Before I go to this year, I was reading up on it and you'll notice two actresses from our Best Actress group in this category, as well. It's the first time two actresses have faced off against each other in both the acting categories in the same year. I think it's the only time that's happened, too. But I was reading about 1993 and what I read was basically that the Supporting category was so exceptionally weak that the Academy double dipped on two of it's Best Actress ladies. That obviously doesn't bode well for me having to watch this group and just sucks overall. Hopefully it won't be as bad as I'm now anticipating.
1993 Best Supporting Actress
Anna Paquin - The Piano
I've always been curious about this winner because Paquin was only 11 when she won, the second youngest Oscar winner ever (in a competitive category). I wanted to know was it earned or gifted? Paquin plays the daughter of the mute Holly Hunter. Paquin has a lot to do within the film, she has to translate and be the voice for Hunter, she plays the daughter, and she also moves the plot along. That's a ton of responsibility placed on an 11 year old kid (and probably 10 years old when filming). This character is the precocious child, almost. Paquin has a lot of substance and her translation is almost comical but then you realize she really is the mouthpiece for her mom. So when she's reading the signs and then yelling a short answer at whoever, it's coming from the mom. Paquin is a great conduit because though Hunter can seem calm, she might sign frantically and then Paquin squeals the missive at whoever. Paquin is important in that regard for the film. I read on another blog that Hunter's signs came with subtitles but the version I watched did not. I had no idea what she was saying until Paquin spoke. I liked my version better because it's more authentic. Paquin is also way more than just a child actress. She has this monologue of sorts and is unwavering in her delivery of the lines. It's frankly impressive and one that makes me realize why Paquin was the winner. I can't see Quvenzhane Wallis ever delivering a scene like that. In fact, I can't see many actors delivering a scene like that. Paquin was absolutely great and if she wasn't so young, she might be a shoe in for the vote. Instead, we have to determine if she's a legit actress not just reading lines. She is really wonderful and it'll be tough to figure out if I keep her as the winner or not.
Holly Hunter - The Firm
So I can't come up with any good reason why this was nominated. Hunter herself said she was nominated because there was nothing else worth nominating, though not quite in those words. The Academy was double dipping because there was nothing else to nominate which seems like a load of hogwash to me. Hunter doesn't even have that much screen time. I believe I saw online that it was 6 minutes and 59 seconds. I'm not one that usually likes the short supporting nominations, mostly for wins, because I feel some performances can leave a lasting impact in a short time and be worth a nomination. Hunter clearly isn't worth one in this film. She plays a secretary for Gary Busey who only lasts two frenetic scenes before he's gone. She plays up her Southern charms and goes all in with her accent and well, it's a very typical secretary type of role. Hunter doesn't elevate it in the slightest. She becomes like a sidekick for Tom Cruise as they try to figure out how to save themselves and expose the corruption going on in the firm. The film is interesting because it has so many famous people in it that you remember from other things and it's kinda fun figuring out what else they've been in. Hunter's performance is almost like a glorified cameo. I frankly don't think this is an Oscar caliber performance. It's one any actress could have delivered. And I don't understand giving Hunter a second nomination this year when the Best Actress nom should have been plenty enough. It feels like overkill by the Academy and I'm just simply bewildered by it. I would have loved seeing anyone and anything else nominated here instead, regardless of whether or not this was a weak category.
Rosie Perez - Fearless
Rosie Perez is another person I've met through the film festival I work for and she was just as beautiful in person as she is on screen. She also has that New York attitude that thankfully comes off pretty funny. The New York thing was on display in this performance but without the comedy. Perez plays a woman who loses her baby in a plane crash. She was told to hold onto the baby instead of belting it in and she was unable to hold on which is partly why the baby died. She meets Jeff Bridges character who was on the same plane and now thinks he's invincible and has this new outlook on life. These two characters show two different sides of PTSD which is essentially what the film is about. People react differently to traumatic events and we see Rosie become the grieving mother who blames herself for her child's death instead of realizing that she was never going to be able to hold on to him during a crash like that. We see the two sort of bond together which helps Rosie deal with her circumstances and allows her to begin the process of healing. There's not a lot of flash to the performance, just a straightforward grieving mother begins to heal and accept what happened kind of thing. Her Puerto Rican heritage is on full display and maybe adds a little bit of flavor that makes the performance a bit more intriguing. I wish I could say it was an amazing display of talent but it's really just an average performance. She's the guilt ridden mother and that's about it. Watching her and Jeff Bridges interact is nice but there's nothing to want to champion there, unfortunately. It's a strange, interesting little film that I'm glad was able to showcase Rosie a bit even if it's not an outright brilliant performance.
Winona Ryder - The Age of Innocence
I've always had an issue with some of Ryder's performances feeling like they were lacking something. Sometimes it was like she was just doing some line reading and never felt fully comfortable in her role for whatever film. I thought that about her Little Women role but didn't quite state as much. There's times where she feels stiff and I'm wondering if she just isn't a good fit for period pieces. There's other, more contemporary films that she's totally fine in but with roles like this, something just feels off. Like she's trying too hard to be actorly and proper. Ryder plays Daniel Day-Lewis' betrothed in this Scorsese flick and she's not entirely bad. There are instances where her acting is a bit stiff and not as natural as it should be. As if she were in a play instead of a film is how I'd also describe it. Ryder starts getting suspicious that DDL is falling in love with her cousin, Countess Olenska played by Michelle Pfeiffer, which causes some issues. There's actually a scene in the middle of the film where Ryder and DDL are talking because DDL wants to get married quicker and Ryder suggests it's because he's done something wrong he wants to atone for or because he cares for someone more. It's the first time that Ryder is completely believable in the role and the turn sort of surprised me because Ryder really shined and took over this scene, which is quite the feat. She continues with the little bit of time she gets to coyly ply DDL with hints that she knows what's going on and that she wants to keep him. It's a lot of unstated words and glances that give the performance some nice depth. Ryder does well with saying things without actually saying things. So while she's good with the implied acting, it's only a small bit at the end. She does look great in a gown which are what a number of her shots are, her looking lovely and loving at her husband. While this may not have been my favorite, it did get better as her role expanded. I'm okay with the nomination since it's not the Academy going back to same well like always.
Emma Thompson - In the Name of the Father
I really, really enjoyed this film. I find the whole British-Irish conflict to be so interesting because it's between what you'd consider two normal countries that are very much alike basically warring in modern times. There's so much about this conflict that I don't even know about that I'm glad I can learn a little bit through film. It's obviously something I need to look into further to better understand but films like these are a good start. Sure, the story is changed to better serve the narrative but I expect that of any real life story. Thompson plays a lawyer, or I guess solicitor is the more correct term, who looks into the case of Gerry Conlon's false conviction along with his father and some other people. They were accused of bombing a London pub for the IRA and railroaded into giving false confessions and ultimately convicted. Thompson doesn't show up until about an hour and a half in but when she does her impact is immediately noticeable. It's not one where her star power takes over and she has all these clever lines or anything like that. No, she enters the film almost quietly and with a purpose and puts her character to work. There's not even any big Hollywood scenes for her to have her Oscar moment. You could say when she's in court and yelling over the crowd noise about the information she uncovered that proves Conlon et al were innocent but it's far from Hollywood. It's just a great piece of acting from Thompson and some great directing, as well. I really love that she just comes into the film and gets to work and makes an impact in that way. It's kind of refreshing to see instead of getting some glorified Oscar bait heroine role. She's a real woman who believes in what she's fighting for and wants the truth and to set innocent people free while prosecuting those who perverted the judicial system. It's not a showy role, just a real strong performance from Thompson that fully belongs here in this group.
Interesting group to consider. There's some out there who believe Paquin should not have won due to age or just due to not being the right choice, but what choice was there exactly? You've got both Thompson and Hunter already duking it out with good performances in the Best Actress race so why vote for them in this category? Although I believe Thompson was probably the best of this bunch, I don't see the Academy going for the split of Hunter and Thompson in both categories. So throw those out as potential winners. You're left with Perez, Ryder, and Paquin. Ryder is a first time nominee where the nomination feels like the reward and the Academy can pat itself on the back for another star making nom. However, I did read that Ryder was somewhat favored in this category. But what is there to vote for in her performance? Not a whole lot, honestly. So then Perez maybe? She's a minority with a role I don't think is all that meaty and it feels again like the nomination is the reward. So maybe Perez and Ryder split some votes and others shy away from the other two and then Paquin who is so precocious ends up winning by default. Seems likely and very plausible to me. This is why I wish the Academy would release the votes at some point in time to see how close these races were. My other issue is that at this point, I have no fucking clue if Thompson will be my choice for Best Actress because I haven't reached that category yet. I cannot and will not vote for her twice as the winner. That would never happen so is she a winner here or in Best Actress? Let me publish this and update it when I get to that point. Hunter, Perez, Ryder is my bottom three. Probably Paquin, Thompson for my winner.
Oscar Winner: Anna Paquin - The Piano
My Winner: Emma Thompson - In the Name of the Father
Anna Paquin
Winona Ryder
Rosie Perez
Holly Hunter
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Best Picture 1994
One of the things I wanted to briefly discuss was how some films enter the Oscar race/season so late that they never have a chance to even get voted in for Best Picture. I was reading the Inside Oscar entry for this year and it mentioned how a couple films were so late to the game that they never got serious consideration by virtue of just being late. Sometimes these films get some acting noms or a token Art Direction nod or something but this type of thing still goes on today. A Most Violent Year debuted very late in 2014 and never got it's due respect because it was the end of Oscar season so no one focused on it even though it won the National Board of Review's Best Film Award. It would have been something I'd have taken as one of my favorite films of the year and should have been up for Best Picture that year, especially since only 8 films made that list. Of course, nowadays films have a more likely chance of getting in because of the expanded nominee amount but I think it's interesting that we've been running into the same issue for decades now. It's not fair but what are you going to do?
1994 Best Picture
Forrest Gump
Not even gonna lie, I was dreading having to watch this again. Not that I hate it, just that I've seen it a few times already and didn't want to spend three hours of my day watching it again and then spend three plus hours writing the reviews for it. It's basically a whole day affair for a film I already know and only somewhat like. I definitely appreciate it as a film as it has a lot of iconic moments and is a gateway film for many people. Enough of me bitching about it, though, everyone should know what this film is about. Forrest Gump is kind of a slow guy who is a part of all the watershed moments of the mid-20th century. He's a part of everything you can think of and from what I understand part of even more in the book this is based on which seems incomprehensible to me because he does everything in the film. He's bullied but then is able to run really fast and plays football and meets President Kennedy and is in the Vietnam War and starts a chain of mediocre seafood restaurants (wait, no he started a shrimp company that became a restaurant, my bad), plays ping pong, and runs for the hell of it until he decides to stop. Oh, and doles out fortune cookie advice while sitting at a bus stop. It's a highly entertaining film that is bound to have something for everyone. An interesting leading character, for sure, but some decent supporting ones, too. It displays some really intriguing technology by inserting Tom Hanks into all these different historical moments like he was actually there. I know when I first saw this film, I wondered for days how the hell they pulled that off! It's easy to see why this was so beloved. Forrest Gump is the everyman, our collective common sense when it comes to the big moments in history. He's on the right side of them all and makes the audience question why these were big moments in the first place. Why did we have to keep sending men to die in Vietnam, why was black people going to school such a controversial thing, why wouldn't you just accept everyone for who they are instead of hating them for arbitrary reasons. That's the deeper meaning I took from the film and I think it resonates well enough as an idea. Forrest Gump is a strong film that many people can latch on to and find things they love about it. Easy to see why it was a winner even with a couple other well liked and strong films in contention. Is it an all-timer, though? I think it's remembered that way by most people but for my money Pulp Fiction is the all-timer and would have made a great winner.
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Oh, man! This film was a lot more funny than I was ever expecting it to be. I legit laughed out loud a ton and was expecting something more along the lines of the Bridget Jones's Diary or The Full Monty. You know, films that were okay and had their funny moments but made you scratch your head as to why they were loved so much. At least with Four Weddings, the pure comedy aspect of the film stands out far above any other films you could compare it to. I was ready to rip this apart and move on but I really enjoyed this film. I'm still on the fence as to whether or not it belongs in a Best Picture group, however. Yes, it's hilarious and charming and full of what makes a great British comedy but should it be in the same breath as literally every other candidate in this group? I'm leading towards a slight yes. If it was 5-10 nominees like it is today, this is an easy no brainer. In fact, this might be a good 6th or 7th but how do I like it as the 5th? I do like it as the 5th! I've finished it and it's got some heart and some really misguided love but it's a fun film. However, I can't stand Andie MacDowell as the American representation. All smiles and no substance. She's a boring American woman that's so cookie cutter, it's insulting. She's pretty but in the most generic way. She even sounds generic. I would have loved for any other American woman that had a bit of a unique quality to her because Andie doesn't cut it. Love seeing Kristin Scott Thomas again. She's so sassy in this and I didn't realize I liked her so much as an actress. I kinda wish she'd become a Game of Thrones character because I feel she could fit that style wonderfully. I was hoping Thomas and Hugh Grant would end up together because that makes for the better ending and story instead of the dumb tripe we got with a boring shitty zombie American actress. MacDowell was garbage, plain and simple. This film vaults into upper echelon status by having literally anyone else as the American and Grant possibly marry Thomas, or just do something interesting! I was super sad when the character that died, died, because he was so hilarious and I felt he was the comedic star of the show. Brought about many laughs! I'll keep this as the 5th because I do feel it carries itself as an Oscar nominee and is hilarious as shit! Just wish it didn't succumb to formulaic grossness at the end.
Pulp Fiction
When it comes to Quentin Tarantino flicks, everyone has their favorite. For me, it's almost down to whatever I saw last. I love Reservoir Dogs a lot, I love this film a lot, and I really enjoy Inglourious Basterds. Hell, The Hateful Eight might even start sneaking into my favorites of his since it's kinda grown on me in the last few months. There's no doubt that all of his films have been highly entertaining and of course Pulp Fiction is no exception. In fact, this film helped establish many of the trademarks we see in all his films now. One of which annoys me so let's talk about that first. Tarantino's films can be too long. Yeah, sometimes with all the craziness going on in his stories and with his memorable characters that can be a good thing. But sometimes he goes off the rails and diverges into something unnecessary. We all know Tarantino loves his dialogue and his scenes can go on and on with line after line. Sometimes it works pretty great such as in this film. The dialogue is all spot on and not completely meandering. But again, sometimes he loves to just write and write without realizing he needs to trim his shit down. Tarantino fans love him for it but it makes for some long films that would be perfect if he edited himself better. Plus, he adds in some scenes and characters that don't seem to add much to the film other than being cool and sexy and violent for the sake of being just those things. Was Bruce Willis' story all that necessary? Not really. You could cut that and change a couple little things and the film would be tighter and more interesting. Of course, Willis' side plot is kind of fun to tag along with and see where it goes. It offers up some memorable scenes but only adds to the film's length. It's not all that bad but it could be better. It's a minor quibble at most and that's really just my main gripe with Tarantino films in general. The dialogue and characters in this film are superb. The acting is so good from everyone and everything feels natural and the chemistry is amazing and everyone is fun to watch. It's a classic film for a reason and it would be too easy to write sentence after sentence about why it's good and why I like it. So just know it's a really great film that everyone should see at least once and know that it's a great choice by the Academy for a nomination.
Quiz Show
I've been anticipating this film for a long time. Every time I looked at this year, I saw the three big films that everyone loves and the one film that you wonder what the hell it's doing in the Best Picture group. And then there was this one. Didn't know anything about it other than it was a Robert Redford directed film and that my guy Ralph Fiennes was in this. While reading all the different blogs and lists and books I learned that a lot of people really liked this film but felt it got overshadowed by the other films on this list. So I've been anticipating a hidden gem and was super excited to finally check this one off my list. So is it a hidden gem? Yes, kinda. It's a really good film. I definitely got sucked into it and loved all the little trivia bits. I'm a huge trivia guy. I'll go play bar trivia on my own when I feel like it because it's so fun. But that's the first hour. John Turturro really owns the first half of this film. I think he was what sucked me in, honestly. He's such an interesting character and his storyline is compelling enough for me to want him back when they turn to Fiennes, who I love. From that point the film becomes a bit slow, stale even. I thought more time had passed and realized I had half the film to go. That doesn't mean I didn't like it, as I still thought the film was engaging. It just went away from the guy I thought was really interesting. It's essentially a whodunit, a mystery of will NBC get away with telling the answers to the contestants and will the Congressional guy get to the bottom of everything? I think the end is pretty great because it's still sort of indicative of today's TV landscape. Doing all kinds of things for ratings and money, morals be damned. Hard to believe this was 1994 because it's certainly still relevant to today. This film does have some great acting and I think Turturro is the stand out for me. I love that it focuses on the characters and their motivations. There's no stupid love side plot or anything, just a straightforward story about a studio who gives answers to guys who let the fame go to their heads. A hidden gem, absolutely because I want to watch this again but not the new favorite film of all time I was hoping it would be. Lofty aspirations, I know, but I hyped it up in my mind. It's still a pretty great little film that more people should see. A slow burn but worth the patience.
The Shawshank Redemption
It's hard when it comes to films like these to really figure out what to say about them. I'm not a huge Shawshank fanboy. I appreciate the film and I enjoy it for what it is but I'm not one of those people that feel it's the greatest film of all time. I have no idea why this has become so celebrated among the internet bros that they've voted it number one on IMDB's Top 250 films. It's a good film. Hell, it's a great film! But I don't even think it's the best of it's own year. That said, I really do like the Stephen King films that aren't based off his horror stuff. Films like Stand By Me and The Green Mile have a certain quality to them, like an earnestness about their subject that's admirable and appealing. Shawshank is such a guys film about personal relationships and respect and understanding that I can see why the internet bros love it so much. So it's about a guy who is wrongly sent to prison who is kind of this mysterious guy but also very endearing and likable. We see as he befriends the other inmates who are also lovable and he has these moments where he surprises us by cozying up to the guards to ultimately get what he wants. The guy eventually escapes after getting fed up with the place and it's this big fuck you to the warden and the corrupt system and a very satisfying ending to watch. I think we as the audience are supposed to see ourselves as Andy Dufresne and relate to his struggles as what we would want to do if we were in prison. Of course we would never be able to do what he pulls off but that's why it's Hollywood and that's why we allow ourselves to dream. The relationship between Robbins and Freeman is exquisite. The two have such a wonderful chemistry together that you think prison ain't so bad. The film is wonderfully shot and the pacing is right on because it's the same length as Forrest Gump yet feels half as long. It's definitely one of the best King films, possibly the best. It just happened to get nominated in a year with a ton of other films that could all make a case for being the Best Picture winner. I feel like all of them would have held up as good winners, too, including this one. It's a great film that sneaks up on you and doesn't quite seem like it has the pedigree to be an all timer. I still don't know if it is one, but I do know it's a tremendous film even with all it's best of love.
Holy shit! Talk about a tough group! This is an all time group, up there with some of the best years you can think of. You can make a legit case for any of these as being a winner. If you're going to go for one of those British comedy films including often in the 90s, this would have been the year. Four Weddings is my 5th but it's so damn hilarious that if it won, I wouldn't be all that mad. Quiz Show was a highly anticipated film for me that was really good but also just a bit of a let down because I hyped it up so much. Not fair on my end but in a weak year would be an easy winner. My middle film is Shawshank. I like it a lot but I'm not a fanboy for it. It's good but not the greatest ever. Sorry. I'm going to have Forrest Gump as my second. It's a fine winner but I just don't care all that much about it anymore. Yes, it's a good film but I dunno it's Forrest Gump. I'm almost apathetic to it even though I know it's a good choice. Pulp Fiction is my winner because it's a bonafide classic. It's a little long winded but that's Tarantino for you. It's got so many memorable and iconic moments that it's hard to not choose it. Just a fun ride to go through honestly. Not sure I'll see another super amazing group like this for awhile but I can only hope so. One of the best Best Picture years so far. Easily.
Oscar Winner: Forrest Gump
My Winner: Pulp Fiction
Forrest Gump
The Shawshank Redemption
Quiz Show
Four Weddings and a Funeral
1994 Best Picture
Forrest Gump
Not even gonna lie, I was dreading having to watch this again. Not that I hate it, just that I've seen it a few times already and didn't want to spend three hours of my day watching it again and then spend three plus hours writing the reviews for it. It's basically a whole day affair for a film I already know and only somewhat like. I definitely appreciate it as a film as it has a lot of iconic moments and is a gateway film for many people. Enough of me bitching about it, though, everyone should know what this film is about. Forrest Gump is kind of a slow guy who is a part of all the watershed moments of the mid-20th century. He's a part of everything you can think of and from what I understand part of even more in the book this is based on which seems incomprehensible to me because he does everything in the film. He's bullied but then is able to run really fast and plays football and meets President Kennedy and is in the Vietnam War and starts a chain of mediocre seafood restaurants (wait, no he started a shrimp company that became a restaurant, my bad), plays ping pong, and runs for the hell of it until he decides to stop. Oh, and doles out fortune cookie advice while sitting at a bus stop. It's a highly entertaining film that is bound to have something for everyone. An interesting leading character, for sure, but some decent supporting ones, too. It displays some really intriguing technology by inserting Tom Hanks into all these different historical moments like he was actually there. I know when I first saw this film, I wondered for days how the hell they pulled that off! It's easy to see why this was so beloved. Forrest Gump is the everyman, our collective common sense when it comes to the big moments in history. He's on the right side of them all and makes the audience question why these were big moments in the first place. Why did we have to keep sending men to die in Vietnam, why was black people going to school such a controversial thing, why wouldn't you just accept everyone for who they are instead of hating them for arbitrary reasons. That's the deeper meaning I took from the film and I think it resonates well enough as an idea. Forrest Gump is a strong film that many people can latch on to and find things they love about it. Easy to see why it was a winner even with a couple other well liked and strong films in contention. Is it an all-timer, though? I think it's remembered that way by most people but for my money Pulp Fiction is the all-timer and would have made a great winner.
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Oh, man! This film was a lot more funny than I was ever expecting it to be. I legit laughed out loud a ton and was expecting something more along the lines of the Bridget Jones's Diary or The Full Monty. You know, films that were okay and had their funny moments but made you scratch your head as to why they were loved so much. At least with Four Weddings, the pure comedy aspect of the film stands out far above any other films you could compare it to. I was ready to rip this apart and move on but I really enjoyed this film. I'm still on the fence as to whether or not it belongs in a Best Picture group, however. Yes, it's hilarious and charming and full of what makes a great British comedy but should it be in the same breath as literally every other candidate in this group? I'm leading towards a slight yes. If it was 5-10 nominees like it is today, this is an easy no brainer. In fact, this might be a good 6th or 7th but how do I like it as the 5th? I do like it as the 5th! I've finished it and it's got some heart and some really misguided love but it's a fun film. However, I can't stand Andie MacDowell as the American representation. All smiles and no substance. She's a boring American woman that's so cookie cutter, it's insulting. She's pretty but in the most generic way. She even sounds generic. I would have loved for any other American woman that had a bit of a unique quality to her because Andie doesn't cut it. Love seeing Kristin Scott Thomas again. She's so sassy in this and I didn't realize I liked her so much as an actress. I kinda wish she'd become a Game of Thrones character because I feel she could fit that style wonderfully. I was hoping Thomas and Hugh Grant would end up together because that makes for the better ending and story instead of the dumb tripe we got with a boring shitty zombie American actress. MacDowell was garbage, plain and simple. This film vaults into upper echelon status by having literally anyone else as the American and Grant possibly marry Thomas, or just do something interesting! I was super sad when the character that died, died, because he was so hilarious and I felt he was the comedic star of the show. Brought about many laughs! I'll keep this as the 5th because I do feel it carries itself as an Oscar nominee and is hilarious as shit! Just wish it didn't succumb to formulaic grossness at the end.
Pulp Fiction
When it comes to Quentin Tarantino flicks, everyone has their favorite. For me, it's almost down to whatever I saw last. I love Reservoir Dogs a lot, I love this film a lot, and I really enjoy Inglourious Basterds. Hell, The Hateful Eight might even start sneaking into my favorites of his since it's kinda grown on me in the last few months. There's no doubt that all of his films have been highly entertaining and of course Pulp Fiction is no exception. In fact, this film helped establish many of the trademarks we see in all his films now. One of which annoys me so let's talk about that first. Tarantino's films can be too long. Yeah, sometimes with all the craziness going on in his stories and with his memorable characters that can be a good thing. But sometimes he goes off the rails and diverges into something unnecessary. We all know Tarantino loves his dialogue and his scenes can go on and on with line after line. Sometimes it works pretty great such as in this film. The dialogue is all spot on and not completely meandering. But again, sometimes he loves to just write and write without realizing he needs to trim his shit down. Tarantino fans love him for it but it makes for some long films that would be perfect if he edited himself better. Plus, he adds in some scenes and characters that don't seem to add much to the film other than being cool and sexy and violent for the sake of being just those things. Was Bruce Willis' story all that necessary? Not really. You could cut that and change a couple little things and the film would be tighter and more interesting. Of course, Willis' side plot is kind of fun to tag along with and see where it goes. It offers up some memorable scenes but only adds to the film's length. It's not all that bad but it could be better. It's a minor quibble at most and that's really just my main gripe with Tarantino films in general. The dialogue and characters in this film are superb. The acting is so good from everyone and everything feels natural and the chemistry is amazing and everyone is fun to watch. It's a classic film for a reason and it would be too easy to write sentence after sentence about why it's good and why I like it. So just know it's a really great film that everyone should see at least once and know that it's a great choice by the Academy for a nomination.
Quiz Show
I've been anticipating this film for a long time. Every time I looked at this year, I saw the three big films that everyone loves and the one film that you wonder what the hell it's doing in the Best Picture group. And then there was this one. Didn't know anything about it other than it was a Robert Redford directed film and that my guy Ralph Fiennes was in this. While reading all the different blogs and lists and books I learned that a lot of people really liked this film but felt it got overshadowed by the other films on this list. So I've been anticipating a hidden gem and was super excited to finally check this one off my list. So is it a hidden gem? Yes, kinda. It's a really good film. I definitely got sucked into it and loved all the little trivia bits. I'm a huge trivia guy. I'll go play bar trivia on my own when I feel like it because it's so fun. But that's the first hour. John Turturro really owns the first half of this film. I think he was what sucked me in, honestly. He's such an interesting character and his storyline is compelling enough for me to want him back when they turn to Fiennes, who I love. From that point the film becomes a bit slow, stale even. I thought more time had passed and realized I had half the film to go. That doesn't mean I didn't like it, as I still thought the film was engaging. It just went away from the guy I thought was really interesting. It's essentially a whodunit, a mystery of will NBC get away with telling the answers to the contestants and will the Congressional guy get to the bottom of everything? I think the end is pretty great because it's still sort of indicative of today's TV landscape. Doing all kinds of things for ratings and money, morals be damned. Hard to believe this was 1994 because it's certainly still relevant to today. This film does have some great acting and I think Turturro is the stand out for me. I love that it focuses on the characters and their motivations. There's no stupid love side plot or anything, just a straightforward story about a studio who gives answers to guys who let the fame go to their heads. A hidden gem, absolutely because I want to watch this again but not the new favorite film of all time I was hoping it would be. Lofty aspirations, I know, but I hyped it up in my mind. It's still a pretty great little film that more people should see. A slow burn but worth the patience.
The Shawshank Redemption
It's hard when it comes to films like these to really figure out what to say about them. I'm not a huge Shawshank fanboy. I appreciate the film and I enjoy it for what it is but I'm not one of those people that feel it's the greatest film of all time. I have no idea why this has become so celebrated among the internet bros that they've voted it number one on IMDB's Top 250 films. It's a good film. Hell, it's a great film! But I don't even think it's the best of it's own year. That said, I really do like the Stephen King films that aren't based off his horror stuff. Films like Stand By Me and The Green Mile have a certain quality to them, like an earnestness about their subject that's admirable and appealing. Shawshank is such a guys film about personal relationships and respect and understanding that I can see why the internet bros love it so much. So it's about a guy who is wrongly sent to prison who is kind of this mysterious guy but also very endearing and likable. We see as he befriends the other inmates who are also lovable and he has these moments where he surprises us by cozying up to the guards to ultimately get what he wants. The guy eventually escapes after getting fed up with the place and it's this big fuck you to the warden and the corrupt system and a very satisfying ending to watch. I think we as the audience are supposed to see ourselves as Andy Dufresne and relate to his struggles as what we would want to do if we were in prison. Of course we would never be able to do what he pulls off but that's why it's Hollywood and that's why we allow ourselves to dream. The relationship between Robbins and Freeman is exquisite. The two have such a wonderful chemistry together that you think prison ain't so bad. The film is wonderfully shot and the pacing is right on because it's the same length as Forrest Gump yet feels half as long. It's definitely one of the best King films, possibly the best. It just happened to get nominated in a year with a ton of other films that could all make a case for being the Best Picture winner. I feel like all of them would have held up as good winners, too, including this one. It's a great film that sneaks up on you and doesn't quite seem like it has the pedigree to be an all timer. I still don't know if it is one, but I do know it's a tremendous film even with all it's best of love.
Holy shit! Talk about a tough group! This is an all time group, up there with some of the best years you can think of. You can make a legit case for any of these as being a winner. If you're going to go for one of those British comedy films including often in the 90s, this would have been the year. Four Weddings is my 5th but it's so damn hilarious that if it won, I wouldn't be all that mad. Quiz Show was a highly anticipated film for me that was really good but also just a bit of a let down because I hyped it up so much. Not fair on my end but in a weak year would be an easy winner. My middle film is Shawshank. I like it a lot but I'm not a fanboy for it. It's good but not the greatest ever. Sorry. I'm going to have Forrest Gump as my second. It's a fine winner but I just don't care all that much about it anymore. Yes, it's a good film but I dunno it's Forrest Gump. I'm almost apathetic to it even though I know it's a good choice. Pulp Fiction is my winner because it's a bonafide classic. It's a little long winded but that's Tarantino for you. It's got so many memorable and iconic moments that it's hard to not choose it. Just a fun ride to go through honestly. Not sure I'll see another super amazing group like this for awhile but I can only hope so. One of the best Best Picture years so far. Easily.
Oscar Winner: Forrest Gump
My Winner: Pulp Fiction
Forrest Gump
The Shawshank Redemption
Quiz Show
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Leading Actor 1994
No rants, just films. Haven't seen two of these, so I'm excited to watch those. Let's do it.
1994 Best Actor
Tom Hanks - Forrest Gump
The big question surrounding this win is whether or not Tom Hanks deserved to win his second Best Actor Oscar in a row. Now, I'll have to watch Philadelphia again since it's been awhile but I know that one had an important message behind it. This was just a crowd pleaser of a film with some minor messages behind it but nothing like the AIDS/Homosexual thing behind his first win. There's no doubt that Tom Hanks is a great actor. He shows wide range in his performances and smart choices in them, as well. I read that Hanks mirrored his distinct way of talking in this film after the little boy who played his younger version. Instead of coming up with his own accent, he matched the kid so there would be continuity from young to old Gump. That just shows his dedication and how good of an actor he really is. I also think this is the performance everyone remembers he won an Oscar for and most people would probably struggle remembering the first one which says a lot about the lasting appeal of his Gump character. Hanks gets to do everything in this performance, too, which is probably great for any actor. He plays football, he plays a soldier, he meets all kinds of famous people, he gets to play this sweet, loving, caring man who finds the good in everyone. Lots of variety and a testament to Hanks that he can be so many things and still deliver a good performance. If I sound a bit non enthused about this one, it's kind of accurate. I mean, it's Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump and we all know it's a good performance in a well liked film for his second Oscar. Hard to hate on him and I don't feel enough love to sit here and write a super glowing review. It is what it is and I just want to leave it at that. I don't know if this will be my winner yet, so let's wait and see.
Morgan Freeman - The Shawshank Redemption
I wanted to be like this is the performance that really launched Freeman's career, but that would be ignoring his roles in Oscar Best Picture Winners Driving Miss Daisy and Unforgiven. So Freeman didn't need much help to get recognized and nominated. It was simply a matter of time. This may have launched his narration career, though, which is totally legit. He might not be voicing those VISA commercials if not for this film. The big thing to think about when it comes to Freeman's nomination and performance is that it's really a coin flip between him and Tim Robbins. They are both great and they both carry the film. I slightly prefer Robbins because his character is a bit mysterious and little more interesting because of that. However, Freeman is buoyed by his narration which becomes like it's own character. For a lot of his screen time, Freeman is reactionary to Robbins which makes his performance seem more Supporting. He's sort of a leader in the prison and takes a liking to Robbins and we see them interact, with the focus on Robbins. Freeman is just off to the side, never quite fading to the background because his presence keeps him firmly out front. Both Freeman and Robbins have a warm relationship, one that is mostly full of unspoken respect for each other and is seen as a very manly relationship. The two have excellent chemistry and lend a certain effective quality to their performances. Towards the end, the film turns itself over to Freeman with Robbins out of the picture. The film reaches it's emotional zenith at this time, so Freeman benefits from the viewer swelling up with emotions. He does an admirable job of keeping us emotional, too. Hard to argue against Freeman being in this group and no real point in wanting Robbins to be nominated instead because both do a great job with their performances. It's a good performance in a well liked film.
Nigel Hawthorne - The Madness of King George
I had always wondered what kind of performance this would be when looking at the category. Hawthorne is not someone I knew and would not have been able to put a face to the name so I was curious if this was just a veteran nomination or some token thing for him. After watching this wonderful little film, I have to say that Hawthorne very much belongs in this group and there is nothing token about his nomination at all. He plays King George III and he is a booming presence in this film. King George starts going a little nutty (which scholars now think was because of porphyria, though some still think it was some unknown mental illness) and his son and some other political players want to take control of power. King George eventually comes out of it and goes back to ruling. The character is probably every actor's wet dream. George is larger than life before the illness and with the issue becomes even more larger than life. Hawthorne portrays all this beautifully because it's an easy role to let get out of control and become a farce but Hawthorne keeps it natural never letting the character get the better of him. When we first meet George, Hawthorne has this commanding, regal presence while also being quite hilarious as well. It's a great introduction to both George and Hawthorne. The character allows Hawthorne to do all kinds of acting from the stern leader to roaring anger to reading Shakespeare to acting wild and crazy to being kind and tender with his wife to being fully aware of the political machinations going on in his absence to just generally having good, comedic fun. The performance goes all over the place and Hawthorne makes it all fit together nicely and feel natural which I think is the key to why it's such a good performance. The crazy antics never feel too much and I certainly didn't think it was making fun of the King or of the illness, it was measured and fully believable. Hawthorne still remains dignified as he goes through the antics of the illness. Even throughout the film, Hawthorne is very funny in that sly sort of British way and I loved it. It's a performance I wasn't expecting but am very much pleased at how good it was and how much I enjoyed it. Hawthorne more than holds his own against the stars in this category and could possibly be my winner.
Paul Newman - Nobody's Fool
Pretty sure no one remembers this Paul Newman nomination. I love the hell out of Paul Newman, including his salsas and dips. But I had never heard of this until the project and when I finally watched it, realized this wasn't quintessential Newman. I wouldn't say this is a must watch unless you are a huge Paul Newman fan or a crazy guy like me watching all the acting nominations. It's not a bad performance by any means, it's just that it's obviously a step down from what we know Newman can deliver. It's also an older performance and has the stink of a veteran nomination surrounding it. It doesn't feel like a can't miss performance, either, that was going to get nominated anyway. I know I'm making this sound like the worst performance ever but it's actually quite entertaining to some degree. Newman was able to make me laugh out loud with his character which goes a long way with me. He plays an older guy who ran out on his family years ago and is living in the next town over and then his son comes back into his life and Newman discovers he's got a grandson. He pays more attention to the grandson and also his son by extension. He also works for Bruce Willis and flirts with his wife while also trying to sue Willis for workers compensation for his bum knee. He also keeps stealing Willis' snow blower and torments the local cop (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and is generally kind of an asshole. But he's Paul Newman so he makes his asshole nature likable and entertaining. It's a convoluted plot as you can tell from my description which doesn't touch on a couple other topics. Still, it's pretty entertaining and it's a film and performance that grows on you even if it isn't classic Newman work.
John Travolta - Pulp Fiction
This performance put John Travolta back on the map and gave him a second wind and it's quite easy to see why it did so. Travolta plays Vincent Vega and is just plain cool. He has the slicked back hair, the black suit, casually talks about nonsense while holding a big gun and is funny to boot. I think one of the main reasons his performance works so well is that both he and Samuel L. Jackson have this amazing, natural chemistry. They just seem like two guys who have been working with each other for years and have a deep understanding of what the other is all about. They are like an odd couple that are so at ease with each other that when they argue it's comical instead of dramatic. They each make the others performance that much better. Travolta is also very calm and cool during the whole film, minus the overdose scene of course. But he just kinda takes things in and goes with the flow in his laid back style. When he accidentally shoots a guy in the face it's as if he accidentally spilled coffee on someone because of how Travolta plays it and it's hilarious and demented all at the same time. Travolta comes across as incredibly likable and a lot of that has to do with how well he interacts with everyone else in the film. He and Uma have great chemistry just like with Jackson and even in the few meetings with the other characters, his genuineness shines through. It's definitely a strong performance that sort of sneaks up on you as you watch it because it might not register as easily as Jackson's performance or some of the other more notable characters but by the end you are left wishing you could see more of Travolta and his character. It's a fun performance and one I'm glad Tarantino plucked Travolta out of his funk to play Vega because I can't see anyone else portraying that character as good as he did.
Another really tough Best Actor group to choose from. Again I dislike none of these performances which tells you just how good they all are. I guess my 5th would be Newman because it's lesser Newman even though it kinda grew on me and it's a very likable performance. I wouldn't mind watching it again just because. My 4th would Freeman because it just wasn't his time to win and because he's good but not exceptional, which is an important factor in this group. Travolta would be my 3rd because he's just so cool in this film and a natural for Tarantino's dialogue. Great rapport with Samuel L. Jackson for a really good performance. Now the tough part for me. I loved the hell out of Hawthorne's performance. It kinda blew me away and I wasn't expecting to like it so much. Then there's Hanks' second win in a row. Maybe it Hanks fatigue but I'm leaning towards Hawthorne. Gump is an iconic character and one that any actor would be proud to have on their resume. It's entered the public consciousness and is always remembered fondly when you say Tom Hanks. It's a fine win but my heart is saying Hawthorne is my winner because I just frankly loved the hell out of it. Maybe I'll look back on this and change my mind but for now, it's Hawthorne. A surprise for everyone, I'm sure.
Oscar Winner: Tom Hanks - Forrest Gump
My Winner: Nigel Hawthorne - The Madness of King George
Tom Hanks
John Travolta
Morgan Freeman
Paul Newman
1994 Best Actor
Tom Hanks - Forrest Gump
The big question surrounding this win is whether or not Tom Hanks deserved to win his second Best Actor Oscar in a row. Now, I'll have to watch Philadelphia again since it's been awhile but I know that one had an important message behind it. This was just a crowd pleaser of a film with some minor messages behind it but nothing like the AIDS/Homosexual thing behind his first win. There's no doubt that Tom Hanks is a great actor. He shows wide range in his performances and smart choices in them, as well. I read that Hanks mirrored his distinct way of talking in this film after the little boy who played his younger version. Instead of coming up with his own accent, he matched the kid so there would be continuity from young to old Gump. That just shows his dedication and how good of an actor he really is. I also think this is the performance everyone remembers he won an Oscar for and most people would probably struggle remembering the first one which says a lot about the lasting appeal of his Gump character. Hanks gets to do everything in this performance, too, which is probably great for any actor. He plays football, he plays a soldier, he meets all kinds of famous people, he gets to play this sweet, loving, caring man who finds the good in everyone. Lots of variety and a testament to Hanks that he can be so many things and still deliver a good performance. If I sound a bit non enthused about this one, it's kind of accurate. I mean, it's Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump and we all know it's a good performance in a well liked film for his second Oscar. Hard to hate on him and I don't feel enough love to sit here and write a super glowing review. It is what it is and I just want to leave it at that. I don't know if this will be my winner yet, so let's wait and see.
Morgan Freeman - The Shawshank Redemption
I wanted to be like this is the performance that really launched Freeman's career, but that would be ignoring his roles in Oscar Best Picture Winners Driving Miss Daisy and Unforgiven. So Freeman didn't need much help to get recognized and nominated. It was simply a matter of time. This may have launched his narration career, though, which is totally legit. He might not be voicing those VISA commercials if not for this film. The big thing to think about when it comes to Freeman's nomination and performance is that it's really a coin flip between him and Tim Robbins. They are both great and they both carry the film. I slightly prefer Robbins because his character is a bit mysterious and little more interesting because of that. However, Freeman is buoyed by his narration which becomes like it's own character. For a lot of his screen time, Freeman is reactionary to Robbins which makes his performance seem more Supporting. He's sort of a leader in the prison and takes a liking to Robbins and we see them interact, with the focus on Robbins. Freeman is just off to the side, never quite fading to the background because his presence keeps him firmly out front. Both Freeman and Robbins have a warm relationship, one that is mostly full of unspoken respect for each other and is seen as a very manly relationship. The two have excellent chemistry and lend a certain effective quality to their performances. Towards the end, the film turns itself over to Freeman with Robbins out of the picture. The film reaches it's emotional zenith at this time, so Freeman benefits from the viewer swelling up with emotions. He does an admirable job of keeping us emotional, too. Hard to argue against Freeman being in this group and no real point in wanting Robbins to be nominated instead because both do a great job with their performances. It's a good performance in a well liked film.
Nigel Hawthorne - The Madness of King George
I had always wondered what kind of performance this would be when looking at the category. Hawthorne is not someone I knew and would not have been able to put a face to the name so I was curious if this was just a veteran nomination or some token thing for him. After watching this wonderful little film, I have to say that Hawthorne very much belongs in this group and there is nothing token about his nomination at all. He plays King George III and he is a booming presence in this film. King George starts going a little nutty (which scholars now think was because of porphyria, though some still think it was some unknown mental illness) and his son and some other political players want to take control of power. King George eventually comes out of it and goes back to ruling. The character is probably every actor's wet dream. George is larger than life before the illness and with the issue becomes even more larger than life. Hawthorne portrays all this beautifully because it's an easy role to let get out of control and become a farce but Hawthorne keeps it natural never letting the character get the better of him. When we first meet George, Hawthorne has this commanding, regal presence while also being quite hilarious as well. It's a great introduction to both George and Hawthorne. The character allows Hawthorne to do all kinds of acting from the stern leader to roaring anger to reading Shakespeare to acting wild and crazy to being kind and tender with his wife to being fully aware of the political machinations going on in his absence to just generally having good, comedic fun. The performance goes all over the place and Hawthorne makes it all fit together nicely and feel natural which I think is the key to why it's such a good performance. The crazy antics never feel too much and I certainly didn't think it was making fun of the King or of the illness, it was measured and fully believable. Hawthorne still remains dignified as he goes through the antics of the illness. Even throughout the film, Hawthorne is very funny in that sly sort of British way and I loved it. It's a performance I wasn't expecting but am very much pleased at how good it was and how much I enjoyed it. Hawthorne more than holds his own against the stars in this category and could possibly be my winner.
Paul Newman - Nobody's Fool
Pretty sure no one remembers this Paul Newman nomination. I love the hell out of Paul Newman, including his salsas and dips. But I had never heard of this until the project and when I finally watched it, realized this wasn't quintessential Newman. I wouldn't say this is a must watch unless you are a huge Paul Newman fan or a crazy guy like me watching all the acting nominations. It's not a bad performance by any means, it's just that it's obviously a step down from what we know Newman can deliver. It's also an older performance and has the stink of a veteran nomination surrounding it. It doesn't feel like a can't miss performance, either, that was going to get nominated anyway. I know I'm making this sound like the worst performance ever but it's actually quite entertaining to some degree. Newman was able to make me laugh out loud with his character which goes a long way with me. He plays an older guy who ran out on his family years ago and is living in the next town over and then his son comes back into his life and Newman discovers he's got a grandson. He pays more attention to the grandson and also his son by extension. He also works for Bruce Willis and flirts with his wife while also trying to sue Willis for workers compensation for his bum knee. He also keeps stealing Willis' snow blower and torments the local cop (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and is generally kind of an asshole. But he's Paul Newman so he makes his asshole nature likable and entertaining. It's a convoluted plot as you can tell from my description which doesn't touch on a couple other topics. Still, it's pretty entertaining and it's a film and performance that grows on you even if it isn't classic Newman work.
John Travolta - Pulp Fiction
This performance put John Travolta back on the map and gave him a second wind and it's quite easy to see why it did so. Travolta plays Vincent Vega and is just plain cool. He has the slicked back hair, the black suit, casually talks about nonsense while holding a big gun and is funny to boot. I think one of the main reasons his performance works so well is that both he and Samuel L. Jackson have this amazing, natural chemistry. They just seem like two guys who have been working with each other for years and have a deep understanding of what the other is all about. They are like an odd couple that are so at ease with each other that when they argue it's comical instead of dramatic. They each make the others performance that much better. Travolta is also very calm and cool during the whole film, minus the overdose scene of course. But he just kinda takes things in and goes with the flow in his laid back style. When he accidentally shoots a guy in the face it's as if he accidentally spilled coffee on someone because of how Travolta plays it and it's hilarious and demented all at the same time. Travolta comes across as incredibly likable and a lot of that has to do with how well he interacts with everyone else in the film. He and Uma have great chemistry just like with Jackson and even in the few meetings with the other characters, his genuineness shines through. It's definitely a strong performance that sort of sneaks up on you as you watch it because it might not register as easily as Jackson's performance or some of the other more notable characters but by the end you are left wishing you could see more of Travolta and his character. It's a fun performance and one I'm glad Tarantino plucked Travolta out of his funk to play Vega because I can't see anyone else portraying that character as good as he did.
Another really tough Best Actor group to choose from. Again I dislike none of these performances which tells you just how good they all are. I guess my 5th would be Newman because it's lesser Newman even though it kinda grew on me and it's a very likable performance. I wouldn't mind watching it again just because. My 4th would Freeman because it just wasn't his time to win and because he's good but not exceptional, which is an important factor in this group. Travolta would be my 3rd because he's just so cool in this film and a natural for Tarantino's dialogue. Great rapport with Samuel L. Jackson for a really good performance. Now the tough part for me. I loved the hell out of Hawthorne's performance. It kinda blew me away and I wasn't expecting to like it so much. Then there's Hanks' second win in a row. Maybe it Hanks fatigue but I'm leaning towards Hawthorne. Gump is an iconic character and one that any actor would be proud to have on their resume. It's entered the public consciousness and is always remembered fondly when you say Tom Hanks. It's a fine win but my heart is saying Hawthorne is my winner because I just frankly loved the hell out of it. Maybe I'll look back on this and change my mind but for now, it's Hawthorne. A surprise for everyone, I'm sure.
Oscar Winner: Tom Hanks - Forrest Gump
My Winner: Nigel Hawthorne - The Madness of King George
Tom Hanks
John Travolta
Morgan Freeman
Paul Newman
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Leading Actress 1994
This starts a string of Best Actress categories where I haven't seen any of the nominees, although a mayyyy have seen Little Women? Don't really remember. In any event, I'm excited to find a hidden gem or two. Hopefully, anyway.
1994 Best Actress
Jessica Lange - Blue Sky
This film has an interesting history to it. It was filmed during the summer of 1990, completed in 1991, and then was shelved for three years because the studio that made it went bankrupt. It then was released in 1994 and got Lange her second Oscar. The other interesting thing is that it co-stars Tommy Lee Jones, who hadn't even been nominated for his first Oscar when this was made. He would go on to win for his second nomination all before this film was released. It creates a crazy what might have been for the 1991 Best Actress race where Jodie Foster won her second for Silence of the Lambs. Would Lange have won that year? Doubtful given how loved Foster's film and performance were that year. Would Lange have even been nominated? Hard to say until I get to 1991, but some fascinating things to think about all before even watching this film. I haven't seen much of Lange's work besides her turn on American Horror Story, but I know she's one fierce woman. She has presence and I was excited to see her Oscar winning performance. She plays an Army wife to Jones, who is a bit of a wild woman, an ingenue, a free spirit. That causes problems for Jones because the Army doesn't like her ways and it strains the relationship the two have. It's evident from the beginning that she is equal parts Marilyn Monroe and damaged woman, a hothead, a woman who would fit right in in a Tennessee Williams film. Her performance hearkens back to the time the film is set, the 1950s. I could easily see her as a volatile actress in one of those steamy, sexy films that starred Elizabeth Taylor or Vivien Leigh. The role gives Lange the freedom to act loudly and purposefully because it fits within the narrative. Lange's character is supposed to be impulsive, shocking, tempestuous, and flighty. She's like a young girl that never fully grew up, instead acting like the women she sees in the movies and magazines. There's times where her behavior was annoying and I sympathized with Jones having to deal with her causing professional and personal problems for them. In that respect, Lange did a great job in making her character so convincing as a misguided woman. I enjoyed the performance for what it was but I feel like I'm still figuring out if I love it and think it's a good winner. Probably a good thing that this got pushed back a few years so that Lange was able to win another Oscar in what appears to be a mediocre year for the category. I might not love the character but I know that Lange is a quality actress and it showed in this performance.
Jodie Foster - Nell
After watching this and reading some reviews, the consensus seems to be that this was an awful film with a brilliant performance by Foster. I'd say the truth is a little more in the middle. The film itself isn't the best. It's predictable and doesn't have anything convincing to say about Foster's character. By that I mean it treats her character like she is this pure, untouched, almost perfect representation of a person because she's been isolated. Jodie Foster plays the wild child, Nell, whose mother dies and is discovered all alone in a cabin deep in the forest. Liam Neeson wants to help protect her from scientists who want to study her. Nell has her own made up language that Neeson eventually cracks but most of the film is spent trying to figure it out and reach out to Nell on a personal level. Foster is intense, giving 110% of herself to the performance. I understand why everyone calls it brilliant and accomplished because it is. It's a masterclass of acting when it comes to Oscar bait. I kinda hate to call it Oscar bait because it feels too good for that but it really is Oscar bait. It's like a pitcher who dominates and throws a complete game but still gets the loss, that's what it feels like. Thing is that I don't feel as if Foster elevates the material at all. She doesn't make it a better film, just keeps it from being truly awful. She speaks in a made up language for the entire film which is dedication and portrays the feral woman with wide eyed wonder and violent, scared outbursts. It could almost be a horror film if it were edited differently which is how the performance comes off at times, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just that Foster brings an intensity to the character that's not matched by anything else in the film. It's almost trying too hard. Foster deserved a better film around her for the type of performance she gave. And honestly, do you think the Academy would have given Foster a 3rd Oscar in 3 tries in just 7 years? Not for this kind of film.
Miranda Richardson - Tom and Viv
This is not that great of a film, at least for me it's not all that interesting. It's about the relationship between T.S. Eliot and Vivienne Haigh-Wood, which actually after I read up on it sounded a little more interesting than what this film showed us. That's partly why I don't care much for the film but it's also such a minor subject. So if you are going to do it, it has to be strong. Richardson does her best to make it a strong film because she does put in the effort needed for her character. She is the Viv in the title and Viv is a very temperamental woman. She has these wild mood swings and she gets frequent heavy menstrual cycles. It's explained as simply being a possible hormonal imbalance at the end of the film years after the relationship. But she does get into these moods of despair and she's embarrassed by her periods and wonders if Tom is disgusted by her. She takes some medications but they make her loopy and exacerbate the mood problems. It's an interesting role for sure and Richardson is up to the task of balancing out all the different things needed of her character. From being loving and friendly to being talkative with no filter to hysterics to despair to other mental issues. It's a tough role that Richardson excels at and makes Viv into a believable character. But it's still kinda not enough. Yes, she's moody and temperamental but we never really get to dive into the character herself. Viv comes off and wickedly smart and a good writer, or at least editor, for Tom and we don't get a fully formed Viv. Richardson tries her damnedest to give us something to go off of but ultimately it circles back to she's kooky and needy. I feel also that the film rushes things too much. In the beginning we get a brief scene of their quick romance together before they are married and having issues. At the end when she's put into the institution we don't get enough explanation of what's going on with Viv. It rushes to being years later and not telling us much of importance about the two leads and how everything has affected Viv. Basically I believe the performance could have been much stronger if the story and the details of the film were fully fleshed out. Richardson was as good as she could be with the material she had to work with and that's pretty commendable. I wish we could have gotten a better film to showcase her.
Winona Ryder - Little Women
Little Women is a nice little film. I wanna say I saw part of it, if not all of it, while in elementary school or maybe middle school. It's the type of film that does get shown in school because it's based on a book that gets taught and is for the most part a gentle ride. The story does get a little depressing towards the end when it becomes almost a lamentation on growing up and growing apart from friends and family. Of course, it rounds itself off and goes back to being the nice little film with a happy ending. Ryder plays the main little woman, Jo, who is the second oldest and an aspiring writer and we go through life with her as our guide. That's essentially what Ryder is: a guide for the viewer. She escorts us through scene after scene and is the one sister we become the most familiar with. But this film is most definitely an ensemble picture and the other sisters are all equally good and entertaining. We may not get to know them as deeply as Jo but they are nonetheless ever present. I would say they help Ryder look better because they are all accomplished actresses. You've got a young Kirsten Dunst, Claire Danes, and Susan Sarandon as the mother which is good company to have in a film. Plus a young Christian Bale gets to interact with the sisters so there are lots of chances for some very strong acting. I say all this because I don't really think Ryder stood head and shoulders above the rest of the group, just that her character was the main one we follow around for the entire film. I think that helps her get a nomination here as does her being nominated the year before and the Academy loving the chance to crown another young actress. Ryder was in her prime so it makes sense they wanted to reward her because it makes themselves look good, too. The performance is fine, she definitely gives it her all and it makes for a pleasant experience. It just doesn't quite have the requisite power to pull off the win. She's a spunky child who grows up in a loving family and powers through the difficulties she faces in life and it's all a nice sentiment. It's just not strong enough to win.
Susan Sarandon - The Client
This was towards the end of the Academy's love affair with Sarandon that culminated in a Best Actress Oscar the next year. Just as Lange was rewarded this year, it was Sarandon's turn in 1995. Once you start closely following the categories these things jump out as being so obvious. There's a lot of times where you'll see an actor or actress nominated a couple times before finally winning. Just another one of the Academy's idiosyncrasies. Sarandon plays a lawyer who takes on the case of a boy who sees a guy kill himself after telling him the location of a body. This sets in motion the story of the mobsters wanting to shut the boy up and the DA in Louisiana (Tommy Lee Jones) to come after him for the information he was told. Sarandon takes the boy on to protect him from the unscrupulous DA who doesn't care what it means if the boy talks, just that he'll look good with another conviction. It's a strong, successful, independent woman role for Sarandon and while I do enjoy seeing those kinds of roles, it's almost a cookie cutter character. It doesn't really matter that Sarandon played her since the lawyer could have been portrayed by any woman to the same effect. That's not to denigrate Sarandon as she is more than capable of giving a good performance helped along with her Southern charm and charisma. It's also probably a familiar role because it's based off a John Grisham book, so it's not as if the character breaks new ground. Like I said, Sarandon is perfectly fine as the lawyer and I enjoyed watching her thrash the other hotshot men with her legal acumen. It's a good role model type of performance and one that I can't really put down because it makes the story a lot more interesting than say if it was a man as the lawyer. Part of that is because Sarandon is such a good actress and is able to give the performance a little more energy. She's also kind of a badass which is nice to see from a leading actress performance. Definitely don't get enough of those. It's a good performance and a very 90s performance.
This isn't a group that really inspires me. I wasn't really super into any of these, though none of them were bad. Just kind of a meh year overall. I guess the 5th for me would be Richardson because the film is meh and even though she tries to do a good job in a difficult role, it just didn't do much for me. Again, not bad just not anything that made me excited. Ryder would be the 4th because it's more of an ensemble picture and she doesn't exactly shine above the others. Sarandon would be in the middle but I think I like her performance the most even though it's a slight one compared to the other two. It's not worth a win, just a watch. Foster is Oscar bait so that's why she's my number two. Lange stays the winner because there is no other performance that could really top it, so might as well keep her there. Not a glowing indictment, I know. I dunno, just not a year where I was super into any of the performances or films, really. Hopefully 1993 gives me something to get excited about.
Oscar Winner: Jessica Lange - Blue Sky
My Winner: Jessica Lange - Blue Sky
Jodie Foster
Susan Sarandon
Winona Ryder
Miranda Richardson
1994 Best Actress
Jessica Lange - Blue Sky
This film has an interesting history to it. It was filmed during the summer of 1990, completed in 1991, and then was shelved for three years because the studio that made it went bankrupt. It then was released in 1994 and got Lange her second Oscar. The other interesting thing is that it co-stars Tommy Lee Jones, who hadn't even been nominated for his first Oscar when this was made. He would go on to win for his second nomination all before this film was released. It creates a crazy what might have been for the 1991 Best Actress race where Jodie Foster won her second for Silence of the Lambs. Would Lange have won that year? Doubtful given how loved Foster's film and performance were that year. Would Lange have even been nominated? Hard to say until I get to 1991, but some fascinating things to think about all before even watching this film. I haven't seen much of Lange's work besides her turn on American Horror Story, but I know she's one fierce woman. She has presence and I was excited to see her Oscar winning performance. She plays an Army wife to Jones, who is a bit of a wild woman, an ingenue, a free spirit. That causes problems for Jones because the Army doesn't like her ways and it strains the relationship the two have. It's evident from the beginning that she is equal parts Marilyn Monroe and damaged woman, a hothead, a woman who would fit right in in a Tennessee Williams film. Her performance hearkens back to the time the film is set, the 1950s. I could easily see her as a volatile actress in one of those steamy, sexy films that starred Elizabeth Taylor or Vivien Leigh. The role gives Lange the freedom to act loudly and purposefully because it fits within the narrative. Lange's character is supposed to be impulsive, shocking, tempestuous, and flighty. She's like a young girl that never fully grew up, instead acting like the women she sees in the movies and magazines. There's times where her behavior was annoying and I sympathized with Jones having to deal with her causing professional and personal problems for them. In that respect, Lange did a great job in making her character so convincing as a misguided woman. I enjoyed the performance for what it was but I feel like I'm still figuring out if I love it and think it's a good winner. Probably a good thing that this got pushed back a few years so that Lange was able to win another Oscar in what appears to be a mediocre year for the category. I might not love the character but I know that Lange is a quality actress and it showed in this performance.
Jodie Foster - Nell
After watching this and reading some reviews, the consensus seems to be that this was an awful film with a brilliant performance by Foster. I'd say the truth is a little more in the middle. The film itself isn't the best. It's predictable and doesn't have anything convincing to say about Foster's character. By that I mean it treats her character like she is this pure, untouched, almost perfect representation of a person because she's been isolated. Jodie Foster plays the wild child, Nell, whose mother dies and is discovered all alone in a cabin deep in the forest. Liam Neeson wants to help protect her from scientists who want to study her. Nell has her own made up language that Neeson eventually cracks but most of the film is spent trying to figure it out and reach out to Nell on a personal level. Foster is intense, giving 110% of herself to the performance. I understand why everyone calls it brilliant and accomplished because it is. It's a masterclass of acting when it comes to Oscar bait. I kinda hate to call it Oscar bait because it feels too good for that but it really is Oscar bait. It's like a pitcher who dominates and throws a complete game but still gets the loss, that's what it feels like. Thing is that I don't feel as if Foster elevates the material at all. She doesn't make it a better film, just keeps it from being truly awful. She speaks in a made up language for the entire film which is dedication and portrays the feral woman with wide eyed wonder and violent, scared outbursts. It could almost be a horror film if it were edited differently which is how the performance comes off at times, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just that Foster brings an intensity to the character that's not matched by anything else in the film. It's almost trying too hard. Foster deserved a better film around her for the type of performance she gave. And honestly, do you think the Academy would have given Foster a 3rd Oscar in 3 tries in just 7 years? Not for this kind of film.
Miranda Richardson - Tom and Viv
This is not that great of a film, at least for me it's not all that interesting. It's about the relationship between T.S. Eliot and Vivienne Haigh-Wood, which actually after I read up on it sounded a little more interesting than what this film showed us. That's partly why I don't care much for the film but it's also such a minor subject. So if you are going to do it, it has to be strong. Richardson does her best to make it a strong film because she does put in the effort needed for her character. She is the Viv in the title and Viv is a very temperamental woman. She has these wild mood swings and she gets frequent heavy menstrual cycles. It's explained as simply being a possible hormonal imbalance at the end of the film years after the relationship. But she does get into these moods of despair and she's embarrassed by her periods and wonders if Tom is disgusted by her. She takes some medications but they make her loopy and exacerbate the mood problems. It's an interesting role for sure and Richardson is up to the task of balancing out all the different things needed of her character. From being loving and friendly to being talkative with no filter to hysterics to despair to other mental issues. It's a tough role that Richardson excels at and makes Viv into a believable character. But it's still kinda not enough. Yes, she's moody and temperamental but we never really get to dive into the character herself. Viv comes off and wickedly smart and a good writer, or at least editor, for Tom and we don't get a fully formed Viv. Richardson tries her damnedest to give us something to go off of but ultimately it circles back to she's kooky and needy. I feel also that the film rushes things too much. In the beginning we get a brief scene of their quick romance together before they are married and having issues. At the end when she's put into the institution we don't get enough explanation of what's going on with Viv. It rushes to being years later and not telling us much of importance about the two leads and how everything has affected Viv. Basically I believe the performance could have been much stronger if the story and the details of the film were fully fleshed out. Richardson was as good as she could be with the material she had to work with and that's pretty commendable. I wish we could have gotten a better film to showcase her.
Winona Ryder - Little Women
Little Women is a nice little film. I wanna say I saw part of it, if not all of it, while in elementary school or maybe middle school. It's the type of film that does get shown in school because it's based on a book that gets taught and is for the most part a gentle ride. The story does get a little depressing towards the end when it becomes almost a lamentation on growing up and growing apart from friends and family. Of course, it rounds itself off and goes back to being the nice little film with a happy ending. Ryder plays the main little woman, Jo, who is the second oldest and an aspiring writer and we go through life with her as our guide. That's essentially what Ryder is: a guide for the viewer. She escorts us through scene after scene and is the one sister we become the most familiar with. But this film is most definitely an ensemble picture and the other sisters are all equally good and entertaining. We may not get to know them as deeply as Jo but they are nonetheless ever present. I would say they help Ryder look better because they are all accomplished actresses. You've got a young Kirsten Dunst, Claire Danes, and Susan Sarandon as the mother which is good company to have in a film. Plus a young Christian Bale gets to interact with the sisters so there are lots of chances for some very strong acting. I say all this because I don't really think Ryder stood head and shoulders above the rest of the group, just that her character was the main one we follow around for the entire film. I think that helps her get a nomination here as does her being nominated the year before and the Academy loving the chance to crown another young actress. Ryder was in her prime so it makes sense they wanted to reward her because it makes themselves look good, too. The performance is fine, she definitely gives it her all and it makes for a pleasant experience. It just doesn't quite have the requisite power to pull off the win. She's a spunky child who grows up in a loving family and powers through the difficulties she faces in life and it's all a nice sentiment. It's just not strong enough to win.
Susan Sarandon - The Client
This was towards the end of the Academy's love affair with Sarandon that culminated in a Best Actress Oscar the next year. Just as Lange was rewarded this year, it was Sarandon's turn in 1995. Once you start closely following the categories these things jump out as being so obvious. There's a lot of times where you'll see an actor or actress nominated a couple times before finally winning. Just another one of the Academy's idiosyncrasies. Sarandon plays a lawyer who takes on the case of a boy who sees a guy kill himself after telling him the location of a body. This sets in motion the story of the mobsters wanting to shut the boy up and the DA in Louisiana (Tommy Lee Jones) to come after him for the information he was told. Sarandon takes the boy on to protect him from the unscrupulous DA who doesn't care what it means if the boy talks, just that he'll look good with another conviction. It's a strong, successful, independent woman role for Sarandon and while I do enjoy seeing those kinds of roles, it's almost a cookie cutter character. It doesn't really matter that Sarandon played her since the lawyer could have been portrayed by any woman to the same effect. That's not to denigrate Sarandon as she is more than capable of giving a good performance helped along with her Southern charm and charisma. It's also probably a familiar role because it's based off a John Grisham book, so it's not as if the character breaks new ground. Like I said, Sarandon is perfectly fine as the lawyer and I enjoyed watching her thrash the other hotshot men with her legal acumen. It's a good role model type of performance and one that I can't really put down because it makes the story a lot more interesting than say if it was a man as the lawyer. Part of that is because Sarandon is such a good actress and is able to give the performance a little more energy. She's also kind of a badass which is nice to see from a leading actress performance. Definitely don't get enough of those. It's a good performance and a very 90s performance.
This isn't a group that really inspires me. I wasn't really super into any of these, though none of them were bad. Just kind of a meh year overall. I guess the 5th for me would be Richardson because the film is meh and even though she tries to do a good job in a difficult role, it just didn't do much for me. Again, not bad just not anything that made me excited. Ryder would be the 4th because it's more of an ensemble picture and she doesn't exactly shine above the others. Sarandon would be in the middle but I think I like her performance the most even though it's a slight one compared to the other two. It's not worth a win, just a watch. Foster is Oscar bait so that's why she's my number two. Lange stays the winner because there is no other performance that could really top it, so might as well keep her there. Not a glowing indictment, I know. I dunno, just not a year where I was super into any of the performances or films, really. Hopefully 1993 gives me something to get excited about.
Oscar Winner: Jessica Lange - Blue Sky
My Winner: Jessica Lange - Blue Sky
Jodie Foster
Susan Sarandon
Winona Ryder
Miranda Richardson
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Supporting Actor 1994
Something trippy about this project is that I tend to forget I'm watching films that are 20 years old. I forget that some of the people I'm watching have been dead for years or when they do a summary of characters at the end of a film that it's not contemporary. Saying some character is now living peacefully in such and such place but that was in 1995 so it's not relevant anymore is definitely a weird feeling. I didn't ever think of that when starting this project that I'd forget that I'm watching the past, the history of Oscar. It's like my brain wants to think of everything as new since a lot of the time these films are new to me. Just a little trippy thought I had to share. This will be a good group because I've seen 3 of these already. Just hoping the other 2 are just as good.
1994 Best Supporting Actor
Martin Landau - Ed Wood
Damn, another really good supporting actor performance to choose from (yes, I watch these out of order so this is the third of the five I've seen) making this an extremely tough choice. Landau plays the famous horror movie actor Bela Lugosi, or maybe I should say Landau brings Lugosi back from the dead. I don't even say that jokingly because Landau really inhabits the spirit of Lugosi in all aspects of the men. Landau is the spitting image of Lugosi and nails the mannerisms and way he walks from what I've seen of the original man. He seriously brings Lugosi to life and it's incredible to watch. Landau does get ample opportunity to show off his acting chops because Lugosi gets a ton of screen time and really the film is more about Bela Lugosi than it is about Ed Wood. It's a supporting turn but the case could be made for a shared leading role if Depp didn't carry the film. When it comes to the performance, though, make no mistake - it's not just an impersonation. There's a ton of depth to Landau's performance as the character is more than just comic relief. Lugosi is a sad figure, a man addicted to drugs, out of money and holding on to his fading legacy. As good as Landau is when it comes to acting like Lugosi, he may be even better at portraying the tragic, profound moments in the film. Lugosi long for yesteryear when he was acting and making good horror movies and was a wanted commodity. Now he's addicted to morphine and a sad, angry man. So it's sweet when Ed Wood runs into him and just wants him to be in his film no matter his current issues. This reinvigorates Lugosi who gives his all to the craft once again despite the film being beyond awful. Again, lot's more to this performance than just actor portrays famous old horror movie guy. Landau is also pretty gung ho with the comedy and acting like it's actually the 20's or 30s and it's a lot o fun to watch. It's definitely a really good performance that can stand on its own but I do think it being a role about old Hollywood sure helps since that's something the Academy loves. Not to mention the veteran actor angle. A lot going right for Landau in this Oscar win.
Samuel L. Jackson - Pulp Fiction
Do I even have to talk about this one, motherfucker?! But seriously, when you think of Samuel L. Jackson, do you think of any other role? I certainly don't. Maybe you think of him as Nick Fury or maybe one of his other 400 films come to mind, but this is probably his most famous - and best - performance of his career. I really don't think I can say anything bad about it this one at all. Jackson is perfect as the hitman, Jules and brings such a presence and gravitas and general sense of bad ass-ness that it's hard to argue against him possibly being the winner. In fact, I think Jackson is the best part of Pulp Fiction hands down. When he's onscreen, you're watching for whatever he's gonna say and/or do next. Jackson makes it seem effortless, too. Some of his other performances, even in Tarantino films, are too long winded or build off his reputation too much. Here, he creates that reputation and Tarantino doesn't saddle Jackson down with too much dialogue. It's just enough and it's obviously done perfectly. We all remember the Bible passage and the Does he look like a bitch?! line because Jackson makes them so memorable. I mean, it really is a great piece of acting and I can't find any faults in it. If you haven't seen Pulp Fiction yet, what exactly are you waiting for? This performance alone should convince you to go watch it. Truly a great performance that is going to make choosing a winner for this category extremely hard, which is something I very much like!
Chazz Palminteri - Bullets Over Broadway
Full disclosure, I met Chazz my first year working for my local film festival. I thought it was telling that he brought his elderly mother to the event and that spoke to what a great person he was. He was very nice to me. That has nothing to do with this performance but I just like saying I met him and he was an awesome person. But when it comes to his performance, I think he nails it here. Seriously, without any prejudice I think he delivers one hell of a performance. He plays a gangster henchman that escorts Tilly's character around. His first real scene he dominates by almost beating up John Cusack but doing so in such a restricted, subdued manner. I loved how Chazz came across when being tough. It really did feel very natural and I never once doubted Palminteri as a brute. So Chazz sits on all the readings for the play as he babysits Tilly and then eventually pipes up with his two cents on the goings on and how the play can be improved. His suggestions are spot on and make the play into a better product and Cusack is amazed that the bodyguard is able to come up with this. Chazz never plays it as if he's too eager to jump in and get to work. He just wants to toe the party line so to speak and escort Tilly around and knock some heads in when told to. But in a natural progression, Cusack asks for more help and Chazz gives him his ideas and then it becomes their play and not just Cusack's. The performance during all of this is beautiful. It's never too villainous or too hokey. It feels like a guy giving honest feedback on what he sees and hears everyday. Even the end when he shoots Tilly feels legit. Chazz doesn't want to see his product harmed and you can't really blame him. I really do think this is the best male character Woody Allen has written that I've seen so far. That's huge! That's like 23 films. You can't not like Palminteri in this film. This is a well deserved nomination that will be tough to beat.
Paul Scofield - Quiz Show
I'm going to admit right off the bat that after an hour and forty minutes into this film, I had no idea who Paul Scofield was playing. I know he already won a Best Actor Oscar but I had no idea what he looked like and didn't look him up before I started watching. When I found out it was Ralph Fiennes' father in the film, it made sense. He did have the look and airs of an old British actor. He is Mark Van Doren who I guess was a famous literary and intellectual family back then. Mark was a writer and professor at Columbia and just a very sharp guy in general. He was also supportive of his son even if it was in a roundabout way. He kidded with his son about being on TV and it was all some good natured ribbing but the love was evident. There's not a lot to the role other than Scofield and Fiennes talking about the game show and discussing literary things. He also has a scene where he's rooting on his son while watching his brand new TV and turns it off because he's too nervous. A very natural thing to do. The big scene is at the end when Fiennes tells Scofield that he was given the answers for the game show and Scofield seems incredulous at first that his son would even need the answers to begin with because he's so smart. He is superbly convincing in this moment of being let down, in disbelief, and fully supportive still of his son. He accepts that his son cheated but stands with him like any good father. It's decent supporting work that I wonder if his previous Oscar winning status helped get him another nomination. He's good but doesn't exactly standout and blow you away. In fact, I'd rather have John Turturro in this spot if you can call him a supporting actor. I was so enthralled by Turturro and wanted to see more of him after the beginning. I don't exactly feel that way for Scofield but I do recognize that he's a great actor and is definitely believable in this role. I guess I was expecting more based on who he was in real life and was slightly disappointed that he was just playing the proud, supportive father. I'm glad the film is represented, though, because I really enjoyed it.
Gary Sinise - Forrest Gump
Lieutenant Dan, ice cream! That's the first and only thing I remember when it comes to Sinise in this film. Okay, so I remember more, but that's what I like to remember because it's a hilarious line to me. Anyway, I always forget how good Sinise is as an actor. He obviously succeeds in these military/authoritarian roles like this and in the next year's Apollo 13 as an astronaut. His performance is a feel good one, too, since he starts out wanting to die in combat like all his ancestors to being dejected that he was saved and lost his legs to finding a new lease on life with Gump and the shrimp business. It's a satisfying arc and one made better by Sinise's acting ability. You really do root for him and it's a perfectly supporting role. He creates a memorable character that doesn't overshadow Tom Hanks, but instead complements him and gives us something entertaining to watch. I'm not even sure what else I can say about him. He's good, not the best. I enjoyed watching him a lot more than I remember from previous viewings. His character sticks in the mind more than any other besides Gump for me and that's got to count for something. I've also got to say how much I love what Sinise does for veterans. That might trickle into my adoration for this performance a little bit but I love he genuinely cares about us veterans. It doesn't seem to be something he does for publicity, either, which is nice. I'm definitely glad he was nominated here because he deserved some recognition for Lieutenant Dan.
Welp, another year, another great - and tough! - Supporting Actor category. It continues to be my favorite category simply because it has some of the best acting out of this project and typically has the best films overall. This year is no different as you could make a case for everyone in this group if you really wanted. I will say that I was disappointed with Scofield because I was really hoping for something big and important given his pedigree but it's still a good performance, just the weakest of the bunch. Now I get into the really tough part because there's not much separating the next 4 guys. I guess I could put Sinise 4th because while I enjoy his performance, the others are all a bit stronger overall. Palminteri would be my middle guy. I really enjoyed his performance a lot and maybe in a weaker year he could have won, but the top 2 are really strong actors. I'd give Jackson the win because I think his performance was flawless and iconic and one of the best of all time. Landau wowed me because I forgot how great his performance actually was. It's got a ton of depth that might not be apparent when think of the film. All in all this was a fantastic year and I hope I get a ton more like this!
Oscar Winner: Martin Landau - Ed Wood
My Winner: Samuel L. Jackson - Pulp Fiction
Martin Landau
Chazz Palminteri
Gary Sinise
Paul Scofield
1994 Best Supporting Actor
Martin Landau - Ed Wood
Damn, another really good supporting actor performance to choose from (yes, I watch these out of order so this is the third of the five I've seen) making this an extremely tough choice. Landau plays the famous horror movie actor Bela Lugosi, or maybe I should say Landau brings Lugosi back from the dead. I don't even say that jokingly because Landau really inhabits the spirit of Lugosi in all aspects of the men. Landau is the spitting image of Lugosi and nails the mannerisms and way he walks from what I've seen of the original man. He seriously brings Lugosi to life and it's incredible to watch. Landau does get ample opportunity to show off his acting chops because Lugosi gets a ton of screen time and really the film is more about Bela Lugosi than it is about Ed Wood. It's a supporting turn but the case could be made for a shared leading role if Depp didn't carry the film. When it comes to the performance, though, make no mistake - it's not just an impersonation. There's a ton of depth to Landau's performance as the character is more than just comic relief. Lugosi is a sad figure, a man addicted to drugs, out of money and holding on to his fading legacy. As good as Landau is when it comes to acting like Lugosi, he may be even better at portraying the tragic, profound moments in the film. Lugosi long for yesteryear when he was acting and making good horror movies and was a wanted commodity. Now he's addicted to morphine and a sad, angry man. So it's sweet when Ed Wood runs into him and just wants him to be in his film no matter his current issues. This reinvigorates Lugosi who gives his all to the craft once again despite the film being beyond awful. Again, lot's more to this performance than just actor portrays famous old horror movie guy. Landau is also pretty gung ho with the comedy and acting like it's actually the 20's or 30s and it's a lot o fun to watch. It's definitely a really good performance that can stand on its own but I do think it being a role about old Hollywood sure helps since that's something the Academy loves. Not to mention the veteran actor angle. A lot going right for Landau in this Oscar win.
Samuel L. Jackson - Pulp Fiction
Do I even have to talk about this one, motherfucker?! But seriously, when you think of Samuel L. Jackson, do you think of any other role? I certainly don't. Maybe you think of him as Nick Fury or maybe one of his other 400 films come to mind, but this is probably his most famous - and best - performance of his career. I really don't think I can say anything bad about it this one at all. Jackson is perfect as the hitman, Jules and brings such a presence and gravitas and general sense of bad ass-ness that it's hard to argue against him possibly being the winner. In fact, I think Jackson is the best part of Pulp Fiction hands down. When he's onscreen, you're watching for whatever he's gonna say and/or do next. Jackson makes it seem effortless, too. Some of his other performances, even in Tarantino films, are too long winded or build off his reputation too much. Here, he creates that reputation and Tarantino doesn't saddle Jackson down with too much dialogue. It's just enough and it's obviously done perfectly. We all remember the Bible passage and the Does he look like a bitch?! line because Jackson makes them so memorable. I mean, it really is a great piece of acting and I can't find any faults in it. If you haven't seen Pulp Fiction yet, what exactly are you waiting for? This performance alone should convince you to go watch it. Truly a great performance that is going to make choosing a winner for this category extremely hard, which is something I very much like!
Chazz Palminteri - Bullets Over Broadway
Full disclosure, I met Chazz my first year working for my local film festival. I thought it was telling that he brought his elderly mother to the event and that spoke to what a great person he was. He was very nice to me. That has nothing to do with this performance but I just like saying I met him and he was an awesome person. But when it comes to his performance, I think he nails it here. Seriously, without any prejudice I think he delivers one hell of a performance. He plays a gangster henchman that escorts Tilly's character around. His first real scene he dominates by almost beating up John Cusack but doing so in such a restricted, subdued manner. I loved how Chazz came across when being tough. It really did feel very natural and I never once doubted Palminteri as a brute. So Chazz sits on all the readings for the play as he babysits Tilly and then eventually pipes up with his two cents on the goings on and how the play can be improved. His suggestions are spot on and make the play into a better product and Cusack is amazed that the bodyguard is able to come up with this. Chazz never plays it as if he's too eager to jump in and get to work. He just wants to toe the party line so to speak and escort Tilly around and knock some heads in when told to. But in a natural progression, Cusack asks for more help and Chazz gives him his ideas and then it becomes their play and not just Cusack's. The performance during all of this is beautiful. It's never too villainous or too hokey. It feels like a guy giving honest feedback on what he sees and hears everyday. Even the end when he shoots Tilly feels legit. Chazz doesn't want to see his product harmed and you can't really blame him. I really do think this is the best male character Woody Allen has written that I've seen so far. That's huge! That's like 23 films. You can't not like Palminteri in this film. This is a well deserved nomination that will be tough to beat.
Paul Scofield - Quiz Show
I'm going to admit right off the bat that after an hour and forty minutes into this film, I had no idea who Paul Scofield was playing. I know he already won a Best Actor Oscar but I had no idea what he looked like and didn't look him up before I started watching. When I found out it was Ralph Fiennes' father in the film, it made sense. He did have the look and airs of an old British actor. He is Mark Van Doren who I guess was a famous literary and intellectual family back then. Mark was a writer and professor at Columbia and just a very sharp guy in general. He was also supportive of his son even if it was in a roundabout way. He kidded with his son about being on TV and it was all some good natured ribbing but the love was evident. There's not a lot to the role other than Scofield and Fiennes talking about the game show and discussing literary things. He also has a scene where he's rooting on his son while watching his brand new TV and turns it off because he's too nervous. A very natural thing to do. The big scene is at the end when Fiennes tells Scofield that he was given the answers for the game show and Scofield seems incredulous at first that his son would even need the answers to begin with because he's so smart. He is superbly convincing in this moment of being let down, in disbelief, and fully supportive still of his son. He accepts that his son cheated but stands with him like any good father. It's decent supporting work that I wonder if his previous Oscar winning status helped get him another nomination. He's good but doesn't exactly standout and blow you away. In fact, I'd rather have John Turturro in this spot if you can call him a supporting actor. I was so enthralled by Turturro and wanted to see more of him after the beginning. I don't exactly feel that way for Scofield but I do recognize that he's a great actor and is definitely believable in this role. I guess I was expecting more based on who he was in real life and was slightly disappointed that he was just playing the proud, supportive father. I'm glad the film is represented, though, because I really enjoyed it.
Gary Sinise - Forrest Gump
Lieutenant Dan, ice cream! That's the first and only thing I remember when it comes to Sinise in this film. Okay, so I remember more, but that's what I like to remember because it's a hilarious line to me. Anyway, I always forget how good Sinise is as an actor. He obviously succeeds in these military/authoritarian roles like this and in the next year's Apollo 13 as an astronaut. His performance is a feel good one, too, since he starts out wanting to die in combat like all his ancestors to being dejected that he was saved and lost his legs to finding a new lease on life with Gump and the shrimp business. It's a satisfying arc and one made better by Sinise's acting ability. You really do root for him and it's a perfectly supporting role. He creates a memorable character that doesn't overshadow Tom Hanks, but instead complements him and gives us something entertaining to watch. I'm not even sure what else I can say about him. He's good, not the best. I enjoyed watching him a lot more than I remember from previous viewings. His character sticks in the mind more than any other besides Gump for me and that's got to count for something. I've also got to say how much I love what Sinise does for veterans. That might trickle into my adoration for this performance a little bit but I love he genuinely cares about us veterans. It doesn't seem to be something he does for publicity, either, which is nice. I'm definitely glad he was nominated here because he deserved some recognition for Lieutenant Dan.
Welp, another year, another great - and tough! - Supporting Actor category. It continues to be my favorite category simply because it has some of the best acting out of this project and typically has the best films overall. This year is no different as you could make a case for everyone in this group if you really wanted. I will say that I was disappointed with Scofield because I was really hoping for something big and important given his pedigree but it's still a good performance, just the weakest of the bunch. Now I get into the really tough part because there's not much separating the next 4 guys. I guess I could put Sinise 4th because while I enjoy his performance, the others are all a bit stronger overall. Palminteri would be my middle guy. I really enjoyed his performance a lot and maybe in a weaker year he could have won, but the top 2 are really strong actors. I'd give Jackson the win because I think his performance was flawless and iconic and one of the best of all time. Landau wowed me because I forgot how great his performance actually was. It's got a ton of depth that might not be apparent when think of the film. All in all this was a fantastic year and I hope I get a ton more like this!
Oscar Winner: Martin Landau - Ed Wood
My Winner: Samuel L. Jackson - Pulp Fiction
Martin Landau
Chazz Palminteri
Gary Sinise
Paul Scofield
Friday, May 6, 2016
Supporting Actress 1994
Only seen one of these films prior to now so it'll be interesting to see what I find. Always interesting, too, when you get double nominees from the same film. Who will overshadow who? Let's find out!
1994 Best Supporting Actress
Dianne Wiest - Bullets Over Broadway
My second straight Woody Allen Supporting Actress winner who was of course the first chronologically. I'm starting to get a little more into these Woody Allen films because the quality is starting to ramp up as I go back in time. I know that he had a lot of duds in his later years (because I watched them all, ugh) but I've enjoyed these last two films of his. This was Wiest's second Supporting Actress win for a Woody Allen film which is quite remarkable honestly. I know Wiest from Law and Order, since that's what I grew up on, and it's nice to see she's a decorated film actress, too. I was eager to see just what kind of actress she was since she was the noble District Attorney on the show. Wiest plays Helen Sinclair, an older veteran stage actress who becomes romantically involved with the writer/director of the play, John Cusack. Wiest's protrayal of her character is a boozy, seductive one and it works. She's a very overstated actress, very melodramatic and it's easy to see why she was nominated and won. It's an easily likable performance, one that allows for Wiest to overact without any repercussions. The role begs her to be this loud actress who enjoys being with Cusack's character and to be very funny at times. It's also a very supporting role because Tilly is the more prominent supporting actress. It does kinda surprise me that she won for this because Tilly does dominate the film, even though both are pretty entertaining. Maybe it's the Academy going back to what is familiar, I dunno. But though Wiest is entertaining as the overacting, alcoholic veteran actress, she does get overshadowed a bit. I'll have to watch the rest to figure out if she stands a chance at a win.
Rosemary Harris - Tom and Viv
Well, there's usually one performance that I wonder why it was nominated at all and this one is it. The film itself isn't all that great so it's not like she got swept up in the hype of a film everyone loved. That leads me to believe this is a veteran nomination and a career reward because that is the only thing that can explain why she's in this group. Now, I don't want to sound too harsh but there's not much to this role really. And while I say a similar thing about Helen Mirren, she at least leaves a mark on the film/audience. Harris is just there in this one, unfortunately. She plays the mother to Viv, who is a temperamental woman who marries the poet T.S. Eliot. Viv is a difficult person to live with because she suffers from some mood swings and other maladies which get explained at the end as basically a hormonal imbalance. She gets thrown in the loony bin anyway and that's the story. Harris is her concerned mother that is an upper crust woman with the typical British stuffiness. That's how she comes off when we first meet her but the character does warm up a bit by the end. She consults with Tom (T.S. Eliot played by Willem Dafoe) about her daughter and how she's doing and about putting her in an institution. She doesn't get much opportunity to act until a final scene towards the end but it's kinda too little, too late for me. She just doesn't do a whole lot within the story and Harris doesn't get a chance to shine. There's not much here so it leaves me wondering what else was out there that was prevented from getting it's due. Harris isn't bad but she's also not that particularly amazing. She's a woman doing what's asked of her and that's about it. Not a great nomination.
Helen Mirren - The Madness of King George
This film is a hoot! I read another blog that said this was a boring period piece so I was a little apprehensive going into this one but that description couldn't be further from the truth. This film is incredibly funny and certainly entertaining, not sure what the other blog watched. It follows King George III and his descent into madness and possible take over by some of the other political players in that time. The film itself is very theatrical and it's based off a play, which makes sense. Mirren, in her first nomination, plays King George's wife, Queen Charlotte. She, like everyone else, benefits from the theatricality of the dialogue and delivers an equally funny and entertaining performance. She also is great at the tender and tough moments which allows her character to be pretty well rounded. She thoroughly loves the King and cares for his well being but can't really be there for him because of the times. Mirren doesn't have all that much to do honestly, but I did think she gave a good performance with what she had to work with. She was caring and entertaining and looked good doing it. I'm not sure this was something that was going to win this year, but I like that Mirren was represented because it most certainly helped her out with Oscar in the long run. It's a good performance in a really entertaining film most people will not have seen.
Uma Thurman - Pulp Fiction
You know I think this film has grown so large in our collective minds that this role now seems larger than it really is. Now that could be because Uma does do a pretty good job with her character and leaves a lasting impression on the film, which is all true. But reality is that it's not that big of a role time wise. Not that that really matters, it's just that it seems bigger when I think about the film. I forgot that she's not in the whole thing because she has a couple iconic and famous moments. That's a pretty big thing for a supporting actress to have in a film. Of course the film has a ton of those iconic moments so it's only natural that Uma would have a couple as well. I'm obviously talking about her dance scene with Travolta which is one of the first things that comes to mind when I think of this film. The other being the overdose adrenaline shot scene which is pretty gnarly. Uma plays Marsellus's wife and her scenes don't really have much of a point to the story, just kind of something that happens in the meantime, though not any less entertaining. She goes out, she dances, talks a lot, overdoses and is brought back to life. Uma, though, is pretty fantastic in the role. She's kind of sassy but not overly so and she oozes sex appeal without being overt about it. She and Travolta have great chemistry and read Tarantino's lines to perfection. One might look at this and say it's Pulp Fiction, Uma has got to be the winner! But even though she has some iconic scenes and she is plenty entertaining, it's not the best performance, for me anyway.
Jennifer Tilly - Bullets Over Broadway
Whereas Wiest was the boozy veteran stage actress, Tilly plays the brand new to acting and also awful at acting actress. Tilly is the girlfriend of a mob boss and her dream is to be an actress. Except she can't act for shit and her voice is extremely obnoxious and has that nails on chalkboard quality. I mean when she speaks, you understand why she wouldn't be a very good actress (which is funny considering Tilly made a living off of it). Anyway, the mob boss bankrolls John Cusack's new play so his girl can finally get a breakthrough in acting yet she is awful. Tilly has a lot of fun with the part and I read on IMDB that she was the only one allowed to ad-lib dialogue for her character which is something I guess Allen hates his actors to do. I love the energy that Tilly has for her character and she is hilarious at times with her exasperated digs at Cusack and the script. Tilly is very believable as the dopey mob girlfriend and her lack of fear and lack of charm really play into being a good character. Tilly has the flashier role out of the two nominated performances and it's easy to see why she was also nominated along with Wiest. I also think it's easy to side with Tilly because she's much more personable and outgoing and memorable, all because of Tilly. Woody Allen definitely writes some very interesting parts for women as evidenced by the myriad of actress nominations nd this is no different. Tilly is a lot of fun to watch work in Allen's world and she seems to fit right in with relative ease. Out of the two, I think I much prefer Tilly even though Wiest is still pretty good in her role.
After an underwhelming group, we get a really good supporting actress category. I'm always happy when that's the case. Really Harris is the only one I didn't like and that's just because she is clearly a veteran nomination (and apparently was Aunt May in the Spider-Man movies, which I didn't realize) and is easily the 5th. Then Mirren is 4th because she's a slight nominee this time around even though I liked her. Just not a whole lot to it really. Wiest is my 3rd because I preferred Tilly over her in the same film. Can't win if I like the other woman more than you. I just think Wiest gets overshadowed in her own film so Tilly is my winner because she's such a fun performance and I just liked it more. Simple as that. Uma is my second because she's memorable and really good, just think Tilly is a little more entertaining. Definitely not a bad group at all, though it could have been better. Maybe 1993 will be that for me!
Oscar Winner: Dianne Wiest - Bullets Over Broadway
My Winner: Jennifer Tilly - Bullets Over Broadway
Uma Thurman
Dianne Wiest
Helen Mirren
Rosemary Harris
1994 Best Supporting Actress
Dianne Wiest - Bullets Over Broadway
My second straight Woody Allen Supporting Actress winner who was of course the first chronologically. I'm starting to get a little more into these Woody Allen films because the quality is starting to ramp up as I go back in time. I know that he had a lot of duds in his later years (because I watched them all, ugh) but I've enjoyed these last two films of his. This was Wiest's second Supporting Actress win for a Woody Allen film which is quite remarkable honestly. I know Wiest from Law and Order, since that's what I grew up on, and it's nice to see she's a decorated film actress, too. I was eager to see just what kind of actress she was since she was the noble District Attorney on the show. Wiest plays Helen Sinclair, an older veteran stage actress who becomes romantically involved with the writer/director of the play, John Cusack. Wiest's protrayal of her character is a boozy, seductive one and it works. She's a very overstated actress, very melodramatic and it's easy to see why she was nominated and won. It's an easily likable performance, one that allows for Wiest to overact without any repercussions. The role begs her to be this loud actress who enjoys being with Cusack's character and to be very funny at times. It's also a very supporting role because Tilly is the more prominent supporting actress. It does kinda surprise me that she won for this because Tilly does dominate the film, even though both are pretty entertaining. Maybe it's the Academy going back to what is familiar, I dunno. But though Wiest is entertaining as the overacting, alcoholic veteran actress, she does get overshadowed a bit. I'll have to watch the rest to figure out if she stands a chance at a win.
Rosemary Harris - Tom and Viv
Well, there's usually one performance that I wonder why it was nominated at all and this one is it. The film itself isn't all that great so it's not like she got swept up in the hype of a film everyone loved. That leads me to believe this is a veteran nomination and a career reward because that is the only thing that can explain why she's in this group. Now, I don't want to sound too harsh but there's not much to this role really. And while I say a similar thing about Helen Mirren, she at least leaves a mark on the film/audience. Harris is just there in this one, unfortunately. She plays the mother to Viv, who is a temperamental woman who marries the poet T.S. Eliot. Viv is a difficult person to live with because she suffers from some mood swings and other maladies which get explained at the end as basically a hormonal imbalance. She gets thrown in the loony bin anyway and that's the story. Harris is her concerned mother that is an upper crust woman with the typical British stuffiness. That's how she comes off when we first meet her but the character does warm up a bit by the end. She consults with Tom (T.S. Eliot played by Willem Dafoe) about her daughter and how she's doing and about putting her in an institution. She doesn't get much opportunity to act until a final scene towards the end but it's kinda too little, too late for me. She just doesn't do a whole lot within the story and Harris doesn't get a chance to shine. There's not much here so it leaves me wondering what else was out there that was prevented from getting it's due. Harris isn't bad but she's also not that particularly amazing. She's a woman doing what's asked of her and that's about it. Not a great nomination.
Helen Mirren - The Madness of King George
This film is a hoot! I read another blog that said this was a boring period piece so I was a little apprehensive going into this one but that description couldn't be further from the truth. This film is incredibly funny and certainly entertaining, not sure what the other blog watched. It follows King George III and his descent into madness and possible take over by some of the other political players in that time. The film itself is very theatrical and it's based off a play, which makes sense. Mirren, in her first nomination, plays King George's wife, Queen Charlotte. She, like everyone else, benefits from the theatricality of the dialogue and delivers an equally funny and entertaining performance. She also is great at the tender and tough moments which allows her character to be pretty well rounded. She thoroughly loves the King and cares for his well being but can't really be there for him because of the times. Mirren doesn't have all that much to do honestly, but I did think she gave a good performance with what she had to work with. She was caring and entertaining and looked good doing it. I'm not sure this was something that was going to win this year, but I like that Mirren was represented because it most certainly helped her out with Oscar in the long run. It's a good performance in a really entertaining film most people will not have seen.
Uma Thurman - Pulp Fiction
You know I think this film has grown so large in our collective minds that this role now seems larger than it really is. Now that could be because Uma does do a pretty good job with her character and leaves a lasting impression on the film, which is all true. But reality is that it's not that big of a role time wise. Not that that really matters, it's just that it seems bigger when I think about the film. I forgot that she's not in the whole thing because she has a couple iconic and famous moments. That's a pretty big thing for a supporting actress to have in a film. Of course the film has a ton of those iconic moments so it's only natural that Uma would have a couple as well. I'm obviously talking about her dance scene with Travolta which is one of the first things that comes to mind when I think of this film. The other being the overdose adrenaline shot scene which is pretty gnarly. Uma plays Marsellus's wife and her scenes don't really have much of a point to the story, just kind of something that happens in the meantime, though not any less entertaining. She goes out, she dances, talks a lot, overdoses and is brought back to life. Uma, though, is pretty fantastic in the role. She's kind of sassy but not overly so and she oozes sex appeal without being overt about it. She and Travolta have great chemistry and read Tarantino's lines to perfection. One might look at this and say it's Pulp Fiction, Uma has got to be the winner! But even though she has some iconic scenes and she is plenty entertaining, it's not the best performance, for me anyway.
Jennifer Tilly - Bullets Over Broadway
Whereas Wiest was the boozy veteran stage actress, Tilly plays the brand new to acting and also awful at acting actress. Tilly is the girlfriend of a mob boss and her dream is to be an actress. Except she can't act for shit and her voice is extremely obnoxious and has that nails on chalkboard quality. I mean when she speaks, you understand why she wouldn't be a very good actress (which is funny considering Tilly made a living off of it). Anyway, the mob boss bankrolls John Cusack's new play so his girl can finally get a breakthrough in acting yet she is awful. Tilly has a lot of fun with the part and I read on IMDB that she was the only one allowed to ad-lib dialogue for her character which is something I guess Allen hates his actors to do. I love the energy that Tilly has for her character and she is hilarious at times with her exasperated digs at Cusack and the script. Tilly is very believable as the dopey mob girlfriend and her lack of fear and lack of charm really play into being a good character. Tilly has the flashier role out of the two nominated performances and it's easy to see why she was also nominated along with Wiest. I also think it's easy to side with Tilly because she's much more personable and outgoing and memorable, all because of Tilly. Woody Allen definitely writes some very interesting parts for women as evidenced by the myriad of actress nominations nd this is no different. Tilly is a lot of fun to watch work in Allen's world and she seems to fit right in with relative ease. Out of the two, I think I much prefer Tilly even though Wiest is still pretty good in her role.
After an underwhelming group, we get a really good supporting actress category. I'm always happy when that's the case. Really Harris is the only one I didn't like and that's just because she is clearly a veteran nomination (and apparently was Aunt May in the Spider-Man movies, which I didn't realize) and is easily the 5th. Then Mirren is 4th because she's a slight nominee this time around even though I liked her. Just not a whole lot to it really. Wiest is my 3rd because I preferred Tilly over her in the same film. Can't win if I like the other woman more than you. I just think Wiest gets overshadowed in her own film so Tilly is my winner because she's such a fun performance and I just liked it more. Simple as that. Uma is my second because she's memorable and really good, just think Tilly is a little more entertaining. Definitely not a bad group at all, though it could have been better. Maybe 1993 will be that for me!
Oscar Winner: Dianne Wiest - Bullets Over Broadway
My Winner: Jennifer Tilly - Bullets Over Broadway
Uma Thurman
Dianne Wiest
Helen Mirren
Rosemary Harris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)