I swear I'm not dead! Just get bogged down with life and then stuck on watching certain films or stuck having to write about them. I've seen none of these films so I'm eager to see what they are exactly since I'm not really familiar with any of them. Let's get to it.
1992 Best Actress
Emma Thompson - Howards End
I
have always liked Emma Thompson as an actress and I've stated that in
my other reviews for her. She is just a thoroughly charming and pleasant
actress who makes her craft look effortless. We got exactly that for
this performance, but for some reason it just never grabbed me like her
others did. I'm glad that she is an Oscar winning actress (and writer!)
but I was very underwhelmed by this performance. She plays a middle
class woman who becomes friends with Redgrave's character and is
promised Howards End (an estate) when she dies but the children of
Redgrave block that and then Anthony Hopkins' character falls in love
with her and marries her and dies and Thompson gets Howards End after
all. There's a lot of class stuff going on and Howards End is meant as a
representation of what the different classes are all aspiring to. Maybe
I had too high of expectations for her but I was really left wanting
more from her and the film itself. Like I said she's her usual great
self, making her character look completely effortless. The big thing I
like about her acting is that it's as if she's coming up with her words
on the fly or as if she was the one who wrote them. She's very natural
in that respect which impresses me greatly. Other actors look as if they
have memorized lines and are only reciting them and make it look
labored and too much like acting. Thompson makes you forget she's acting
and just a character speaking from a script. So all of that is found in
this performance but I don't feel like Thompson ever took over the film
and gave a truly marvelous performance. It's solid but not amazing.
She's clearly done better work since which isn't fair to compare to her
work in this one. I really thought I was going to react a lot
differently to her Oscar winning performance than what I'm writing here
but I can't find the motivation to say anything other than she's a great
actress who gave a good, not great performance. Maybe it's because I've
seen better performances from Thompson that I'm so underwhelmed or that
I thought this was going to be a truly great all time winner but I'm a
bit disappointed. Without having seen any of the other nominees yet, I'm
already okay with her win and she seems like the obvious choice for a
winner but we will see as I watch the others.
Catherine Deneuve - Indochine
This was a little bit of a struggle to find with English subtitles. It was plenty easy to find the French version, though. I've been getting more and more into foreign films, sprinkling them in among the Oscar films I watch for the project and it's been a nice change of pace. This film fell directly in the middle of both those wheelhouses and I was intrigued about what kind of film it would be. It's about a French woman who is raising a Vietnamese princess in Vietnam and the woman, Deneuve, falls for a French Navy officer and they bone but then the officer saves the Vietnamese girl and they fall in love and they eventually find each other out in a remote area and then bone. It's very French. It's also not that great of a film. It's somewhat hokey at times, or at least forced to try to provide drama. Deneuve's character is the owner of a rubber tree plantation and seems to have the respect of her local laborers. Deneuve is good in this aspect, portraying someone that's lived there her whole life and is comfortable as a female boss to Vietnamese workers. It's good and capable and doesn't pander to any stereotypes of a lesser woman or a super heroine. Meaning she just exists as she should in the role. My beef is that the film makes her fall almost instantly for the Navy officer without any real reason for her to do so. He confronts her at an auction and kinda tries to woo her and then she just gives herself to him and it's all done so quickly and sloppily that it drags the performance down. It's completely unbelievable. On the plus side, the relationship between Deneuve and her Vietnamese adopted daughter is very believable. They have a very natural relationship and it doesn't feel like white woman with minority kid. It makes for a more realistic performance minus the absurd romance part but it's only a decent performance, nowhere near great. I think the Academy wanted to take the opportunity to reward Deneuve with a nomination as they seem to love to do with certain French actresses. I understand it's place here and don't begrudge it. This was a lot better than some previous Best Actress nominees.
Mary McDonnell - Passion Fish
This is another review that I already wrote but then somehow Blogger ate it and it disappeared after I worked on it for like a couple hours. It's always pretty cool when that happens. Anyway, I had no idea who Mary McDonnell was when I finally got to this year. I know that's going to happen more and more as I go back in time but it's still a little jarring to not know who they are but also exciting at possibly finding a hidden gem. The
beginning of the film McDonnell's acting is very labored and TV movie like, but
she does eventually settle into the role. Those first few scenes, though, are
really, truly awful displays of acting which makes me not want to vote
for her based on that alone and because Alfre Woodard is by comparison
immensely better. McDonnell plays a TV soap opera star who gets in an accident and is paralyzed and goes to her home in Louisiana. She goes through a bunch of nurses before getting stuck with Alfre Woodard and the two eventually come to respect each other after a rough start. The biggest thing about this performance is that it's fine and all but Woodard is so much more interesting and compelling as a character. I'd even say she's a co-lead and should have been nominated here instead of McDonnell. It's just plain as day when you watch the film. Woodard has just as much, if not more of, an arc than McDonnell and makes the most out of her performance. It's bad acting to start out with that settles into an average performance and somehow it got nominated over a much more deserving Woodard. Maybe McDonnell was riding the wave of goodwill from Dances with Wolves two years prior, I don't know. Not to say McDonnell is horrible by any means, the beginning issue is a very small part of the whole performance. The two actresses actually have really good chemistry and you warm up to McDonnell's cold, callous woman right along with Woodard. I just don't see how anyone that watches this film doesn't gravitate more toward Woodard for being the better performance and actress. I'd love to hear someone give me a good reason as to why the Academy did choose her besides the disability factor. I think that Alfre Woodard would have been a much better choice and I wish the Academy would have seen it that way, too.
Michelle Pfeiffer - Love Field
I
have never been a Michelle Pfeiffer fan. My only explanation to that is
that I don't find her attractive at all while everyone else seems to
think she is drop dead gorgeous. She's not. And I feel like that's where
a lot of her love as an actress comes from, her beauty first then
whatever talent she has. I've never liked that when it comes to
actresses. Show us what you can do despite your good looks and go from
there. Of course, this is a bit unfair because Pfeiffer can't exactly
help being considered beautiful, so it's not her fault. Love Field does
kinda feel like the Academy loves her and wants to nominate her because
she's a star at this moment. The performance is okay to me but doesn't
really stand out. She's the main focus of them, sure, but that doesn't
mean she's good. Pfeiffer plays a woman who is so into the Kennedy's and
worships Jackie O and when the President is assassinated in her
hometown, vows to go to the funeral in Washington. Ditzy blonde, which
Pfeiffer has down pat, gets on a Greyhound bus and butts her way into a
black man and his daughter's life because she has no boundaries. She
constantly chats him up or injects herself into his life when it's clear
he wants to be left alone. The bus crashes eventually and Pfeiffer
notices bruises on the little girl and thinks the father has kidnapped
her because he's black and that's what black people do. She calls the
FBI and then sets in motion the rest of the film where they are running
from the authorities because she fucked up and he really is taking her
from a home where they beat her constantly and they have to hide out.
They all hide out and eventually fall in love, I shit you not. It makes no
sense in the grand scheme of things and they end up happily ever after
and it just feels so stupid. Pfeiffer is good at being the innocent
blonde woman who cares about the daughter because she lost her own
child. But that revelation is just superficial. We don't learn all that
much about Pfeiffer other than she's quick to leave her other life
behind without too much turmoil shown and told to us. I'd say she and
Dennis Haysbert have a decent chemistry but it's almost the same thing
as Far from Heaven with Julianne Moore and it's still as weird
and inappropriate as that film. I'm never convinced by Pfeiffer of her
drastic change and it's important that I buy her abrupt turnaround
because the film depends on it. Beauty and historical time frame aside,
what is left to judge? Not much at all, which is why I think this
performance falls flat for me. Yes, it's competent and she does fine
trying to sell the romance and the concern, it's just that it doesn't
feel Oscar worthy. I feel like her popularity and sex symbol status got
her this nomination because there's just not a whole lot to it. I'd much
rather see someone else take her place here.
Susan Sarandon - Lorenzo's Oil
When it comes to Susan Sarandon performances and films, I always end up initially thinking the premise or the woman sounds pretty meh but then I watch them and find that Sarandon is pretty strong and her character is a decent female role. Like in this film, I wasn't overly compelled to watch it based on the premise of Sarandon being a mother whose son becomes ill and she and her husband try to find a cure against all odds. You have no doubt heard of a film like this before, probably seen it countless times before, you could probably write a screenplay about one with ease. It breaks no new ground or anything and isn't all that interesting after awhile. But...I watch and realize that Sarandon gives a pretty good to great performance which is typical of her. It's almost at Meryl Streep levels where she makes undeserving roles/performances better because of who she is. It also highlights how bad a lot of the leading actress roles truly are, they lack a lot of the diversity you get with the men. In this film, Sarandon plays a mother fighting for her son's life after he gets a rare disease or disorder or whatever. It's a very strong role that Sarandon makes more interesting and less basic. She gives it her crusader, advocate, progressive spin and push. She brings that part of her life to the role and it's definitely way better for it. She mostly avoids the cheesiness that can be found in these performances and films. Just look at her husband in the film, Nick Nolte, for an example of that. His Italian accent is so distracting and cringe worthy you wish he'd shut up. Not to overly praise Sarandon, though, as this isn't an award winning role to me. It's solid and better than it needs to be but the film does her no favors. It's great that she is so convincing as the mother fighting for her son because it's exactly what you'd think a tough, desperate woman would be in that situation. It's good, not great, but very Susan Sarandon.
Go ahead and look at
the films nominated on this list. Do you think the average person in
America in 1992 had heard of any of these films, let alone actually
watched them? How about extending that to nowadays? It has recognizable
names, sure, but besides Howards End, I've never even heard of
these films and I'm a big movie nut. No one talks about these films ever,
so 1992 must have been just an awful, awful year for women because
Oscar makes it seem that way. I'll have to read this year in my Inside Oscar book to see what else was even in the running. It's really hard to even come up with a winner because I'm so ambivalent about them all. I mean, I guess just stay with the status quo and go with Thompson but it doesn't feel fully earned here. I wish she would have wowed. Then comes Sarandon because she plays a pretty strong female character and is good but I wouldn't want that film to be what she won for, you know what I mean? Deneuve really kinda surprised me because I thought she was solid, just let down by the film. She might even be a number 2 after this all grows on me. But still, not worth a win exactly. Then comes Pfeiffer trying hard to rise above the looks but not fully succeeding for this film, which is kind of a mess anyway. McDonnell is dead last because I'd have taken Alfre Woodard over her and probably given her the win instead of these others. That would have been a great Oscar moment! Instead we are left with this ho-hum group.
Oscar Winner: Emma Thompson - Howards End
My Winner: Emma Thompson - Howards End
Susan Sarandon
Catherine Deneuve
Michelle Pfeiffer
Mary McDonnell
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Supporting Actor 1992
I had this thought at work the other day about what it must be like to be an actor, director, writer, whatever and have these uneducated (film wise) goobers like me writing about someone's hard work that became an Oscar nominated film. I've railed against some performances and films because they are pretty bad to me but imagine being the guy who wrote one of those films reading some idiot trash your film. Kind of weird to think about right? I don't pretend that my opinion matters any more than anyone elses - it's just my own opinion. Just interesting to think about! Does what I'm writing really matter? No, but it is pretty fun. This category offers some heavy hitters facing off and two unknowns that I'm very interested to check out.
1992 Best Supporting Actor
Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
Yep, I'm totally okay with this as the winner. Hackman is indeed superb in this role and all the superlatives you've heard about it are correct. The main reason I like Hackman as the lawman Little Bill Daggett is because the performance is so understated. It would be extremely easy to play up the violent parts in a crazy or loud way. To do so would be to make those moments come across as abnormal or for show. Hackman delivers a performance that makes those moments of cruel brutality seem inherit to the character and not something that is out of place for him to do. Hackman is a great lawman because he is a violent man that stops at nothing to ensure peace in whatever place he calls home and patrols. It's great to watch because these moments are that much different from when he's being a nice guy talking about building his porch or just doing his lawful duties. This man would have been celebrated in earlier Westerns as the hero, just an every man keeping the thieves and scoundrels and killers out of his town. The brutal nature of it is merely a byproduct and we would be sad if he was killed. But in Unforgiven, all of that is turned on its head and shown for what it all really is: violence is violence no matter who it is done to. This is a very realistic Western instead of the idealistic stuff we are used to and I think it makes the characters such as Little Bill more complex which is always a good thing. He's the good guy but he's also not the good guy. You can't just blindly except he's good because he has a badge and seems like a decent guy at times. I like that this performance makes you question all of the preconceived notions of good and bad. Plus, there's no doubt that watching Gene Hackman do his thing is entertaining and the idea of him not having an Oscar is kind of ridiculous. I'm just glad he won his for a legit great performance and not because he was due.
Jaye Davidson - The Crying Game
I'll say right now that if you haven't watched the film, then maybe go watch it before reading anything about the film because a big part of it will be spoiled right away. Not that you probably couldn't figure out what the twist is, but at least you can go into it pure and not focused on when it will happen. Anyway, The Crying Game is a film that I didn't much care for, though I can see the importance of it and this nomination in the larger scheme of things. Even today, something like this would be a huge issue so seeing them nominate something like this in 1992 is really intriguing. Davidson plays Dil, a transgender woman who seems to attract drama and falls for Stephen Rea's character. Rea doesn't know and that's the big twist that's revealed two thirds of the way through when Davidson gets naked and we see his/her semi-erect penis. That obviously takes a lot of courage for Davidson to go through with and I feel like that coupled with the transgender thing is a big reason why Davidson was nominated. Not to take anything away from the performance but it's basically the main reason. Davidson's performance is only okay to me. It's sort of dramatic and sassy for most of the performance until the very end when Davidson is able to explode with all the rage that must be bottled up inside the Dil character. I didn't really like the film and Davidson didn't exactly put me over the edge into liking it. I can say Davidson accomplishes what is necessary of his character. I just don't feel all that wowed by the performance outside of the one big moment. It fits the film and that's about it. At least the Academy was enlightened enough to nominate it and that's pretty special. The Academy could certainly do worse and I don't mind it being nominated.
Jack Nicholson - A Few Good Men
Here's something you might not have known about Jack Nicholson: he's a pretty good actor. So good that him being in a supporting role is almost unfair to everyone else. Of course he's going to get nominated for playing a memorable villain type role with an even more remembered court room scene. Mention A Few Good Men to anyone and you'll probably get a bad impression of Nicholson yelling "You can't handle the truth!" and that's the lasting impression of the film - and performance. Nicholson plays a Marine commander in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where two young Marines killed another guy during a hazing incident. From the initial scene where we first meet Nicholson, we get the sense that he's kind of a bad guy and not just a hardcore Marine. Despite the overt villainy, Nicholson does a fine job with the material. He even tones down the usual Nicholson mannerisms and tics that would be completely out of place for a high ranking Marine officer. Probably what helped Nicholson get nominated is the court room scene where he and Tom Cruise battle it out, mano a mano. It's very entertaining with Nicholson at first getting the better of Cruise and acting all smug and untouchable. But then Cruise catches Nicholson in a lie and the change when Nicholson realizes he has been caught is pretty solid acting. He becomes defensive and arrogant so quickly that it's pathetic to watch, which means Nicholson is very effective in the scene. There can be times in the performance where Nicholson is too on the nose with his sort of evil Marine commander, but it doesn't damage the performance really. And really, the film lends itself to having a character like Colonel Jessup be so overbearing and a bad guy and needs the character to succeed as a story. If he was a pushover, we wouldn't care about the story and the court room scenes wouldn't be so memorable. So this is a decent enough Nicholson performance and has some indelible moments but it's certainly not top shelf, vintage Nicholson (though I'm sure others would argue that it is).
Al Pacino - Glengarry Glen Ross
Holy shit, this movie is awesome! Seriously, this is a new favorite that I'm going to watch again really soon, it's that good. It appeals to what I often like in a film: great acting performances and characters, a minimalist style, snappy dialogue that doesn't feel overly written, and I love the whole rainy background of the beginning of the film. There's a lot more to it that I like but that's the basics. Anyway, great film that everyone should watch. Now, here we have Pacino nominated for his second performance of the year after his Best Actor winning turn in Scent of a Woman. I don't understand when the Academy deems it necessary to do shit like this. They obviously really wanted to get Pacino an Oscar, that was quite obvious. But I feel like the double nomination takes away from another actor getting the credit he deserves instead. Pacino is fantastic in the role of Ricky Roma, a cleverly devious salesman full of bravado and balls, there's no doubt about this. His intro where he lays the groundwork for selling property to a lonely, dejected guy at the bar is masterful. You fully believe he's a great salesman with a unique style. He's a showman and we see glimpses of the loud, frantic, later years Pacino begging to come out. When he gets real angry you think that he might burst into full on Scarface mode but he pulls it back in. You might think this makes the performance redundant of his past work but it absolutely works for the character of Roma. Pacino is deft enough to not let the character get out of control and that restraint makes the performance. He comes off like an asshole salesman who will do anything to make a sale which makes him seem like an amoral scumbag but he shows a bit of humanity and reverence when talking with Jack Lemmon's character, a sort of mentor for him. I think that shows that outside of the world of sales and leads he probably is a somewhat decent guy and really shows the depth of the character. Also of note is how he can shred apart someone with his insults and make them feel so tiny that it's kind of awesome to watch in a twisted way. Now, Pacino is great but I feel like Jack Lemmon - or even Alec Baldwin in his one scene - could have been a good choice here instead of Pacino. If you're going to call it an ensemble film and give a Supporting nom to Pacino, they could have done the same for Lemmon, though some might argue he's Lead. Either way, he should have been nominated because his performance blew me away. I did not expect that from Lemmon and it may be one of the best performances I've ever seen, no joke. That's why I think a double nomination is so silly. Just reward someone once because no one is ever, EVER, going to win two acting awards in the same year. Pacino could have shared the wealth here and still won an Oscar.
David Paymer - Mr. Saturday Night
Even if you don't know the name, you know the face. Paymer is a character actor that you've seen countless times but never knew his name. I like that he's getting his due here, because character actors make the world go round. Paymer plays Stan, the older brother to Billy Crystal's Buddy Young, a once famous comedian. The film, which was supposed to be a star vehicle for Crystal that he wrote, directed and produced by himself is unfortunately a bit on the overly sentimental side. I'd say Crystal has no sense of subtlety or nuance, instead hitting us over the head with moments intended to elicit an emotional response whether earned or not. Immediately we see Paymer's character as this sad sack manager for Buddy who has forgone his own life to further his brother's and we know this because of flashbacks and treacly moments where we are supposed to feel sad and empathetic. Why, I don't know, because we only just met him. Paymer does his best with what he has to work with but the material lets him down and he's unable to really overcome it and bring something to the performance to really stand out. It's also a little repetitive. Paymer longs to be his own man but settles for being his brother's keeper and we see this pointed out time after time. He loses his act with his brother, loses the girl he likes, is unable to break away from Buddy to go off on his own journey. The beats of the performance become familiar and we stop caring for Stan because we aren't seeing anything all that different from the character. At the end, the two have a yelling match and then a tearful reunion and all you feel as the viewer is manipulated. Stan never changed and Paymer never developed the character because he wasn't allowed to. Paymer is good but the character isn't, so the performance suffers. The nomination is the reward here.
Hackman is your easy winner. I'm sure some people like Nicholson a lot, but the dude already had 3 Oscars, would you really give him a 4th for that performance? Nah. Pacino would warrant some actual votes if he wasn't already the Best Actor winner which was why he was nominated twice - to get him a win finally. I'd prefer this performance to his other one but then Hackman would be out and that's not a good compromise. Nicholson is becoming, or already is, his same performance self but with minor twists so third is good enough. Then Paymer is 4th since really the nomination is his reward and he doesn't really stand out in this group. Davidson is my 5th simply because the performance is based around the big reveal which is almost all it has going for it. Outside of that, it's not that great of a performance. The winner really makes the category stronger because after him it's not as great as previous iterations have been. I'm a little disappointed that it's so bland but I know it will return to form sooner than later.
Oscar Winner: Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
My Winner: Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
Al Pacino
Jack Nicholson
David Paymer
Jaye Davidson
1992 Best Supporting Actor
Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
Yep, I'm totally okay with this as the winner. Hackman is indeed superb in this role and all the superlatives you've heard about it are correct. The main reason I like Hackman as the lawman Little Bill Daggett is because the performance is so understated. It would be extremely easy to play up the violent parts in a crazy or loud way. To do so would be to make those moments come across as abnormal or for show. Hackman delivers a performance that makes those moments of cruel brutality seem inherit to the character and not something that is out of place for him to do. Hackman is a great lawman because he is a violent man that stops at nothing to ensure peace in whatever place he calls home and patrols. It's great to watch because these moments are that much different from when he's being a nice guy talking about building his porch or just doing his lawful duties. This man would have been celebrated in earlier Westerns as the hero, just an every man keeping the thieves and scoundrels and killers out of his town. The brutal nature of it is merely a byproduct and we would be sad if he was killed. But in Unforgiven, all of that is turned on its head and shown for what it all really is: violence is violence no matter who it is done to. This is a very realistic Western instead of the idealistic stuff we are used to and I think it makes the characters such as Little Bill more complex which is always a good thing. He's the good guy but he's also not the good guy. You can't just blindly except he's good because he has a badge and seems like a decent guy at times. I like that this performance makes you question all of the preconceived notions of good and bad. Plus, there's no doubt that watching Gene Hackman do his thing is entertaining and the idea of him not having an Oscar is kind of ridiculous. I'm just glad he won his for a legit great performance and not because he was due.
Jaye Davidson - The Crying Game
I'll say right now that if you haven't watched the film, then maybe go watch it before reading anything about the film because a big part of it will be spoiled right away. Not that you probably couldn't figure out what the twist is, but at least you can go into it pure and not focused on when it will happen. Anyway, The Crying Game is a film that I didn't much care for, though I can see the importance of it and this nomination in the larger scheme of things. Even today, something like this would be a huge issue so seeing them nominate something like this in 1992 is really intriguing. Davidson plays Dil, a transgender woman who seems to attract drama and falls for Stephen Rea's character. Rea doesn't know and that's the big twist that's revealed two thirds of the way through when Davidson gets naked and we see his/her semi-erect penis. That obviously takes a lot of courage for Davidson to go through with and I feel like that coupled with the transgender thing is a big reason why Davidson was nominated. Not to take anything away from the performance but it's basically the main reason. Davidson's performance is only okay to me. It's sort of dramatic and sassy for most of the performance until the very end when Davidson is able to explode with all the rage that must be bottled up inside the Dil character. I didn't really like the film and Davidson didn't exactly put me over the edge into liking it. I can say Davidson accomplishes what is necessary of his character. I just don't feel all that wowed by the performance outside of the one big moment. It fits the film and that's about it. At least the Academy was enlightened enough to nominate it and that's pretty special. The Academy could certainly do worse and I don't mind it being nominated.
Jack Nicholson - A Few Good Men
Here's something you might not have known about Jack Nicholson: he's a pretty good actor. So good that him being in a supporting role is almost unfair to everyone else. Of course he's going to get nominated for playing a memorable villain type role with an even more remembered court room scene. Mention A Few Good Men to anyone and you'll probably get a bad impression of Nicholson yelling "You can't handle the truth!" and that's the lasting impression of the film - and performance. Nicholson plays a Marine commander in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where two young Marines killed another guy during a hazing incident. From the initial scene where we first meet Nicholson, we get the sense that he's kind of a bad guy and not just a hardcore Marine. Despite the overt villainy, Nicholson does a fine job with the material. He even tones down the usual Nicholson mannerisms and tics that would be completely out of place for a high ranking Marine officer. Probably what helped Nicholson get nominated is the court room scene where he and Tom Cruise battle it out, mano a mano. It's very entertaining with Nicholson at first getting the better of Cruise and acting all smug and untouchable. But then Cruise catches Nicholson in a lie and the change when Nicholson realizes he has been caught is pretty solid acting. He becomes defensive and arrogant so quickly that it's pathetic to watch, which means Nicholson is very effective in the scene. There can be times in the performance where Nicholson is too on the nose with his sort of evil Marine commander, but it doesn't damage the performance really. And really, the film lends itself to having a character like Colonel Jessup be so overbearing and a bad guy and needs the character to succeed as a story. If he was a pushover, we wouldn't care about the story and the court room scenes wouldn't be so memorable. So this is a decent enough Nicholson performance and has some indelible moments but it's certainly not top shelf, vintage Nicholson (though I'm sure others would argue that it is).
Al Pacino - Glengarry Glen Ross
Holy shit, this movie is awesome! Seriously, this is a new favorite that I'm going to watch again really soon, it's that good. It appeals to what I often like in a film: great acting performances and characters, a minimalist style, snappy dialogue that doesn't feel overly written, and I love the whole rainy background of the beginning of the film. There's a lot more to it that I like but that's the basics. Anyway, great film that everyone should watch. Now, here we have Pacino nominated for his second performance of the year after his Best Actor winning turn in Scent of a Woman. I don't understand when the Academy deems it necessary to do shit like this. They obviously really wanted to get Pacino an Oscar, that was quite obvious. But I feel like the double nomination takes away from another actor getting the credit he deserves instead. Pacino is fantastic in the role of Ricky Roma, a cleverly devious salesman full of bravado and balls, there's no doubt about this. His intro where he lays the groundwork for selling property to a lonely, dejected guy at the bar is masterful. You fully believe he's a great salesman with a unique style. He's a showman and we see glimpses of the loud, frantic, later years Pacino begging to come out. When he gets real angry you think that he might burst into full on Scarface mode but he pulls it back in. You might think this makes the performance redundant of his past work but it absolutely works for the character of Roma. Pacino is deft enough to not let the character get out of control and that restraint makes the performance. He comes off like an asshole salesman who will do anything to make a sale which makes him seem like an amoral scumbag but he shows a bit of humanity and reverence when talking with Jack Lemmon's character, a sort of mentor for him. I think that shows that outside of the world of sales and leads he probably is a somewhat decent guy and really shows the depth of the character. Also of note is how he can shred apart someone with his insults and make them feel so tiny that it's kind of awesome to watch in a twisted way. Now, Pacino is great but I feel like Jack Lemmon - or even Alec Baldwin in his one scene - could have been a good choice here instead of Pacino. If you're going to call it an ensemble film and give a Supporting nom to Pacino, they could have done the same for Lemmon, though some might argue he's Lead. Either way, he should have been nominated because his performance blew me away. I did not expect that from Lemmon and it may be one of the best performances I've ever seen, no joke. That's why I think a double nomination is so silly. Just reward someone once because no one is ever, EVER, going to win two acting awards in the same year. Pacino could have shared the wealth here and still won an Oscar.
David Paymer - Mr. Saturday Night
Even if you don't know the name, you know the face. Paymer is a character actor that you've seen countless times but never knew his name. I like that he's getting his due here, because character actors make the world go round. Paymer plays Stan, the older brother to Billy Crystal's Buddy Young, a once famous comedian. The film, which was supposed to be a star vehicle for Crystal that he wrote, directed and produced by himself is unfortunately a bit on the overly sentimental side. I'd say Crystal has no sense of subtlety or nuance, instead hitting us over the head with moments intended to elicit an emotional response whether earned or not. Immediately we see Paymer's character as this sad sack manager for Buddy who has forgone his own life to further his brother's and we know this because of flashbacks and treacly moments where we are supposed to feel sad and empathetic. Why, I don't know, because we only just met him. Paymer does his best with what he has to work with but the material lets him down and he's unable to really overcome it and bring something to the performance to really stand out. It's also a little repetitive. Paymer longs to be his own man but settles for being his brother's keeper and we see this pointed out time after time. He loses his act with his brother, loses the girl he likes, is unable to break away from Buddy to go off on his own journey. The beats of the performance become familiar and we stop caring for Stan because we aren't seeing anything all that different from the character. At the end, the two have a yelling match and then a tearful reunion and all you feel as the viewer is manipulated. Stan never changed and Paymer never developed the character because he wasn't allowed to. Paymer is good but the character isn't, so the performance suffers. The nomination is the reward here.
Hackman is your easy winner. I'm sure some people like Nicholson a lot, but the dude already had 3 Oscars, would you really give him a 4th for that performance? Nah. Pacino would warrant some actual votes if he wasn't already the Best Actor winner which was why he was nominated twice - to get him a win finally. I'd prefer this performance to his other one but then Hackman would be out and that's not a good compromise. Nicholson is becoming, or already is, his same performance self but with minor twists so third is good enough. Then Paymer is 4th since really the nomination is his reward and he doesn't really stand out in this group. Davidson is my 5th simply because the performance is based around the big reveal which is almost all it has going for it. Outside of that, it's not that great of a performance. The winner really makes the category stronger because after him it's not as great as previous iterations have been. I'm a little disappointed that it's so bland but I know it will return to form sooner than later.
Oscar Winner: Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
My Winner: Gene Hackman - Unforgiven
Al Pacino
Jack Nicholson
David Paymer
Jaye Davidson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)