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
No comments:
Post a Comment