Not super excited about watching this group based on its history of under performing but I'm at least getting closer to the 80s. Let's see if this holds any hidden gems for me.
1992 Best Supporting Actress
Marisa Tomei - My Cousin Vinny
Everyone always points to this as a big surprising win, but when you actually look at this category and those nominated, it looks almost like a clear winner. Now yes, her being nominated was probably very shocking because it's not exactly a typical Oscar performance or film. It's the kind of performance that maybe gets some kudos and people enjoy the film, maybe it gets some buzz but then on nomination day some other established actress in a boring film gets the nod. So Tomei being nominated AND winning is a nice change of pace. The performance is actually really good for what it is which is a purely supporting turn. Tomei plays the kind of gangster girlfriend role although Joe Pesci is a lawyer instead of a hitman this time around. She's along for the ride as he gets called to defend some college kids in Alabama who are falsely accused of murder. Tomei is funny and delightful and a lot of fun to watch her and Pesci interact. She motivates him, she grounds him, she helps him figure out some legal loopholes and abstract ways of looking at the case, and her big moment is when she is called as an expert witness on types of cars and tires, thus sealing the case for Pesci. Sometimes something as straightforward and simple as this performance can really hit the spot after watching a lot of the other supporting situations. Alliteration! But seriously, this is a pleasant performance which I can't stress enough. It's nice to watch Tomei do her thing and know she's not gunning for an Oscar, to know she's not trying too hard. And the thing is, compared to some of the other performances in this category, this is a great performance! So it shouldn't be a surprise that Tomei actually won, it should be a surprise that the Academy actually rewarded her and didn't just give the Oscar to an old/British woman for a boring role. Tomei has great comedic timing, working class smarts, and (rough) girl next door charm - what's not to love?
Judy Davis - Husbands and Wives
This is most definitely a typical Woody Allen female character which of course gets a nomination. He's very good at writing female characters and giving the actresses something to really sink their teeth into just like this one. Davis plays a woman who separates from her husband and goes on to live the single life but jealousy and heartache and loneliness ensues causing her to get back with her husband at the end. There's a lot to be said about the dynamics of the relationships being shown in this film, really a ton to be said. Davis is part of a couple who are bored with each other and want to experience the single life again (aka doing what they want and fucking whoever else they want). They are the typical successful New York couple with fantastical jobs bored because their life is so good and they need to inject drama into it to feel alive. At least, that's how a lot of Allen's relationships come off to me since I can't relate to them at all. Davis is a fiery, tempestuous woman. She's very critical and says whatever she wants and doesn't seem to grasp that her words can be hurtful. That seems to be one of the themes of the film is guys falling all over themselves to be with beautiful woman even if it means going against what they believe in and stomping on their own convictions just because they want some ass. It's a very critical film on both men and women and Davis gets to play a strong woman. She gets jealous when her husband starts sleeping and seeing a much younger woman and then reacts in a similar way to him with another "perfect" guy. Throughout this, Davis is bullheaded and extremely selfish and she pulls it off wonderfully. I don't exactly like her character but the performance is pretty good. She's abrasive and unpredictable and that fits perfectly with the tone of the character. She doesn't exactly know what she wants but she'll fight for whatever her whims might be at that moment. Like I said, a very good performance that I'll have to think long and hard on voting for.
Joan Plowright - Enchanted April
Sigh. So this was a made for British TV thing in 1991 that saw a wide US release for some reason in 1992 and garnered all kinds of nominations and awards. It actually won some Golden Globes! I cannot wrap my head around how or why. It looks like it was shot on a budget of about $200 and it's far from Oscar worthy. Plowright plays a Mrs. Fisher, who tags along with Miranda Richardson and Josie Lawrence as like an aide. She's a curmudgeonly old lady who sticks her nose in other people's business. A typical, old time supporting role. And a not very good supporting role. There's nothing to Plowright's performance. She's an old, crotchety lady for a bit and then they all get along at the end and find themselves and yadda yadda yadda. She doesn't stand out. You would have to point her out to me so that I knew who she was in order to say, really SHE got nominated? If you were to watch this and pick out who got nominated for an Academy Award, you might say Miranda Richardson or Alfred Molina or Jim Broadbent or even the random lady there but no, it's the barely heard from old, cranky lady. Go figure. What a garbage nomination this truly is! One of the most undeserving nominations ever.
Vanessa Redgrave - Howards End
This was the main supporting nomination that I was looking forward to watching the most. That's because she's a previous Oscar winner with a couple other nominations and a heavy hitter by name alone. So I wanted to know if this would have been worthy of a win to make Tomei's win so shocking like I've heard for so long. It's clear that Redgrave is a generational actress who brings immediate gravitas to her character and performance just because of who she is. That's evident here as she uses her stature to great effect for her character. She plays a sick/dying older woman of a well off English family who is bored of her place in the world. She's the kind of woman who everyone stops talking and listens to whenever she even whispers and can change the subject of a discussion to something unrelated because she can. She speaks in breathy platitudes, as if she's on autopilot and no one can switch her off. The whole time I was watching her I felt she was like an alien visiting another world. She has this wide eyed look of fascination on her face and she wishes she could be in Emma Thompson's place instead of in her current state. She's bored of the life she is living and Redgrave makes the performance seem as if it's almost from another film altogether - and I mean that as a good thing. I enjoyed whenever Redgrave was around onscreen which was only maybe 15 minutes or so in the beginning because she was such an interesting character. I don't think she blew me away or anything, but I would have preferred more time with her character to get to know her more which is obviously the mark of a pretty good performance. Her presence lingers throughout the film and really highlights how different the beginning is from the end. Not sure this should have been the winner but Redgrave is certainly part of the discussion.
Miranda Richardson - Damage
Richardson had quite the year in 1992, turning out much loved performances in this film, Enchanted April, and The Crying Game. Easy to see why she was nominated for at least one of them since the Academy loves rewarding actors for appearing in a lot of acclaimed films in the same year. The nomination alone is her reward, though it's interesting to note that she won a Golden Globe for Best Actress for Enchanted April. My guess is the Academy wanted to reward her for her year but didn't want to vote for her in Lead so she was nominated for this film. In Damage, she plays the wife to Jeremy Irons. And that's it, should end the review there. But seriously, she doesn't factor into the film at all until a very brief scene at the very end where she wails about her son who dies accidentally and then shows her tits to Irons. It's not even a big Oscar moment. It's just like they forgot she hadn't had much screen time and decided to give her some. That's why I feel like this is absolutely a nomination for the amalgamation of her work. On it's own, this is not worthy of anything. Her The Crying Game work isn't all that good, just typical villainous stuff. Enchanted April she's the lead and she's alright but the film is so unappealing that it's tough to sit through. Oh, and did I mention she's 33 in real life here yet playing an older woman with grown up kids? It simply isn't believable and she doesn't fit the part. She was a flavor of the moment and young and the Academy loves that, so here we are with a nomination.
I'm always hoping for the best but expecting the worst. This year is actually somewhat in the middle and I'm glad for that. I started off by watching Plowright and Richardson back to back and was like oh, no here we go again with an awful category. Seriously, Plowright is boring and the movie is bad and Richardson just doesn't get anything to do in her movie. She's voted in for simply having a good year with a couple films to her credit. Then I watched Tomei and really enjoyed it and was glad that she did in fact win. It's a solid performance that is something this category needs more of in spades. Then I got to the other two actual main contenders and watched Redgrave who is really great in her brief time in the film and leaves a hole when she exits the film. But it's short and I like Tomei better overall with how they fit in their respective films. So it came down to Davis and I was surprised and not surprised at Davis. It's good and I wasn't sure I'd like it as much but Woody Allen creates a lot of interesting and neurotic woman characters so I should have expected something good. Now I was left to figure out Tomei or Davis. I prefer to watch Tomei a lot more but I was certainly drawn to the fiery Davis character even if I couldn't relate to her at all. Just interesting and compelling but Tomei is equally so. So with that in mind I think I'll just stick with the Academy on this one. It's a good one though I wouldn't mind Davis winning either. Not a bad category all things considered but I wish they'd stop nominating stuff like Plowright and Richardson.
Oscar Winner: Marisa Tomei - My Cousin Vinny
My Winner: Marisa Tomei - My Cousin Vinny
Judy Davis
Vanessa Redgrave
Miranda Richardson
Joan Plowright
Monday, July 25, 2016
Monday, July 18, 2016
Best Picture 1993
I think one of the best things about doing this project is the fact that I can now have a voice, an opinion, an educated say about a whole bunch of Oscar discussions and debates. There are some blogs and websites that discuss certain categories or this winner versus this other person/film and why it's great or why it's total garbage. Whereas in the past I would just read about these things, now I feel I can contribute and say yes this film is great because reasons or this performance is not good because reasons. There's a lot more of these films and performances to check off for me as I go back in time but I feel like I'm finally scratching the surface of a lot of the internet debates. I can't wait to finish the 90s and get into the 80s and feel like I've made some real progress.
1993 Best Picture
Schindler's List
This was your easy winner and rightfully so. It's a film that has transcended the Oscars and gets talked about as an important work of art for the entire world to watch. It gets mentions on the Best Film of all time lists, which includes films from all over the world and not just the Oscar films. It's a testament and a monument to the subject and people covered by this story. It's a reminder to never forget the atrocities that actually happened and remember with reverence the millions who were killed and affected. Though this is just one of many Holocaust films, it's a great film regardless of the subject matter which of course makes the film that much more important. It's a film that needs to be shown again and again and need to be watched over and over by all generations to keep them aware of what evil can really do in this world. Hard to debate anything else winning because it doesn't feel right and honestly, nothing on this list even comes close. This was a lifelong passion for Spielberg and it shows. He waited until he was older to even make it because he felt his younger self would do a disservice to the story. The acting is all top notch with all of Neeson, Fiennes, and Kingsley giving great performances. It's over 3 hours long but never really feels it's length. I think some of that is due to how the story lingers on certain moments like the liquidation of the ghetto or the moving the Jews to Auschwitz where we sort of sit silently back watching these horrible moments play out for 30 minutes or so at a time. They are so horrifying and engrossing that they suck us in and next thing you know the film is half over. But it also never feels exploitative at all. Everyone involved handles the subject matter with the utmost of sincere respect. The black and white cinematography is effective and works well for the story. The music is eloquent and memorable. It's a culmination of all the parts coming together to make an instant classic that is much more than just about winning Oscars.
The Fugitive
This is a really interesting inclusion for Best Picture, one that I do feel is deserved, because I can't imagine a thriller like this being nominated today. But I guess that speaks to just how good this film is and also to the state of Oscar in the early 90s. The Fugitive stars Harrison Ford as Dr. Richard Kimble, a man who is convicted of the murder of his wife though he is actually innocent. He escapes after his transport van is hit by a train and he goes on the lam with Tommy Lee Jones hunting him down as he tries to figure out who really killed his wife. It's a very simple story but the acting is so tremendous and the way the story unfolds is so compelling that it definitely elevates itself into more than just a regular thriller. Both Ford and Jones are extremely good and their cat and mouse game is a lot of fun to watch. One of the things that this film has going for it is that it eschews all the hokey beats that normally seem to be in your late 80s/early 90s thrillers. The music is decent even if it is totally early 90s, it at least isn't the full on synth weirdness you usually get. I also like that it treats the story with respect and not just as an excuse to see Ford running around like an action hero or Jones firing a gun. So what we get is an honest, dramatic story that focuses on the chase, sure, but also the mystery of who killed Ford's wife and how he is going to solve it. There are some moments where you have to suspend your disbelief like when Ford jumps off the dam into the water but I don't feel as if these moments detract from the overall story at all. In fact, the film has a ton of famous and iconic scenes such as Ford jumping off the dam after being confronted by Jones. The scene where the train smashes the van and derails is another amazing piece of movie magic, too. It does seem amazing to me that this film would be a Best Picture nominee, but I guess that's what the Academy (and audiences) was into back then. To me, it's an inspired choice and I'm absolutely glad it was chosen. I'd love for more films like this to be not only nominated but made today. And if you haven't seen this film yet, it might seem cliché and overly familiar which is only because it was so highly regarded that other films stole from it and it's been parodied for some of it's iconic scenes. But this is an action film and thriller done the right way. This might not have been the winner but it's a hell of a good and entertaining film.
In the Name of the Father
As all two of you readers should know by now, I go backwards when it comes to writing my reviews. So Best Supporting Actress is written first and then everything else follows suit. That often means that I've blown my wad when it comes to writing about a film that is up for Best Picture. By that I mean I kind of already wrote part of this review when I wrote about Emma Thompson's performance. I touched base on why I like the film and at this point, I hate repeating myself over and over. I won't say go read that little blurb instead because that would be pretty awful of me. Just wanted to point out that's why I often repeat myself for the same film category to category. Anyway, I really did enjoy this film. I mentioned it's partly because the British-Irish conflict is so intriguing to me because it's so recent and something I'm not all that well versed in. I also love this film because the acting is top notch and the three acting nominations were all very well deserved. It might take some small liberties with the truth such as everyone being freed on a technicality in real life (as I understand it) instead of some shocking new piece of evidence being found. I don't think it changes the impact of the film, however. The story is one that needed to be told. And that's the big thing for about this film is that it's not about exceptional cinematography or amazing music (though having Bono write songs for your film doesn't hurt). I like this film because of the powerhouse acting and the engaging, compelling, important story being told. It's pretty much as simple as that for me. One of the pluses of watching this film is that it really makes me want to dive a little deeper into the history of that time period. I feel like I should know more about the IRA-Britain stuff than I actually do. I think it's extremely well done and a worthy Best Picture nominee. It just happened to run up against the Spielberg Holocaust buzzsaw.
The Piano
I sat on this review for awhile not because I hate the film or anything but because sometimes you get really motivated after watching a film and knock these out quickly. I wrote up the two actress reviews quickly but it was late so I decided to wait for this one. Then the next day I just felt terribly unmotivated to write about this one, which happens. My first impression of the film was that the music was pretty loud at times and I didn't know if that was the intent or just my copy of the film. Minor issue but it was really annoying while watching it. As for the film itself, I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. Can't say I'm the biggest Jane Campion fan but I did think the film was gorgeously shot. Some really great looking scenes, though I found it weird that the film seemed so intimate in its scope. It's set in New Zealand but we don't get that many scenery shots, it's mostly up close on the characters wherever they happen to be. I think that obviously adds to the feel of the film and makes it a little more intense. The acting is actually quite good, too. I wasn't sure if Holly Hunter and Anna Paquin's Oscar wins were going to be well deserved but I think they were. Paquin was in a pretty weak group but she still held her own and was better than the typical child actor. Hunter kinda blew me away because I hadn't really liked some of her other work but felt she was incredibly strong in this film even without saying a word. Harvey Keitel also does a pretty great job at playing a white man accepted by the Maori. Without him for Hunter to act off of, this film probably isn't as good and wouldn't/shouldn't be in the Oscar discussion. The story is about Hunter who gets married off to Sam Neill in New Zealand and they make the trip from Scotland and Hunter wants to bring her piano since that's basically how she communicates. Neill doesn't want to haul it from the beach and so Harvey Keitel agrees to bring it in exchange for lessons. The lessons turn sexual in nature and conflict arises between everyone. The worry for me is that the film would be overly pretentious but I felt it struck the right balance between artsy indie film and legit Oscar contender. I must say that the end is pretty bunk. I just didn't care for the way it ended even if it's supposed to be symbolic or whatever. The film, though a strong work done mostly by women, treats the Maori characters as if they were background animals or something. I get that the film is about white people existing in a harsh environment but I don't understand the marginalizing of these people, they feel like props. Anyway, I did like The Piano a bit more than I thought I would, for sure. It's a Miramax film so it probably won't be for everyone and you could debate if it belongs on the Best Picture list but it's not as bad as you might think it is.
The Remains of the Day
This is a really interesting film. If you read the description, it reads like any old boring, stuffy British film focusing on a butler and the antiquated living styles of yesteryear. If you see it's another Merchant-Ivory film, you may have some unfavorable opinions on it before even watching based on their history. All of which is totally natural and totally unfair. I'm guilty of it and I'm always glad to be proven wrong. The film is based on a book by a Japanese-English writer that is a little more modern in style than some of the other classical British books that have been made into films by the Merchant-Ivory team. The film follows Stevens, a head butler portrayed by Anthony Hopkins as he works for a Lord and goes about his duties. It moves back in time between Stevens working for a Lord Darlington in the time before WWII and for an American (played by Christopher Reeves, who was quite decent) who buys the estate after the war. It's framed by writings from Miss Kenton (Emma Thompson) who Stevens is going to see. That sounds complicated but I assure you it isn't. What it is, however, is electric. This is not a boring two hour film about an English estate. This is about a man and his life during some very trying times. Lord Darlington is a Nazi sympathizer and hosts all kinds of dinners to help rally support to the German cause. This acts as the backdrop to the goings on in Stevens' life and it was wholly fascinating to me. It was also great seeing Christopher Reeves in a role other than Superman because I don't think I've ever seen anything else of his. We get to see two really amazing performances in Thompson and Hopkins as they sort of dance around each other with unrequited flirtations. It's definitely a lot better than you think it will be, which was the case for me. To me, it was such a vibrant film. Not this stuffy, boring look at the British lifestyle but a very captivating treatise on Stevens and the British Empire as a whole. It hooked me from the start and I was very glad that I watched this because I'm absolutely sure I never would have otherwise, which is sad. I know I didn't talk all that much about the film really, but it looks great, has a very compelling story with intriguing characters (and great performances), and touches on some pretty deep historical issues. I feel like The Remains of the Day deserves a bit more respect when it comes to Oscar because it's a very forgotten film today. This might not be the winner, but I'm glad I got to watch it.
It's always interesting to go through the acting categories and then get to Best Picture and see a wildcard in the choices. Always makes me wonder what would get in if the number of nominees was expanded and makes for a good guessing game. The surprise here is both The Piano and The Fugitive, which are almost opposite in every way yet are considered one of the five best by Oscar this year. A small indie and a big blockbuster. Just interesting to see the choices of this year. The Piano is the obvious 5th choice, not as bad as you might expect but not on par with the others, really. The Remains of the Day is my 4th because the other three entertain me a lot more than this one did even though it was a lot better than I was expecting and had some great performances. In the Name of the Father is my middle choice as it's hard to go wrong with DDL and the subject is pretty fascinating to me as a whole. The Fugitive would be second because it's immensely entertaining and I could watch it over and over and not be sick of it. It would have won if not for an all time classic in Schindler's List being a choice, as well. That film transcends Oscar and was the easy choice for Best Picture. All in all a decent year for Best Picture. Some different choices and an all time classic, not bad.
Oscar Winner: Schindler's List
My Winner: Schindler's List
The Fugitive
In the Name of the Father
The Remains of the Day
The Piano
1993 Best Picture
Schindler's List
This was your easy winner and rightfully so. It's a film that has transcended the Oscars and gets talked about as an important work of art for the entire world to watch. It gets mentions on the Best Film of all time lists, which includes films from all over the world and not just the Oscar films. It's a testament and a monument to the subject and people covered by this story. It's a reminder to never forget the atrocities that actually happened and remember with reverence the millions who were killed and affected. Though this is just one of many Holocaust films, it's a great film regardless of the subject matter which of course makes the film that much more important. It's a film that needs to be shown again and again and need to be watched over and over by all generations to keep them aware of what evil can really do in this world. Hard to debate anything else winning because it doesn't feel right and honestly, nothing on this list even comes close. This was a lifelong passion for Spielberg and it shows. He waited until he was older to even make it because he felt his younger self would do a disservice to the story. The acting is all top notch with all of Neeson, Fiennes, and Kingsley giving great performances. It's over 3 hours long but never really feels it's length. I think some of that is due to how the story lingers on certain moments like the liquidation of the ghetto or the moving the Jews to Auschwitz where we sort of sit silently back watching these horrible moments play out for 30 minutes or so at a time. They are so horrifying and engrossing that they suck us in and next thing you know the film is half over. But it also never feels exploitative at all. Everyone involved handles the subject matter with the utmost of sincere respect. The black and white cinematography is effective and works well for the story. The music is eloquent and memorable. It's a culmination of all the parts coming together to make an instant classic that is much more than just about winning Oscars.
The Fugitive
This is a really interesting inclusion for Best Picture, one that I do feel is deserved, because I can't imagine a thriller like this being nominated today. But I guess that speaks to just how good this film is and also to the state of Oscar in the early 90s. The Fugitive stars Harrison Ford as Dr. Richard Kimble, a man who is convicted of the murder of his wife though he is actually innocent. He escapes after his transport van is hit by a train and he goes on the lam with Tommy Lee Jones hunting him down as he tries to figure out who really killed his wife. It's a very simple story but the acting is so tremendous and the way the story unfolds is so compelling that it definitely elevates itself into more than just a regular thriller. Both Ford and Jones are extremely good and their cat and mouse game is a lot of fun to watch. One of the things that this film has going for it is that it eschews all the hokey beats that normally seem to be in your late 80s/early 90s thrillers. The music is decent even if it is totally early 90s, it at least isn't the full on synth weirdness you usually get. I also like that it treats the story with respect and not just as an excuse to see Ford running around like an action hero or Jones firing a gun. So what we get is an honest, dramatic story that focuses on the chase, sure, but also the mystery of who killed Ford's wife and how he is going to solve it. There are some moments where you have to suspend your disbelief like when Ford jumps off the dam into the water but I don't feel as if these moments detract from the overall story at all. In fact, the film has a ton of famous and iconic scenes such as Ford jumping off the dam after being confronted by Jones. The scene where the train smashes the van and derails is another amazing piece of movie magic, too. It does seem amazing to me that this film would be a Best Picture nominee, but I guess that's what the Academy (and audiences) was into back then. To me, it's an inspired choice and I'm absolutely glad it was chosen. I'd love for more films like this to be not only nominated but made today. And if you haven't seen this film yet, it might seem cliché and overly familiar which is only because it was so highly regarded that other films stole from it and it's been parodied for some of it's iconic scenes. But this is an action film and thriller done the right way. This might not have been the winner but it's a hell of a good and entertaining film.
In the Name of the Father
As all two of you readers should know by now, I go backwards when it comes to writing my reviews. So Best Supporting Actress is written first and then everything else follows suit. That often means that I've blown my wad when it comes to writing about a film that is up for Best Picture. By that I mean I kind of already wrote part of this review when I wrote about Emma Thompson's performance. I touched base on why I like the film and at this point, I hate repeating myself over and over. I won't say go read that little blurb instead because that would be pretty awful of me. Just wanted to point out that's why I often repeat myself for the same film category to category. Anyway, I really did enjoy this film. I mentioned it's partly because the British-Irish conflict is so intriguing to me because it's so recent and something I'm not all that well versed in. I also love this film because the acting is top notch and the three acting nominations were all very well deserved. It might take some small liberties with the truth such as everyone being freed on a technicality in real life (as I understand it) instead of some shocking new piece of evidence being found. I don't think it changes the impact of the film, however. The story is one that needed to be told. And that's the big thing for about this film is that it's not about exceptional cinematography or amazing music (though having Bono write songs for your film doesn't hurt). I like this film because of the powerhouse acting and the engaging, compelling, important story being told. It's pretty much as simple as that for me. One of the pluses of watching this film is that it really makes me want to dive a little deeper into the history of that time period. I feel like I should know more about the IRA-Britain stuff than I actually do. I think it's extremely well done and a worthy Best Picture nominee. It just happened to run up against the Spielberg Holocaust buzzsaw.
The Piano
I sat on this review for awhile not because I hate the film or anything but because sometimes you get really motivated after watching a film and knock these out quickly. I wrote up the two actress reviews quickly but it was late so I decided to wait for this one. Then the next day I just felt terribly unmotivated to write about this one, which happens. My first impression of the film was that the music was pretty loud at times and I didn't know if that was the intent or just my copy of the film. Minor issue but it was really annoying while watching it. As for the film itself, I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. Can't say I'm the biggest Jane Campion fan but I did think the film was gorgeously shot. Some really great looking scenes, though I found it weird that the film seemed so intimate in its scope. It's set in New Zealand but we don't get that many scenery shots, it's mostly up close on the characters wherever they happen to be. I think that obviously adds to the feel of the film and makes it a little more intense. The acting is actually quite good, too. I wasn't sure if Holly Hunter and Anna Paquin's Oscar wins were going to be well deserved but I think they were. Paquin was in a pretty weak group but she still held her own and was better than the typical child actor. Hunter kinda blew me away because I hadn't really liked some of her other work but felt she was incredibly strong in this film even without saying a word. Harvey Keitel also does a pretty great job at playing a white man accepted by the Maori. Without him for Hunter to act off of, this film probably isn't as good and wouldn't/shouldn't be in the Oscar discussion. The story is about Hunter who gets married off to Sam Neill in New Zealand and they make the trip from Scotland and Hunter wants to bring her piano since that's basically how she communicates. Neill doesn't want to haul it from the beach and so Harvey Keitel agrees to bring it in exchange for lessons. The lessons turn sexual in nature and conflict arises between everyone. The worry for me is that the film would be overly pretentious but I felt it struck the right balance between artsy indie film and legit Oscar contender. I must say that the end is pretty bunk. I just didn't care for the way it ended even if it's supposed to be symbolic or whatever. The film, though a strong work done mostly by women, treats the Maori characters as if they were background animals or something. I get that the film is about white people existing in a harsh environment but I don't understand the marginalizing of these people, they feel like props. Anyway, I did like The Piano a bit more than I thought I would, for sure. It's a Miramax film so it probably won't be for everyone and you could debate if it belongs on the Best Picture list but it's not as bad as you might think it is.
The Remains of the Day
This is a really interesting film. If you read the description, it reads like any old boring, stuffy British film focusing on a butler and the antiquated living styles of yesteryear. If you see it's another Merchant-Ivory film, you may have some unfavorable opinions on it before even watching based on their history. All of which is totally natural and totally unfair. I'm guilty of it and I'm always glad to be proven wrong. The film is based on a book by a Japanese-English writer that is a little more modern in style than some of the other classical British books that have been made into films by the Merchant-Ivory team. The film follows Stevens, a head butler portrayed by Anthony Hopkins as he works for a Lord and goes about his duties. It moves back in time between Stevens working for a Lord Darlington in the time before WWII and for an American (played by Christopher Reeves, who was quite decent) who buys the estate after the war. It's framed by writings from Miss Kenton (Emma Thompson) who Stevens is going to see. That sounds complicated but I assure you it isn't. What it is, however, is electric. This is not a boring two hour film about an English estate. This is about a man and his life during some very trying times. Lord Darlington is a Nazi sympathizer and hosts all kinds of dinners to help rally support to the German cause. This acts as the backdrop to the goings on in Stevens' life and it was wholly fascinating to me. It was also great seeing Christopher Reeves in a role other than Superman because I don't think I've ever seen anything else of his. We get to see two really amazing performances in Thompson and Hopkins as they sort of dance around each other with unrequited flirtations. It's definitely a lot better than you think it will be, which was the case for me. To me, it was such a vibrant film. Not this stuffy, boring look at the British lifestyle but a very captivating treatise on Stevens and the British Empire as a whole. It hooked me from the start and I was very glad that I watched this because I'm absolutely sure I never would have otherwise, which is sad. I know I didn't talk all that much about the film really, but it looks great, has a very compelling story with intriguing characters (and great performances), and touches on some pretty deep historical issues. I feel like The Remains of the Day deserves a bit more respect when it comes to Oscar because it's a very forgotten film today. This might not be the winner, but I'm glad I got to watch it.
It's always interesting to go through the acting categories and then get to Best Picture and see a wildcard in the choices. Always makes me wonder what would get in if the number of nominees was expanded and makes for a good guessing game. The surprise here is both The Piano and The Fugitive, which are almost opposite in every way yet are considered one of the five best by Oscar this year. A small indie and a big blockbuster. Just interesting to see the choices of this year. The Piano is the obvious 5th choice, not as bad as you might expect but not on par with the others, really. The Remains of the Day is my 4th because the other three entertain me a lot more than this one did even though it was a lot better than I was expecting and had some great performances. In the Name of the Father is my middle choice as it's hard to go wrong with DDL and the subject is pretty fascinating to me as a whole. The Fugitive would be second because it's immensely entertaining and I could watch it over and over and not be sick of it. It would have won if not for an all time classic in Schindler's List being a choice, as well. That film transcends Oscar and was the easy choice for Best Picture. All in all a decent year for Best Picture. Some different choices and an all time classic, not bad.
Oscar Winner: Schindler's List
My Winner: Schindler's List
The Fugitive
In the Name of the Father
The Remains of the Day
The Piano
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Leading Actor 1993
Great group of actors to watch. Let's dive in.
1993 Best Actor
Tom Hanks - Philadelphia
So here is Tom Hanks' first Oscar win, one of two in a row. As I discussed in the Forrest Gump review, I think a lot of people forget that this was the film he won his first one for. A lot of people might think it was Gump, honestly. But no, it was his turn as Andrew Beckett, a gay lawyer who is fired because he has AIDS and goes to court with the firm that fired him being defended by a homophobic lawyer who changes his beliefs in Denzel. That's quite the Oscar checklist right there and I'm surprised it didn't get a Best Picture nom to go along with this one. Hanks is a totally sympathetic character in this film and portrays Beckett with absolute tenderness. There are no big, overwrought pronouncements that screams Hanks is gay and flamboyant and all the typical cliches that go along with a gay character in Hollywood. Hanks plays Beckett as a normal guy who happens to be gay and dealing with AIDS who is unfairly fired from his job. I think that's part of what makes the performance hit a little harder is that Hanks makes Beckett completely relatable in a way that had never been seen in mainstream media at that time. I also think it's a big reason Hanks won his first Oscar. Yes, Hanks is terrific, but the moral stand voters were able to make by him winning was too good to pass up. That's made to look even better with Hanks' impassioned acceptance speech. This isn't to say it's the only reason he won, just a big factor in why he did win. You can look to the most memorable scene where Hanks is describing an opera for Denzel as the music dominates and the camera swirls and realize that a lesser actor would have completely blown the impact of that scene. You might even give him the Oscar for that scene alone it was so fantastic. So yeah, Hanks' acting is very much a big reason why he won here, too. One of my issues is that the director and I guess everyone involved didn't go deep enough into the gay thing. By that I mean, we never really see much affection between Hanks and Antonio Banderas. It can at times feel like just a man suffering from a disease and that's it, which is part of the message somewhat but the disease happens to be AIDS and I feel something more than kid gloves was necessary. I get that the era wasn't as open and accepting of homosexual themes and subject matter but Philadelphia deserved a bit more emphasis on the gay parts. I don't necessarily think that's a big fault of Hanks, he worked with the script and the times so I can't really neg him on that issue. I do think it's an important role that gets too often overlooked and forgotten about these days because it really was a pretty wonderful acting job by Hanks.
Daniel Day-Lewis - In the Name of the Father
My love for Daniel Day-Lewis has been discussed at length with his previous nominations and wins and this performance just continues that theme. I still think he's the greatest living male actor and I've never seen him give a bad performance, well maybe Nine but I try to forget that film whenever possible. However, when reviewing DDL for Best Actor this year, you also have to look at his work in Scorsese's The Age of Innocence. I had never seen that film before and I thought DDL did a tremendous job with his performance as the equivocating Newland Archer. It could easily have been what DDL was nominated for if not for this film. I do believe that DDL is better as Gerry Conlon, the falsely accused and imprisoned Irishman. He was said to have bombed a London pub for the IRA and was convicted because the British police wanted someone to pay for the crime. Day-Lewis' performance is a passionate one that rightly captures the intensity of the situation. He was just a young guy that wanted to live free and was a very minor thief, a guy that needed some direction in life. Just a young fuck up but not a hateful one. Day-Lewis perfectly shows off this youthfulness in the early parts of the film. He doesn't have much of a care in the world as evidenced by his setting off a riot in Belfast for being stupidly obtuse in the situation of Northern Ireland at the time. Once in police custody, DDL is able to brilliantly display the pain and frustration of being tortured and beaten for a confession. I'd say the best part of DDL's performance is when he and Postlethwaite are together. Their relationship as father and son is so convincing, you'd think they were really related. DDL also transitions from the aimless, oblivious young man into a hardened, fully aware adult while in prison. That transition is handled well as DDL becomes gung ho about the Irish injustice but then further realizes that violence and killing is not a good answer for it. His character goes through a roller coaster of emotions while in prison and DDL handles it all expertly. What we see is a man growing, instead of an actor working different scenes. Day-Lewis does a phenomenal job with a tough character and makes it look easy. Combine this with his other performance and you've got quite the year for DDL.
Laurence Fishburne - What's Love Got to Do with It
This performance feels like it was perfect for Samuel L. Jackson. I mean, honestly, Fishburne channels a Pulp Fiction Jackson before that was even an idea. Yes, it has a lot to do with his many uses of the word motherfucker, but also in the way he speaks and acts at times. Fishburne plays Ike Turner and we see his volatile interactions with Tina that frames her story. Unfortunately, Ike doesn't really have much to offer us. In the film, he's very one note - or I guess is that two note? We see him be the smooth talking band leader that moves from woman to woman promising all kinds of things to being the violently jealous pathetic man he really is. And that's it. That's not really Fishburne's fault that the story limits his character so severely but it's all we are left with to watch. We never know who Ike is as a person, his motivations other than the most basic money, power, sex stuff. We never even really scratch the surface for either character, especially for Ike, more like just giving it a nice dusting off. That's mostly why the film fails for me, it's just not that interesting and Fishburne is a victim of that. He's clearly the 5th nominee and was a surprise nominee on the day they were announced. Many people thought it might be Denzel or another actor in this spot. It's great that a black actor was given his due but I wish it had been for better, stronger performance. This one seems carried in on the strength of Angela Bassett. Fishburne is a good actor and he is far from terrible in this performance but it's something that definitely leaves you wanting more.
Anthony Hopkins - The Remains of the Day
I think it's easy to forget that Hopkins is a really skilled actor and diverse enough to be more than just Hannibal Lector. Having won two years previous for an iconic piece of acting, he came back this year in a few different, more classical roles. This nomination is as much for his work in this film as it is for his work in Shadowlands and a couple other films in 1993. His work in both of those films is very comparable but I'd definitely give the edge to his role as the head butler in The Remains of the Day. The word that sprang to mind immediately while watching him act was solid. He was an actor that was supremely comfortable in the role and in total control of his character. I was impressed because he wasn't just a stuffy, old British butler type. He imbued his character with some great humor and some warmth and some very firm convictions. I was surprised that I liked the performance so much because I was fully expecting a boring, typical butler role but Hopkins made it his own. He was very funny when trying to give the birds and the bees talk to Hugh Grant. The way he handled the death of his father was in line with what a head butler in the middle of a big dinner would have done. One of the better moments of the performance was when he was asked his opinion on something at one of the dinners and remarked it wasn't his place to say, only to serve but the scene dripped with so much unspoken hostility or just repressed emotion that I loved it. Both he and Emma Thompson have some great chemistry both as actors and as characters in this film. In Hopkins' pursuit to being the perfect butler, he misses out on really being able to enjoy his own life so he could better serve the House. Their flirtations never become realized and the sense of if he's doing the right thing haunt Hopkins which is ultimately what the film is about. It's a really tremendous performance that takes what could have been a snore of a role and makes it into this fascinating piece of acting. This one really gave me a better appreciation for Hopkins as an actor and I really appreciate that.
Liam Neeson - Schindler's List
This was a career definer. This is the type of performance you win an Oscar for and become an all time great for. When we talk about all time great Best Actor winners, this gets mentioned because it's so good. Except this didn't actually win Best Actor! How the fuck does that not happen?? Neeson IS Oscar Schindler and everything that comes with that connotation. He is every accolade you can throw at him. He plays Schindler pitch perfect. In the beginning, he's simply a conniving German businessman. He liquors up the Nazis so that they will become his friend and allow him to do business. He's always thinking 4 steps ahead and it shows. Neeson is perfect because he can be this big smiling oaf, yet instantly change into this intimidating man if need be. He has the gravitas to be more than just a business man. He is well suited to playing a hero because that's what Schindler is. He's disturbed by the German actions but never betrays his ulterior motives, always putting the business angle first so as to save himself and the Jews. Neeson is great at pressing the flesh and pretending to get along with these Nazi monsters. He's convincing enough to get away with almost anything, which is a great trait to have for this performance. To me, when you think of Schindler's List, what do you think of first? The ONLY thing I think of is Liam Neeson and his portrayal of Oscar Schindler. The two are synonymous with each other. Can you see anyone else playing this part? I can't and that's the mark of a great performance. I like that it maintains the businessman like quality of his past. There's not a striking, abrupt change for him to becoming the saint he is, it's one where he's still the businessman until the very end. He uses what he knows to help him save 1100 Jews and the heartbreaking moment at the end where he reasons he could have saved 2 more people for his Nazi pin is breathtaking. It crushes you knowing that some stupid gold pin could have saved 2 people's lives and he comes to the same realization. I like that the film didn't make him out to be this superhero figure that saved so many lives. He was a real person that was making money and also saving lives. He wasn't perfect but he did what was right. Neeson perfectly embodied the character and created such a memorable performance to boot.
As usual, another strong Best Actor group. I'm glad to have these tough decisions to make instead of disliking most of them. Even my 5th place nominee is still somewhat good and I can appreciate the performance. Fishburne is my 5th and is the clear 5th as everyone else is just at another level altogether. From here, it gets tough to choose. Neeson is undoubtedly my choice for Best Actor. But as for 2nd through 4th? Tough call. I think the Academy jumped the gun in giving Hanks a Best Actor this year, especially since they didn't know he'd follow it up the next year with another win and be a perennial nominee. Hanks could be my 4th but that might change the next time you ask me. As it is, 4th this year is not much different than 2nd. Hopkins right in the middle for a better than usual butler role and DDL coming in second for just another solid performance. I am loving having to watch this category over and over and I look forward to next year!
Oscar Winner: Tom Hanks - Philadelphia
My Winner: Liam Neeson - Schindler's List
Daniel Day-Lewis
Anthony Hopkins
Tom Hanks
Laurence Fishburne
1993 Best Actor
Tom Hanks - Philadelphia
So here is Tom Hanks' first Oscar win, one of two in a row. As I discussed in the Forrest Gump review, I think a lot of people forget that this was the film he won his first one for. A lot of people might think it was Gump, honestly. But no, it was his turn as Andrew Beckett, a gay lawyer who is fired because he has AIDS and goes to court with the firm that fired him being defended by a homophobic lawyer who changes his beliefs in Denzel. That's quite the Oscar checklist right there and I'm surprised it didn't get a Best Picture nom to go along with this one. Hanks is a totally sympathetic character in this film and portrays Beckett with absolute tenderness. There are no big, overwrought pronouncements that screams Hanks is gay and flamboyant and all the typical cliches that go along with a gay character in Hollywood. Hanks plays Beckett as a normal guy who happens to be gay and dealing with AIDS who is unfairly fired from his job. I think that's part of what makes the performance hit a little harder is that Hanks makes Beckett completely relatable in a way that had never been seen in mainstream media at that time. I also think it's a big reason Hanks won his first Oscar. Yes, Hanks is terrific, but the moral stand voters were able to make by him winning was too good to pass up. That's made to look even better with Hanks' impassioned acceptance speech. This isn't to say it's the only reason he won, just a big factor in why he did win. You can look to the most memorable scene where Hanks is describing an opera for Denzel as the music dominates and the camera swirls and realize that a lesser actor would have completely blown the impact of that scene. You might even give him the Oscar for that scene alone it was so fantastic. So yeah, Hanks' acting is very much a big reason why he won here, too. One of my issues is that the director and I guess everyone involved didn't go deep enough into the gay thing. By that I mean, we never really see much affection between Hanks and Antonio Banderas. It can at times feel like just a man suffering from a disease and that's it, which is part of the message somewhat but the disease happens to be AIDS and I feel something more than kid gloves was necessary. I get that the era wasn't as open and accepting of homosexual themes and subject matter but Philadelphia deserved a bit more emphasis on the gay parts. I don't necessarily think that's a big fault of Hanks, he worked with the script and the times so I can't really neg him on that issue. I do think it's an important role that gets too often overlooked and forgotten about these days because it really was a pretty wonderful acting job by Hanks.
Daniel Day-Lewis - In the Name of the Father
My love for Daniel Day-Lewis has been discussed at length with his previous nominations and wins and this performance just continues that theme. I still think he's the greatest living male actor and I've never seen him give a bad performance, well maybe Nine but I try to forget that film whenever possible. However, when reviewing DDL for Best Actor this year, you also have to look at his work in Scorsese's The Age of Innocence. I had never seen that film before and I thought DDL did a tremendous job with his performance as the equivocating Newland Archer. It could easily have been what DDL was nominated for if not for this film. I do believe that DDL is better as Gerry Conlon, the falsely accused and imprisoned Irishman. He was said to have bombed a London pub for the IRA and was convicted because the British police wanted someone to pay for the crime. Day-Lewis' performance is a passionate one that rightly captures the intensity of the situation. He was just a young guy that wanted to live free and was a very minor thief, a guy that needed some direction in life. Just a young fuck up but not a hateful one. Day-Lewis perfectly shows off this youthfulness in the early parts of the film. He doesn't have much of a care in the world as evidenced by his setting off a riot in Belfast for being stupidly obtuse in the situation of Northern Ireland at the time. Once in police custody, DDL is able to brilliantly display the pain and frustration of being tortured and beaten for a confession. I'd say the best part of DDL's performance is when he and Postlethwaite are together. Their relationship as father and son is so convincing, you'd think they were really related. DDL also transitions from the aimless, oblivious young man into a hardened, fully aware adult while in prison. That transition is handled well as DDL becomes gung ho about the Irish injustice but then further realizes that violence and killing is not a good answer for it. His character goes through a roller coaster of emotions while in prison and DDL handles it all expertly. What we see is a man growing, instead of an actor working different scenes. Day-Lewis does a phenomenal job with a tough character and makes it look easy. Combine this with his other performance and you've got quite the year for DDL.
Laurence Fishburne - What's Love Got to Do with It
This performance feels like it was perfect for Samuel L. Jackson. I mean, honestly, Fishburne channels a Pulp Fiction Jackson before that was even an idea. Yes, it has a lot to do with his many uses of the word motherfucker, but also in the way he speaks and acts at times. Fishburne plays Ike Turner and we see his volatile interactions with Tina that frames her story. Unfortunately, Ike doesn't really have much to offer us. In the film, he's very one note - or I guess is that two note? We see him be the smooth talking band leader that moves from woman to woman promising all kinds of things to being the violently jealous pathetic man he really is. And that's it. That's not really Fishburne's fault that the story limits his character so severely but it's all we are left with to watch. We never know who Ike is as a person, his motivations other than the most basic money, power, sex stuff. We never even really scratch the surface for either character, especially for Ike, more like just giving it a nice dusting off. That's mostly why the film fails for me, it's just not that interesting and Fishburne is a victim of that. He's clearly the 5th nominee and was a surprise nominee on the day they were announced. Many people thought it might be Denzel or another actor in this spot. It's great that a black actor was given his due but I wish it had been for better, stronger performance. This one seems carried in on the strength of Angela Bassett. Fishburne is a good actor and he is far from terrible in this performance but it's something that definitely leaves you wanting more.
Anthony Hopkins - The Remains of the Day
I think it's easy to forget that Hopkins is a really skilled actor and diverse enough to be more than just Hannibal Lector. Having won two years previous for an iconic piece of acting, he came back this year in a few different, more classical roles. This nomination is as much for his work in this film as it is for his work in Shadowlands and a couple other films in 1993. His work in both of those films is very comparable but I'd definitely give the edge to his role as the head butler in The Remains of the Day. The word that sprang to mind immediately while watching him act was solid. He was an actor that was supremely comfortable in the role and in total control of his character. I was impressed because he wasn't just a stuffy, old British butler type. He imbued his character with some great humor and some warmth and some very firm convictions. I was surprised that I liked the performance so much because I was fully expecting a boring, typical butler role but Hopkins made it his own. He was very funny when trying to give the birds and the bees talk to Hugh Grant. The way he handled the death of his father was in line with what a head butler in the middle of a big dinner would have done. One of the better moments of the performance was when he was asked his opinion on something at one of the dinners and remarked it wasn't his place to say, only to serve but the scene dripped with so much unspoken hostility or just repressed emotion that I loved it. Both he and Emma Thompson have some great chemistry both as actors and as characters in this film. In Hopkins' pursuit to being the perfect butler, he misses out on really being able to enjoy his own life so he could better serve the House. Their flirtations never become realized and the sense of if he's doing the right thing haunt Hopkins which is ultimately what the film is about. It's a really tremendous performance that takes what could have been a snore of a role and makes it into this fascinating piece of acting. This one really gave me a better appreciation for Hopkins as an actor and I really appreciate that.
Liam Neeson - Schindler's List
This was a career definer. This is the type of performance you win an Oscar for and become an all time great for. When we talk about all time great Best Actor winners, this gets mentioned because it's so good. Except this didn't actually win Best Actor! How the fuck does that not happen?? Neeson IS Oscar Schindler and everything that comes with that connotation. He is every accolade you can throw at him. He plays Schindler pitch perfect. In the beginning, he's simply a conniving German businessman. He liquors up the Nazis so that they will become his friend and allow him to do business. He's always thinking 4 steps ahead and it shows. Neeson is perfect because he can be this big smiling oaf, yet instantly change into this intimidating man if need be. He has the gravitas to be more than just a business man. He is well suited to playing a hero because that's what Schindler is. He's disturbed by the German actions but never betrays his ulterior motives, always putting the business angle first so as to save himself and the Jews. Neeson is great at pressing the flesh and pretending to get along with these Nazi monsters. He's convincing enough to get away with almost anything, which is a great trait to have for this performance. To me, when you think of Schindler's List, what do you think of first? The ONLY thing I think of is Liam Neeson and his portrayal of Oscar Schindler. The two are synonymous with each other. Can you see anyone else playing this part? I can't and that's the mark of a great performance. I like that it maintains the businessman like quality of his past. There's not a striking, abrupt change for him to becoming the saint he is, it's one where he's still the businessman until the very end. He uses what he knows to help him save 1100 Jews and the heartbreaking moment at the end where he reasons he could have saved 2 more people for his Nazi pin is breathtaking. It crushes you knowing that some stupid gold pin could have saved 2 people's lives and he comes to the same realization. I like that the film didn't make him out to be this superhero figure that saved so many lives. He was a real person that was making money and also saving lives. He wasn't perfect but he did what was right. Neeson perfectly embodied the character and created such a memorable performance to boot.
As usual, another strong Best Actor group. I'm glad to have these tough decisions to make instead of disliking most of them. Even my 5th place nominee is still somewhat good and I can appreciate the performance. Fishburne is my 5th and is the clear 5th as everyone else is just at another level altogether. From here, it gets tough to choose. Neeson is undoubtedly my choice for Best Actor. But as for 2nd through 4th? Tough call. I think the Academy jumped the gun in giving Hanks a Best Actor this year, especially since they didn't know he'd follow it up the next year with another win and be a perennial nominee. Hanks could be my 4th but that might change the next time you ask me. As it is, 4th this year is not much different than 2nd. Hopkins right in the middle for a better than usual butler role and DDL coming in second for just another solid performance. I am loving having to watch this category over and over and I look forward to next year!
Oscar Winner: Tom Hanks - Philadelphia
My Winner: Liam Neeson - Schindler's List
Daniel Day-Lewis
Anthony Hopkins
Tom Hanks
Laurence Fishburne
Leading Actress 1993
Honestly, I've been super unmotivated to write and watch anything lately. Lots going on in my life and work is all I do it seems. No fun intro just getting to the reviews.
1993 Best Actress
Holly Hunter - The Piano
Lots and lots of interesting things to talk about with Hunter's win here. First of all, this was one of two of Holly Hunter's nominations this year, the other being for her brief cameo in The Firm. That second one wasn't really necessary or well deserved but sometimes the Academy goes overboard on rewarding an actor if they've had a good year. Second, this was only the third Best Actress winner ever to feature a non speaking role after Marlee Matlin and Jane Wyman. And third, well okay, there is no third but let it be known that I'm not a huge fan of Hunter's, having disliked her other two nominations for various reasons. However, I thought Hunter was terrific here. She does so much without saying a single word. She's so expressive in her movements and her looks that her performance is a complete performance. Her hatred of being in New Zealand is quite obvious and Hunter makers her dislike obvious. She meets Harvey Keitel's character when she lands and he asks for piano lessens which she gives in to. Hunter plays the piano to Keitel's liking but they engage in a torrid affair and I can't help but wish she'd just up and run off with him because the two have some great sexual chemistry together. It still goes back to her being a mute and not saying a word and still saying a million things with her body language and piano playing and overall being. Her and her daughter are pretty fantastic together and it's obvious why Anna Paquin won an Oscar for her role. I love that Hunter doesn't give in to her future husband, actually never gives in. I never thought I would like this performance as much as I did, it definitely surprised me. I was worried this might be a weak winner but I'm glad to say it's not. I just like how Hunter is able to make her character so real and authentic without uttering a word. When she's doing her signing you can feel the contempt or frustration or nervousness or whatever emotion Hunter needs to get across. And she does that without overacting. At times it's subtle and at times it's demonstrative without going overboard. If you're going to have a silent character, you need to be convincing in your silence and Hunter definitely is.
Angela Bassett - What's Love Got to Do with It
I can't NOT sing the title of this film in my head (or out loud) any time I read it, it's like an automatic reaction. That said, Angela Bassett gives it her all here and it's quite awesome to see. Unfortunately, the film itself let's her down. Here's the thing: this is a Tina Turner biopic. If you don't like her music, then there goes about half the appeal of the film. I'm certainly not a fan of her music so the songs did nothing for me. I can't connect with any of that to possibly reach Tina on a deeper level. Without the musical angle, you get the Tina as a battered woman angle. That's legitimately all that's left. Sure, we get told how Tina was discovered as Anna Mae Bullock and then used and abused by Ike Turner. The abuse continues for years as Tina becomes the breadwinner and Ike fades into the background which he hates. So Bassett starts off as this naive, young thang and does a good job communicating that. Her big smile and naivete make her endearing. Then the Ike abuse takes over and while Bassett looks absolutely the part (muscles and all), she doesn't embody the soul of Tina. We have no idea as to the motivations and all that of the characters because the film only ever scratches the surface and never, ever gets too deep. Not the fault of Bassett, who is supremely dedicated to Tina. She is the physical embodiment of Tina. It's remarkable. But there are scenes where the singing doesn't match up with Bassett's lip-synching. You can tell Bassett is putting in her all for the performance but the sound just doesn't match her actions. Which tells me that Bassett dedicated herself to the character but was let down by the film. She's so strong and beautiful in a couple scenes but unfortunately it's all window dressing. We never dive deep into Ike or Tina and the film suffers because of that. There are some quick tearjerker moments from Bassett, but they just feel like lip service really. Bassett is trying her hardest to give a great performance and the Academy recognized it as such, but I was really hoping for something that would tell me more about Tina Turner. I still don't really know who she is as a person and that's unfortunate. But Bassett is pretty great and I'm glad she got a nomination here.
Stockard Channing - Six Degrees of Separation
This is kind of a weirdly interesting film. It has a lot of famous people in it and focuses on a young Will Smith who scams his way into some really rich people's homes on the conceit that he knows their kids and is Sidney Poitier's son. The acting by Smith is pretty good but the whole film is based off a Tony nominated play so everything is largely theatrical. Stockard Channing was nominated for her role as the main woman who Smith encountered and duped for a Tony award for Best Actress so I guess the Academy liked it so much that they followed suit. I can see this as being the sole representation for a film with many famous actors that the Academy enjoyed and wanted to show it's appreciation in some way, so Channing became the choice. Now I honestly don't think her performance is anything special. She's obviously very comfortable as her character which makes sense when she portrayed the character for a long, long time on Broadway. She also has great chemistry with Donald Sutherland who is an actor that makes anything look easy. Their rapport is back and forth and quick and they are both great storytellers which is how this film is framed. The interaction with Smith gives these rich people fodder for their cute cocktail stories of being hoodwinked and links them to other couples that have been fooled the same way by Smith. This speaks to the notion of the whole six degrees of separation theory that we are linked by only six people in this world. Smith unites all these different couples and gives them a link to each other. Channing, though a victim, seems almost maternal and proud when talking about Smith, as if she wants to believe his lies because it makes her life more exciting. It's a sturdy, if unexciting, performance from Channing who is at ease as the duped socialite. In another year, this might have been bumped for a stronger performance but the Academy could have done much worse than this. It's actually grown on me a little the more I think about it which is always a good thing. Plus, I got to see a really interesting film that makes me wish I could have seen the play because I know it was probably way better than this. And I'm sure Channing was more impressive in the theatrical setting than in this film.
Emma Thompson - The Remains of the Day
This is not a Leading Actress performance. She never once takes over the film or any scene and is never more than just a side character working behind the scenes. Not a Lead Actress at all. No. I get that Thompson won the year previous but this is absolutely Supporting. Okay, she plays a housekeeper but factors into none of the big moments of the film, or at least is on the periphery of all the big moments. She is a new hire that speaks her mind and feels like more of a modern day person which is part of her appeal. It's the typical Emma Thompson role where she uses her trademark wit, her sort of deadpan delivery of biting remarks, and her warm humanity to create a character we can all love. My main thing is that this is more of a Supporting role even though yes, she is the only real strong female character in the film. I guess that's part of why she gets a nomination in this category but let's be real - it feels really Supporting to me. And this isn't to say it's not a great performance because I do feel that Thompson adds another dimension to the film that without her would turn it into something completely different. She makes the film better, no doubt. I was just waiting and waiting for her role to broaden and become more important but it never did. After an hour of watching I figured okay, now she'll factor into the story a great deal more but, no, she didn't. But like I said, it's a good performance and the chemistry between Thompson and Hopkins is quite something to watch. Two great actors that know what they are doing and doing it so well just as two actors and as the two characters in the story. They have such a faintly flirty romance that you are for sure rooting for them to get involved but nothing ever really happens with their relationship and that's okay. Thompson is a strong character in the film, even if on the sides, and she makes the film more enjoyable to watch. I don't know if she really needed two nominations this year because you could maybe put this in Supporting instead, though I guess I see why it nominated for Lead. I'm glad she was represented in some capacity because her year was a pretty good one.
Debra Winger - Shadowlands
Okay, so I sat on this review for a little bit. If you've followed this blog at all you know I do that from time to time when I'm not very motivated. That's only natural. Not every performance is going to elicit a passionate response one way or another. Sometimes I'm going to watch a film and performance and go okay, that was alright. Winger somewhat fits into that category. She's good. Better than I anticipated because I wasn't sure of what to expect really. I had heard the name and knew she was popular for a bit and supposedly a pretty great actress. I see why all of those were true when it comes to her performance here. She plays an American woman who goes over to London to meet up with C.S. Lewis of the Narnia fame and ends up marrying him. She's a gruff American lady who instead of being demure and classical, shouts in a crowded restaurant if anyone is named Lewis. That's the kind of woman she is. She never backs down from Lewis (played by Anthony Hopkins) and they enjoy a good, friendly argument. She's a woman who isn't afraid to say what she thinks. Now Winger is kinda perfect for this role, portraying the New York woman with gusto. She also comes off very motherly/wifely, even from the very beginning that nurturing aspect is quite evident. She's frank and quite straight with Lewis at times and it's enjoyable to watch her and Hopkins nicely play out the relationship. But that's why I'm a little tepid towards her performance because yes, it is good, but it certainly isn't going to wow you. The relationship is average and one of convenience at first but then it delves into coming to terms with accepting the inevitability of death and dealing with loss and grief as Winger's character finds out she has a terminal disease. What I like about Winger in this part is that she doesn't play the weepy woman at all. She's strong for her son and for Hopkins and, really, for herself. What could have turned into a real awful Oscar bait tearjerker but Winger keeps it from flying off the handle. It's a good performance, just not one that's going to inspire many people to check it out and champion it for a win.
Another shitty Best Actress group. I'm completely uninspired by every woman here. Debra Winger is my least favorite simply because the film and character and performance are all so blah. She's okay but really doesn't stand out. Channing is next and actually really interesting and a pretty different choice for a Best Actress nod. She played the role on Broadway and was nominated there so might as well nominate her here right? It's decent but definitely not must see. Bassett is 3rd because, well, the other two suck more or are at least not as inspiring. Bassett has the fact that she plays Tina Turner in her corner. Gets to sing and be feisty, so that works well. It's not bad, just not great. Thompson is my second because it really doesn't fit the whole Lead Actress thing but whatever I guess. Can't quite vote for her to win for the second year in a row so that means Holly Hunter is my defacto winner. And that's it - defacto winner. Don't care to change the result because she's good and no one else can really claim the throne. Just an overall really meh year that should be better than it is.
Oscar Winner: Holly Hunter - The Piano
My Winner: Holly Hunter - The Piano
Emma Thompson
Angela Bassett
Stockard Channing
Debra Winger
1993 Best Actress
Holly Hunter - The Piano
Lots and lots of interesting things to talk about with Hunter's win here. First of all, this was one of two of Holly Hunter's nominations this year, the other being for her brief cameo in The Firm. That second one wasn't really necessary or well deserved but sometimes the Academy goes overboard on rewarding an actor if they've had a good year. Second, this was only the third Best Actress winner ever to feature a non speaking role after Marlee Matlin and Jane Wyman. And third, well okay, there is no third but let it be known that I'm not a huge fan of Hunter's, having disliked her other two nominations for various reasons. However, I thought Hunter was terrific here. She does so much without saying a single word. She's so expressive in her movements and her looks that her performance is a complete performance. Her hatred of being in New Zealand is quite obvious and Hunter makers her dislike obvious. She meets Harvey Keitel's character when she lands and he asks for piano lessens which she gives in to. Hunter plays the piano to Keitel's liking but they engage in a torrid affair and I can't help but wish she'd just up and run off with him because the two have some great sexual chemistry together. It still goes back to her being a mute and not saying a word and still saying a million things with her body language and piano playing and overall being. Her and her daughter are pretty fantastic together and it's obvious why Anna Paquin won an Oscar for her role. I love that Hunter doesn't give in to her future husband, actually never gives in. I never thought I would like this performance as much as I did, it definitely surprised me. I was worried this might be a weak winner but I'm glad to say it's not. I just like how Hunter is able to make her character so real and authentic without uttering a word. When she's doing her signing you can feel the contempt or frustration or nervousness or whatever emotion Hunter needs to get across. And she does that without overacting. At times it's subtle and at times it's demonstrative without going overboard. If you're going to have a silent character, you need to be convincing in your silence and Hunter definitely is.
Angela Bassett - What's Love Got to Do with It
I can't NOT sing the title of this film in my head (or out loud) any time I read it, it's like an automatic reaction. That said, Angela Bassett gives it her all here and it's quite awesome to see. Unfortunately, the film itself let's her down. Here's the thing: this is a Tina Turner biopic. If you don't like her music, then there goes about half the appeal of the film. I'm certainly not a fan of her music so the songs did nothing for me. I can't connect with any of that to possibly reach Tina on a deeper level. Without the musical angle, you get the Tina as a battered woman angle. That's legitimately all that's left. Sure, we get told how Tina was discovered as Anna Mae Bullock and then used and abused by Ike Turner. The abuse continues for years as Tina becomes the breadwinner and Ike fades into the background which he hates. So Bassett starts off as this naive, young thang and does a good job communicating that. Her big smile and naivete make her endearing. Then the Ike abuse takes over and while Bassett looks absolutely the part (muscles and all), she doesn't embody the soul of Tina. We have no idea as to the motivations and all that of the characters because the film only ever scratches the surface and never, ever gets too deep. Not the fault of Bassett, who is supremely dedicated to Tina. She is the physical embodiment of Tina. It's remarkable. But there are scenes where the singing doesn't match up with Bassett's lip-synching. You can tell Bassett is putting in her all for the performance but the sound just doesn't match her actions. Which tells me that Bassett dedicated herself to the character but was let down by the film. She's so strong and beautiful in a couple scenes but unfortunately it's all window dressing. We never dive deep into Ike or Tina and the film suffers because of that. There are some quick tearjerker moments from Bassett, but they just feel like lip service really. Bassett is trying her hardest to give a great performance and the Academy recognized it as such, but I was really hoping for something that would tell me more about Tina Turner. I still don't really know who she is as a person and that's unfortunate. But Bassett is pretty great and I'm glad she got a nomination here.
Stockard Channing - Six Degrees of Separation
This is kind of a weirdly interesting film. It has a lot of famous people in it and focuses on a young Will Smith who scams his way into some really rich people's homes on the conceit that he knows their kids and is Sidney Poitier's son. The acting by Smith is pretty good but the whole film is based off a Tony nominated play so everything is largely theatrical. Stockard Channing was nominated for her role as the main woman who Smith encountered and duped for a Tony award for Best Actress so I guess the Academy liked it so much that they followed suit. I can see this as being the sole representation for a film with many famous actors that the Academy enjoyed and wanted to show it's appreciation in some way, so Channing became the choice. Now I honestly don't think her performance is anything special. She's obviously very comfortable as her character which makes sense when she portrayed the character for a long, long time on Broadway. She also has great chemistry with Donald Sutherland who is an actor that makes anything look easy. Their rapport is back and forth and quick and they are both great storytellers which is how this film is framed. The interaction with Smith gives these rich people fodder for their cute cocktail stories of being hoodwinked and links them to other couples that have been fooled the same way by Smith. This speaks to the notion of the whole six degrees of separation theory that we are linked by only six people in this world. Smith unites all these different couples and gives them a link to each other. Channing, though a victim, seems almost maternal and proud when talking about Smith, as if she wants to believe his lies because it makes her life more exciting. It's a sturdy, if unexciting, performance from Channing who is at ease as the duped socialite. In another year, this might have been bumped for a stronger performance but the Academy could have done much worse than this. It's actually grown on me a little the more I think about it which is always a good thing. Plus, I got to see a really interesting film that makes me wish I could have seen the play because I know it was probably way better than this. And I'm sure Channing was more impressive in the theatrical setting than in this film.
Emma Thompson - The Remains of the Day
This is not a Leading Actress performance. She never once takes over the film or any scene and is never more than just a side character working behind the scenes. Not a Lead Actress at all. No. I get that Thompson won the year previous but this is absolutely Supporting. Okay, she plays a housekeeper but factors into none of the big moments of the film, or at least is on the periphery of all the big moments. She is a new hire that speaks her mind and feels like more of a modern day person which is part of her appeal. It's the typical Emma Thompson role where she uses her trademark wit, her sort of deadpan delivery of biting remarks, and her warm humanity to create a character we can all love. My main thing is that this is more of a Supporting role even though yes, she is the only real strong female character in the film. I guess that's part of why she gets a nomination in this category but let's be real - it feels really Supporting to me. And this isn't to say it's not a great performance because I do feel that Thompson adds another dimension to the film that without her would turn it into something completely different. She makes the film better, no doubt. I was just waiting and waiting for her role to broaden and become more important but it never did. After an hour of watching I figured okay, now she'll factor into the story a great deal more but, no, she didn't. But like I said, it's a good performance and the chemistry between Thompson and Hopkins is quite something to watch. Two great actors that know what they are doing and doing it so well just as two actors and as the two characters in the story. They have such a faintly flirty romance that you are for sure rooting for them to get involved but nothing ever really happens with their relationship and that's okay. Thompson is a strong character in the film, even if on the sides, and she makes the film more enjoyable to watch. I don't know if she really needed two nominations this year because you could maybe put this in Supporting instead, though I guess I see why it nominated for Lead. I'm glad she was represented in some capacity because her year was a pretty good one.
Debra Winger - Shadowlands
Okay, so I sat on this review for a little bit. If you've followed this blog at all you know I do that from time to time when I'm not very motivated. That's only natural. Not every performance is going to elicit a passionate response one way or another. Sometimes I'm going to watch a film and performance and go okay, that was alright. Winger somewhat fits into that category. She's good. Better than I anticipated because I wasn't sure of what to expect really. I had heard the name and knew she was popular for a bit and supposedly a pretty great actress. I see why all of those were true when it comes to her performance here. She plays an American woman who goes over to London to meet up with C.S. Lewis of the Narnia fame and ends up marrying him. She's a gruff American lady who instead of being demure and classical, shouts in a crowded restaurant if anyone is named Lewis. That's the kind of woman she is. She never backs down from Lewis (played by Anthony Hopkins) and they enjoy a good, friendly argument. She's a woman who isn't afraid to say what she thinks. Now Winger is kinda perfect for this role, portraying the New York woman with gusto. She also comes off very motherly/wifely, even from the very beginning that nurturing aspect is quite evident. She's frank and quite straight with Lewis at times and it's enjoyable to watch her and Hopkins nicely play out the relationship. But that's why I'm a little tepid towards her performance because yes, it is good, but it certainly isn't going to wow you. The relationship is average and one of convenience at first but then it delves into coming to terms with accepting the inevitability of death and dealing with loss and grief as Winger's character finds out she has a terminal disease. What I like about Winger in this part is that she doesn't play the weepy woman at all. She's strong for her son and for Hopkins and, really, for herself. What could have turned into a real awful Oscar bait tearjerker but Winger keeps it from flying off the handle. It's a good performance, just not one that's going to inspire many people to check it out and champion it for a win.
Another shitty Best Actress group. I'm completely uninspired by every woman here. Debra Winger is my least favorite simply because the film and character and performance are all so blah. She's okay but really doesn't stand out. Channing is next and actually really interesting and a pretty different choice for a Best Actress nod. She played the role on Broadway and was nominated there so might as well nominate her here right? It's decent but definitely not must see. Bassett is 3rd because, well, the other two suck more or are at least not as inspiring. Bassett has the fact that she plays Tina Turner in her corner. Gets to sing and be feisty, so that works well. It's not bad, just not great. Thompson is my second because it really doesn't fit the whole Lead Actress thing but whatever I guess. Can't quite vote for her to win for the second year in a row so that means Holly Hunter is my defacto winner. And that's it - defacto winner. Don't care to change the result because she's good and no one else can really claim the throne. Just an overall really meh year that should be better than it is.
Oscar Winner: Holly Hunter - The Piano
My Winner: Holly Hunter - The Piano
Emma Thompson
Angela Bassett
Stockard Channing
Debra Winger
Supporting Actor 1993
Hopefully you will excuse my lack of consistent updates lately. Just one of those things where I need to detach myself from movie watching for a bit and try to do other things instead. There's so many TV series I need to watch that I keep putting off to where I feel burdened enough to finally sit down and watch them so I can move on. Same goes for video games and I'm not even a big video game guy. Sounds goofy to say I need to relax from movies to watch TV or play video games but it's the truth. When it feels like a chore, it's time to step back and take a moment. Good thing is that I won't be taking any months and months and months long breaks like I have in the past! I'd love to finish the 90s by September-ish but we'll see!
1993 Best Supporting Actor
Tommy Lee Jones - The Fugitive
It's seems kind of a given that Tommy Lee Jones is an Oscar winner. You go down the list of names of the winners in the male acting categories and Jones doesn't seem out of place at all. You glance at his name and move on without much thought. Then when you look at the names of the other guys he went up against this year and their performances and it's a miracle almost that he won. I don't mean to say Jones' performance is crap and deserved to lose. Just that this is a hell of a category with some great performances throughout. This would also be what I consider to be the quintessential Tommy Lee Jones performance. It has everything a Jones performance typically does. He has that sarcastic, yet authoritarian demeanor where he's a stickler for the rules but has a softer side and cracks subtle jokes throughout the performance. He's a hard ass that does his job well and never quits or gets discouraged and endears himself to the audience even if he comes off like a stick in the mud at times. Jones plays a U.S. Marshall who is hunting down Harrison Ford's character and matches Ford stride for stride in this film. You could really say that Jones is a co-lead and you wouldn't be wrong and we know the Academy loves putting people in the wrong categories. I guess this one doesn't bother me as much because I can somewhat understand the reasoning but still, he's basically a lead. I like to look at this performance as the precursor to Jones' character in No Country for Old Men as they seemed linked in spirit. That's why I view this as the quintessential Jones performance because it sets the tone for the rest of his body of work to come. It's a good performance and a very memorable one at that, so it's easy to see why the Academy would vote him for the win for a thriller that was well liked. It's also pretty straightforward and though it doesn't quite stretch Jones' acting ability, it certainly deserves to be nominated - I'll just have to see if it deserves the win, too.
Leonardo DiCaprio - What's Eating Gilbert Grape?
When people think of Leonardo DiCaprio, I think they forget that he was quite an accomplished and good actor before the Titanic popularity. That would be evidenced by his nomination here a few years before his mega success, but also by his other films which were noted for his strong performances. It was easy to see even this early in his career that he was destined for greatness and would win an Oscar at some point in his lifetime. He finally did this year, over 20 years later, and you could probably compare this first nomination with that win. In this film, DiCaprio plays Arnie Grape, a mildly retarded boy about to turn 18. The film focuses on how Arnie affects Johnny Depp and his family's life. It's a sweet little movie that tries to give an honest look at what life is like with a handicapped relative in a small town. The singular thing that elevates this film is DiCaprio's performance. Just like in his winning performance for The Revenant, DiCaprio is fully committed to being Arnie to the point where if I had no idea who DiCaprio was, I'd honestly think it was a real developmentally disabled person. And I don't even mean to overexaggerate how convincing he is because it's Leo, it's just that good. It's even annoying how good he is because the mannerisms and his persona fit what a mentally retarded kid would be like. Laughing at inappropriate times, random outbursts, well intentioned things that end up bad, repeating words and phrases, it goes on and on. DiCaprio nails it all without being too precious, existing within the story but never acting too hard to keep the spotlight on himself. I like it because the performance feels natural and not like a desperate attempt to win an Oscar or anything like that. DiCaprio never tries to take over the film, either, which I enjoy because this kind of role is ripe for someone to overact and make a big splash and dominate the film. He just portrays his character and that's that, which is extremely refreshing to see. It's a great performance and one that I'll look hard at for the win. I'm glad, too, that the Academy didn't screw this up and not nominate him because who knows where we'd be in DiCaprio Oscar watch right now!
Ralph Fiennes - Schindler's List
My man, Ralph Fiennes! Playing one of the most evil characters of all time. Seriously, Amon Goeth has become synonymous with evil because of this film and because Fiennes' performance is so haunting and memorable. From the moment he is introduced to us and asks why the fuck are they driving around with the top down in winter, we get a sense of just who this man is. From there, we see him randomly shoot Jews from his balcony for sitting down as a way to wake up, before he's even had his coffee which annoys his mistress. Killing Jews is just a game, a way of life, a moment of distraction for him. And Fiennes sells every moment of this as if he shared the same belief. Even when Schindler tries to talk some sense into him about being Amon the Good and Amon tries it out, it just doesn't work and Amon needs to kill to feel the power and control that he talked about. He laughs and laughs when Schindler wants to hose down the boxcars of Jews before they depart because he thinks Schindler is being extra cruel and only later realizes it's because he genuinely wants to give them water and to cool them down. His face and whole demeanor changes when he realizes this, as expertly portrayed by Fiennes. There's a scene where Goeth tests a Jew on his speed in making a hinge and then takes him out to be shot when he completes it very fast only to see he's actually completed very few. Goeth's gun jams a few times and the other SS Officers inspect the gun and talk about the misfire as some interesting event while a man waits to die. It shows that Goeth and the other SS Officers don't really care about the act itself because he just wants to kill the guy for no real reason and can't and gets frustrated at the inconvenience of the gun not working. Fiennes is a very strong presence in this film even when just walking around or talking to people. The prisoners react to him as if he is the devil incarnate while the man just walks to get from point A to B without thinking of them. Meaning he is their God, essentially. That's the power these men had and Fiennes taps into that vein in his performance. It's an incredible performance that leaves a lasting impact no matter the subject. I'm not quite sure how Fiennes didn't win because it's hard to shake his evil Goeth after watching the film.
John Malkovich - In the Line of Fire
You know, I'm okay with these type of nominations. For one, it gives me a chance to watch a film I never would have otherwise. And honestly, this film isn't that bad. Straightforward thriller sort of on par with a Die Hard or something but with less fun moments. Starring Clint Eastwood as a secret service old guy and John Malkovich as the villain obsessed with showing him up. You can compare it to this year's big thriller in The Fugitive and see just how good that one is and how mediocre this one is. Anyway, second reason I'm okay with it is that it gives us a chance to watch Malkovich who is always entertaining no matter what kind of character he's playing. As I already said, he plays a villain tormenting Eastwood but doing so in a very measured, methodical, mastermind kind of way. Malkovich has that disarming demeanor where he speaks softly and comes off as highly intelligent which makes for his crazy side hitting that much harder and more intense. I think he gives us a hell of a bad guy that is up there with your Hans Gruber's. I feel that villains are so easy to portray and when done well are very memorable characters. The Supporting Actor category is littered with these types of roles and that's not a bad thing. It's one of my favorite things to watch when it comes to this category and thankfully Malkovich delivers a great performance. His assassin is so batshit crazy but so calm about being that way that it's a lot of fun to watch. He pulls no punches either, killing people without hesitation and I read online that he wanted scenes to be even more graphic to show his character's depravity. The thing about Malkovich is that he fully invests in his characters and we benefit from fully formed performances such as this. I just really like the mix of calm, collected, calculating CIA assassin and diabolical madman. I also like that we mostly see the former instead of the latter because it makes his outbursts more powerful and meaningful. When he flips out, it's earned and not just because the film needs a big moment. Malkovich's performance in this film really makes me wish we could have seen him as the villain in a Die Hard or Lethal Weapon or something instead of an Eastwood vehicle. Oh well, this nomination is a good reward anyhow.
Pete Postlethwaite - In the Name of the Father
I will have already said a ton about this film by the time you read this review so I won't go too deep in explaining my love for it. I think it's a great film with some powerhouse acting and Mr. Postlethwaite certainly is a big reason as to why I think that. The first time I saw this film, I was completely blown away by Postlethwaite. I liked his unique look but I also thought his acting was so no nonsense, so much like a bull charging through a field that I sat up and took notice. Then I somehow saw him everywhere in a couple different films and he was just as great at being a character actor as he was in this film. He plays Daniel Day-Lewis' father who gets wrapped up in his son being falsely accused of bombing a London pub for the IRA. He's just a hardworking, loving father who wants his kid to stop fucking up and earn an honest living for himself. He goes to London to try and help his son but ends up getting included as part of a big terrorist cell because the British cops are desperate to pin it on anyone and look good. Postlethwaite and DDL have really great chemistry as the father-son duo and I read online that Postlethwaite was DDL's mentor in the Irish theater scene. That makes their chemistry all the more believable which in turn makes their relationship more compelling and the events of the film hit even harder. Postlethwaite's character keeps the faith while in prison, both literally and figuratively as he prays every day like normal and believes that they need to focus on getting out instead of involving themselves in the political goings on. His morally righteous nature never feels like it's a construct of the writing or the story. It always feels natural to the character as Guiseppe just wants to live a good, quiet life with his family free from the violence going on around him. Postlethwaite really gives this film it's emotional center and the film is much stronger for having him in it. Just a great performance overall.
Yes, it's a Supporting Actor category that's awesome. This is old news now. Malkovich brings up the rear simply because the film is so early 90s action film even though Malkovich is a bit better than the typical villain. DiCaprio shows from an early age that he deserves an Oscar and I'm glad he finally got his due. This one was seriously impressive and certainly age was a factor. I'll put Jones 3rd because it's just a typical Jones role and the performance isn't that amazing. It's solid as hell but not a winner for me. Postlethwaite is the runner up because I just really like his strong, fatherly performance. Great character actor that deserves some attention. Fiennes is my winner because his Amon Goeth is so memorable and evil. A really great category that I hope to continue.
Oscar Winner: Tommy Lee Jones - The Fugitive
My Winner: Ralph Fiennes - Schindler's List
Pete Postlethwaite
Tommy Lee Jones
Leonardo DiCaprio
John Malkovich
1993 Best Supporting Actor
Tommy Lee Jones - The Fugitive
It's seems kind of a given that Tommy Lee Jones is an Oscar winner. You go down the list of names of the winners in the male acting categories and Jones doesn't seem out of place at all. You glance at his name and move on without much thought. Then when you look at the names of the other guys he went up against this year and their performances and it's a miracle almost that he won. I don't mean to say Jones' performance is crap and deserved to lose. Just that this is a hell of a category with some great performances throughout. This would also be what I consider to be the quintessential Tommy Lee Jones performance. It has everything a Jones performance typically does. He has that sarcastic, yet authoritarian demeanor where he's a stickler for the rules but has a softer side and cracks subtle jokes throughout the performance. He's a hard ass that does his job well and never quits or gets discouraged and endears himself to the audience even if he comes off like a stick in the mud at times. Jones plays a U.S. Marshall who is hunting down Harrison Ford's character and matches Ford stride for stride in this film. You could really say that Jones is a co-lead and you wouldn't be wrong and we know the Academy loves putting people in the wrong categories. I guess this one doesn't bother me as much because I can somewhat understand the reasoning but still, he's basically a lead. I like to look at this performance as the precursor to Jones' character in No Country for Old Men as they seemed linked in spirit. That's why I view this as the quintessential Jones performance because it sets the tone for the rest of his body of work to come. It's a good performance and a very memorable one at that, so it's easy to see why the Academy would vote him for the win for a thriller that was well liked. It's also pretty straightforward and though it doesn't quite stretch Jones' acting ability, it certainly deserves to be nominated - I'll just have to see if it deserves the win, too.
Leonardo DiCaprio - What's Eating Gilbert Grape?
When people think of Leonardo DiCaprio, I think they forget that he was quite an accomplished and good actor before the Titanic popularity. That would be evidenced by his nomination here a few years before his mega success, but also by his other films which were noted for his strong performances. It was easy to see even this early in his career that he was destined for greatness and would win an Oscar at some point in his lifetime. He finally did this year, over 20 years later, and you could probably compare this first nomination with that win. In this film, DiCaprio plays Arnie Grape, a mildly retarded boy about to turn 18. The film focuses on how Arnie affects Johnny Depp and his family's life. It's a sweet little movie that tries to give an honest look at what life is like with a handicapped relative in a small town. The singular thing that elevates this film is DiCaprio's performance. Just like in his winning performance for The Revenant, DiCaprio is fully committed to being Arnie to the point where if I had no idea who DiCaprio was, I'd honestly think it was a real developmentally disabled person. And I don't even mean to overexaggerate how convincing he is because it's Leo, it's just that good. It's even annoying how good he is because the mannerisms and his persona fit what a mentally retarded kid would be like. Laughing at inappropriate times, random outbursts, well intentioned things that end up bad, repeating words and phrases, it goes on and on. DiCaprio nails it all without being too precious, existing within the story but never acting too hard to keep the spotlight on himself. I like it because the performance feels natural and not like a desperate attempt to win an Oscar or anything like that. DiCaprio never tries to take over the film, either, which I enjoy because this kind of role is ripe for someone to overact and make a big splash and dominate the film. He just portrays his character and that's that, which is extremely refreshing to see. It's a great performance and one that I'll look hard at for the win. I'm glad, too, that the Academy didn't screw this up and not nominate him because who knows where we'd be in DiCaprio Oscar watch right now!
Ralph Fiennes - Schindler's List
My man, Ralph Fiennes! Playing one of the most evil characters of all time. Seriously, Amon Goeth has become synonymous with evil because of this film and because Fiennes' performance is so haunting and memorable. From the moment he is introduced to us and asks why the fuck are they driving around with the top down in winter, we get a sense of just who this man is. From there, we see him randomly shoot Jews from his balcony for sitting down as a way to wake up, before he's even had his coffee which annoys his mistress. Killing Jews is just a game, a way of life, a moment of distraction for him. And Fiennes sells every moment of this as if he shared the same belief. Even when Schindler tries to talk some sense into him about being Amon the Good and Amon tries it out, it just doesn't work and Amon needs to kill to feel the power and control that he talked about. He laughs and laughs when Schindler wants to hose down the boxcars of Jews before they depart because he thinks Schindler is being extra cruel and only later realizes it's because he genuinely wants to give them water and to cool them down. His face and whole demeanor changes when he realizes this, as expertly portrayed by Fiennes. There's a scene where Goeth tests a Jew on his speed in making a hinge and then takes him out to be shot when he completes it very fast only to see he's actually completed very few. Goeth's gun jams a few times and the other SS Officers inspect the gun and talk about the misfire as some interesting event while a man waits to die. It shows that Goeth and the other SS Officers don't really care about the act itself because he just wants to kill the guy for no real reason and can't and gets frustrated at the inconvenience of the gun not working. Fiennes is a very strong presence in this film even when just walking around or talking to people. The prisoners react to him as if he is the devil incarnate while the man just walks to get from point A to B without thinking of them. Meaning he is their God, essentially. That's the power these men had and Fiennes taps into that vein in his performance. It's an incredible performance that leaves a lasting impact no matter the subject. I'm not quite sure how Fiennes didn't win because it's hard to shake his evil Goeth after watching the film.
John Malkovich - In the Line of Fire
You know, I'm okay with these type of nominations. For one, it gives me a chance to watch a film I never would have otherwise. And honestly, this film isn't that bad. Straightforward thriller sort of on par with a Die Hard or something but with less fun moments. Starring Clint Eastwood as a secret service old guy and John Malkovich as the villain obsessed with showing him up. You can compare it to this year's big thriller in The Fugitive and see just how good that one is and how mediocre this one is. Anyway, second reason I'm okay with it is that it gives us a chance to watch Malkovich who is always entertaining no matter what kind of character he's playing. As I already said, he plays a villain tormenting Eastwood but doing so in a very measured, methodical, mastermind kind of way. Malkovich has that disarming demeanor where he speaks softly and comes off as highly intelligent which makes for his crazy side hitting that much harder and more intense. I think he gives us a hell of a bad guy that is up there with your Hans Gruber's. I feel that villains are so easy to portray and when done well are very memorable characters. The Supporting Actor category is littered with these types of roles and that's not a bad thing. It's one of my favorite things to watch when it comes to this category and thankfully Malkovich delivers a great performance. His assassin is so batshit crazy but so calm about being that way that it's a lot of fun to watch. He pulls no punches either, killing people without hesitation and I read online that he wanted scenes to be even more graphic to show his character's depravity. The thing about Malkovich is that he fully invests in his characters and we benefit from fully formed performances such as this. I just really like the mix of calm, collected, calculating CIA assassin and diabolical madman. I also like that we mostly see the former instead of the latter because it makes his outbursts more powerful and meaningful. When he flips out, it's earned and not just because the film needs a big moment. Malkovich's performance in this film really makes me wish we could have seen him as the villain in a Die Hard or Lethal Weapon or something instead of an Eastwood vehicle. Oh well, this nomination is a good reward anyhow.
Pete Postlethwaite - In the Name of the Father
I will have already said a ton about this film by the time you read this review so I won't go too deep in explaining my love for it. I think it's a great film with some powerhouse acting and Mr. Postlethwaite certainly is a big reason as to why I think that. The first time I saw this film, I was completely blown away by Postlethwaite. I liked his unique look but I also thought his acting was so no nonsense, so much like a bull charging through a field that I sat up and took notice. Then I somehow saw him everywhere in a couple different films and he was just as great at being a character actor as he was in this film. He plays Daniel Day-Lewis' father who gets wrapped up in his son being falsely accused of bombing a London pub for the IRA. He's just a hardworking, loving father who wants his kid to stop fucking up and earn an honest living for himself. He goes to London to try and help his son but ends up getting included as part of a big terrorist cell because the British cops are desperate to pin it on anyone and look good. Postlethwaite and DDL have really great chemistry as the father-son duo and I read online that Postlethwaite was DDL's mentor in the Irish theater scene. That makes their chemistry all the more believable which in turn makes their relationship more compelling and the events of the film hit even harder. Postlethwaite's character keeps the faith while in prison, both literally and figuratively as he prays every day like normal and believes that they need to focus on getting out instead of involving themselves in the political goings on. His morally righteous nature never feels like it's a construct of the writing or the story. It always feels natural to the character as Guiseppe just wants to live a good, quiet life with his family free from the violence going on around him. Postlethwaite really gives this film it's emotional center and the film is much stronger for having him in it. Just a great performance overall.
Yes, it's a Supporting Actor category that's awesome. This is old news now. Malkovich brings up the rear simply because the film is so early 90s action film even though Malkovich is a bit better than the typical villain. DiCaprio shows from an early age that he deserves an Oscar and I'm glad he finally got his due. This one was seriously impressive and certainly age was a factor. I'll put Jones 3rd because it's just a typical Jones role and the performance isn't that amazing. It's solid as hell but not a winner for me. Postlethwaite is the runner up because I just really like his strong, fatherly performance. Great character actor that deserves some attention. Fiennes is my winner because his Amon Goeth is so memorable and evil. A really great category that I hope to continue.
Oscar Winner: Tommy Lee Jones - The Fugitive
My Winner: Ralph Fiennes - Schindler's List
Pete Postlethwaite
Tommy Lee Jones
Leonardo DiCaprio
John Malkovich
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)