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
No comments:
Post a Comment