's character gradually and exposes the human being underneath the murderous criminal. I do like that Penn humanizes his character and is consistent with his performance. He does come off like a cool guy but it's genuine and apart from the other aspects of the performance. The relationship with Sarandon works well and they have an interesting chemistry between them. And Penn really sells to us that he's a dead man walking especially leading up to his execution. It doesn't ring as convoluted or false. There's no big pronouncements or overacting, just a nervous man who accepts his fate but doesn't want to die. I'd say this is one of the more subtle Penn performances I've watched and I can say I liked it. Like I said, easy to see why he was nominated for Best Actor.
Massimo Troisi - Il Postino
This was slightly difficult to find a decent English subtitled copy of, though nowhere near the worst so far to track down. I have heard a lot of bad things about this film and this performance which obviously makes me question whether it belongs even before I see it. But I know I need to watch it first to make up my own mind as the hive mind has been wrong before. My big issue with foreign nominations is something I've touched on before which is am I missing anything in the performance because I don't get the subtleties of a different culture or language? I think Troisi's performance translates well. I think my issue with his performance is that at times, the Pablo Neruda character (Philippe Noiret) takes over and Troisi fades to the background. Neruda is the star of the film and is the impetus for the whole story. And Noiret is able to carry the importance of Neruda well. Troisi gets relegated to a fanboy and I don't think it's worth a Best Actor nomination. Now, unfortunate circumstance is that Troisi died the day after the film wrapped of a heart attack after putting off heart surgery to finish the film. This is plainly and obviously a nod to an actor basically dying for his craft. If he doesn't die, I bet he doesn't get nominated and neither does the film. I failed to mention that Troisi is a postman (duh) who delivers mail to Neruda and then pesters him about how to write poems and how to get the girl he loves to fall in love with him. I just don't think Troisi carries the film all that well which is why I gravitate to Neruda. Troisi's character is kind of a meek guy, afraid to confront the woman he loves and unable to excite the viewer to keep interested. It's a very subdued performance but one that doesn't become stronger because of it's subtlety. Didn't really care for this performance and sorry, but if not for his death, this doesn't get nominated.
This is a pretty decent Best Actor group. Not the best, mind you, but decent. Troisi doesn't belong at all but he's the only one. Dreyfuss buoys a cliche film with a decent job at the music teacher changes lives role. We've seen it before and since but Dreyfuss is good. Hopkins is all over the place as Richard Nixon and it shows in the performance. It's good at times and kinda bad at others. Definite middle. Penn actually surprises and gives a really good performance as a death row inmate. I shouldn't say surprises because I've liked a lot of his stuff but I didn't think he'd be as good. Easy to see why he'd win 2 Oscars later. Cage is the pleasant surprise. I'd heard of his performance being great but wanted to find out for myself. Yeah, it's great. Really deserving win for him despite his recent crappy films. So glad I got to watch that one because I probably wouldn't have otherwise. A decent year, not great. Hoping 94 blows me away.
Oscar Winner: Nicolas Cage - Leaving Las Vegas
My Winner: Nicolas Cage - Leaving Las Vegas
Sean Penn
Anthony Hopkins
Richard Dreyfuss
Massimo Troisi
Monday, April 18, 2016
Leading Actress 1995
Hey look every woman in this group has a last name that starts with an S with one that starts with a T. Probably the latest in the alphabet for all 5 women in Oscar history. Yes, I notice these stupid things and then think about them too much. I'm very interested in this group of ladies because these are some big names and I've only seen Stone which I can't even remember it's been so long. I'm fully prepared for a great Best Actress category.
1995 Best Actress
Susan Sarandon - Dead Man Walking
I always forget that Sarandon is an Oscar winning actress. Probably because I never really heard about this film and because I had no idea what it was about. It's like this win slipped under my radar and just stayed invisible until now. This would be one of, if not the first, Best Actress winners I couldn't name or remember if prompted to list them. Sarandon plays a nun who meets Sean Penn's death row inmate character and she is against the death penalty and he wants her help to appeal. It's definitely the type of film where a bunch of liberal Hollywood stars get together to make a message picture about the death penalty being bad. I don't mean that to sound like a terrible thing, either. The film, and Sarandon, never grab me or keep me interested. That's about all there is to it honestly. I recognize that she gave a solid enough performance, one that obviously lots of people and the Academy liked, but I was kinda bored while watching it. I don't even have anything against Sarandon, either, it just that I didn't feel anything for her performance. Sometimes it can be really difficult to describe why something didn't grab you and this is one of those times. It's good enough and Sarandon is warm and believable and I can understand why people loved it. She's caring and sensitive and loving and puts all her effort into the performance which is admirable. I can also see why this performance doesn't get ballyhooed as much as other Best Actress winners and the group she's in probably leads to the win. They are all good, not great type of performances and no one really stands out. Maybe the voters were sending a message about the death penalty or maybe it was just that Sarandon was due, I don't know. What I do know is that I don't really care about this performance and I'm going to leave it at that.
Elisabeth Shue - Leaving Las Vegas
I didn't realize that this was such a depressing and sad film! I always thought it was a lighthearted film about a drunk who meets a hooker and then live happily ever after. Oh no, that definitely doesn't happen here! Shue plays the hooker with a heart of gold which could/should/would be a cliche if not for her amazing performance. Seriously, the prostitute character is actually one of the most awarded professions when it comes to the female acting awards. That obviously says a lot about the roles women get and the films that are made but it's true nonetheless. Shue eschews of the familiar trappings of the hooker with a heart of gold and gives us something with feeling and humanity. You begin to realize how fucked up her world is that she turns to a man killing himself by drinking and falling in love with him and finding a kindred spirit. Shue's performance is touching in that she plays it so honestly. I believe her when she says she loves Cage's character. I believe that she's the needy, broken woman who just wants someone to connect with and find deeper meaning in. Shue makes her character entirely believable and it is some absolutely great work by her. I was totally engrossed whenever Shue was onscreen because she's so innocent and cute and loving and a real woman that you wonder just how did she become a hooker in Vegas and become so broken as a person to love an alcoholic unconditionally. I wanted to know more about her character because of Shue's performance. Hell, I wanted to watch more Shue performances and films because of this one! She's so endearing and makes an oddly interesting couple with Nic Cage that despite the subject matter, you kinda root for them to work out. This may not be a performance that wows everyone, but I definitely thought that it should have been the winner, especially when you compare it to all the others this year. This will go down to preference, but Shue is definitely my pick as the winner.
Sharon Stone - Casino
This is my mom's favorite movie. Which always makes me laugh because knowing her and knowing what Casino is, it is just funny because it's the last movie you'd guess was her favorite. Not that she's a stick in the mud just that it's Casino which is a Scorsese gangster flick and my mom is not anything like that lol. Anyway, my mom has great taste since Casino is a damn good Scorsese flick, one that gets overlooked when it comes to Scorsese films, De Niro films, and Pesci films. You could probably throw Sharon Stone films on to that pile because who realizes that Stone was/is an Oscar nominated actress? We all know her as the lady who flashed her pussy in Basic Instinct. In this film, she's pretty solid. The role doesn't give her all that much to do honestly but she is convincing and able in the role as is. Stone plays a hustler who ends up marrying De Niro's character who runs the casino. She was a hustler as mentioned who still kept in touch with her previous pimp, greased all the staff so she could get protection and favors and drugs when she needed them. She ends up divorcing De Niro and spiraling further into drug and alcohol addiction and then getting arrested for her part in the corruption of Vegas. That's her entire arc and as I said Stone does a good job with the material, it doesn't offer too much for her to actually do, acting wise anyway. Stone is beautiful and wears many elegant dresses and outfits and looks the part of a woman of ill repute who would fall in favor with a casino boss and become a wealthy woman. Stone plays all that just fine. She does devolve into drugs and alcohol and makes that believable and continues her relationship with her ex-pimp and then De Niro's best bud, Pesci so she has to be the crazy ex-wife persona. Her character is a lot of cliches but Stone at least makes the performance not so basic and cliche. Is it worthy of a win? Nah. I'd say this is the film's representation since maybe Il Postino pushed it out of Best Picture? Decent performance, okay Oscar nomination. This would make a great companion watch with The Wolf of Wall Street and even Goodfellas. Lot's of similarities to those films and would make a great Scorsese Day watch.
Meryl Streep - The Bridges of Madison County
This is the 10th Meryl Streep nomination I've seen for this project and I'm not sick of her at all. I could watch Meryl every year since she always gives interesting performances. Sure, I've disliked some of her nominations as just another Streep nom but she's so consistent and so interesting as an actress that I don't mind. I've even found her to be the better actress while watching other women in their nominations, so Meryl is obviously one of the greatest actors ever. In Bridges, Meryl plays a housewife in Iowa who is Italian having married a GI and come over. This is another one of Streep's accent films where she speaks with an Italian accent. The accent thing is one of Streep's specialties because she is able to give convincing, pitch perfect accents for her different characters from Dutch to English to Australian/New Zealand to Italian to Polish. She's one of the best ever at accents and it helps her performance here. The romance between her and Clint Eastwood is palpable and convincing and very real. This is the kind of film I would have hated and made fun without watching years ago and I kinda did that. I remember hating this film as a kid even though I never watched it because I knew it was a romantic film and why would anyone watch that stuff? Luckily, I've overcome those prejudices and learned to love film and I enjoy this film for what it is. Of note is that this apparently helped establish Streep as a middle aged woman star and love interest. From what I read online, this established her as a bankable star even though she was getting older which is ludicrous to think of because she's Meryl fucking Streep! Of course she's bankable! But what about her performance? I've gone on and on about other crap but how is she in this film? She's sweet and endearing and the budding romance between her and Clint is so engaging and engrossing that you easily root for them to hook up because they are so good together. It brings up a bunch of questions about love. It's kinda like Lost in Translation where people fall in love with each other knowing it can't last and still go through with it. This is the same. Streep and Eastwood have their romance though they know it will only last 4 days. I think most people have these types of relationships in their past, God knows I do, and it's a very universal thing. Streep is great here and I'm glad this isn't one of those boring Streep noms.
Emma Thompson - Sense and Sensibility
Interesting to note that Thompson won for Best Adapted Screenplay for having written this film, one of the few people ever to have a writing and acting award. She definitely did a great job adapting the source material (though I've never read the book) because it never lapses into the stuffy British period piece so many other films do. Thompson plays the elder sister Elinor, whose father has recently died and left them without an inheritance or place to live because of British law. Before moving out she meets the charming Edward Ferrars and the two hit it off. But since this is a period piece, class distinctions get in the way and the two aren't able to say how they feel and life moves on to the chagrin of both. Thompson looks a little too old to be playing the older sister since she looks more like a mother than an unmarried young lady. But if you overlook that, she does a good job with the role. She is essentially the voice of reason and sanity in this story, as she properly behaves by not acting impulsively on her feelings and being demure when it comes to not being able to say how she feels and having to accept it because that's her lot in life. Thompson is sort of even keeled throughout the film, acting rational when it comes to everything that life throws at her. There's no big crying scenes or loud wailing or huffily storming out of a dance or dinner or rushing into the arms of some other man she doesn't love - it's all sensible. That's what I like about the character and about Thompson's measured performance . I'm assuming that's what the title means but it fits Thompson perfectly. She may be this reasoned woman but she's still vulnerable and hurt by not being able to act on her feelings and Thompson emotes this wonderfully. She tries to be there for her sister when things don't go well for Marianne and she puts on a brave face when interacting with Edward knowing he's engaged to another woman. Thompson's sense of duty and understanding is impeccable. She's like the glue holding her family's life together. It's a good performance from Thompson that is steady and strong but not outstanding.
Honestly, this is probably the most evenly matched group I've seen yet. There is no clear number 5 because they all have some pretty good performances. They are all solid, I just may not be as entertained by them. My 5th would have to be Stone just because she is more of a cliche in her film than the others are and it's a bit disappointing because she could be used better. My 4th is Sarandon who I just never connected with and just didn't care about while watching her. I know she is technically good but just not on a personal level. My 3rd has to be Thompson who is solid in her role but doesn't elevate into the wow status. Streep becomes my runner up because I loved her relationship in the film and was totally into her performance. No doubt she's the best ever. My winner is Shue who just really excited me when watcher her. It could have easily been a boring performance but she made it human and revelatory. I think she would have been a good winner. It was just Sarandon's time. Go look at the other years before this and notice Sarandon had been nominated 3 times out of the last 4 years, with another nom in the 80s for a total of 4 before her win. She was due and the Academy recognized that. I think we might get a similar instance like that in 1994 with Jessica Lange but let's see.
Oscar Winner: Susan Sarandon - Dead Man Walking
My Winner: Elisabeth Shue - Leaving Las Vegas
Meryl Streep
Emma Thompson
Susan Sarandon
Sharon Stone
1995 Best Actress
Susan Sarandon - Dead Man Walking
I always forget that Sarandon is an Oscar winning actress. Probably because I never really heard about this film and because I had no idea what it was about. It's like this win slipped under my radar and just stayed invisible until now. This would be one of, if not the first, Best Actress winners I couldn't name or remember if prompted to list them. Sarandon plays a nun who meets Sean Penn's death row inmate character and she is against the death penalty and he wants her help to appeal. It's definitely the type of film where a bunch of liberal Hollywood stars get together to make a message picture about the death penalty being bad. I don't mean that to sound like a terrible thing, either. The film, and Sarandon, never grab me or keep me interested. That's about all there is to it honestly. I recognize that she gave a solid enough performance, one that obviously lots of people and the Academy liked, but I was kinda bored while watching it. I don't even have anything against Sarandon, either, it just that I didn't feel anything for her performance. Sometimes it can be really difficult to describe why something didn't grab you and this is one of those times. It's good enough and Sarandon is warm and believable and I can understand why people loved it. She's caring and sensitive and loving and puts all her effort into the performance which is admirable. I can also see why this performance doesn't get ballyhooed as much as other Best Actress winners and the group she's in probably leads to the win. They are all good, not great type of performances and no one really stands out. Maybe the voters were sending a message about the death penalty or maybe it was just that Sarandon was due, I don't know. What I do know is that I don't really care about this performance and I'm going to leave it at that.
Elisabeth Shue - Leaving Las Vegas
I didn't realize that this was such a depressing and sad film! I always thought it was a lighthearted film about a drunk who meets a hooker and then live happily ever after. Oh no, that definitely doesn't happen here! Shue plays the hooker with a heart of gold which could/should/would be a cliche if not for her amazing performance. Seriously, the prostitute character is actually one of the most awarded professions when it comes to the female acting awards. That obviously says a lot about the roles women get and the films that are made but it's true nonetheless. Shue eschews of the familiar trappings of the hooker with a heart of gold and gives us something with feeling and humanity. You begin to realize how fucked up her world is that she turns to a man killing himself by drinking and falling in love with him and finding a kindred spirit. Shue's performance is touching in that she plays it so honestly. I believe her when she says she loves Cage's character. I believe that she's the needy, broken woman who just wants someone to connect with and find deeper meaning in. Shue makes her character entirely believable and it is some absolutely great work by her. I was totally engrossed whenever Shue was onscreen because she's so innocent and cute and loving and a real woman that you wonder just how did she become a hooker in Vegas and become so broken as a person to love an alcoholic unconditionally. I wanted to know more about her character because of Shue's performance. Hell, I wanted to watch more Shue performances and films because of this one! She's so endearing and makes an oddly interesting couple with Nic Cage that despite the subject matter, you kinda root for them to work out. This may not be a performance that wows everyone, but I definitely thought that it should have been the winner, especially when you compare it to all the others this year. This will go down to preference, but Shue is definitely my pick as the winner.
Sharon Stone - Casino
This is my mom's favorite movie. Which always makes me laugh because knowing her and knowing what Casino is, it is just funny because it's the last movie you'd guess was her favorite. Not that she's a stick in the mud just that it's Casino which is a Scorsese gangster flick and my mom is not anything like that lol. Anyway, my mom has great taste since Casino is a damn good Scorsese flick, one that gets overlooked when it comes to Scorsese films, De Niro films, and Pesci films. You could probably throw Sharon Stone films on to that pile because who realizes that Stone was/is an Oscar nominated actress? We all know her as the lady who flashed her pussy in Basic Instinct. In this film, she's pretty solid. The role doesn't give her all that much to do honestly but she is convincing and able in the role as is. Stone plays a hustler who ends up marrying De Niro's character who runs the casino. She was a hustler as mentioned who still kept in touch with her previous pimp, greased all the staff so she could get protection and favors and drugs when she needed them. She ends up divorcing De Niro and spiraling further into drug and alcohol addiction and then getting arrested for her part in the corruption of Vegas. That's her entire arc and as I said Stone does a good job with the material, it doesn't offer too much for her to actually do, acting wise anyway. Stone is beautiful and wears many elegant dresses and outfits and looks the part of a woman of ill repute who would fall in favor with a casino boss and become a wealthy woman. Stone plays all that just fine. She does devolve into drugs and alcohol and makes that believable and continues her relationship with her ex-pimp and then De Niro's best bud, Pesci so she has to be the crazy ex-wife persona. Her character is a lot of cliches but Stone at least makes the performance not so basic and cliche. Is it worthy of a win? Nah. I'd say this is the film's representation since maybe Il Postino pushed it out of Best Picture? Decent performance, okay Oscar nomination. This would make a great companion watch with The Wolf of Wall Street and even Goodfellas. Lot's of similarities to those films and would make a great Scorsese Day watch.
Meryl Streep - The Bridges of Madison County
This is the 10th Meryl Streep nomination I've seen for this project and I'm not sick of her at all. I could watch Meryl every year since she always gives interesting performances. Sure, I've disliked some of her nominations as just another Streep nom but she's so consistent and so interesting as an actress that I don't mind. I've even found her to be the better actress while watching other women in their nominations, so Meryl is obviously one of the greatest actors ever. In Bridges, Meryl plays a housewife in Iowa who is Italian having married a GI and come over. This is another one of Streep's accent films where she speaks with an Italian accent. The accent thing is one of Streep's specialties because she is able to give convincing, pitch perfect accents for her different characters from Dutch to English to Australian/New Zealand to Italian to Polish. She's one of the best ever at accents and it helps her performance here. The romance between her and Clint Eastwood is palpable and convincing and very real. This is the kind of film I would have hated and made fun without watching years ago and I kinda did that. I remember hating this film as a kid even though I never watched it because I knew it was a romantic film and why would anyone watch that stuff? Luckily, I've overcome those prejudices and learned to love film and I enjoy this film for what it is. Of note is that this apparently helped establish Streep as a middle aged woman star and love interest. From what I read online, this established her as a bankable star even though she was getting older which is ludicrous to think of because she's Meryl fucking Streep! Of course she's bankable! But what about her performance? I've gone on and on about other crap but how is she in this film? She's sweet and endearing and the budding romance between her and Clint is so engaging and engrossing that you easily root for them to hook up because they are so good together. It brings up a bunch of questions about love. It's kinda like Lost in Translation where people fall in love with each other knowing it can't last and still go through with it. This is the same. Streep and Eastwood have their romance though they know it will only last 4 days. I think most people have these types of relationships in their past, God knows I do, and it's a very universal thing. Streep is great here and I'm glad this isn't one of those boring Streep noms.
Emma Thompson - Sense and Sensibility
Interesting to note that Thompson won for Best Adapted Screenplay for having written this film, one of the few people ever to have a writing and acting award. She definitely did a great job adapting the source material (though I've never read the book) because it never lapses into the stuffy British period piece so many other films do. Thompson plays the elder sister Elinor, whose father has recently died and left them without an inheritance or place to live because of British law. Before moving out she meets the charming Edward Ferrars and the two hit it off. But since this is a period piece, class distinctions get in the way and the two aren't able to say how they feel and life moves on to the chagrin of both. Thompson looks a little too old to be playing the older sister since she looks more like a mother than an unmarried young lady. But if you overlook that, she does a good job with the role. She is essentially the voice of reason and sanity in this story, as she properly behaves by not acting impulsively on her feelings and being demure when it comes to not being able to say how she feels and having to accept it because that's her lot in life. Thompson is sort of even keeled throughout the film, acting rational when it comes to everything that life throws at her. There's no big crying scenes or loud wailing or huffily storming out of a dance or dinner or rushing into the arms of some other man she doesn't love - it's all sensible. That's what I like about the character and about Thompson's measured performance . I'm assuming that's what the title means but it fits Thompson perfectly. She may be this reasoned woman but she's still vulnerable and hurt by not being able to act on her feelings and Thompson emotes this wonderfully. She tries to be there for her sister when things don't go well for Marianne and she puts on a brave face when interacting with Edward knowing he's engaged to another woman. Thompson's sense of duty and understanding is impeccable. She's like the glue holding her family's life together. It's a good performance from Thompson that is steady and strong but not outstanding.
Honestly, this is probably the most evenly matched group I've seen yet. There is no clear number 5 because they all have some pretty good performances. They are all solid, I just may not be as entertained by them. My 5th would have to be Stone just because she is more of a cliche in her film than the others are and it's a bit disappointing because she could be used better. My 4th is Sarandon who I just never connected with and just didn't care about while watching her. I know she is technically good but just not on a personal level. My 3rd has to be Thompson who is solid in her role but doesn't elevate into the wow status. Streep becomes my runner up because I loved her relationship in the film and was totally into her performance. No doubt she's the best ever. My winner is Shue who just really excited me when watcher her. It could have easily been a boring performance but she made it human and revelatory. I think she would have been a good winner. It was just Sarandon's time. Go look at the other years before this and notice Sarandon had been nominated 3 times out of the last 4 years, with another nom in the 80s for a total of 4 before her win. She was due and the Academy recognized that. I think we might get a similar instance like that in 1994 with Jessica Lange but let's see.
Oscar Winner: Susan Sarandon - Dead Man Walking
My Winner: Elisabeth Shue - Leaving Las Vegas
Meryl Streep
Emma Thompson
Susan Sarandon
Sharon Stone
Friday, April 15, 2016
Supporting Actor 1995
Ugh, leave it to fucking Firefox to restart and Blogger to somehow not save any of the work I'd done on this group. I had finished two reviews and was very happy with them but now I have to go back and try and capture what I felt when writing. I'm super pissed because they are gonna suck and I was very excited for this group. The names in this group alone make it a star studded affair and all the films here are enjoyable ones. I haven't seen Rob Roy, but I'm hoping and assuming it will be just like the others. Let me restart this damn thing now.
1995 Best Supporting Actor
Kevin Spacey - The Usual Suspects
I'll try not to be too spoiler-y in my review of Spacey, but come on, if you haven't seen this film yet go watch it and then come back and read this, it's worth the watch. In my first draft of this, I noted that both of Spacey's Oscar winning performances featured him acting as the narrator of the film and he really is a great narrator. His voice is able to fit the tone of the film he's narrating like the detached indifference of American Beauty and the hand waving exposition of this film. Plus, his voice is so expressive that it's like another actor on screen, he's definitely one of the best at it. As for the performance, Spacey's Verbal Kint is a very meek and subdued guy, staying to the back of the group get togethers and letting the other criminals be the dominant personas. Kint has a gimp leg and arm so Spacey shuffles around the film and though it's kinda gimmicky, it works or at least doesn't detract from the performance. Spacey is really more of a leading actor to me, as he dominates the screen time, narrates the film, and the story is all about Kint. It is an ensemble film, though, and the other characters have their moments to shine so I'm not going to scream category fraud too loudly. The one thing I love about watching Spacey perform is that he's so effortless and smooth. Even when he's playing a detective, a gimpy criminal, a bored husband, or an asshole - Spacey makes each performance look easy. And he's just a lot of fun to watch, especially in this role. Everyone remembers him in the film because of the twist and it's just a good performance, period. I do also love Benicio del Toro as the mumbling criminal who is hilarious and really adds to the film, much like Spacey does. I can see why the Academy chose Spacey as the winner because he is so charming and engaging and it will be tough for me to decide if he's my winner, too, with this strong group of guys.
James Cromwell - Babe
James Cromwell is absolutely fantastic in the role as Farmer Hoggett. I think that he perfectly captures what his role is supposed to be. He's sort of the mythical figure to the farm animals and he has this intense presence that only Cromwell could pull off. He's the father figure and takes the pig under his wings so to speak, recognizing Babe's unique ability. Cromwell's character is a man of few words and the performance is one of mostly silence with a lot of stern looks. This could have been either a nothing role with an anonymous man or a boring character but Cromwell elevates the role into one that's incredibly memorable. I saw this in theaters and whenever I thought of Babe I thought of the pig but I mostly thought of Cromwell's character saying "That'll do pig. That'll do" and him having more of a presence in my mind. I was still really young back then but I took note of Cromwell who I really respected and knew was a great actor. I'm very glad he was rewarded with a nomination here because he's been a great character actor in a lot of my favorite films. I think what makes his performance is his relationship with the pig. There's a lot of growth in the relationship from the first meeting to the end when they win the sheepdog competition. There's curiosity to respect to love with some farmer duties thrown in there when he almost has to kill the pig out of obligation. But all the little smiles and looks from Cromwell really sells the relationship of the two, punctuated by the ending when he says "That'll do pig." He has such a warm demeanor when it comes to the pig that you can't help but love Farmer Hoggett, too. And I'm leaving out the moment where Cromwell breaks out into a dance routine and it doesn't fell hokey or weird. It feels natural and charming when he's dancing for his pig and is a very sweet moment. Cromwell definitely deserved his nomination and may very well be my winner when all is said and done because he is that good and memorable.
Ed Harris - Apollo 13
Most pissed about having to redo this one because I had written this a couple days before and now I have to write it again, so I feel like I lost a little bit of the immediacy of my thoughts on Harris' performance and that's not fair for the reader. Harris plays the mission control guru, the guy who is overseeing all the different departments and telling everyone what to do. It's a perfect supporting role since there's not a whole lot asked of Harris other than to carry the scenes he's in so that we get from major scene to major scene. He's essentially shepherding the action during the cutaways where we see the team scrambling and trying to fix the problems going on in the spacecraft. He's good at this role and brings a bit of gravitas to the role and also a little bit of humor. I think it's a perfect Harris role, as well. He is a quintessential supporting actor and when you think of supporting actors, he's a name you recall almost immediately. I think in my first draft of this, I overstated how much Harris did in the film. He doesn't do all that much but he's enjoyable as is the film as a whole, so it's not a bad reward for him. He is the serious, hard working face of the scientists on the ground and represents them well. I thought that maybe Gary Sinise would have been a better choice for a supporting nomination but he was coming off one the year prior for Forrest Gump so maybe the Academy wanted to spread the love around. Either way, Harris is fine as a nominee representing the film.
Brad Pitt - 12 Monkeys
12 Monkeys is a mindfuck of a film, but I'd expect no less from Terry Gilliam. Purposefully left ambiguous by the director, you can come to any conclusion you want about the meaning of the film. The conclusion I came to is that Brad Pitt's character is a lot of fun to watch. Pitt plays Jeffrey Goines, a mental patient that Bruce Willis meets who turns out to be the leader of the Army of the Twelve Monkeys, a fanatical eco-terrorist organization who are suspected of letting lose a virus that kills the majority of the population. When we first meet Pitt in the mental institute, he is this fast talking, wild eyed, frenetic, manic guy who shows Willis around. Pitt plays crazy well and though the acting is obvious and mannered I feel like that's the point of the character and I like Pitt's portrayal. After the beginning where Pitt is featured heavily, he's only in a few scenes after that. His impact is mostly felt in those initial scenes as the ones that follow aren't all that important. He is still the crazy, wild eyed guy from before but the story doesn't focus on him as much but he still nails the manic presence of his character. I read online that Pitt modeled his acting after Dennis Hopper's photojournalist in the film Apocalypse Now which is a cool little tidbit of information. Pitt was in the midst of becoming a star at the time this film was released and I think that may have helped the Academy decide to reward him with a nomination. One of those let's crown and up and coming star so we seem hip and with it decisions but a good decision nonetheless. It's not a winning performance by any means, but it does show the range that Brad Pitt has and is a quite enjoyable performance on top of everything else. He definitely deserved a nomination for something at the time and this is a fine choice for it.
Tim Roth - Rob Roy
Oh man, this is a deliciously villainous role for Tim Roth, one that he clearly relishes with his performance. Roth plays Archibald Cunningham, an asshole nobleman who is sent to Scotland by his mother to make a man out of him and who does whatever he wants: raping, stealing, murdering, being effeminate while winning a sword fight. Roth prances around with evil glee and goes up against Scottish clan chief, Liam Neeson. It's a lot of fun to watch Roth bounce around from scene to scene like a nancy and then win sword fights while doing so and then plundering a village to piss off Neeson. Archibald is cruel and revels in his cruelty and his unpredictability is staggering. For such an effeminate character, he can quickly turn violent at any second and the film let's Roth do this seemingly on his own accord. That's where Roth's performance succeeds because it's as if Roth decides on his own to punch Neeson in the face or attack another person without hesitation. Roth sells his character and it's wholly entertaining to watch. Roth is as committed to the prancing parts of his character as he is the extreme violent parts, it's really quite wonderful that an actor is clearly enjoying all parts of his character. Roth's performance makes the ending very satisfying for obvious reasons and that's a testament to his skill to make such a villain an enjoyable watch. I'd say Roth more than held his own for my expectations of him compared to the others in this category and only makes this task even more difficult. Shout out to John Hurt for also being a quality choice for the Academy to consider. Lots of great supporting actors this year.
This has got to be the manliest Supporting Actor category I've done so far, even with Babe in the picture! If I were say 20-25 years old, this probably would have been my exact list for the category. Even 20 plus years later it's a great group of guys that have gone on do great things acting wise and make a ton of great films. I've got to say that this is probably the first time the Academy has gotten it 100% right. You can argue maybe someone else like a John Hurt or Gary Sinise could be in there instead, but I think the Academy got it right. This is a group that was so fun to watch because I hadn't watched a few of these in a long, long time even though I really enjoyed them back then. I'm gushing but it's a great group without a doubt. My 5th would have to be Harris just because he is more of a chauffeur between scenes even though he is pretty good at it. Pitt would be 4th because he's not that important to the film and doesn't factor in much besides being crazy. Roth plays a great villain and is quite enjoyable in his role so he's my 3rd. It's a tough choice between Cromwell and Spacey. Spacey is a pretty good winner but Cromwell is so good as Farmer Hoggett that it's hard to pick between the two. I think for now I'm giving the slightest of edges to Spacey over Cromwell but it could change tomorrow. I love Cromwell but Spacey is so damn good. This is easily the best Supporting Actor category I've seen yet and probably the best category I've watched yet. I hope for more groups like this one in the future (past).
Oscar Winner: Kevin Spacey - The Usual Suspects
My Winner: Kevin Spacey - The Usual Suspects
James Cromwell
Tim Roth
Brad Pitt
Ed Harris
1995 Best Supporting Actor
Kevin Spacey - The Usual Suspects
I'll try not to be too spoiler-y in my review of Spacey, but come on, if you haven't seen this film yet go watch it and then come back and read this, it's worth the watch. In my first draft of this, I noted that both of Spacey's Oscar winning performances featured him acting as the narrator of the film and he really is a great narrator. His voice is able to fit the tone of the film he's narrating like the detached indifference of American Beauty and the hand waving exposition of this film. Plus, his voice is so expressive that it's like another actor on screen, he's definitely one of the best at it. As for the performance, Spacey's Verbal Kint is a very meek and subdued guy, staying to the back of the group get togethers and letting the other criminals be the dominant personas. Kint has a gimp leg and arm so Spacey shuffles around the film and though it's kinda gimmicky, it works or at least doesn't detract from the performance. Spacey is really more of a leading actor to me, as he dominates the screen time, narrates the film, and the story is all about Kint. It is an ensemble film, though, and the other characters have their moments to shine so I'm not going to scream category fraud too loudly. The one thing I love about watching Spacey perform is that he's so effortless and smooth. Even when he's playing a detective, a gimpy criminal, a bored husband, or an asshole - Spacey makes each performance look easy. And he's just a lot of fun to watch, especially in this role. Everyone remembers him in the film because of the twist and it's just a good performance, period. I do also love Benicio del Toro as the mumbling criminal who is hilarious and really adds to the film, much like Spacey does. I can see why the Academy chose Spacey as the winner because he is so charming and engaging and it will be tough for me to decide if he's my winner, too, with this strong group of guys.
James Cromwell - Babe
James Cromwell is absolutely fantastic in the role as Farmer Hoggett. I think that he perfectly captures what his role is supposed to be. He's sort of the mythical figure to the farm animals and he has this intense presence that only Cromwell could pull off. He's the father figure and takes the pig under his wings so to speak, recognizing Babe's unique ability. Cromwell's character is a man of few words and the performance is one of mostly silence with a lot of stern looks. This could have been either a nothing role with an anonymous man or a boring character but Cromwell elevates the role into one that's incredibly memorable. I saw this in theaters and whenever I thought of Babe I thought of the pig but I mostly thought of Cromwell's character saying "That'll do pig. That'll do" and him having more of a presence in my mind. I was still really young back then but I took note of Cromwell who I really respected and knew was a great actor. I'm very glad he was rewarded with a nomination here because he's been a great character actor in a lot of my favorite films. I think what makes his performance is his relationship with the pig. There's a lot of growth in the relationship from the first meeting to the end when they win the sheepdog competition. There's curiosity to respect to love with some farmer duties thrown in there when he almost has to kill the pig out of obligation. But all the little smiles and looks from Cromwell really sells the relationship of the two, punctuated by the ending when he says "That'll do pig." He has such a warm demeanor when it comes to the pig that you can't help but love Farmer Hoggett, too. And I'm leaving out the moment where Cromwell breaks out into a dance routine and it doesn't fell hokey or weird. It feels natural and charming when he's dancing for his pig and is a very sweet moment. Cromwell definitely deserved his nomination and may very well be my winner when all is said and done because he is that good and memorable.
Ed Harris - Apollo 13
Most pissed about having to redo this one because I had written this a couple days before and now I have to write it again, so I feel like I lost a little bit of the immediacy of my thoughts on Harris' performance and that's not fair for the reader. Harris plays the mission control guru, the guy who is overseeing all the different departments and telling everyone what to do. It's a perfect supporting role since there's not a whole lot asked of Harris other than to carry the scenes he's in so that we get from major scene to major scene. He's essentially shepherding the action during the cutaways where we see the team scrambling and trying to fix the problems going on in the spacecraft. He's good at this role and brings a bit of gravitas to the role and also a little bit of humor. I think it's a perfect Harris role, as well. He is a quintessential supporting actor and when you think of supporting actors, he's a name you recall almost immediately. I think in my first draft of this, I overstated how much Harris did in the film. He doesn't do all that much but he's enjoyable as is the film as a whole, so it's not a bad reward for him. He is the serious, hard working face of the scientists on the ground and represents them well. I thought that maybe Gary Sinise would have been a better choice for a supporting nomination but he was coming off one the year prior for Forrest Gump so maybe the Academy wanted to spread the love around. Either way, Harris is fine as a nominee representing the film.
Brad Pitt - 12 Monkeys
12 Monkeys is a mindfuck of a film, but I'd expect no less from Terry Gilliam. Purposefully left ambiguous by the director, you can come to any conclusion you want about the meaning of the film. The conclusion I came to is that Brad Pitt's character is a lot of fun to watch. Pitt plays Jeffrey Goines, a mental patient that Bruce Willis meets who turns out to be the leader of the Army of the Twelve Monkeys, a fanatical eco-terrorist organization who are suspected of letting lose a virus that kills the majority of the population. When we first meet Pitt in the mental institute, he is this fast talking, wild eyed, frenetic, manic guy who shows Willis around. Pitt plays crazy well and though the acting is obvious and mannered I feel like that's the point of the character and I like Pitt's portrayal. After the beginning where Pitt is featured heavily, he's only in a few scenes after that. His impact is mostly felt in those initial scenes as the ones that follow aren't all that important. He is still the crazy, wild eyed guy from before but the story doesn't focus on him as much but he still nails the manic presence of his character. I read online that Pitt modeled his acting after Dennis Hopper's photojournalist in the film Apocalypse Now which is a cool little tidbit of information. Pitt was in the midst of becoming a star at the time this film was released and I think that may have helped the Academy decide to reward him with a nomination. One of those let's crown and up and coming star so we seem hip and with it decisions but a good decision nonetheless. It's not a winning performance by any means, but it does show the range that Brad Pitt has and is a quite enjoyable performance on top of everything else. He definitely deserved a nomination for something at the time and this is a fine choice for it.
Tim Roth - Rob Roy
Oh man, this is a deliciously villainous role for Tim Roth, one that he clearly relishes with his performance. Roth plays Archibald Cunningham, an asshole nobleman who is sent to Scotland by his mother to make a man out of him and who does whatever he wants: raping, stealing, murdering, being effeminate while winning a sword fight. Roth prances around with evil glee and goes up against Scottish clan chief, Liam Neeson. It's a lot of fun to watch Roth bounce around from scene to scene like a nancy and then win sword fights while doing so and then plundering a village to piss off Neeson. Archibald is cruel and revels in his cruelty and his unpredictability is staggering. For such an effeminate character, he can quickly turn violent at any second and the film let's Roth do this seemingly on his own accord. That's where Roth's performance succeeds because it's as if Roth decides on his own to punch Neeson in the face or attack another person without hesitation. Roth sells his character and it's wholly entertaining to watch. Roth is as committed to the prancing parts of his character as he is the extreme violent parts, it's really quite wonderful that an actor is clearly enjoying all parts of his character. Roth's performance makes the ending very satisfying for obvious reasons and that's a testament to his skill to make such a villain an enjoyable watch. I'd say Roth more than held his own for my expectations of him compared to the others in this category and only makes this task even more difficult. Shout out to John Hurt for also being a quality choice for the Academy to consider. Lots of great supporting actors this year.
This has got to be the manliest Supporting Actor category I've done so far, even with Babe in the picture! If I were say 20-25 years old, this probably would have been my exact list for the category. Even 20 plus years later it's a great group of guys that have gone on do great things acting wise and make a ton of great films. I've got to say that this is probably the first time the Academy has gotten it 100% right. You can argue maybe someone else like a John Hurt or Gary Sinise could be in there instead, but I think the Academy got it right. This is a group that was so fun to watch because I hadn't watched a few of these in a long, long time even though I really enjoyed them back then. I'm gushing but it's a great group without a doubt. My 5th would have to be Harris just because he is more of a chauffeur between scenes even though he is pretty good at it. Pitt would be 4th because he's not that important to the film and doesn't factor in much besides being crazy. Roth plays a great villain and is quite enjoyable in his role so he's my 3rd. It's a tough choice between Cromwell and Spacey. Spacey is a pretty good winner but Cromwell is so good as Farmer Hoggett that it's hard to pick between the two. I think for now I'm giving the slightest of edges to Spacey over Cromwell but it could change tomorrow. I love Cromwell but Spacey is so damn good. This is easily the best Supporting Actor category I've seen yet and probably the best category I've watched yet. I hope for more groups like this one in the future (past).
Oscar Winner: Kevin Spacey - The Usual Suspects
My Winner: Kevin Spacey - The Usual Suspects
James Cromwell
Tim Roth
Brad Pitt
Ed Harris
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Supporting Actress 1995
I took a little break so I could work my local film festival like I do every year and it's always a blast for me. I end up working so much that I haven't watched an actual film there in 3 years but the new friends I make and the cool people I meet balance that all out. It also reinvigorates my love of film and I wish I had a steady job working in the industry because that would be the dream. I'm excited to get back into this after a little time off, though.
1995 Best Supporting Actress
Mira Sorvino - Mighty Aphrodite
When it comes to Woody Allen movies, I'm always a little apprehensive. The last few weeks, I spent time watching all of his movies up until this one in reverse chronological order (which seems to be my thing). There are a lot of stinkers and some that others love and I either hate (Vicky Crisitina Barcelona) or don't care as effusively for the performance (Blue Jasmine). I know that Allen is known for writing great female parts in his movies and that as I go further back in his oeuvre that I'll come across more good/great movies instead of the stinkers from his later years. So I wasn't sure what kind of movie I'd get or if I would think the performance was overrated or what. Thankfully, I really liked Sorvino's performance and the movie as a whole. Sorvino is very funny with great comedic timing that's actually kinda subtle even though she's playing a prostitute who is super dumb. It would be easy to overdo that kind of character but Sorvino avoids that pitfall and displays great talent at making the jokes land without waiting for the laugh track if that makes sense. Basically I just love that Sorvino is such a hoot and makes it look effortless. She also has this high pitched voice that is at first jarring but then you get used to it and it adds to the comedic effect. There is no underlying subtext for the performance but it's not necessary. It's a straightforward Woody Allen female character who is exceptionally funny and that's all there is to it. One could argue that maybe Sorvino is really the female lead of this movie but that would be a wasted argument as I think Sorvino is fine as the supporting nod. It just goes to show that a winning performance doesn't have to be some super serious, mind blowing thing (though that does help) - just be an enjoyable, likable, really funny performance like Sorvino's.
Joan Allen - Nixon
While I was blown away by Joan Allen's turn the following year in The Crucible, I was not blown away by her portrayal of Pat Nixon. That's not Allen's fault however since she isn't given a whole lot to do with her character. She has a handful of scenes that all serve to either try and humanize Nixon or act as a catalyst for some other event or Nixon doing something. So she is that supporting role that doesn't get to have a life of it's own, merely acting as a way to have the main character do something by interacting with the supporting player. I'm not sure a nomination was needed her as there really isn't anything I can point to that really stands out to me. Sure, Allen is capable and is a good Pat Nixon for what the character is but she gets no chance to rise above the supporting role. Obviously Nixon is all about the 37th President and Hopkins' character dominates the film, but maybe a little more human interaction with his wife would have been a good thing. The film shows Nixon as a man that needed to be more loved as a kid which is why he was so paranoid later in life because he wanted everyone to like him and couldn't deal with not having power and control and not being liked. As it is, I would have liked to see more of Joan Allen because I know she's a really gifted actress and could have really done something special with the role if given an opportunity. Instead, we get a collection of random scenes where she supports Hopkins and is pissed off in most of them. Nothing that really screams Oscar to me which is a shame because Allen is a very good actress.
Kathleen Quinlan - Apollo 13
Go ahead and tell me who Kathleen Quinlan is in Apollo 13. I'll wait. You have no idea and neither did I. I had to wikipedia it to know who I needed to pay attention to. I knew she was an astronaut wife, but didn't know which one. Turns out she was Tom Hanks' wife and I'll say right now, got swept up in the love for the film. You couldn't pick her out of a lineup and probably couldn't figure out who she is in the film so did she deserve this nomination? No. Quinlan does absolutely nothing of note. There is no big scene for her. There's no big moment where she can show off her acting chops. I actually don't know if she has any acting chops because her performance is reduced to nothing but reactionary shots while the guys are having trouble in space. So best reactionary shot woman, sure. But Best Supporting Actress? For what?! She could be any number of Tom Hanks wife, which seems like a whole other story on it's own because he seems to have such nondescript wives in lots of his films. The fact that I bring that up when watching this one should tell you all you need to know. It's unfortunately a nothing nomination, one done because of the popularity of the film. Watch the film without looking anything up and then tell me who Quinlan was. You may say Hanks' wife but I bet you'll not be that sure. Maybe it's because she's the only female actor in the whole film that does anything? Which is a sad reason to nominate. It's a meh nomination.
Mare Winningham - Georgia
Okay so I decided to start out with this film because it was a singular nomination and because it was available on Netflix. I watched like 20 minutes and stopped, not because I hated it but because it never grabbed me. I stopped watching it and eventually moved on to Joan Allen because I knew I'd languish for a month debating whether to pick up where I left off and delaying this blog more. I hate to say it wasn't inspiring but it really wasn't. The thing is I kind of enjoyed Mare Winningham's performance even though she was super serious in the role. She plays the eponymous Georgia, who is the successful singer-songwriter sister of main character Sadie, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh. It was actually interesting to see JJL in this and compare it to her Oscar nominated performance from this year in The Hateful Eight. She's definitely grown as an actress even though some of the same traits are still present. This is about Winningham, though, who essentially plays the sisterly/motherly figure to JJL. She has a family, a successful career, owns the family house/farm, and generally has her life together. Her sister Sadie envies everything she has and wants to be a successful singer, too, even though she lacks the talent and is mixed up with booze and drugs and is unreliable and flighty. Winningham's performance is fine, it's good - but it won't knock you over the head. It's a simple supporting role that she takes seriously without much movement from her disconcerting, exhausted, exasperated, disapproving expressions. The main draw for the performance is when Winningham is singing onstage. All the singing is real and Winningham has a great voice and easily fits in as a folk artist. I would have guessed that was her real life talent instead of acting, though the acting isn't awful or anything. This nomination is clearly a nod to the film itself which I think the Academy wanted to reward and this was the easiest way they could do that.
Kate Winslet - Sense and Sensibility
This is a pretty good performance by Winslet, a woman I've had issues with in the past for skating by on her legacy alone instead of her talent. But in this film, she is green as can be though her talent is very obvious. It is fun seeing the young Winslet in action knowing what she would become later in her career. In this film she plays Marianne, the middle sister of three that is courted by Colonel Brandon yet has her heart set on the charismatic John Willoughby. Winslet has it easy as Marianne is such a fiery, rambunctious, and atypical character for the late 18th Century Britain. She's allowed a little more freedom in expressing her character and her presence is more fun than perfunctory. It helps that Winslet has considerable talent because it's a role that could quickly turn bad if in the hand's of someone less skilled because there is that fine line between fun and over the top. Winslet still has the air of an 18th Century woman, she just also has the added bonus of not having to be so stuffy. But as I said earlier, she is still green and it's not a perfect performance. Her melancholy scenes are not as good or alluring as her scenes where she's interacting with Willoughby or Brandon. That's merely a minor quibble as Winslet is very good in the hopelessly romantic and idealistic role of Marianne. It's easy to see that her star was beginning to shine and that she would be a huge name in the coming years and an Oscar darling. Her Marianne set all that into motion and Winslet deserved a nomination here.
What an underwhelming group! Especially compared to 1996 which had a bunch of intense performances. This year's category has some easily forgettable ones unfortunately. The bottom is basically a grab bag of which one you want less. Quinlan does nothing in her film but be a wife. Joan Allen also plays a wife and doesn't get to do a whole lot with her character. Winningham at least has the luxury of singing well to make her stand out a little. So I think that would be my bottom three in order. At least the top two stand out for good performances and not just being there. Winslet is runner up as I really did like her in her film, though she is young and still finding her way. I agree with the Academy this year seeing as I think Sorvino is quite wonderful in her little role. You could give it to Winslet if you really wanted to and I don't think many people would be upset but I found Sorvino to be a lot more enjoyable to watch even with the different types of films. It's not the strongest win and isn't an all-timer but at least it was a good performance. Hopefully the category gets back on track for 1994.
Oscar Winner: Mira Sorvino - Mighty Aphrodite
My Winner: Mira Sorvino - Mighty Aphrodite
Kate Winslet
Mare Winningham
Joan Allen
Kathleen Quinlan
1995 Best Supporting Actress
Mira Sorvino - Mighty Aphrodite
When it comes to Woody Allen movies, I'm always a little apprehensive. The last few weeks, I spent time watching all of his movies up until this one in reverse chronological order (which seems to be my thing). There are a lot of stinkers and some that others love and I either hate (Vicky Crisitina Barcelona) or don't care as effusively for the performance (Blue Jasmine). I know that Allen is known for writing great female parts in his movies and that as I go further back in his oeuvre that I'll come across more good/great movies instead of the stinkers from his later years. So I wasn't sure what kind of movie I'd get or if I would think the performance was overrated or what. Thankfully, I really liked Sorvino's performance and the movie as a whole. Sorvino is very funny with great comedic timing that's actually kinda subtle even though she's playing a prostitute who is super dumb. It would be easy to overdo that kind of character but Sorvino avoids that pitfall and displays great talent at making the jokes land without waiting for the laugh track if that makes sense. Basically I just love that Sorvino is such a hoot and makes it look effortless. She also has this high pitched voice that is at first jarring but then you get used to it and it adds to the comedic effect. There is no underlying subtext for the performance but it's not necessary. It's a straightforward Woody Allen female character who is exceptionally funny and that's all there is to it. One could argue that maybe Sorvino is really the female lead of this movie but that would be a wasted argument as I think Sorvino is fine as the supporting nod. It just goes to show that a winning performance doesn't have to be some super serious, mind blowing thing (though that does help) - just be an enjoyable, likable, really funny performance like Sorvino's.
Joan Allen - Nixon
While I was blown away by Joan Allen's turn the following year in The Crucible, I was not blown away by her portrayal of Pat Nixon. That's not Allen's fault however since she isn't given a whole lot to do with her character. She has a handful of scenes that all serve to either try and humanize Nixon or act as a catalyst for some other event or Nixon doing something. So she is that supporting role that doesn't get to have a life of it's own, merely acting as a way to have the main character do something by interacting with the supporting player. I'm not sure a nomination was needed her as there really isn't anything I can point to that really stands out to me. Sure, Allen is capable and is a good Pat Nixon for what the character is but she gets no chance to rise above the supporting role. Obviously Nixon is all about the 37th President and Hopkins' character dominates the film, but maybe a little more human interaction with his wife would have been a good thing. The film shows Nixon as a man that needed to be more loved as a kid which is why he was so paranoid later in life because he wanted everyone to like him and couldn't deal with not having power and control and not being liked. As it is, I would have liked to see more of Joan Allen because I know she's a really gifted actress and could have really done something special with the role if given an opportunity. Instead, we get a collection of random scenes where she supports Hopkins and is pissed off in most of them. Nothing that really screams Oscar to me which is a shame because Allen is a very good actress.
Kathleen Quinlan - Apollo 13
Go ahead and tell me who Kathleen Quinlan is in Apollo 13. I'll wait. You have no idea and neither did I. I had to wikipedia it to know who I needed to pay attention to. I knew she was an astronaut wife, but didn't know which one. Turns out she was Tom Hanks' wife and I'll say right now, got swept up in the love for the film. You couldn't pick her out of a lineup and probably couldn't figure out who she is in the film so did she deserve this nomination? No. Quinlan does absolutely nothing of note. There is no big scene for her. There's no big moment where she can show off her acting chops. I actually don't know if she has any acting chops because her performance is reduced to nothing but reactionary shots while the guys are having trouble in space. So best reactionary shot woman, sure. But Best Supporting Actress? For what?! She could be any number of Tom Hanks wife, which seems like a whole other story on it's own because he seems to have such nondescript wives in lots of his films. The fact that I bring that up when watching this one should tell you all you need to know. It's unfortunately a nothing nomination, one done because of the popularity of the film. Watch the film without looking anything up and then tell me who Quinlan was. You may say Hanks' wife but I bet you'll not be that sure. Maybe it's because she's the only female actor in the whole film that does anything? Which is a sad reason to nominate. It's a meh nomination.
Mare Winningham - Georgia
Okay so I decided to start out with this film because it was a singular nomination and because it was available on Netflix. I watched like 20 minutes and stopped, not because I hated it but because it never grabbed me. I stopped watching it and eventually moved on to Joan Allen because I knew I'd languish for a month debating whether to pick up where I left off and delaying this blog more. I hate to say it wasn't inspiring but it really wasn't. The thing is I kind of enjoyed Mare Winningham's performance even though she was super serious in the role. She plays the eponymous Georgia, who is the successful singer-songwriter sister of main character Sadie, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh. It was actually interesting to see JJL in this and compare it to her Oscar nominated performance from this year in The Hateful Eight. She's definitely grown as an actress even though some of the same traits are still present. This is about Winningham, though, who essentially plays the sisterly/motherly figure to JJL. She has a family, a successful career, owns the family house/farm, and generally has her life together. Her sister Sadie envies everything she has and wants to be a successful singer, too, even though she lacks the talent and is mixed up with booze and drugs and is unreliable and flighty. Winningham's performance is fine, it's good - but it won't knock you over the head. It's a simple supporting role that she takes seriously without much movement from her disconcerting, exhausted, exasperated, disapproving expressions. The main draw for the performance is when Winningham is singing onstage. All the singing is real and Winningham has a great voice and easily fits in as a folk artist. I would have guessed that was her real life talent instead of acting, though the acting isn't awful or anything. This nomination is clearly a nod to the film itself which I think the Academy wanted to reward and this was the easiest way they could do that.
Kate Winslet - Sense and Sensibility
This is a pretty good performance by Winslet, a woman I've had issues with in the past for skating by on her legacy alone instead of her talent. But in this film, she is green as can be though her talent is very obvious. It is fun seeing the young Winslet in action knowing what she would become later in her career. In this film she plays Marianne, the middle sister of three that is courted by Colonel Brandon yet has her heart set on the charismatic John Willoughby. Winslet has it easy as Marianne is such a fiery, rambunctious, and atypical character for the late 18th Century Britain. She's allowed a little more freedom in expressing her character and her presence is more fun than perfunctory. It helps that Winslet has considerable talent because it's a role that could quickly turn bad if in the hand's of someone less skilled because there is that fine line between fun and over the top. Winslet still has the air of an 18th Century woman, she just also has the added bonus of not having to be so stuffy. But as I said earlier, she is still green and it's not a perfect performance. Her melancholy scenes are not as good or alluring as her scenes where she's interacting with Willoughby or Brandon. That's merely a minor quibble as Winslet is very good in the hopelessly romantic and idealistic role of Marianne. It's easy to see that her star was beginning to shine and that she would be a huge name in the coming years and an Oscar darling. Her Marianne set all that into motion and Winslet deserved a nomination here.
What an underwhelming group! Especially compared to 1996 which had a bunch of intense performances. This year's category has some easily forgettable ones unfortunately. The bottom is basically a grab bag of which one you want less. Quinlan does nothing in her film but be a wife. Joan Allen also plays a wife and doesn't get to do a whole lot with her character. Winningham at least has the luxury of singing well to make her stand out a little. So I think that would be my bottom three in order. At least the top two stand out for good performances and not just being there. Winslet is runner up as I really did like her in her film, though she is young and still finding her way. I agree with the Academy this year seeing as I think Sorvino is quite wonderful in her little role. You could give it to Winslet if you really wanted to and I don't think many people would be upset but I found Sorvino to be a lot more enjoyable to watch even with the different types of films. It's not the strongest win and isn't an all-timer but at least it was a good performance. Hopefully the category gets back on track for 1994.
Oscar Winner: Mira Sorvino - Mighty Aphrodite
My Winner: Mira Sorvino - Mighty Aphrodite
Kate Winslet
Mare Winningham
Joan Allen
Kathleen Quinlan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)