I am so happy to finally be in the 70s. Real progress is being made in this blog! I was also glad to be back to the old years after doing 2016 because these are all mostly unknown while I lived through the 2016 race and had read and heard about those films for months. I felt refreshed to come back to this year and power through. I've only seen Apocalypse Now previously but a few of the others look really interesting and I'm thinking this group will be pretty good.
1979 Best Picture
Kramer vs. Kramer
This was the first of two straight gritty, realistic dramas to win Best Picture. I am a fan of those types of films especially when they handle whatever subject matter in a frank, real way. Kramer vs. Kramer is a very authentic look at divorce and more particularly, life as a single father when dealing with a divorce. The story is mostly one sided as we follow Dustin Hoffman as he has to deal with raising his son on his own while juggling a hectic, demanding job. Throw in dating woes and a mother/ex-wife who comes back into the picture to get custody of the kid and you can see just how dramatic it gets. It's not often we get to see this side of the divorce coin, where the focus is on the man providing for the kid(s) and struggling to adapt to a new life and then fight for custody. Usually we see things from the other side, so this was really progressive for 1979. I can't even imagine this film being made today without a lot of changes because it makes the mother into almost a villain and can easily see the awful blogs written on Jezebel and elsewhere on the internet. The film, though, is about the father dealing with all this and losing his job because he'd rather take care of his kid and having an innocent moment where the kid busts his eyebrow open and Hoffman races him to the ER be used against him in court as if he's a terrible, dangerous father. It's really heavy stuff and makes for a highly compelling watch. It's got great acting (minus Justin Henry's undeserved nomination) and is surprisingly short at an hour and forty plus minutes. If this film were made today, there's no doubt this would be stretched to two plus hours and suffer, a la Manchester by the Sea. I feel like choosing this film for the win was maybe a statement or a way to bring light to the subject? I think the film is very powerful and has an important message and I wonder if that played into things at all. It's a great film worth checking out for some very good acting and a heavy hitting story.
All That Jazz
I had been excited to watch this because a few people I read online were exuberant in their love and praise for this film and it seemed like one of those films that has become underrated and underappreciated as time has gone by. I think that holds true after finally watching it. The main thing that every review talked about was how this was an egotistical, self reverential, indulgent semi-autobiographical work from Bob Fosse about Bob Fosse. It's just whether you fall on the side of this being a mess or it being a masterpiece. I lean towards the latter because the film is so interesting and intriguing and full of energy, no matter how maudlin. We follow Roy Scheider's version of Bob Fosse as he rehearses his new play, finishes his new film, and deals with his daughter, ex-wife, and girlfriend and all that goes along with that. He's a womanizer that drinks a lot, smokes a lot, and does drugs and that's how he is able to get through each day. Eventually he has a heart attack but continues his lifestyle even when staying in the hospital by partying in his room. He has more heart attacks and undergoes bypass surgery. The film is lively and turns it up when the bypass occurs and we get this dream sequence where people from Scheider's life come back and it's this intense, engaging spectacle. And I have forgotten to mention that this is a musical, so these scenes are done with singing and dancing and are very entertaining to watch. But this isn't some straightforward musical like you'd think from the 50s or 60s or something, it's a little avante garde and modern which gives it a freshness that's apparent even 40 years later. And it's interesting that the Bob Fosse character ends up in a body bag and he actually died of a heart attack a couple years after this, so he must have known where his life was going to end up. I would have liked if Scheider had been a little more lively and flamboyant (not in a gay way) and been a better dancer because I feel like that would have better served the character. Ultimately, your view of the film is going to be based off whether you like musicals and if you think this is a self indulgent mess or something tremendously refreshing to watch. I really enjoyed the film's craziness and it was a nice respite from super serious Oscar films that are always nominated. A little crazy every now and then is always good.
Apocalypse Now
You should know this film and should have seen it already. If not, just go watch it and cross it off your bucket list. The film is as big and crazy as you've ever heard from anyone that talks about it and it lives up to that billing. I think that after watching this film, one should be required to watch the documentary about the making of it to get the full effect of just how crazy the whole production truly was. The film shot for 16 months, went through a ton of changes both story and personnel wise, and was allowed to do things on location in the Philippines that wouldn't ever be allowed here in the States. The star, Martin Sheen, suffered a heart attack while filming that was kept hush hush so that the production could keep going without any interference. Marlon Brando showed up almost 90 pounds overweight and was therefore shot in the shadows to minimize his appearance which actually adds to the performance and film overall. Laurence Fishburne was 14 years old and lied about his age and ended up getting addicted to heroin because Dennis Hopper got him hooked. A bunch of different actors were considered for Sheen's part and Robert Duvall's iconic character. Francis Ford Coppola threatened suicide a few times while making it and used millions of his own money to fund it and get it made. It took three years for the film to actually come out because the editing and sound processes were so long. They actually killed a live water buffalo in the scene you see at the end of the film. All of that craziness was going on and yet somehow a coherent and masterful film was completed. Apocalypse Now is as good as everyone says it is. I watched the Redux version and it adds like 49 minutes of footage but I don't think it's necessary for the complete experience. The big additions are a terrible little trip to a French plantation with people still holed up and clinging to yesteryear. It grinds the film to a halt and is long and boring and ultimately pointless, which is why it probably doesn't make the theatrical version. The only other real big addition is that the guys in the boat meet the Playboy Bunnies stranded on some small base and trade gasoline for sex with them. But the film has so many iconic moments and lines and performances that it doesn't matter which version you watch. Some people might find it a little too cerebral and slow but I think if you stick with it, it's pretty rewarding. This Heart of Darkness adaptation is a cinematic classic and really transcends being just an Oscar film.
Breaking Away
Oh man, this is a great movie! There is no doubt that this film gets lost in this group because you have basically four heavy hitters. It might be the one most people don't know (although All That Jazz might be right there with it) unless they are from Indiana or really into sports films. Breaking Away is a sports film, yes, and many people view it as such with it getting put on lists where it ranks right up there as one of the best of all time. I understand that sentiment one hundred percent, but this film is so much more than just a sports film. It's about a group of cutters, or local boys in Bloomington, Indiana, who end up participating in a cycling race put on by the University. But that really only explains part of the film. It's also about the group of four friends and how frustrated they are to be second class citizens in their own town because they don't go to the university and their search for a purpose. The main character loves cycling and pretends to be Italian because he is so into it. Oh, and the friends are Dennis Quaid, Daniel Stern, Jackie Earle Haley, and the Italian loving Dennis Christopher. It's cool to see them all together in a film at such young ages and I've never even seen or heard of it before. Anyway, the film is so sweet and sincere which is why I really enjoyed it. This could easily devolve into kitschy cliches and become an outright joke, but it maintains its sincerity all the way through. Christopher's family is a hoot and his romantic fling is actually done really well. It's not a happy ending and it feels right in ending that way. Now, the impetus to actually getting to the bicycle race is a little contrived, I'll give you that, but it certainly doesn't bring the film down at all. The race at the end is also a highlight because it stayed compelling and tense all the way to the end. It's one of those ends where you're holding your breath until the moment happens and you give a little fist pump when it does. If a film can make me believe in its characters and its story so much then it has done a great job. I am super glad that this was nominated for Best Picture (and Supporting Actress) because I got to watch a film that is very easy to recommend. So Miss Peanut Gallery, find this and watch it pronto because I think you might enjoy it as much as I did.
Norma Rae
Norma Rae is probably the classic union film. I'm drawing a blank on any others besides like, Hoffa, but I think this is the film that comes to mind when you think of a union film. In it, Sally Field is the eponymous Norma Rae, a small town woman who works at a textile mill that treats all the workers like shit. She meets a New York labor union representative who comes to town and is convinced to help organize a union for the town mill. That's the film in a nutshell and it is invariably Field's film through and through. She fights the good fight because the mill treats everyone like slaves and pays them crap and doesn't have healthcare and if anyone tries to speak up they get canned. The mill does all this because the mill is all the townspeople have. Without it, they wouldn't be able to live so it's like a catch-22 and the mill knows this. Field fully earns her Best Actress Oscar by giving us a fully realized performance. She is the main draw and very much worth it. The film can also be seen as a woman's empowerment type of film. Field starts off as a bored single mother who is screwing a married man and then ultimately finds her true calling in life by organizing the union for the mill workers. The message being that even a small town single mother can do great things and not be limited by those around her. She fights hard and keeps long hours of going to work and raising her kids and looking after her husband (she eventually marries) and doing work for the union late into the night. It's awesome to watch Field become this strong woman who can take on a big mill and win. There is that iconic scene where she gets on a table in the mill as she's being escorted out after being fired where she holds up a handwritten union sign and the rest of the workers all shut their machines off. It's a really great scene that really encapsulates what the film is all about. I would say that the film is worth watching for Field's performance alone but the message part of it is a good reason to watch as well.
This is a very strong year. I liked every film and that really makes it tough to pick a winner and do a ranking of the films. I mean, I dunno. I do think Apocalypse Now is a classic masterpiece of film making and it being the winner would be great. I liked the realism of Kramer vs. Kramer and it really ushers in what films in the 80s were going to be about. Breaking Away is such a fun, sincere, hilarious film that I wasn't expecting at all and truly enjoyed immensely. Norma Rae is a strong female focused film that doesn't feel too preachy and doesn't sell out Sally Fields as a woman. It's a good film. And All That Jazz is such a crazy, indulgent mess that you'll either love or hate it and I loved what it was going for. So, I dunno. Below is my rankings and I'll take Apocalypse Now as my winner because it is an all time classic. Very good year, though. Every film was strong and this is what I'm looking for in every category. I just hope 1978 can live up to this year!
Oscar Winner: Kramer vs. Kramer
My Winner: Apocalypse Now
Kramer vs. Kramer
Breaking Away
Norma Rae
All That Jazz
Sunday, October 8, 2017
Friday, October 6, 2017
Leading Actor 1979
I have not seen any of these films yet, but they are all heavy hitters. We get Hoffman's first win and a couple other intriguing performances that aren't really talked about anymore. I'm eager to see how this one plays out.
1979 Best Actor
Dustin Hoffman - Kramer vs. Kramer
There is no doubt that Dustin Hoffman is a great actor. It is surprising that this was his first win after a couple of previous big performances but that seems to be how the Academy operates when it comes to the men. Here, Hoffman plays a man whose wife leaves him abruptly so that he has to take care of his son alone all while juggling a hectic, demanding job. The film itself is very good and a realistic look at divorce and the single parent lifestyle from the man's point of view. I think Hoffman does a good job working with the awful Justin Henry and develops a close connection throughout the film with him. I won't say they have great chemistry, but Hoffman is a pro that is able to work with a child actor and make it believable. I learned that Hoffman was going through his own real life divorce and helped with the authenticity of some dialogue and scenes and that clearly shows in the performance. He brings an anger to the character that is necessary and natural for the situation. When he has a fight with his son and yells at him in his room and calls him a little shit, it was great acting and seemed very real (I know I was glad someone was calling Henry a little shit). I also think Hoffman is terrific in the quiet scenes with his son or by himself that show that life still goes on and you have to adapt and grow. I like when we see him and his son eating breakfast and settling into their routine. My big issue with Hoffman, at least when it comes to these later performances of his, is that it always looks like he's acting. Like he's trying his hardest to create his character and make it believable and you can just see him acting. But Hoffman is good at showing the passion he has for his son. That obviously grows throughout the film and pays off at the end in the courtroom scenes where he makes his love known. This is a very good performance even if Hoffman looks like he is trying to act in some scenes. I'm unsure if this will be my winner because I was expecting to be blown away and wasn't, so I'll wait and see how the rest of the group shakes out first.
Jack Lemmon - The China Syndrome
Man, I love the hell out of Jack Lemmon. I say this without still seeing his role in Tribute, which will happen soon, but I think he's a fantastic actor. In this film, Lemmon is pretty solid all the way through and this looks like a typical later career performance for him. It reminds me a lot of his work in Missing, with a very similar character arc. In this one, Lemmon plays a nuclear power plant supervisor and we are introduced to him as he responds to a problem that occurs. We see he's this confident, assured supervisor who has been doing this forever. He snaps into action when the problem begins and wracks his brain to figure out what is wrong and we see him start to get more worried and panicked as he makes the tough decisions. We the audience realize that this is a situation that could be catastrophic and that a possible meltdown was just averted. The way Lemmon starts out joking and then turns serious and engaged in the situation comes off as a natural response from years of experience and training. Lemmon then downplays the seriousness of what happened to Jane Fonda's reporter and tries to find out what happened himself. He eventually does and tries to get the situation fixed yet is stonewalled by the company who apparently knew there was a problem and didn't do anything about it. Lemmon was a man ready to toe the company line and accept that this was a fluke thing but he realizes more and more that the company was covering up a huge, potentially deadly, problem. Lemmon then goes on a crusade to get someone to pay attention to the issue and takes Fonda into the plant to show her what is really going on. Lemmon grows more frustrated and we see this gradual change wear the man down because he knows this is a life or death situation being swept under the rug by the company. Lemmon plays the perfect everyman that you can see yourself being and who loses faith without losing our sympathy. The performance culminates with this wild ending that hammers home the message of the film (in an admittedly heavy handed way) and shocks you. But Lemmon is very effective in that last scene and does keep it from becoming too wild and crazy and a farce. Lemmon's performance is solid and realistic and makes you unnerved that something like that could possibly happen. That is the strength of Lemmon as an actor to make you feel strongly about something with just his acting.
Al Pacino - ...And Justice For All
I think that only hardcore Pacino fans and super Oscar nerds have ever heard of this film, let alone watched it. If I gave you a chance to name all of Pacino's nominations, I doubt anyone would get this one. So in saying all of that, I was intrigued by this little known Pacino film that he got an Oscar nomination for. Was this just the Academy going back to the same well over and over again? Or was this an actually earned nomination? I was betting on it being the Academy seeing Pacino had a film out and nominating him no matter what. After watching it, I'm still dumbfounded. Yeah, he does an alright job with the material given but there is a reason this is the unknown Pacino nomination. There is a scene where Pacino goes on a helicopter ride with a suicidal judge he is friendly with and it leads to some of the absolute worst acting I have ever seen. Not just from Pacino, but from anyone from Oscar to local community theater. It's truly awful and Pacino should be embarrassed by it. The film itself is not very good as Pacino plays a lawyer who tries to do good by poor, unfortunate people but seemingly can't actually be there for them when needed the most. There is the famous scene where he shouts to the judge that he is out of order, the whole court is out of order, blah, blah, blah, but it doesn't make the performance any better. I can actually understand how the Academy would vote for something like this based off highlights, but the film is no good and they are voting based off the name and history. It looks like a very competent performance but there is so much wrong with it when you actually look at it closely. Pacino is a great actor but there are too many moments in this film where I question his big star ability. If you forget Pacino ever did this, I won't blame you and I know this film and performance could have been much, much better instead of what we got.
Roy Scheider - All That Jazz
Sometimes it's hard to figure out what to write about for a performance. I guess the first thing I should mention is that you probably only really know Scheider as the police captain in Jaws, unless you're a super film buff. So when you first watch his performance in this film, it's a little shocking. I say that because Scheider plays a fictionalized version of legendary choreographer and director, Bob Fosse, who happens to be both the writer and director of this film. Shocking because I was used to the straight laced guy from Jaws and here he is a womanizing, dancing, drug and booze addled workaholic. Scheider isn't wrong for the part but the whole time I was wondering how the performance might be different (better?) if someone more flamboyant and frenetic was chosen instead. I say this not really knowing anything about Bob Fosse other than I like some of his films and will watch some of them very soon. I don't know what his personality was like but I assume Scheider was fine since Fosse was directing. But I do feel like the character kinda needed to be more amped up and active in the mayhem of his life. And that's what his life was - mayhem. In the film, we see him as he's casting and rehearsing his new Broadway musical and editing his new film (a version of Lenny) while balancing his ex-wife, daughter, girlfriend, and the stresses of it all. Schedier kinda plays it all real cool. Like he's kind of a dickhead but it's not really malicious. The other big thing about the performance is that Scheider isn't much of a dancer and I read that he was terrified of his first dance scene and needed to learn it for the film. That's where I feel a more experienced dancer would have helped, maybe, because Fosse is a well known choreographer so it makes sense to have those scenes feel authentic. Scheider is good in the role and it's really interesting seeing him pull of this version of Fosse because it's so against type and I am impressed that he didn't fall flat on his face with such a tough assignment. I don't mean that disparagingly, either, I was truly impressed. He brings an intensity to the role that changes the film and, I think, helps keep it from going off the rails. Maybe that's why Fosse chose Scheider to play him. I do feel like this is a performance that might take some time to grow in my head before I can fully appreciate it and I think another viewing, at some point, is in order. The film itself is divisive, so naturally people are going to feel wildly different about Scheider's performance based off how they view the film. I liked the film and I like this performance because it is so intriguing. I say watch it yourself and see what you think about it.
Peter Sellers - Being There
You probably know Peter Sellers as the Pink Panther and many (older) people have called him the greatest comedian of all time. Now, that is really stretching it but there is no doubt that Sellers is a great comedian. In this role, he plays a simple man who has been a gardener at an estate in DC when his master or whatever you call it dies and the house is sold. He has to leave and he wanders DC and is hit by a car that has a powerful CEO type guy's wife. He gets taken to their estate to get checked out and meets the big man, Mr. Rand (not the Iron Fist) who likes him and trusts him right away. This role is one of those roles where the character is like legit retarded but everyone completely misses that the man is off or slow and take his simple answers and lack of knowledge as being true wisdom and profound statements. You've probably seen something like this before and it can be used to great comedic effect. Sellers is very effective in making his retarded character very funny and memorable. He's simple and an emotional void and just wants to watch TV but the way Sellers delivers his lines and acts in a wooden manner is hilarious at times. It's a very subtle humor, though, to forewarn you. And a lot of it is predicated on everyone else reading into Sellers' words and mannerisms as being more important than they are. Even the doctor in this film can't seem to figure out he is a simpleton. But the story plays on and eventually Sellers sits in on a meeting with the President and the President puts something Sellers says about gardening into one of his economic speeches and Sellers becomes a sort of political celebrity. Though Sellers actually meant gardening things and not a metaphor for the economic climate of the time that everyone else runs with. It can be frustrating when everyone twists everything Sellers says and does into their own beliefs and thoughts because it does test your suspension of disbelief. But Sellers plays the character effectively with the monotone, dry vocal delivery and the pleasing, friendly demeanor. Even Mr. Rand's wife, played by Shirley MacLaine, begins to fall for him and throws herself at him and backs off when he tries to just watch TV as if he's being cautious. And him saying he likes to watch (as in TV) gets misconstrued by her to mean her getting herself off as well as another male guest at a party who thinks it means he likes to watch other guys have sex. These are funny moments but it does show all that the film has to offer for the character. You get easy jokes and awkward situations like that, and though Sellers is wonderful in the role that he wanted for so long, it becomes a bit one note over two plus hours. There's also an issue with an after the credits blooper reel of sorts that kinda kills the vibe of the performance that even Sellers himself wanted removed because he knew it was out of place. So don't watch the credits. Sellers is pretty good in the role and gives the right sincerity to it and the humor is perfect, it's just you might get a little tired of it after awhile.
By name alone, this is a big year. Everyone on this list is recognizable and puts in great work. So it's sad that Pacino doesn't hold up his end of the deal and give us a great performance. He comes in last because it's not all that great, it's average Pacino saved by an iconic, quotable scene that you've probably quoted to someone without knowing where it is from. I think he gets in because of his reputation and the fact that up to this point he hadn't won anything yet. Lemmon gives a very typical Lemmon performance that reminds me too much of his work in Witness. He's good but we know he can be better. Scheider is interested because I didn't expect that kind of role from him and I feel like it needs to marinate in my head a bit more for me to be able to rank it appropriately. You may or may not like his performance, though. Sellers is very funny at times and very effective as a simpleton, yet after awhile it feels like he's doing the same thing over and over and it grows stale. A lot of people wanted him to win and he's certainly good but I wasn't in love with this performance like some people were. Hoffman gives a really great, realistic portrayal of a single dad navigating through the treacherous waters of divorce. It's certainly one of the best Hoffman performances and I think the Academy was looking to finally reward him after a string of nominations. I'm fine with the win even if he didn't completely blow me away (sleeping on it allowed me to like it a little more than the review suggests) and the category overall was pretty good. A good start to the 70s but 1978 better step up!
Oscar Winner: Dustin Hoffman - Kramer vs. Kramer
My Winner: Dustin Hoffman - Kramer vs. Kramer
Peter Sellers
Roy Scheider
Jack Lemmon
Al Pacino
1979 Best Actor
Dustin Hoffman - Kramer vs. Kramer
There is no doubt that Dustin Hoffman is a great actor. It is surprising that this was his first win after a couple of previous big performances but that seems to be how the Academy operates when it comes to the men. Here, Hoffman plays a man whose wife leaves him abruptly so that he has to take care of his son alone all while juggling a hectic, demanding job. The film itself is very good and a realistic look at divorce and the single parent lifestyle from the man's point of view. I think Hoffman does a good job working with the awful Justin Henry and develops a close connection throughout the film with him. I won't say they have great chemistry, but Hoffman is a pro that is able to work with a child actor and make it believable. I learned that Hoffman was going through his own real life divorce and helped with the authenticity of some dialogue and scenes and that clearly shows in the performance. He brings an anger to the character that is necessary and natural for the situation. When he has a fight with his son and yells at him in his room and calls him a little shit, it was great acting and seemed very real (I know I was glad someone was calling Henry a little shit). I also think Hoffman is terrific in the quiet scenes with his son or by himself that show that life still goes on and you have to adapt and grow. I like when we see him and his son eating breakfast and settling into their routine. My big issue with Hoffman, at least when it comes to these later performances of his, is that it always looks like he's acting. Like he's trying his hardest to create his character and make it believable and you can just see him acting. But Hoffman is good at showing the passion he has for his son. That obviously grows throughout the film and pays off at the end in the courtroom scenes where he makes his love known. This is a very good performance even if Hoffman looks like he is trying to act in some scenes. I'm unsure if this will be my winner because I was expecting to be blown away and wasn't, so I'll wait and see how the rest of the group shakes out first.
Jack Lemmon - The China Syndrome
Man, I love the hell out of Jack Lemmon. I say this without still seeing his role in Tribute, which will happen soon, but I think he's a fantastic actor. In this film, Lemmon is pretty solid all the way through and this looks like a typical later career performance for him. It reminds me a lot of his work in Missing, with a very similar character arc. In this one, Lemmon plays a nuclear power plant supervisor and we are introduced to him as he responds to a problem that occurs. We see he's this confident, assured supervisor who has been doing this forever. He snaps into action when the problem begins and wracks his brain to figure out what is wrong and we see him start to get more worried and panicked as he makes the tough decisions. We the audience realize that this is a situation that could be catastrophic and that a possible meltdown was just averted. The way Lemmon starts out joking and then turns serious and engaged in the situation comes off as a natural response from years of experience and training. Lemmon then downplays the seriousness of what happened to Jane Fonda's reporter and tries to find out what happened himself. He eventually does and tries to get the situation fixed yet is stonewalled by the company who apparently knew there was a problem and didn't do anything about it. Lemmon was a man ready to toe the company line and accept that this was a fluke thing but he realizes more and more that the company was covering up a huge, potentially deadly, problem. Lemmon then goes on a crusade to get someone to pay attention to the issue and takes Fonda into the plant to show her what is really going on. Lemmon grows more frustrated and we see this gradual change wear the man down because he knows this is a life or death situation being swept under the rug by the company. Lemmon plays the perfect everyman that you can see yourself being and who loses faith without losing our sympathy. The performance culminates with this wild ending that hammers home the message of the film (in an admittedly heavy handed way) and shocks you. But Lemmon is very effective in that last scene and does keep it from becoming too wild and crazy and a farce. Lemmon's performance is solid and realistic and makes you unnerved that something like that could possibly happen. That is the strength of Lemmon as an actor to make you feel strongly about something with just his acting.
Al Pacino - ...And Justice For All
I think that only hardcore Pacino fans and super Oscar nerds have ever heard of this film, let alone watched it. If I gave you a chance to name all of Pacino's nominations, I doubt anyone would get this one. So in saying all of that, I was intrigued by this little known Pacino film that he got an Oscar nomination for. Was this just the Academy going back to the same well over and over again? Or was this an actually earned nomination? I was betting on it being the Academy seeing Pacino had a film out and nominating him no matter what. After watching it, I'm still dumbfounded. Yeah, he does an alright job with the material given but there is a reason this is the unknown Pacino nomination. There is a scene where Pacino goes on a helicopter ride with a suicidal judge he is friendly with and it leads to some of the absolute worst acting I have ever seen. Not just from Pacino, but from anyone from Oscar to local community theater. It's truly awful and Pacino should be embarrassed by it. The film itself is not very good as Pacino plays a lawyer who tries to do good by poor, unfortunate people but seemingly can't actually be there for them when needed the most. There is the famous scene where he shouts to the judge that he is out of order, the whole court is out of order, blah, blah, blah, but it doesn't make the performance any better. I can actually understand how the Academy would vote for something like this based off highlights, but the film is no good and they are voting based off the name and history. It looks like a very competent performance but there is so much wrong with it when you actually look at it closely. Pacino is a great actor but there are too many moments in this film where I question his big star ability. If you forget Pacino ever did this, I won't blame you and I know this film and performance could have been much, much better instead of what we got.
Roy Scheider - All That Jazz
Sometimes it's hard to figure out what to write about for a performance. I guess the first thing I should mention is that you probably only really know Scheider as the police captain in Jaws, unless you're a super film buff. So when you first watch his performance in this film, it's a little shocking. I say that because Scheider plays a fictionalized version of legendary choreographer and director, Bob Fosse, who happens to be both the writer and director of this film. Shocking because I was used to the straight laced guy from Jaws and here he is a womanizing, dancing, drug and booze addled workaholic. Scheider isn't wrong for the part but the whole time I was wondering how the performance might be different (better?) if someone more flamboyant and frenetic was chosen instead. I say this not really knowing anything about Bob Fosse other than I like some of his films and will watch some of them very soon. I don't know what his personality was like but I assume Scheider was fine since Fosse was directing. But I do feel like the character kinda needed to be more amped up and active in the mayhem of his life. And that's what his life was - mayhem. In the film, we see him as he's casting and rehearsing his new Broadway musical and editing his new film (a version of Lenny) while balancing his ex-wife, daughter, girlfriend, and the stresses of it all. Schedier kinda plays it all real cool. Like he's kind of a dickhead but it's not really malicious. The other big thing about the performance is that Scheider isn't much of a dancer and I read that he was terrified of his first dance scene and needed to learn it for the film. That's where I feel a more experienced dancer would have helped, maybe, because Fosse is a well known choreographer so it makes sense to have those scenes feel authentic. Scheider is good in the role and it's really interesting seeing him pull of this version of Fosse because it's so against type and I am impressed that he didn't fall flat on his face with such a tough assignment. I don't mean that disparagingly, either, I was truly impressed. He brings an intensity to the role that changes the film and, I think, helps keep it from going off the rails. Maybe that's why Fosse chose Scheider to play him. I do feel like this is a performance that might take some time to grow in my head before I can fully appreciate it and I think another viewing, at some point, is in order. The film itself is divisive, so naturally people are going to feel wildly different about Scheider's performance based off how they view the film. I liked the film and I like this performance because it is so intriguing. I say watch it yourself and see what you think about it.
Peter Sellers - Being There
You probably know Peter Sellers as the Pink Panther and many (older) people have called him the greatest comedian of all time. Now, that is really stretching it but there is no doubt that Sellers is a great comedian. In this role, he plays a simple man who has been a gardener at an estate in DC when his master or whatever you call it dies and the house is sold. He has to leave and he wanders DC and is hit by a car that has a powerful CEO type guy's wife. He gets taken to their estate to get checked out and meets the big man, Mr. Rand (not the Iron Fist) who likes him and trusts him right away. This role is one of those roles where the character is like legit retarded but everyone completely misses that the man is off or slow and take his simple answers and lack of knowledge as being true wisdom and profound statements. You've probably seen something like this before and it can be used to great comedic effect. Sellers is very effective in making his retarded character very funny and memorable. He's simple and an emotional void and just wants to watch TV but the way Sellers delivers his lines and acts in a wooden manner is hilarious at times. It's a very subtle humor, though, to forewarn you. And a lot of it is predicated on everyone else reading into Sellers' words and mannerisms as being more important than they are. Even the doctor in this film can't seem to figure out he is a simpleton. But the story plays on and eventually Sellers sits in on a meeting with the President and the President puts something Sellers says about gardening into one of his economic speeches and Sellers becomes a sort of political celebrity. Though Sellers actually meant gardening things and not a metaphor for the economic climate of the time that everyone else runs with. It can be frustrating when everyone twists everything Sellers says and does into their own beliefs and thoughts because it does test your suspension of disbelief. But Sellers plays the character effectively with the monotone, dry vocal delivery and the pleasing, friendly demeanor. Even Mr. Rand's wife, played by Shirley MacLaine, begins to fall for him and throws herself at him and backs off when he tries to just watch TV as if he's being cautious. And him saying he likes to watch (as in TV) gets misconstrued by her to mean her getting herself off as well as another male guest at a party who thinks it means he likes to watch other guys have sex. These are funny moments but it does show all that the film has to offer for the character. You get easy jokes and awkward situations like that, and though Sellers is wonderful in the role that he wanted for so long, it becomes a bit one note over two plus hours. There's also an issue with an after the credits blooper reel of sorts that kinda kills the vibe of the performance that even Sellers himself wanted removed because he knew it was out of place. So don't watch the credits. Sellers is pretty good in the role and gives the right sincerity to it and the humor is perfect, it's just you might get a little tired of it after awhile.
By name alone, this is a big year. Everyone on this list is recognizable and puts in great work. So it's sad that Pacino doesn't hold up his end of the deal and give us a great performance. He comes in last because it's not all that great, it's average Pacino saved by an iconic, quotable scene that you've probably quoted to someone without knowing where it is from. I think he gets in because of his reputation and the fact that up to this point he hadn't won anything yet. Lemmon gives a very typical Lemmon performance that reminds me too much of his work in Witness. He's good but we know he can be better. Scheider is interested because I didn't expect that kind of role from him and I feel like it needs to marinate in my head a bit more for me to be able to rank it appropriately. You may or may not like his performance, though. Sellers is very funny at times and very effective as a simpleton, yet after awhile it feels like he's doing the same thing over and over and it grows stale. A lot of people wanted him to win and he's certainly good but I wasn't in love with this performance like some people were. Hoffman gives a really great, realistic portrayal of a single dad navigating through the treacherous waters of divorce. It's certainly one of the best Hoffman performances and I think the Academy was looking to finally reward him after a string of nominations. I'm fine with the win even if he didn't completely blow me away (sleeping on it allowed me to like it a little more than the review suggests) and the category overall was pretty good. A good start to the 70s but 1978 better step up!
Oscar Winner: Dustin Hoffman - Kramer vs. Kramer
My Winner: Dustin Hoffman - Kramer vs. Kramer
Peter Sellers
Roy Scheider
Jack Lemmon
Al Pacino
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Leading Actress 1979
I've seen none of these but there are some big names. I'm hoping that they all live up to their names and give me a great group. I'm interested in Clayburgh because it's my first interaction with her and I've heard good things. Let's watch.
1979 Best Actress
Sally Field - Norma Rae
From the start Sally Field is pretty intense with her performance. We first see her at the textile mill she works at with her momma, who can't hear because of working there forever, so she takes her to the on site doctor and then screams at him for not doing anything for her. I honestly wasn't expecting the film and her performance to start off that way and it caught me off guard but it sure did make me pay extra attention right from the start. The film is about Field, a small town woman who works at a textile mill and meets a labor union representative and begins to advocate for a union. What I really enjoy about Field's performance is that her character is fully realized. She isn't just trying to organize a union. She also has a dynamic with her father that is explored, she has a kinda sorta sexual tension with the labor union rep, dates and gets married, and has to be a mother on top of all of that. Field balances all of it expertly without any other part of her story suffering. She is intense at the very beginning but she settles into the role quickly after that and we see she is a sarcastic, passionate, caring woman. We see that she loves her father who still tries to control her a bit even though she's a grown woman with two kids. She admits she is kind of a floozy and falls for the wrong guys and doesn't think getting some is wrong, either. She's passionate about her family, friends, and eventually her work. When the labor union rep comes around, she keeps running into him and he eventually convinces her that her mill needs a union so the workers can have healthcare and a livable wage and all that stuff that matters. Field has great chemistry with the New York Jew who is a fish out of water so to speak. But it's only a somewhat sexually tense sort of relationship. By the end, Field is deep into the union organizing thing. I mean, Field is very good in this role. It seems like she was destined to play it because she looks and sounds and feels so natural for the character. The performance feels lived in and Field makes it all look effortless. Her second win almost builds off this character with her down home, folksy Southern charm - like that was a continuation of this role. Field is just plain good, though, in this performance.
Jill Clayburgh - Starting Over
I didn't realize that Jill Clayburgh had only two Oscar nominations to her credit. I had looked over this Best Actress group so often that I confused her with someone else, I guess, because I could have sworn Clayburgh had like 4 nominations. Alas, she does not, only this one and a nomination for the prior year. My point for that was that I had some higher expectations for Clayburgh. I thought she was a force to be reckoned with and someone I needed to pay attention to. But that's not really the case when it comes to this film. Clayburgh portrays a woman who is set up on a date with Burt Reynolds and they kinda hit it off eventually. The two like each other, though Clayburgh is wary that Reynolds is too fresh off a divorce. He proves that he's into her and they shack up before things go awry. Clayburgh is pretty good in the role of the nursery teacher who overcomes her shyness. She also challenges Reynolds and doesn't let him get away with anything. She's tough and strong and wary for a reason. She is very unsure and when at a Thanksgiving dinner, she is referred to as a friend. Well that sets her off obviously and we see Reynolds scramble to recover. They move in together but the relationship is never solid though Clayburgh is loving and dedicated. Her performance is more of a supporting type of role because she isn't in the whole film. She is only in part of the film just like Candice Bergen and for a time I thought Clayburgh was done with the film after a bit. From what I read, this was also a token nomination for her getting screwed out of an Oscar win the year prior for which she also won Best Actress at Cannes. Apparently that film, An Unmarried Woman, did super well and by all accounts she possibly should have won the Oscar. I say that without having seen any of those and without knowing the background but it seems totally possible. Jane Fonda won a second so maybe there is some truth to that but I am very excited to see Clayburgh's first Best Actress nomination and if it does deserve a win. This nomination, however, was pretty underwhelming. Though I will say for this being a romantic comedy type of film, the performance is at least elevated from the usual stereotypes and tropes you see in those types of characters.
Jane Fonda - The China Syndrome
I am always prepared to hate Jane Fonda for some reason, maybe her politics and personal life, I dunno. But then I watch her act and I'm taken with how great she is. I like her current work with Netflix and I've enjoyed her work so far in this project minus On Golden Pond, but whatever. I know that she is a two time winner before these nominations so I'm always looking for a moving experience. I think this role really fits what Fonda is all about as a person. She plays a TV journalist who is looking for good TV pieces and goes to a nuclear power plant to do a showcase. While there, the plant has a crisis that is danger close to a meltdown and her camera guy films everything. And that's really what the film is about. She realizes she stumbles on a big story and pursues it. She circles the story like a Great White and she is steadfast. That is her character arc. The TV journalist who wants to do more than puff pieces and now has a chance at something legit. Fonda is serious in the role and she is actually really great in the role, it's just that the role doesn't give her much to do besides be the super nosy, noble journalist. But her best scene is the end when she is super journalist trying to get to the bottom of what happened in the plant and outside when talking to the employees. It is a very emotional scene and she handles everything well. I actually believe that Fonda could be a TV journalist because she's so good at the interactions before she's on camera, the actual conversation on camera, and her making sure everything was good afterwards. But really that's what Fonda's nomination is about. It's a warning that Three Mile Island could occur anywhere since it happened 12 days after this film premiered. It makes her performance prescient and I feel that might have a little bit to do with her getting nominated. It's still pretty good work that wasn't winning because it would have meant a second straight Oscar and third one overall, which wasn't happening.
Marsha Mason - Chapter Two
I was a big fan of the first Marsha Mason performance I watched in Only When I Laugh. So I was very excited to see what she would do here in another Neil Simon film. I was, alas, let down. Not that Mason was bad at all, just that this performance was nowhere near her 1981 performance I loved so much. Part of that has to do with expectations but some of it is just that the film is lesser as a whole. The film is about James Caan who is a recently widowed writer meeting Mason who is a recently divorced actress. What I learned in researching this is that this is autobiographical for Simon, which means Mason is playing herself basically. The two were married in real life and this is a riff on their relationship, I guess. That makes it really interesting, but it doesn't make it a better performance. The first 30 minutes is Caan and Mason talking on the phone. They eventually do meet and have a very theatrical romance. Meaning that the dialogue is very theater like and their banter is far from natural. They get real heavy, real fast and they burn out pretty quick, too. He still thinks about his dead wife while Mason is confused and trying to placate him. Mason is very charming and reads her husband's lines well. She is great at acting out his words but this is really nothing more than some odd romantic dramedy type stuff. Mason is likable in this but I'm not sure this is actually Oscar worthy acting. Maybe they were rewarding her for playing a version of herself in a difficult relationship? Wouldn't put it past the Academy to reward someone for being themselves. Mason is okay here but I just can't understand this Neil Simon film getting nominated for anything.
Bette Midler - The Rose
I guess you could consider this Bette Midler's magnum opus. Although, can it be a magnum opus if you aren't that widely known before this film debut? She was releasing albums as a singer prior to this but nothing like a rocker that she portrayed. Her second nomination in For the Boys is more like a culmination of her life work because in that she is basically a nightclub singer who becomes a USO darling with all the drama that brings. So yeah, this is her big work. Now, I'm not really a Bette Midler fan. I don't dig her singing at all, her acting is not that great, and all her star persona stuff just isn't for me. In this, she plays a Janis Joplin figure even though it's not Janis Joplin. The stuff I read basically said they didn't get the rights to the story but Midler said she didn't want to tell her story so soon after her death which is of course hogwash, but whatever. Midler is intense in this role. She has a few songs that she actually performs and sings her heart out on even though they aren't very good or memorable in any way. She takes to being this sort of bipolar woman who has high highs and low lows. She falls for a limo driver who rescues her from a situation she doesn't want to handle and they have a crazy night together. This is Midler's starring turn and she is fully committed to the role and if you told her she needed to actually do drugs or get wasted or fuck some random bar dude for authenticity, I feel like Midler would have considered it even if she wouldn't because that's the performance she gives. She makes her Rose trashy and it is no doubt an interesting thing to watch Midler unravel only to pull it all together once she hits the stage. Midler is dedicated to the character and does her best but ultimately this film isn't all that interesting. Partially because Midler is more concerned with the aesthetic and trying to be a rockstar than letting us into The Rose as a person. We watch her do her thing but never know what motivates her other than she wants to show those back home that she is something? It's underdeveloped and not entirely interesting and that's kinda Midler in a nutshell here for me.
As expected, a very shitty Best Actress group. I expected it because this category fails to deliver routinely. Field is the easy winner. It is no one but her and no one comes close. That's a sad fact. Mason brings up the rear with a boring performance. It was a romantic comedy type of performance and she just didn't do much and she played herself and made it uninteresting so here she is. Clayburgh is next because I at least enjoyed her a little bit more in her romantic comedy performance. Forgettable though. Midler is not someone I like at all. I don't give a shit about her shtick. Her whole lounge singer bullshit is not interesting in the least. I had her last but she is at least better than the romantic comedy girls. Some will love Midler and like the performance and want her to win but not for me. No way. Fonda is second because she couldn't win and didn't deserve to win. She doesn't deserve a third win and not a second consecutive win. Her performance ain't all that. Field is leaps and bounds better than everyone else COMBINED. This is a garbage group and 1978 better be better because I'm tired of crappy nominees.
Oscar Winner: Sally Field - Norma Rae
My Winner: Sally Field - Norma Rae
Jane Fonda
Bette Midler
Jill Clayburgh
Marsha Mason
1979 Best Actress
Sally Field - Norma Rae
From the start Sally Field is pretty intense with her performance. We first see her at the textile mill she works at with her momma, who can't hear because of working there forever, so she takes her to the on site doctor and then screams at him for not doing anything for her. I honestly wasn't expecting the film and her performance to start off that way and it caught me off guard but it sure did make me pay extra attention right from the start. The film is about Field, a small town woman who works at a textile mill and meets a labor union representative and begins to advocate for a union. What I really enjoy about Field's performance is that her character is fully realized. She isn't just trying to organize a union. She also has a dynamic with her father that is explored, she has a kinda sorta sexual tension with the labor union rep, dates and gets married, and has to be a mother on top of all of that. Field balances all of it expertly without any other part of her story suffering. She is intense at the very beginning but she settles into the role quickly after that and we see she is a sarcastic, passionate, caring woman. We see that she loves her father who still tries to control her a bit even though she's a grown woman with two kids. She admits she is kind of a floozy and falls for the wrong guys and doesn't think getting some is wrong, either. She's passionate about her family, friends, and eventually her work. When the labor union rep comes around, she keeps running into him and he eventually convinces her that her mill needs a union so the workers can have healthcare and a livable wage and all that stuff that matters. Field has great chemistry with the New York Jew who is a fish out of water so to speak. But it's only a somewhat sexually tense sort of relationship. By the end, Field is deep into the union organizing thing. I mean, Field is very good in this role. It seems like she was destined to play it because she looks and sounds and feels so natural for the character. The performance feels lived in and Field makes it all look effortless. Her second win almost builds off this character with her down home, folksy Southern charm - like that was a continuation of this role. Field is just plain good, though, in this performance.
Jill Clayburgh - Starting Over
I didn't realize that Jill Clayburgh had only two Oscar nominations to her credit. I had looked over this Best Actress group so often that I confused her with someone else, I guess, because I could have sworn Clayburgh had like 4 nominations. Alas, she does not, only this one and a nomination for the prior year. My point for that was that I had some higher expectations for Clayburgh. I thought she was a force to be reckoned with and someone I needed to pay attention to. But that's not really the case when it comes to this film. Clayburgh portrays a woman who is set up on a date with Burt Reynolds and they kinda hit it off eventually. The two like each other, though Clayburgh is wary that Reynolds is too fresh off a divorce. He proves that he's into her and they shack up before things go awry. Clayburgh is pretty good in the role of the nursery teacher who overcomes her shyness. She also challenges Reynolds and doesn't let him get away with anything. She's tough and strong and wary for a reason. She is very unsure and when at a Thanksgiving dinner, she is referred to as a friend. Well that sets her off obviously and we see Reynolds scramble to recover. They move in together but the relationship is never solid though Clayburgh is loving and dedicated. Her performance is more of a supporting type of role because she isn't in the whole film. She is only in part of the film just like Candice Bergen and for a time I thought Clayburgh was done with the film after a bit. From what I read, this was also a token nomination for her getting screwed out of an Oscar win the year prior for which she also won Best Actress at Cannes. Apparently that film, An Unmarried Woman, did super well and by all accounts she possibly should have won the Oscar. I say that without having seen any of those and without knowing the background but it seems totally possible. Jane Fonda won a second so maybe there is some truth to that but I am very excited to see Clayburgh's first Best Actress nomination and if it does deserve a win. This nomination, however, was pretty underwhelming. Though I will say for this being a romantic comedy type of film, the performance is at least elevated from the usual stereotypes and tropes you see in those types of characters.
Jane Fonda - The China Syndrome
I am always prepared to hate Jane Fonda for some reason, maybe her politics and personal life, I dunno. But then I watch her act and I'm taken with how great she is. I like her current work with Netflix and I've enjoyed her work so far in this project minus On Golden Pond, but whatever. I know that she is a two time winner before these nominations so I'm always looking for a moving experience. I think this role really fits what Fonda is all about as a person. She plays a TV journalist who is looking for good TV pieces and goes to a nuclear power plant to do a showcase. While there, the plant has a crisis that is danger close to a meltdown and her camera guy films everything. And that's really what the film is about. She realizes she stumbles on a big story and pursues it. She circles the story like a Great White and she is steadfast. That is her character arc. The TV journalist who wants to do more than puff pieces and now has a chance at something legit. Fonda is serious in the role and she is actually really great in the role, it's just that the role doesn't give her much to do besides be the super nosy, noble journalist. But her best scene is the end when she is super journalist trying to get to the bottom of what happened in the plant and outside when talking to the employees. It is a very emotional scene and she handles everything well. I actually believe that Fonda could be a TV journalist because she's so good at the interactions before she's on camera, the actual conversation on camera, and her making sure everything was good afterwards. But really that's what Fonda's nomination is about. It's a warning that Three Mile Island could occur anywhere since it happened 12 days after this film premiered. It makes her performance prescient and I feel that might have a little bit to do with her getting nominated. It's still pretty good work that wasn't winning because it would have meant a second straight Oscar and third one overall, which wasn't happening.
Marsha Mason - Chapter Two
I was a big fan of the first Marsha Mason performance I watched in Only When I Laugh. So I was very excited to see what she would do here in another Neil Simon film. I was, alas, let down. Not that Mason was bad at all, just that this performance was nowhere near her 1981 performance I loved so much. Part of that has to do with expectations but some of it is just that the film is lesser as a whole. The film is about James Caan who is a recently widowed writer meeting Mason who is a recently divorced actress. What I learned in researching this is that this is autobiographical for Simon, which means Mason is playing herself basically. The two were married in real life and this is a riff on their relationship, I guess. That makes it really interesting, but it doesn't make it a better performance. The first 30 minutes is Caan and Mason talking on the phone. They eventually do meet and have a very theatrical romance. Meaning that the dialogue is very theater like and their banter is far from natural. They get real heavy, real fast and they burn out pretty quick, too. He still thinks about his dead wife while Mason is confused and trying to placate him. Mason is very charming and reads her husband's lines well. She is great at acting out his words but this is really nothing more than some odd romantic dramedy type stuff. Mason is likable in this but I'm not sure this is actually Oscar worthy acting. Maybe they were rewarding her for playing a version of herself in a difficult relationship? Wouldn't put it past the Academy to reward someone for being themselves. Mason is okay here but I just can't understand this Neil Simon film getting nominated for anything.
Bette Midler - The Rose
I guess you could consider this Bette Midler's magnum opus. Although, can it be a magnum opus if you aren't that widely known before this film debut? She was releasing albums as a singer prior to this but nothing like a rocker that she portrayed. Her second nomination in For the Boys is more like a culmination of her life work because in that she is basically a nightclub singer who becomes a USO darling with all the drama that brings. So yeah, this is her big work. Now, I'm not really a Bette Midler fan. I don't dig her singing at all, her acting is not that great, and all her star persona stuff just isn't for me. In this, she plays a Janis Joplin figure even though it's not Janis Joplin. The stuff I read basically said they didn't get the rights to the story but Midler said she didn't want to tell her story so soon after her death which is of course hogwash, but whatever. Midler is intense in this role. She has a few songs that she actually performs and sings her heart out on even though they aren't very good or memorable in any way. She takes to being this sort of bipolar woman who has high highs and low lows. She falls for a limo driver who rescues her from a situation she doesn't want to handle and they have a crazy night together. This is Midler's starring turn and she is fully committed to the role and if you told her she needed to actually do drugs or get wasted or fuck some random bar dude for authenticity, I feel like Midler would have considered it even if she wouldn't because that's the performance she gives. She makes her Rose trashy and it is no doubt an interesting thing to watch Midler unravel only to pull it all together once she hits the stage. Midler is dedicated to the character and does her best but ultimately this film isn't all that interesting. Partially because Midler is more concerned with the aesthetic and trying to be a rockstar than letting us into The Rose as a person. We watch her do her thing but never know what motivates her other than she wants to show those back home that she is something? It's underdeveloped and not entirely interesting and that's kinda Midler in a nutshell here for me.
As expected, a very shitty Best Actress group. I expected it because this category fails to deliver routinely. Field is the easy winner. It is no one but her and no one comes close. That's a sad fact. Mason brings up the rear with a boring performance. It was a romantic comedy type of performance and she just didn't do much and she played herself and made it uninteresting so here she is. Clayburgh is next because I at least enjoyed her a little bit more in her romantic comedy performance. Forgettable though. Midler is not someone I like at all. I don't give a shit about her shtick. Her whole lounge singer bullshit is not interesting in the least. I had her last but she is at least better than the romantic comedy girls. Some will love Midler and like the performance and want her to win but not for me. No way. Fonda is second because she couldn't win and didn't deserve to win. She doesn't deserve a third win and not a second consecutive win. Her performance ain't all that. Field is leaps and bounds better than everyone else COMBINED. This is a garbage group and 1978 better be better because I'm tired of crappy nominees.
Oscar Winner: Sally Field - Norma Rae
My Winner: Sally Field - Norma Rae
Jane Fonda
Bette Midler
Jill Clayburgh
Marsha Mason
Supporting Actor 1979
I've only seen Duvall previously and I know he's going to be tough to beat but I hope this group can at least challenge him. I'm interested in seeing what Douglas brings in his win over Duvall. No musings from me, so let's get to it.
1979 Best Supporting Actor
Melvyn Douglas - Being There
This one is a legit head scratcher. Douglas was a previous winner for Hud in 1963 and had another nomination after that. So this was his third nomination and his second win and this is a completely undeserved win. Certainly the worst second win for an actor that I've come across. I have no doubts that Douglas was a great American actor who should have been rewarded by all that I've read online about him, but he was - back in 1963! This win reeks of the old Hollywood guard voting for a veteran actor to win because they liked the guy and nothing else. If Douglas wasn't even nominated, I don't think anyone would even bat an eye that he wasn't included. In this film, he plays Mr. Rand, a big shot corporate businessman who has the ear of the President and can influence economic policy. Sounds pretty meaty as far as roles go, but it's really just a wisp of a role and performance. He's an old, sick man who takes in Peter Sellers' simpleton character and hits it off with him. Douglas likes that Sellers is a man of few words but is very honest and trustworthy. Mostly we see Douglas in bed or getting tended to by the nurses and doctors he employs in his home. There is the scene where he has a meeting with the President but it doesn't stand out at all and Douglas himself never actually stands out in it. He's just a supporting player who latches on to Sellers and overlooks his being slow and confuses it with wisdom and power. That's all Douglas does in the film. There's nothing else to the role or performance. Yes, Douglas is good as the dying old man but you can't honestly watch it and decide that he deserves a second win. You just can't, especially with Robert Duvall giving a hell of a performance in the same category. So I have no idea what the Academy was thinking here other than reward a veteran which gets real old but I know it will continually happen as I go back in time.
Robert Duvall - Apocalypse Now
When you think of Apocalypse Now, one of the first things that springs to mind is Duvall's performance and his line of "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." When you think of Duvall, one of the first things that comes to mind is his performance in this film. The performance is that iconic for both the film and Duvall the actor. Duvall plays Colonel Kilgore, a mayhem loving, surf enthusiast, and all around badass. What's amazing about Duvall's performance to me, is that he' only onscreen for about 11 minutes or so and yet he still leaves such an enormous impact on the viewer and the film. It really sets up what the gung ho officer is like and sort of lampoons that type of character from the Vietnam War. What makes this nomination so great is that it is a perfect confluence of performance, role, and film. All three of those make it a nomination that really should have won the Oscar. No one even remembers any of the other four nominees. Duvall really brings the gravitas necessary to pull off a Colonel Kilgore, as he struts around barking out orders and not ducking with rounds flying past him and mortars going off nearby. He keeps his cool and just relishes the moment of being in a danger zone and being the man to cause all of the mayhem. He is fully in command of everything going on and his presence is a strong one. I also don't care that he's only in the film for a brief amount of time towards the beginning. Duvall leaves a lasting impact and I wished we had more time with him as a character. To me, this is your winner this year hands down. Duvall just takes the character and runs with it, creating something utterly iconic and memorable.
Frederic Forrest - The Rose
Okay, so this is an alright performance. Forrest is a limo driver that Bette Midler's Rose steals from another singer and convinces him to go with her to NYC on an adventure of sorts. Midler is a famous singer a la Janis Joplin so she's a rough specimen to say the least. Forrest goes along with it and they hit it off and he kinda protects her as they go to different places and is a listening post for Midler to sound off to. But they do get drunk together and end up back at her hotel room and they bang and Forrest becomes the sort of love interest to Midler's Rose character. He drives her around for a bit but she is a rock n roller and she goes off again doing her own thing. He does confide that he is actually AWOL from the Army and just laying low and driving limos. There is a stretch where Forrest isn't in the film and then he comes back into the picture as the two rekindle their love affair and go to Florida for her home state concert. While back in her hometown, she gets onstage at a bar and makes a fool of herself while locals catcall her about a gangbang she was part of (I think) and Forrest fights them and gets thrown out. He then leaves after hailing a passing truck and that's it. Forrest is the love foil. He's also a good dude that grounds the crazy Rose. He is a very good supporting character in the film and sort of guides Rose for parts of the film which is much needed. Forrest is nominated because he had this role and because he was in Apocalypse Now. That dual combo helped get him a nomination easily. Forrest is good at being what is needed from his character and certainly makes Midler more palatable. He isn't anything really amazing but he does a solid enough job in the role.
Justin Henry - Kramer vs. Kramer
Good thing I didn't write this review right after watching the film because I probably would have shredded Henry to pieces here. Henry is the youngest Oscar acting nominee ever at 8 years old and the most undeserving acting nominee ever. I am not a fan of child actors, especially this young, because they aren't really doing much acting. They are being told what to do and what to say and, in Henry's case, does everything in a cutesy, annoying way. He's not tapping into any real emotions or anything like that, he just gets told to throw a tantrum on a bed and does so poorly. Henry is just a prop for Dustin Hoffman to act with/against. The film itself is quite good and an honest, scorching look at divorce mostly from the man's point of view. It was also well liked, winning Best Picture, so obviously Henry came along for the ride. I can't imagine anyone actually voting for him based off acting ability or merit. This is just a vote for a cutesy little kid in an aww, how adorable kind of way. I just don't understand that sentiment and this makes a farce out of the whole Oscar nominating process. This kid is going up against Robert Duvall, I mean, how can anyone take that seriously? Whatever. This is a stupid nomination for a film that is very good despite Henry's child performance. I know he was only 8 years old, maybe even 7 when filming, but this isn't worth a nomination - flat out.
Mickey Rooney - The Black Stallion
What is this, an art film for kids? A legit question from the studio that made this film and shelved it for two years until it was finally released. An art film for kids is very apt as evidenced by me watching this from the Criterion version (if you don't know, they release films considered to be classics or artistic). The first half of the film is a silent film that basically ends up Blue Lagoon with a Horse. But the whole film lends itself to great cinematography and looks very gorgeous even in the later parts. I seriously can't believe this wasn't nominated for Best Cinematography because it is a worthy nominee for sure. That's the main takeaway from this film. Now, Rooney comes into the film over an hour into the thing and he isn't as bad as you would be led to believe. I had heard from reading some other blogs that Rooney was basically a joke, but he's not. He is a veteran nomination, no doubt. But I thought his performance was actually really good. Yeah, he kinda manipulated the kid with the horse, but he helped train him and helped school the kid in training the horse on his own. I legit thought this performance was going to be terrible and easily overlooked but Rooney is actually quite decent! He is the old guy and like an Obi Wan Kenobi type of person. He comes in and dispenses knowledge and is kind of a butthead while doing so. He does sell the horse but the kid gets to ride him as a jockey and win and it is a big deal. He is a mentor to the young kid and it shows. Takes risks and it works out but this is just a little more than a veteran nomination. Rooney definitely got a bone from his old friends and received a nomination for it but it's not as bad as you'll read elsewhere.
I am not happy at all with this group of Supporting Actors. What is typically my favorite group really blows this year. Douglas does absolutely nothing in his role and somehow wins his second Oscar for it. Completely unnecessary. He's only saved from being dead ass last because Henry is a joke of a nominee. He shouldn't be nominated because his kid character is terrible. There have been kids in film since he was nominated that act circles around what he does here. It's a garbage nomination and the Academy should retroactively rescind it because it's so fucking stupid. Ugh. Whatever. Forrest is decent and does what he can with his role in his nominated film but I think he gets on as a combination of that film and his work in Apocalypse Now. The two together justify a nomination, though neither would win on their own. I was surprised that I liked Rooney so much and his film because from all I heard it was a bad performance and boring film. Neither is true. Rooney is very good in his role and the film is brilliant in many aspects and worth checking out, even as a kids film. But the obvious, clear winner is Duvall. He should have won and it's a joke he didn't. A really disappointing category this year that I hope is better in 1978.
Oscar Winner: Melvyn Douglas - Being There
My Winner: Robert Duvall - Apocalypse Now
Mickey Rooney
Frederic Forrest
Melvyn Douglas
Justin Henry
1979 Best Supporting Actor
Melvyn Douglas - Being There
This one is a legit head scratcher. Douglas was a previous winner for Hud in 1963 and had another nomination after that. So this was his third nomination and his second win and this is a completely undeserved win. Certainly the worst second win for an actor that I've come across. I have no doubts that Douglas was a great American actor who should have been rewarded by all that I've read online about him, but he was - back in 1963! This win reeks of the old Hollywood guard voting for a veteran actor to win because they liked the guy and nothing else. If Douglas wasn't even nominated, I don't think anyone would even bat an eye that he wasn't included. In this film, he plays Mr. Rand, a big shot corporate businessman who has the ear of the President and can influence economic policy. Sounds pretty meaty as far as roles go, but it's really just a wisp of a role and performance. He's an old, sick man who takes in Peter Sellers' simpleton character and hits it off with him. Douglas likes that Sellers is a man of few words but is very honest and trustworthy. Mostly we see Douglas in bed or getting tended to by the nurses and doctors he employs in his home. There is the scene where he has a meeting with the President but it doesn't stand out at all and Douglas himself never actually stands out in it. He's just a supporting player who latches on to Sellers and overlooks his being slow and confuses it with wisdom and power. That's all Douglas does in the film. There's nothing else to the role or performance. Yes, Douglas is good as the dying old man but you can't honestly watch it and decide that he deserves a second win. You just can't, especially with Robert Duvall giving a hell of a performance in the same category. So I have no idea what the Academy was thinking here other than reward a veteran which gets real old but I know it will continually happen as I go back in time.
Robert Duvall - Apocalypse Now
When you think of Apocalypse Now, one of the first things that springs to mind is Duvall's performance and his line of "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." When you think of Duvall, one of the first things that comes to mind is his performance in this film. The performance is that iconic for both the film and Duvall the actor. Duvall plays Colonel Kilgore, a mayhem loving, surf enthusiast, and all around badass. What's amazing about Duvall's performance to me, is that he' only onscreen for about 11 minutes or so and yet he still leaves such an enormous impact on the viewer and the film. It really sets up what the gung ho officer is like and sort of lampoons that type of character from the Vietnam War. What makes this nomination so great is that it is a perfect confluence of performance, role, and film. All three of those make it a nomination that really should have won the Oscar. No one even remembers any of the other four nominees. Duvall really brings the gravitas necessary to pull off a Colonel Kilgore, as he struts around barking out orders and not ducking with rounds flying past him and mortars going off nearby. He keeps his cool and just relishes the moment of being in a danger zone and being the man to cause all of the mayhem. He is fully in command of everything going on and his presence is a strong one. I also don't care that he's only in the film for a brief amount of time towards the beginning. Duvall leaves a lasting impact and I wished we had more time with him as a character. To me, this is your winner this year hands down. Duvall just takes the character and runs with it, creating something utterly iconic and memorable.
Frederic Forrest - The Rose
Okay, so this is an alright performance. Forrest is a limo driver that Bette Midler's Rose steals from another singer and convinces him to go with her to NYC on an adventure of sorts. Midler is a famous singer a la Janis Joplin so she's a rough specimen to say the least. Forrest goes along with it and they hit it off and he kinda protects her as they go to different places and is a listening post for Midler to sound off to. But they do get drunk together and end up back at her hotel room and they bang and Forrest becomes the sort of love interest to Midler's Rose character. He drives her around for a bit but she is a rock n roller and she goes off again doing her own thing. He does confide that he is actually AWOL from the Army and just laying low and driving limos. There is a stretch where Forrest isn't in the film and then he comes back into the picture as the two rekindle their love affair and go to Florida for her home state concert. While back in her hometown, she gets onstage at a bar and makes a fool of herself while locals catcall her about a gangbang she was part of (I think) and Forrest fights them and gets thrown out. He then leaves after hailing a passing truck and that's it. Forrest is the love foil. He's also a good dude that grounds the crazy Rose. He is a very good supporting character in the film and sort of guides Rose for parts of the film which is much needed. Forrest is nominated because he had this role and because he was in Apocalypse Now. That dual combo helped get him a nomination easily. Forrest is good at being what is needed from his character and certainly makes Midler more palatable. He isn't anything really amazing but he does a solid enough job in the role.
Justin Henry - Kramer vs. Kramer
Good thing I didn't write this review right after watching the film because I probably would have shredded Henry to pieces here. Henry is the youngest Oscar acting nominee ever at 8 years old and the most undeserving acting nominee ever. I am not a fan of child actors, especially this young, because they aren't really doing much acting. They are being told what to do and what to say and, in Henry's case, does everything in a cutesy, annoying way. He's not tapping into any real emotions or anything like that, he just gets told to throw a tantrum on a bed and does so poorly. Henry is just a prop for Dustin Hoffman to act with/against. The film itself is quite good and an honest, scorching look at divorce mostly from the man's point of view. It was also well liked, winning Best Picture, so obviously Henry came along for the ride. I can't imagine anyone actually voting for him based off acting ability or merit. This is just a vote for a cutesy little kid in an aww, how adorable kind of way. I just don't understand that sentiment and this makes a farce out of the whole Oscar nominating process. This kid is going up against Robert Duvall, I mean, how can anyone take that seriously? Whatever. This is a stupid nomination for a film that is very good despite Henry's child performance. I know he was only 8 years old, maybe even 7 when filming, but this isn't worth a nomination - flat out.
Mickey Rooney - The Black Stallion
What is this, an art film for kids? A legit question from the studio that made this film and shelved it for two years until it was finally released. An art film for kids is very apt as evidenced by me watching this from the Criterion version (if you don't know, they release films considered to be classics or artistic). The first half of the film is a silent film that basically ends up Blue Lagoon with a Horse. But the whole film lends itself to great cinematography and looks very gorgeous even in the later parts. I seriously can't believe this wasn't nominated for Best Cinematography because it is a worthy nominee for sure. That's the main takeaway from this film. Now, Rooney comes into the film over an hour into the thing and he isn't as bad as you would be led to believe. I had heard from reading some other blogs that Rooney was basically a joke, but he's not. He is a veteran nomination, no doubt. But I thought his performance was actually really good. Yeah, he kinda manipulated the kid with the horse, but he helped train him and helped school the kid in training the horse on his own. I legit thought this performance was going to be terrible and easily overlooked but Rooney is actually quite decent! He is the old guy and like an Obi Wan Kenobi type of person. He comes in and dispenses knowledge and is kind of a butthead while doing so. He does sell the horse but the kid gets to ride him as a jockey and win and it is a big deal. He is a mentor to the young kid and it shows. Takes risks and it works out but this is just a little more than a veteran nomination. Rooney definitely got a bone from his old friends and received a nomination for it but it's not as bad as you'll read elsewhere.
I am not happy at all with this group of Supporting Actors. What is typically my favorite group really blows this year. Douglas does absolutely nothing in his role and somehow wins his second Oscar for it. Completely unnecessary. He's only saved from being dead ass last because Henry is a joke of a nominee. He shouldn't be nominated because his kid character is terrible. There have been kids in film since he was nominated that act circles around what he does here. It's a garbage nomination and the Academy should retroactively rescind it because it's so fucking stupid. Ugh. Whatever. Forrest is decent and does what he can with his role in his nominated film but I think he gets on as a combination of that film and his work in Apocalypse Now. The two together justify a nomination, though neither would win on their own. I was surprised that I liked Rooney so much and his film because from all I heard it was a bad performance and boring film. Neither is true. Rooney is very good in his role and the film is brilliant in many aspects and worth checking out, even as a kids film. But the obvious, clear winner is Duvall. He should have won and it's a joke he didn't. A really disappointing category this year that I hope is better in 1978.
Oscar Winner: Melvyn Douglas - Being There
My Winner: Robert Duvall - Apocalypse Now
Mickey Rooney
Frederic Forrest
Melvyn Douglas
Justin Henry
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Supporting Actress 1979
I am so excited to finally be in the 70s! I am actually making progress in this crazy little project of mine. I haven't seen most of the nominees in this decade with a few exceptions of the obvious big films. This year is interesting because it features Streep's first win, Alexander who I was intrigued by the first time I reviewed her, a TV icon, and two other unknowns.
1979 Best Supporting Actress
Meryl Streep - Kramer vs. Kramer
I know I go on and on about being Streep'd out and how many nominations she has and all that junk, but I have been looking forward to actually watching her first Oscar win to see just how good it is. The film is really great and was part of that run in the late 70s and early 80s of realistic dramas, which I happen to love. Streep plays the mother in the film and is divorcing Dustin Hoffman. We first see her saying goodbye to her sleeping son and then scrambling to get her things together so she can tell Hoffman she's leaving when he gets home. The desperation and fear are readily apparent on Streep's face and we know immediately the gravity of the situation for her. The film, however, is mostly about how Hoffman deals with being alone and a single parent and his fight for custody, so Streep's reasons for leaving are never made known to us besides in the courtroom scenes where she tells how she didn't like not working and being productive. But the film essentially paints her out to be a villain who doesn't love her own son and wants to be free so she goes away for awhile. Streep brings an intensity to that first scene that stays with you and makes you wonder just when is she going to show back up in the film. Her courtroom scenes are pretty great as well, since it shows the brutal nature of divorce proceedings. She remains somewhat friendly with Hoffman and still seems like a decent person but things come up that show she isn't pulling any punches when it comes to getting custody of her kid. That seems very true to life and the scenes hit with a good emotional punch. I read that Streep rewrote her monologue for the courtroom scene so that it read more authentic and made her character come off not looking like a total villain. I think it makes her performance better that she took that initiative and speaks to her instincts as an actress. She brings the right amount of realism to the role, as well, and we see a mother who loves her son but is also conflicted in taking him away from his home. Streep gets all these emotions across in a wonderful way and makes for a very good performance. Streep was showing that she was a force to be reckoned with and that would of course continue for the next 40 plus years. The win for Meryl also makes sense when you remember at this time she was the next big thing. She had been in three consecutive Best Picture nominated films and had other notable performances this year. She was due for a win, I'd say.
Jane Alexander - Kramer vs. Kramer
After watching her first nomination (which was really her fourth one) for Testament, I was really impressed by Alexander and was looking forward to the rest of her work. Alexander continues to impress me because if not for Streep, she possibly probably would have won herself an Oscar for this role. What I love the most about this performance is how real it is. Even in a film like this that deals very frankly and realistically with divorce and its effects, Alexander is the most honest and realistic part of the film. She's the one who gets to tell it like it is when it comes to being a single mother and dealing with being divorced and raising a kid and trying to date and all of those things. She was the across the hall neighbor of Hoffman and Streep, who break up, and Alexander becomes the calming factor for Hoffman as she helps him raise his son a bit and is his shoulder to lean on. I like that she treats the character naturally. She's not an actress going over the top and she's not playing up the subtleties or nuance. She is just matter of fact and it is refreshing to see this in a performance every once in awhile. I most enjoyed the film whenever she was onscreen because she brought the film back to down to earth. Alexander is just a thoroughly good supporting performance for the main characters and the film as a whole. Everyone talks about Streep in this film, who is also very good, but Alexander shines in a different way for me. Can't wait to see her next nomination and if it lives up to the first two that I have seen.
Barbara Barrie - Breaking Away
Okay, so Barbara Barrie wasn't going to be winning any awards with this role and performance but I loved it. I thought she was perfect for the role and brought what was needed for it even though the role itself is relatively minor. Barrie plays the mother to a young man who is way into pretending to be Italian because he loves cycling. Barrie is hilarious in the role because she is so understated with her humor but she has great chemistry with her onscreen husband and the two make a great pair. The two playfully bicker but it's heartfelt and funny and speaks to their relationship. She is so kind and warm to her son who annoys his dad with the whole Italian thing and really encourages and pushes him to keep up the cycling because he's good at it. She and her husband even have a date night to the Italian opera music her son listens to and it's a nice moment intertwined with the son serenading a girl at the university with the same music. The best scene is where she has a sit down talk with her son who doesn't want to race and talks about how she shows off her unused passport because it gives her joy just to have it and tells him he will actually go places. It's heartwarming and effective and Barrie is tremendous in the scene. And that's what Barrie is to the film, perfectly supporting and charming and a joy to watch. If not for the Kramer vs. Kramer women, who knows, maybe Barrie would be my pick for a win. Also, fun fact, she was nominated for an Emmy for the same role in a short lived television series based on this film. Not sure how many other people can claim that distinction.
Candice Bergen - Starting Over
It's crazy because going through this project, I have found some Oscar nominees that I never expected. Such as Candice Bergen here who everyone should know from being a TV Emmy Queen but yes, she does have an Oscar nomination to her name. There are a few others like this and it's always surprising that some TV person or character actor is an Academy darling at some point in history. Her nomination is just that - a nomination. She shows up for a brief moment in the beginning as Burt Reynolds' wife and she dumps him to go start a singing career and has cheated on him, too. She is gone for most of the film and comes back at the very end when Reynolds is getting along great with Jill Clayburgh and wants him back. He caves and gets back with Bergen who is a successful song writer yet can't sing for shit, still. She tries her best at being funny and sexy and nearly succeeds at both but the character is a mess. Though Bergen does infuse the character with some real emotion at times which adds to the performance overall. But Bergen can also be a bit wooden at times so the performance is up and down and crazy and collected and good and bad. It's fun to see her before she launched her mighty TV career because you can see what made her a star. Her character isn't all that much which is why she isn't even a thought for a win but I like the nomination. The film is a romantic comedy that would probably never get nominated in today's Oscars, so it's kind of interesting to see that this managed two female nominations back then. I don't mind Bergen's nomination, though, it's one of those interesting factoid type nominees.
Mariel Hemingway - Manhattan
I wanted to say first that this film has one of the greatest openings in cinema history. I love the mash up of the music of George Gershwin with the black and white scenes of New York City. And when it crescendos with the piano and the fireworks framed against the skyline - man, it's pretty amazing. What wasn't amazing is Hemingway's performance. She plays the 17 year old lover of Woody Allen (there's a ton of comments that could go here but I honestly don't care about his personal life) and she comes and goes throughout the film. Hemingway has zero range as an actress, at least in this film. She is the exact same throughout the entire film and I don't buy her being a teenager as an excuse. Many people have and will give her too much credit for the performance. They will associate things with Allen's history and their own beliefs and whatnot by building her performance up to something it really isn't. She's just a young girl who is speaking like a mature, older adult in a Woody Allen film. Her voice doesn't ring true no matter how many other reviewers will state her maturity and poise and even keel nature, among other dramatic blah blah blahs, point to her performance being this transcendent point about growing up or some such nonsense. She's just a teenager being ascribed Woody Allen's thoughts and voicing those unconvincingly. Sure, the adults are fucked up in this film but treating Hemingway as a voice of reason lends her too much importance. Her performance is only okay and she just isn't up to par with all the other Woody Allen female nominated performances. This one is entirely forgettable and not really all that well deserved.
Not a bad group at all! Even Hemingway, who I didn't much care for, wasn't actually bad. She was more forgettable and young than anything else. Bergen was alright and was funny at times but it was a romantic comedy that probably wouldn't get anyone nominated in today's world. But it's cool that she has a nomination and the film was enjoyable so can't get too upset with her being here. I really liked Barrie, she just gives a pleasant, effective performance. I wasn't sure it would be much of anything before watching knowing it was just a mother/wife role but she was super enjoyable and I can see why she was also nominated for an Emmy for the same role in the TV series. I had been anticipating watching Alexander again because I really liked how natural and nuanced her portrayal of a mother in a post apocalyptic world turned out in her first nomination I saw. I thought she was good here as well, giving a realistic look at being a single mother in the dating world. Streep dominates, though, as would be expected. She's intense in this performance even when she's being nice and pleasant. She had a few notable performances up to this point so this was the Academy recognizing a brilliant actress who had recently burst onto the scene. A decent start to the 70s (though this was ending the 70s...) and I look forward to the rest of the decade!
Oscar Winner: Meryl Streep - Kramer vs. Kramer
My Winner: Meryl Streep - Kramer vs. Kramer
Jane Alexander
Barbara Barrie
Candice Bergen
Mariel Hemingway
1979 Best Supporting Actress
Meryl Streep - Kramer vs. Kramer
I know I go on and on about being Streep'd out and how many nominations she has and all that junk, but I have been looking forward to actually watching her first Oscar win to see just how good it is. The film is really great and was part of that run in the late 70s and early 80s of realistic dramas, which I happen to love. Streep plays the mother in the film and is divorcing Dustin Hoffman. We first see her saying goodbye to her sleeping son and then scrambling to get her things together so she can tell Hoffman she's leaving when he gets home. The desperation and fear are readily apparent on Streep's face and we know immediately the gravity of the situation for her. The film, however, is mostly about how Hoffman deals with being alone and a single parent and his fight for custody, so Streep's reasons for leaving are never made known to us besides in the courtroom scenes where she tells how she didn't like not working and being productive. But the film essentially paints her out to be a villain who doesn't love her own son and wants to be free so she goes away for awhile. Streep brings an intensity to that first scene that stays with you and makes you wonder just when is she going to show back up in the film. Her courtroom scenes are pretty great as well, since it shows the brutal nature of divorce proceedings. She remains somewhat friendly with Hoffman and still seems like a decent person but things come up that show she isn't pulling any punches when it comes to getting custody of her kid. That seems very true to life and the scenes hit with a good emotional punch. I read that Streep rewrote her monologue for the courtroom scene so that it read more authentic and made her character come off not looking like a total villain. I think it makes her performance better that she took that initiative and speaks to her instincts as an actress. She brings the right amount of realism to the role, as well, and we see a mother who loves her son but is also conflicted in taking him away from his home. Streep gets all these emotions across in a wonderful way and makes for a very good performance. Streep was showing that she was a force to be reckoned with and that would of course continue for the next 40 plus years. The win for Meryl also makes sense when you remember at this time she was the next big thing. She had been in three consecutive Best Picture nominated films and had other notable performances this year. She was due for a win, I'd say.
Jane Alexander - Kramer vs. Kramer
After watching her first nomination (which was really her fourth one) for Testament, I was really impressed by Alexander and was looking forward to the rest of her work. Alexander continues to impress me because if not for Streep, she possibly probably would have won herself an Oscar for this role. What I love the most about this performance is how real it is. Even in a film like this that deals very frankly and realistically with divorce and its effects, Alexander is the most honest and realistic part of the film. She's the one who gets to tell it like it is when it comes to being a single mother and dealing with being divorced and raising a kid and trying to date and all of those things. She was the across the hall neighbor of Hoffman and Streep, who break up, and Alexander becomes the calming factor for Hoffman as she helps him raise his son a bit and is his shoulder to lean on. I like that she treats the character naturally. She's not an actress going over the top and she's not playing up the subtleties or nuance. She is just matter of fact and it is refreshing to see this in a performance every once in awhile. I most enjoyed the film whenever she was onscreen because she brought the film back to down to earth. Alexander is just a thoroughly good supporting performance for the main characters and the film as a whole. Everyone talks about Streep in this film, who is also very good, but Alexander shines in a different way for me. Can't wait to see her next nomination and if it lives up to the first two that I have seen.
Barbara Barrie - Breaking Away
Okay, so Barbara Barrie wasn't going to be winning any awards with this role and performance but I loved it. I thought she was perfect for the role and brought what was needed for it even though the role itself is relatively minor. Barrie plays the mother to a young man who is way into pretending to be Italian because he loves cycling. Barrie is hilarious in the role because she is so understated with her humor but she has great chemistry with her onscreen husband and the two make a great pair. The two playfully bicker but it's heartfelt and funny and speaks to their relationship. She is so kind and warm to her son who annoys his dad with the whole Italian thing and really encourages and pushes him to keep up the cycling because he's good at it. She and her husband even have a date night to the Italian opera music her son listens to and it's a nice moment intertwined with the son serenading a girl at the university with the same music. The best scene is where she has a sit down talk with her son who doesn't want to race and talks about how she shows off her unused passport because it gives her joy just to have it and tells him he will actually go places. It's heartwarming and effective and Barrie is tremendous in the scene. And that's what Barrie is to the film, perfectly supporting and charming and a joy to watch. If not for the Kramer vs. Kramer women, who knows, maybe Barrie would be my pick for a win. Also, fun fact, she was nominated for an Emmy for the same role in a short lived television series based on this film. Not sure how many other people can claim that distinction.
Candice Bergen - Starting Over
It's crazy because going through this project, I have found some Oscar nominees that I never expected. Such as Candice Bergen here who everyone should know from being a TV Emmy Queen but yes, she does have an Oscar nomination to her name. There are a few others like this and it's always surprising that some TV person or character actor is an Academy darling at some point in history. Her nomination is just that - a nomination. She shows up for a brief moment in the beginning as Burt Reynolds' wife and she dumps him to go start a singing career and has cheated on him, too. She is gone for most of the film and comes back at the very end when Reynolds is getting along great with Jill Clayburgh and wants him back. He caves and gets back with Bergen who is a successful song writer yet can't sing for shit, still. She tries her best at being funny and sexy and nearly succeeds at both but the character is a mess. Though Bergen does infuse the character with some real emotion at times which adds to the performance overall. But Bergen can also be a bit wooden at times so the performance is up and down and crazy and collected and good and bad. It's fun to see her before she launched her mighty TV career because you can see what made her a star. Her character isn't all that much which is why she isn't even a thought for a win but I like the nomination. The film is a romantic comedy that would probably never get nominated in today's Oscars, so it's kind of interesting to see that this managed two female nominations back then. I don't mind Bergen's nomination, though, it's one of those interesting factoid type nominees.
Mariel Hemingway - Manhattan
I wanted to say first that this film has one of the greatest openings in cinema history. I love the mash up of the music of George Gershwin with the black and white scenes of New York City. And when it crescendos with the piano and the fireworks framed against the skyline - man, it's pretty amazing. What wasn't amazing is Hemingway's performance. She plays the 17 year old lover of Woody Allen (there's a ton of comments that could go here but I honestly don't care about his personal life) and she comes and goes throughout the film. Hemingway has zero range as an actress, at least in this film. She is the exact same throughout the entire film and I don't buy her being a teenager as an excuse. Many people have and will give her too much credit for the performance. They will associate things with Allen's history and their own beliefs and whatnot by building her performance up to something it really isn't. She's just a young girl who is speaking like a mature, older adult in a Woody Allen film. Her voice doesn't ring true no matter how many other reviewers will state her maturity and poise and even keel nature, among other dramatic blah blah blahs, point to her performance being this transcendent point about growing up or some such nonsense. She's just a teenager being ascribed Woody Allen's thoughts and voicing those unconvincingly. Sure, the adults are fucked up in this film but treating Hemingway as a voice of reason lends her too much importance. Her performance is only okay and she just isn't up to par with all the other Woody Allen female nominated performances. This one is entirely forgettable and not really all that well deserved.
Not a bad group at all! Even Hemingway, who I didn't much care for, wasn't actually bad. She was more forgettable and young than anything else. Bergen was alright and was funny at times but it was a romantic comedy that probably wouldn't get anyone nominated in today's world. But it's cool that she has a nomination and the film was enjoyable so can't get too upset with her being here. I really liked Barrie, she just gives a pleasant, effective performance. I wasn't sure it would be much of anything before watching knowing it was just a mother/wife role but she was super enjoyable and I can see why she was also nominated for an Emmy for the same role in the TV series. I had been anticipating watching Alexander again because I really liked how natural and nuanced her portrayal of a mother in a post apocalyptic world turned out in her first nomination I saw. I thought she was good here as well, giving a realistic look at being a single mother in the dating world. Streep dominates, though, as would be expected. She's intense in this performance even when she's being nice and pleasant. She had a few notable performances up to this point so this was the Academy recognizing a brilliant actress who had recently burst onto the scene. A decent start to the 70s (though this was ending the 70s...) and I look forward to the rest of the decade!
Oscar Winner: Meryl Streep - Kramer vs. Kramer
My Winner: Meryl Streep - Kramer vs. Kramer
Jane Alexander
Barbara Barrie
Candice Bergen
Mariel Hemingway
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Best Picture 2016
Going back to the current Oscar ceremony has been such a nice breath of
fresh air. I have really enjoyed watching all of these films and I think
the year after the whole white wash controversy was a very big success.
We got such a wide range of films and a diverse palette of performances
that I can only hope that 2017 is as strong as this year. It makes me
hopeful that the Academy is leaning in the right direction of being a
more inclusive awards body and not just going for the same tired Oscar
bait films and roles. We shall see if that continues or not.
2016 Best Picture
Moonlight
Oh man, lots to talk about with this film! We all should have seen that crazy ending to the Oscar broadcast where La La Land won but didn't really and Moonlight was the real winner. That won't ever be forgotten about, but don't let that overshadow the fact that Moonlight is a fantastic film. The thing that sticks out for me about this film, besides the acting and the direction and the story, is how intimate this film feels and is. I mean, I know this was a true indie film, but go back and look at the previous Best Picture winners and you will see this is the smallest, most intimate film to win that I've seen so far. And I'd venture to guess this would be true for the Oscars as a whole. Nothing really compares to Moonlight, yet the film, to me, has broad appeal and is way more than just a black film or a gay film. This is a coming of age film, a love story type of film, a film about people living their lives. The film just also happens to be the first all black film to win Best Picture and (I think) the first gay film to win, too. But I don't see this as a direct response to the whole OscarsSoWhite thing the year prior because the film itself holds up under scrutiny. Sure, if Hidden Figures won BP you'd probably have a case. Moonlight transcends all that crap, though, for me. We watch in three parts as Chiron grows up and deals with his tough life situation and his own sexuality. The three Chirons are all fantastic even if all three are a little different individually, though they maintain the same sort of stoic outlook between them. The supporting characters are good, but especially Mahershala Ali, who was rewarded with an Oscar for playing Juan. I wanted more Juan in this film instead of just the first 30 minutes or so and a whole film with him would have been just as great. But I am happy that the film chose to follow Chiron as he maneuvered his way through life. Moonlight is a complete film with amazing direction, cinematography, a nice subtle score - all making for a richly engrossing experience. I really mean that. I wasn't sure if the film would be all hype but once I started watching, I was completely hooked. I think because it's such a simple and honest story, where the story is the main draw besides the acting going on in it. I'm excited to see what Barry Jenkins does next if this is any indication of his future work. I think if people give this film a chance, they will end up liking it enough that it might change some views on indie film, watching black films, watching gay films - all of that. That's why it's kind of awesome that this won Best Picture because so many people are going to watch this solely because of that reason and will experience something different than any other Best Picture winner so far. Anyway, it's certainly a great film and might just be my winner, too.
Arrival
This is the first time I've had the pleasure of writing about a Denis Villeneuve film. I'm a big fan of his work and I firmly believe Sicario should have been a Best Picture nominee in 2015. He's a very exciting director and has the Blade Runner sequel coming out this year along with Prisoners and the brilliant Enemy that both came out in 2013. He's also got a few French Canadian films that are highly regarded in his past that are award winning, so clearly Villeneuve is a person to watch in the future. I think the man is going to win a Best Picture and Director award at some point in his career. Arrival is an interesting science fiction film based on the also brilliant Ted Chiang's novella "Story of Your Life." (Really, read all of Chiang's work if you can, he's a multiple Nebula and Hugo award winner for a reason.) It's about linguistics as Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner try to figure out what these aliens who have come to Earth have to say to us and what their purpose is. A lot of comments online mentioned that people were confused by the film and that it was hard to follow but to me it's a pretty straightforward film even with the time bending. If you can't follow this story, I'm not sure you should be watching films. With that said, this film is a very adult type of film. By that I mean it makes you pay attention and actually has an intellectual subject as it's premise. Adams is fantastic in the linguist role who the aliens entrust with the truth and she realizes that time is a flat circle. Okay, really they allow her to see her future while living in the now which allows her future to happen because she knows what's going on and yeah, it's a complicated concept to understand but the film doesn't get heavy with it. You can understand the basic principle of what they are intending. Adams cracks the code and ends the potential WWIII mess all while knowing that her future brings tons of heartbreak. That is the heavy stuff and it certainly gives you a ton to think about. Villeneuve directs the shit out of this and it looks fabulous and reminds me a lot of his film, Enemy, with the squidward alien things. But also the same sort of person dealing with what is reality concept. I'm super happy that a very smart science fiction film like this was actually nominated for Best Picture because that is what expanding to possibly ten nominees is all about. This would never have made a group of five. But for all time now, people will watch this film and ponder deep things thanks to Denis and Ted Chiang. I hope that more Chiang short stories will be adapted because they will be amazing if done right.
Fences
I was both wary of Fences and somewhat excited. This film came after the whole Oscars so white deal and blah blah blah. But! I think the film came at the perfect time. I was wary about it because of that specific reason. Is this just a cash grab response for the previous year? Well, things get put into production years into advance so obviously no, this wasn't a response. This was Denzel wanting to bring to the big screen a play he loved and respected immensely. And damn, did Denzel pull it off. He filmed, produced, starred in this and it's so good. The big knock on it is that this film is a play on screen. Yes, it is. It has rapid fire dialogue which tends to leave great performances. We get that here, with Denzel almost never shutting the hell up. Seriously, Denzel is talking for the majority of the film. That's why it has that play-like feel. This is an intimate look at a black family in Pittsburgh and we see their familial issues. Denzel dominates and we learn about his life that effects his current wife. That's a very sterile description but Viola Davis holds it down and makes it worth watching. I dunno, I mean, this is a Denzel film and he is the main part of the film. I like the film, a lot! I think Denzel delivers a great performance and Viola Davis is wonderful in her part. But this is very much a theatrical movie. It is a play on film, especially for the first half of the film. It is set up like a play and everything comes off like a play. The dialogue is rapid fire and constant like a play. So that's my big gripe. Denzel doesn't shut the hell up. He has constant dialogue. He's a loud, angry, black man. It serves the purpose of the story but it gets annoying. The film itself is too long. Towards the end, the film loses strength. Too many montages and then a certain character is gone and the story still drags on. Yeah, it loses some steam for the last say 20-30 minutes. It really needs to be condensed and shored up. But I did think it was a very interesting look into the every day black lifestyle. This is the middle class black world in Pittsburgh in like the 50s and though the scope of the film is so insular, it is compelling nonetheless. I'm glad this play was brought to the screen because it's so good and tells a story that we all need to see and hear and experience. But this is a small film that gets stretched to 2 plus hours and it shows. A good film for the post OscarsSoWhite era but not quite a winner.
Hacksaw Ridge
You can't deny that Mel Gibson knows how to tell a damn good story. Hacksaw Ridge is entertaining on two different fronts. The first part of the film tells the story of Desmond Doss' upbringing and how he came to join the Army. We see that he has a tough family life with an alcoholic father who beats the family whenever he feels like it and he almost kills his brother in a fight which starts him on his pacifist ways. We see Doss meet a cute nurse and be a persistent charming cornball before going off to basic. There he runs into his fellow soldiers and his commander hating him for refusing to pick up a gun on religious grounds. He has to win them over by persevering through the beatings and extra duty to gain their trust. He still has to endure an unfair court martial that is ultimately dismissed before Doss is allowed to ship off to Okinawa. This first part of the film is very sentimental at times with how things were and is very Americana in it's praise of the small town kid who is big into his faith. Garfield makes Doss into a compelling character despite it potentially being one big stereotype. I venture to say Garfield is the only reason the early parts work. Once it gets to boot camp, the film really picks up steam and has a hilarious Vince Vaughn as well. The boot camp scenes and then the court martial scenes are more interesting to me than the sun drenched early scenes of Doss' youth. Then we finally get to combat and watch Doss do his miraculous thing. The combat scenes, which were heavily criticized for being too gory and fetishistic, feel pretty powerful to me. Yes, Gibson lingers on some bodies too long and certainly likes using fire and having people burn for a while but I felt like it shows the brutal nature of war in stark terms. It's not the heavily edited Saving Private Ryan opening, it shows carnage without too many fast cuts and one second shots. But it also allows us to become Doss and see what he sees in a way. I know that's stretching things a bit but we get a real sense of what Doss is going through with all the violence and what he has to overcome and push through as a medic. I also like that it doesn't turn Doss into a superhero. He's not some invincible ninja or hooah Army God. He's a guy doing his job to the best of his abilities, saving Americans and Japanese alike, and not trying to be anything special. When we see Doss saving these men, it's almost a matter of fact thing. Doss is using his training and overcoming issues like being shot at or having to drag someone much heavier than himself. I like that Mel doesn't treat Doss as a God but more of a real life human being who did something massively heroic. That's why I like Hacksaw Ridge. I could do without the youth parts or at least have them toned down from the sentimental aspect but the rest of the film is surprisingly good. Some people might not like it as much or will take their Mel bias in with them but he tells a great story and sheds some light on an interesting American hero without taking it to the extremes.
Hell or High Water
I love the hell out of these kinds of films. I guess this is considered to be a neo-Western, kinda like No Country for Old Men, which is the film this got compared to a lot during the Oscar race. I get the comparison in style but the two aren't all that similar, really. An old, hard ass cop and money being involved in West Texas but you can stop there. This film is about two brothers (Chris Pine, Ben Foster) who are robbing banks in order to buy back the family farm from the bank they are robbing. Two Texas Rangers (Jeff Bridges being the main one) track them down to an ultimate showdown. The film is fantastic. It's relatively short by today's Oscar standards (hour and forty minutes) but it packs a ton into that short time. The relationship between the brothers is very well done and never feels hokey or too overstuffed with prior history. That to me is a credit to the wonderful script that doesn't burden us with too much extraneous exposition or background. We get just enough which keeps the pace strong. The other relationship of the two Rangers is funny and we are endeared to both sides through their interactions with each other. The setting will never get old either, as West Texas (or Texas in general) always offers luscious cinematography and that's no different here. So you've got strong performances all around, great writing, great direction/look to the film, and a brisk pace to the events with a lot of action to keep you engaged - what the hell isn't there to like? I think my one big hang up is that in the final confrontation the shooters are just perfect at hundreds of yards which, yeah, I get it's Texas and guns are a way of life but not everyone is a sniper. That's my main nitpick but other than that this is a film I'm going to watch again and recommend for others to watch because it is so well made and enjoyable. There's not much fat and gristle on this thing and that's how I like my BBQ.
Hidden Figures
I will bring up that elephant in the room, so to speak, right off the bat. A year after the Oscars So White controversy, there was no way that a very successful film (critics and box office wise) about smart, strong, historically significant black women wasn't going to be nominated for Best Picture. I'm not fully convinced in earlier years with the five film format that this might not have made it into a group. Hidden Figures fits what the Academy likes with the film being a tidy, crowd pleasing film that only somewhat forcefully rocks the boat when it comes to its subject matter. It does hit us over the head that racism was widely prevalent as a just how things are, the status quo. But these are mostly minor inconveniences for the film that are easily overcome by our three starring black actresses. Hidden Figures is a popcorn flick. Easily digestible for a broad audience even if it's a film about black women. It's meant to be tolerable for every one and certainly makes white people feel good about Costner standing up to the racism by having him tear down a coloreds only bathroom sign (which didn't happen in real life). It's a safe representation of racial feelings and ideas at the time but thankfully that's not exactly the main focus of the film. It's about those three women challenging their roles in society and in their job as both black AND women. The film takes on both of those issues (albeit with kid gloves) and celebrates the achievements of the three women that helped launch America into space. If this film tried to be harder and more realistic in the portrayal of racism and the challenges of black women, it would be an entirely different film that may or not be in this same spot. I'd lean toward not being here but I do wish that someone will make that film at some point, whether about this subject or something else. But Hidden Figures is what it is and that's a nice family friendly look at three black women overcoming astronomical odds to succeed at NASA and become respected figures in the space race. I enjoyed the film and the performances and I'm glad with it being included in a very diverse lineup of Best Picture nominees. If it hadn't been nominated, I'm not sure I'd be clamoring for it's inclusion just because it is such a slick, feel good type of film. But Lord knows there are plenty of those films on the Best Picture list which is why I won't get upset at it being here. It's also just a great film about a little known historical fact for black people and Americans in general. It's worth a watch for that fact alone.
La La Land
Welp, watching this Oscar broadcast was probably the most interesting one I've ever seen, and probably anyone else for that matter, because this won Best Picture but didn't really win. That whole sequence of events was hilarious and messed up and I knew something big was up when I saw a stagehand rush in before the confusion really started. So, this film was super hyped all the way through the Oscar season, winning everything and getting it's fair share of champions and detractors. I've been pumped to finally watch this film to see what in the hell everyone was so enamored with. The film is an obvious homage to all the old Hollywood and French musicals from years ago and it does a great job in imitating their style. The colors are so bright and fun and make the film easy to watch because if anything, you can just watch the colors go by. Musicals live and die with their songs and I think La La Land actually succeeds wonderfully in giving us memorable songs that stay with us after the film is over. I've had a couple of the songs stuck in my head for a few days now and if it can have that staying power with me, then it's a winner. A lot of musicals have very boring, dry, too Broadway-like tunes that never grab the audience's ear. They seem more made for the theater student to audition to and show off vocal range or something. This film has great jazzy numbers that stand out and last and will most likely become iconic on their own. Both lead characters have great chemistry. Gosling and Stone are great together and have shown that in the couple of films they've been in together. You can tell they have built something up over the years and it pays off here. I like all of these things about La La Land so why do I feel pretty underwhelmed with the product as a whole? The story was fine but I didn't think Emma Stone was all that Oscar winning worthy. Gosling is fine but he's not going to steal the show with a performance like that even though I like it. I think this got so hyped up that I was expecting something that would knock me over but instead made me give a confused shrug. I see and understand the appeal but I was expecting the performances to be amazing and the story incredibly compelling. I don't feel that way at all about those things. And I've seen it twice now in a couple days just to make sure my opinion wasn't clouded by being tired or something. But even after two watches I'm still kinda ambivalent towards the film as a whole. To me, this is a perfect example of the parts being greater than the whole. I'm actually glad now that it didn't win Best Picture (this is without seeing Moonlight just yet) because then I think I'd tear it down instead of celebrating some of the things I really liked about it. Damien Chazelle has made two really good films back to back and really has an eye for interesting and inventive shots so I'm excited for whatever his next project is. Though I must say it really bugs me that Stone's big song in this film is a rehash of Kermit the Frog's Rainbow Connection. You won't be able to unhear that one now. All in all, La La Land certainly deserves a lot of its attention and to be included on this list and makes for a very energetic and happy watching experience.
Lion
After watching Lion, the first thing that really struck me about the film was how much the first part reminded me of Slumdog Millionaire. Seriously, both films follow around a young boy trying to survive on the mean streets of India. Both highlight the vicious, poverty infested wasteland that is India's more poorer areas. Both boys have to escape adults who want to groom and traffic them and the poverty stricken landscape is played up to masturbatory levels. At times I was like, I get it, life is pretty rough for the poor and lost in India. The cinematography is beautiful in a weird way even if it's showing the starkness of the poorer areas. With that said, the first half is still good even though all the beats feel familiar due to a very good child acting performance from young Saroo. All kids can be a little precious and annoying but he, and the director, does a nice job of minimizing that. Once we hit the grown up Saroo in Dev Patel, his performance carries on what the younger Saroo was building. Patel is a little reminiscent of his Slumdog work but he has obviously grown as an actor and shows off more range with his character that is also searching for his lost family. The film ramps up the tearjerker moments in the second half and I do think some people might be put off by such obvious emotional manipulating but I guess I was in the right mood for it when I watched it because it hit me pretty good and I enjoyed it immensely. Run on sentence aside, Lion is the kind of film that plays well with today's Academy. Something like this might have had trouble squeezing into a group of 5 but with the more diverse Academy, this tearjerker about an Indian boy adopted by white parents using Google Earth to find where he used to live hits their sweet spot. It's a really easy to watch film that most people will enjoy, some will enjoy it way more than others like I did. But you also have to recognize how similar it is to a previous winner in Slumdog Millionaire and not get too carried away with it. They would make a great double feature, for sure. I'm glad I finally got to see this film, though.
Manchester by the Sea
While watching this film, I was really into the story and was really enjoying it as an overall work. But once I finished and really started thinking about everything that I saw, I had a few complaints. The film feels long and is, at almost two and half hours. If this story doesn't hook you, it's going to be quite the slog to get through. My big huge complaint, though, is the character of Patrick played by Lucas Hedges. The film is about Casey Affleck whose brother dies and he has to come take care of Patrick. Patrick makes no sense to me as a character and I'm not sure what writer/director Kenneth Lonergan was going for with him. Patrick's dad dies and he just doesn't react at all like a normal person would. He never gets emotional save one little breakdown and that's it. The kid makes jokes, hangs with his friends, tries to bang his multiple girlfriends, and just seems completely unfazed that his dad just died. And it's like that the whole film. He's more interested in saving money to buy a new motor for the boat his dad left him than mourning his dad. It blows my mind and really drags the film down for me. It sucks, because I love Affleck's performance and I like how the film uses the flashback technique to show us why Affleck is an emotionally void person. I liked the oh shit moment that happens in the middle of the film because I didn't see it coming and it hit me hard because it shows just how damaged Affleck was/is. I'm also a little annoyed with the ending because there really isn't any resolution to the mess that we just watched for two plus hours. It doesn't have to be neatly wrapped up with a bow, but I feel the audience deserves some sort of payoff. Is Affleck going to stay in Boston and have Patrick live with another family or is he going to stay with Patrick? Because I felt either ending would be possible. I'm sure some people liked the ambiguous nature of the ending and liked that the writing made us come up with our own conclusion but I'm not fully into that kind of payoff. I definitely felt like the longer the film went on, my love for it nosedived from being close to the top to being middle of the pack. I'll have to figure out where it stands after some time thinking about it and seeing if it settles in me or not. I have a feeling this film will be up or down for most people with some loving it and some hating it.
This was a fun year to follow closely. For most of the year La La Land was the presumed winner and we all know how Oscar night went down with them winning but not really winning. It made for a memorable ceremony and at least had some intrigue in what was becoming almost a stale year. I hate when there's a front runner that goes wire to wire with little drama going on. So Moonlight winning was awesome and I'm with the Academy on this one, a really great choice. Hell or High Water is my number two because it's just such a tight, well done piece of film making. It's the one film in this bunch I would watch again and again with no hesitation. La La Land would come up third because I do like the vibrancy it brings and the fact that it brings back the musical. I could take more musicals like this, honestly. Arrival is a great bit of science fiction and I want more Denis Villeneuve in the Best Picture race in the future. He is going to be a stud director more than he already is. I had my issues with Manchester by the Sea but I really did enjoy the overall story and how it was told and Casey Affleck's acting. It was a frustrating film, though. I considered dropping Fences all the way to second to last because Denzel overpowered the film so much, but I recognize that he brought together a pretty good film and one that was interesting to watch. Hacksaw Ridge was entertaining and Mel Gibson can tell a hell of a story but it was hokey at times and it could have been a tad more serious than what it was for a war film. Lion, though I enjoyed it, was a rehash of Slumdog Millionaire in a lot of ways so that's why it is so low for me. It's still a good film, though. Hidden Figures is last simply because it doesn't really feel like a Best Picture type of film. I get that it tells an important story about our shared history but it probably shouldn't have made this group. This is a fun group to sift through and there are three black majority films and a film about an Indian boy with a musical, a science fiction film, and a war film all thrown in there as well. It's diverse and this is why I like that there can be up to 10 nominees. I wish it was a flat 10 nominees instead of a possibility because we'd get a diverse group every year just like this. I'm interested in what this year's Oscar race will bring as I haven't even heard much buzz yet, though it is still earl in the year. But for now, I'm on to the 70s!
Oscar Winner: Moonlight
My Winner: Moonlight
Hell or High Water
La La Land
Arrival
Manchester by the Sea
Fences
Hacksaw Ridge
Lion
Hidden Figures
2016 Best Picture
Moonlight
Oh man, lots to talk about with this film! We all should have seen that crazy ending to the Oscar broadcast where La La Land won but didn't really and Moonlight was the real winner. That won't ever be forgotten about, but don't let that overshadow the fact that Moonlight is a fantastic film. The thing that sticks out for me about this film, besides the acting and the direction and the story, is how intimate this film feels and is. I mean, I know this was a true indie film, but go back and look at the previous Best Picture winners and you will see this is the smallest, most intimate film to win that I've seen so far. And I'd venture to guess this would be true for the Oscars as a whole. Nothing really compares to Moonlight, yet the film, to me, has broad appeal and is way more than just a black film or a gay film. This is a coming of age film, a love story type of film, a film about people living their lives. The film just also happens to be the first all black film to win Best Picture and (I think) the first gay film to win, too. But I don't see this as a direct response to the whole OscarsSoWhite thing the year prior because the film itself holds up under scrutiny. Sure, if Hidden Figures won BP you'd probably have a case. Moonlight transcends all that crap, though, for me. We watch in three parts as Chiron grows up and deals with his tough life situation and his own sexuality. The three Chirons are all fantastic even if all three are a little different individually, though they maintain the same sort of stoic outlook between them. The supporting characters are good, but especially Mahershala Ali, who was rewarded with an Oscar for playing Juan. I wanted more Juan in this film instead of just the first 30 minutes or so and a whole film with him would have been just as great. But I am happy that the film chose to follow Chiron as he maneuvered his way through life. Moonlight is a complete film with amazing direction, cinematography, a nice subtle score - all making for a richly engrossing experience. I really mean that. I wasn't sure if the film would be all hype but once I started watching, I was completely hooked. I think because it's such a simple and honest story, where the story is the main draw besides the acting going on in it. I'm excited to see what Barry Jenkins does next if this is any indication of his future work. I think if people give this film a chance, they will end up liking it enough that it might change some views on indie film, watching black films, watching gay films - all of that. That's why it's kind of awesome that this won Best Picture because so many people are going to watch this solely because of that reason and will experience something different than any other Best Picture winner so far. Anyway, it's certainly a great film and might just be my winner, too.
Arrival
This is the first time I've had the pleasure of writing about a Denis Villeneuve film. I'm a big fan of his work and I firmly believe Sicario should have been a Best Picture nominee in 2015. He's a very exciting director and has the Blade Runner sequel coming out this year along with Prisoners and the brilliant Enemy that both came out in 2013. He's also got a few French Canadian films that are highly regarded in his past that are award winning, so clearly Villeneuve is a person to watch in the future. I think the man is going to win a Best Picture and Director award at some point in his career. Arrival is an interesting science fiction film based on the also brilliant Ted Chiang's novella "Story of Your Life." (Really, read all of Chiang's work if you can, he's a multiple Nebula and Hugo award winner for a reason.) It's about linguistics as Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner try to figure out what these aliens who have come to Earth have to say to us and what their purpose is. A lot of comments online mentioned that people were confused by the film and that it was hard to follow but to me it's a pretty straightforward film even with the time bending. If you can't follow this story, I'm not sure you should be watching films. With that said, this film is a very adult type of film. By that I mean it makes you pay attention and actually has an intellectual subject as it's premise. Adams is fantastic in the linguist role who the aliens entrust with the truth and she realizes that time is a flat circle. Okay, really they allow her to see her future while living in the now which allows her future to happen because she knows what's going on and yeah, it's a complicated concept to understand but the film doesn't get heavy with it. You can understand the basic principle of what they are intending. Adams cracks the code and ends the potential WWIII mess all while knowing that her future brings tons of heartbreak. That is the heavy stuff and it certainly gives you a ton to think about. Villeneuve directs the shit out of this and it looks fabulous and reminds me a lot of his film, Enemy, with the squidward alien things. But also the same sort of person dealing with what is reality concept. I'm super happy that a very smart science fiction film like this was actually nominated for Best Picture because that is what expanding to possibly ten nominees is all about. This would never have made a group of five. But for all time now, people will watch this film and ponder deep things thanks to Denis and Ted Chiang. I hope that more Chiang short stories will be adapted because they will be amazing if done right.
Fences
I was both wary of Fences and somewhat excited. This film came after the whole Oscars so white deal and blah blah blah. But! I think the film came at the perfect time. I was wary about it because of that specific reason. Is this just a cash grab response for the previous year? Well, things get put into production years into advance so obviously no, this wasn't a response. This was Denzel wanting to bring to the big screen a play he loved and respected immensely. And damn, did Denzel pull it off. He filmed, produced, starred in this and it's so good. The big knock on it is that this film is a play on screen. Yes, it is. It has rapid fire dialogue which tends to leave great performances. We get that here, with Denzel almost never shutting the hell up. Seriously, Denzel is talking for the majority of the film. That's why it has that play-like feel. This is an intimate look at a black family in Pittsburgh and we see their familial issues. Denzel dominates and we learn about his life that effects his current wife. That's a very sterile description but Viola Davis holds it down and makes it worth watching. I dunno, I mean, this is a Denzel film and he is the main part of the film. I like the film, a lot! I think Denzel delivers a great performance and Viola Davis is wonderful in her part. But this is very much a theatrical movie. It is a play on film, especially for the first half of the film. It is set up like a play and everything comes off like a play. The dialogue is rapid fire and constant like a play. So that's my big gripe. Denzel doesn't shut the hell up. He has constant dialogue. He's a loud, angry, black man. It serves the purpose of the story but it gets annoying. The film itself is too long. Towards the end, the film loses strength. Too many montages and then a certain character is gone and the story still drags on. Yeah, it loses some steam for the last say 20-30 minutes. It really needs to be condensed and shored up. But I did think it was a very interesting look into the every day black lifestyle. This is the middle class black world in Pittsburgh in like the 50s and though the scope of the film is so insular, it is compelling nonetheless. I'm glad this play was brought to the screen because it's so good and tells a story that we all need to see and hear and experience. But this is a small film that gets stretched to 2 plus hours and it shows. A good film for the post OscarsSoWhite era but not quite a winner.
Hacksaw Ridge
You can't deny that Mel Gibson knows how to tell a damn good story. Hacksaw Ridge is entertaining on two different fronts. The first part of the film tells the story of Desmond Doss' upbringing and how he came to join the Army. We see that he has a tough family life with an alcoholic father who beats the family whenever he feels like it and he almost kills his brother in a fight which starts him on his pacifist ways. We see Doss meet a cute nurse and be a persistent charming cornball before going off to basic. There he runs into his fellow soldiers and his commander hating him for refusing to pick up a gun on religious grounds. He has to win them over by persevering through the beatings and extra duty to gain their trust. He still has to endure an unfair court martial that is ultimately dismissed before Doss is allowed to ship off to Okinawa. This first part of the film is very sentimental at times with how things were and is very Americana in it's praise of the small town kid who is big into his faith. Garfield makes Doss into a compelling character despite it potentially being one big stereotype. I venture to say Garfield is the only reason the early parts work. Once it gets to boot camp, the film really picks up steam and has a hilarious Vince Vaughn as well. The boot camp scenes and then the court martial scenes are more interesting to me than the sun drenched early scenes of Doss' youth. Then we finally get to combat and watch Doss do his miraculous thing. The combat scenes, which were heavily criticized for being too gory and fetishistic, feel pretty powerful to me. Yes, Gibson lingers on some bodies too long and certainly likes using fire and having people burn for a while but I felt like it shows the brutal nature of war in stark terms. It's not the heavily edited Saving Private Ryan opening, it shows carnage without too many fast cuts and one second shots. But it also allows us to become Doss and see what he sees in a way. I know that's stretching things a bit but we get a real sense of what Doss is going through with all the violence and what he has to overcome and push through as a medic. I also like that it doesn't turn Doss into a superhero. He's not some invincible ninja or hooah Army God. He's a guy doing his job to the best of his abilities, saving Americans and Japanese alike, and not trying to be anything special. When we see Doss saving these men, it's almost a matter of fact thing. Doss is using his training and overcoming issues like being shot at or having to drag someone much heavier than himself. I like that Mel doesn't treat Doss as a God but more of a real life human being who did something massively heroic. That's why I like Hacksaw Ridge. I could do without the youth parts or at least have them toned down from the sentimental aspect but the rest of the film is surprisingly good. Some people might not like it as much or will take their Mel bias in with them but he tells a great story and sheds some light on an interesting American hero without taking it to the extremes.
Hell or High Water
I love the hell out of these kinds of films. I guess this is considered to be a neo-Western, kinda like No Country for Old Men, which is the film this got compared to a lot during the Oscar race. I get the comparison in style but the two aren't all that similar, really. An old, hard ass cop and money being involved in West Texas but you can stop there. This film is about two brothers (Chris Pine, Ben Foster) who are robbing banks in order to buy back the family farm from the bank they are robbing. Two Texas Rangers (Jeff Bridges being the main one) track them down to an ultimate showdown. The film is fantastic. It's relatively short by today's Oscar standards (hour and forty minutes) but it packs a ton into that short time. The relationship between the brothers is very well done and never feels hokey or too overstuffed with prior history. That to me is a credit to the wonderful script that doesn't burden us with too much extraneous exposition or background. We get just enough which keeps the pace strong. The other relationship of the two Rangers is funny and we are endeared to both sides through their interactions with each other. The setting will never get old either, as West Texas (or Texas in general) always offers luscious cinematography and that's no different here. So you've got strong performances all around, great writing, great direction/look to the film, and a brisk pace to the events with a lot of action to keep you engaged - what the hell isn't there to like? I think my one big hang up is that in the final confrontation the shooters are just perfect at hundreds of yards which, yeah, I get it's Texas and guns are a way of life but not everyone is a sniper. That's my main nitpick but other than that this is a film I'm going to watch again and recommend for others to watch because it is so well made and enjoyable. There's not much fat and gristle on this thing and that's how I like my BBQ.
Hidden Figures
I will bring up that elephant in the room, so to speak, right off the bat. A year after the Oscars So White controversy, there was no way that a very successful film (critics and box office wise) about smart, strong, historically significant black women wasn't going to be nominated for Best Picture. I'm not fully convinced in earlier years with the five film format that this might not have made it into a group. Hidden Figures fits what the Academy likes with the film being a tidy, crowd pleasing film that only somewhat forcefully rocks the boat when it comes to its subject matter. It does hit us over the head that racism was widely prevalent as a just how things are, the status quo. But these are mostly minor inconveniences for the film that are easily overcome by our three starring black actresses. Hidden Figures is a popcorn flick. Easily digestible for a broad audience even if it's a film about black women. It's meant to be tolerable for every one and certainly makes white people feel good about Costner standing up to the racism by having him tear down a coloreds only bathroom sign (which didn't happen in real life). It's a safe representation of racial feelings and ideas at the time but thankfully that's not exactly the main focus of the film. It's about those three women challenging their roles in society and in their job as both black AND women. The film takes on both of those issues (albeit with kid gloves) and celebrates the achievements of the three women that helped launch America into space. If this film tried to be harder and more realistic in the portrayal of racism and the challenges of black women, it would be an entirely different film that may or not be in this same spot. I'd lean toward not being here but I do wish that someone will make that film at some point, whether about this subject or something else. But Hidden Figures is what it is and that's a nice family friendly look at three black women overcoming astronomical odds to succeed at NASA and become respected figures in the space race. I enjoyed the film and the performances and I'm glad with it being included in a very diverse lineup of Best Picture nominees. If it hadn't been nominated, I'm not sure I'd be clamoring for it's inclusion just because it is such a slick, feel good type of film. But Lord knows there are plenty of those films on the Best Picture list which is why I won't get upset at it being here. It's also just a great film about a little known historical fact for black people and Americans in general. It's worth a watch for that fact alone.
La La Land
Welp, watching this Oscar broadcast was probably the most interesting one I've ever seen, and probably anyone else for that matter, because this won Best Picture but didn't really win. That whole sequence of events was hilarious and messed up and I knew something big was up when I saw a stagehand rush in before the confusion really started. So, this film was super hyped all the way through the Oscar season, winning everything and getting it's fair share of champions and detractors. I've been pumped to finally watch this film to see what in the hell everyone was so enamored with. The film is an obvious homage to all the old Hollywood and French musicals from years ago and it does a great job in imitating their style. The colors are so bright and fun and make the film easy to watch because if anything, you can just watch the colors go by. Musicals live and die with their songs and I think La La Land actually succeeds wonderfully in giving us memorable songs that stay with us after the film is over. I've had a couple of the songs stuck in my head for a few days now and if it can have that staying power with me, then it's a winner. A lot of musicals have very boring, dry, too Broadway-like tunes that never grab the audience's ear. They seem more made for the theater student to audition to and show off vocal range or something. This film has great jazzy numbers that stand out and last and will most likely become iconic on their own. Both lead characters have great chemistry. Gosling and Stone are great together and have shown that in the couple of films they've been in together. You can tell they have built something up over the years and it pays off here. I like all of these things about La La Land so why do I feel pretty underwhelmed with the product as a whole? The story was fine but I didn't think Emma Stone was all that Oscar winning worthy. Gosling is fine but he's not going to steal the show with a performance like that even though I like it. I think this got so hyped up that I was expecting something that would knock me over but instead made me give a confused shrug. I see and understand the appeal but I was expecting the performances to be amazing and the story incredibly compelling. I don't feel that way at all about those things. And I've seen it twice now in a couple days just to make sure my opinion wasn't clouded by being tired or something. But even after two watches I'm still kinda ambivalent towards the film as a whole. To me, this is a perfect example of the parts being greater than the whole. I'm actually glad now that it didn't win Best Picture (this is without seeing Moonlight just yet) because then I think I'd tear it down instead of celebrating some of the things I really liked about it. Damien Chazelle has made two really good films back to back and really has an eye for interesting and inventive shots so I'm excited for whatever his next project is. Though I must say it really bugs me that Stone's big song in this film is a rehash of Kermit the Frog's Rainbow Connection. You won't be able to unhear that one now. All in all, La La Land certainly deserves a lot of its attention and to be included on this list and makes for a very energetic and happy watching experience.
Lion
After watching Lion, the first thing that really struck me about the film was how much the first part reminded me of Slumdog Millionaire. Seriously, both films follow around a young boy trying to survive on the mean streets of India. Both highlight the vicious, poverty infested wasteland that is India's more poorer areas. Both boys have to escape adults who want to groom and traffic them and the poverty stricken landscape is played up to masturbatory levels. At times I was like, I get it, life is pretty rough for the poor and lost in India. The cinematography is beautiful in a weird way even if it's showing the starkness of the poorer areas. With that said, the first half is still good even though all the beats feel familiar due to a very good child acting performance from young Saroo. All kids can be a little precious and annoying but he, and the director, does a nice job of minimizing that. Once we hit the grown up Saroo in Dev Patel, his performance carries on what the younger Saroo was building. Patel is a little reminiscent of his Slumdog work but he has obviously grown as an actor and shows off more range with his character that is also searching for his lost family. The film ramps up the tearjerker moments in the second half and I do think some people might be put off by such obvious emotional manipulating but I guess I was in the right mood for it when I watched it because it hit me pretty good and I enjoyed it immensely. Run on sentence aside, Lion is the kind of film that plays well with today's Academy. Something like this might have had trouble squeezing into a group of 5 but with the more diverse Academy, this tearjerker about an Indian boy adopted by white parents using Google Earth to find where he used to live hits their sweet spot. It's a really easy to watch film that most people will enjoy, some will enjoy it way more than others like I did. But you also have to recognize how similar it is to a previous winner in Slumdog Millionaire and not get too carried away with it. They would make a great double feature, for sure. I'm glad I finally got to see this film, though.
Manchester by the Sea
While watching this film, I was really into the story and was really enjoying it as an overall work. But once I finished and really started thinking about everything that I saw, I had a few complaints. The film feels long and is, at almost two and half hours. If this story doesn't hook you, it's going to be quite the slog to get through. My big huge complaint, though, is the character of Patrick played by Lucas Hedges. The film is about Casey Affleck whose brother dies and he has to come take care of Patrick. Patrick makes no sense to me as a character and I'm not sure what writer/director Kenneth Lonergan was going for with him. Patrick's dad dies and he just doesn't react at all like a normal person would. He never gets emotional save one little breakdown and that's it. The kid makes jokes, hangs with his friends, tries to bang his multiple girlfriends, and just seems completely unfazed that his dad just died. And it's like that the whole film. He's more interested in saving money to buy a new motor for the boat his dad left him than mourning his dad. It blows my mind and really drags the film down for me. It sucks, because I love Affleck's performance and I like how the film uses the flashback technique to show us why Affleck is an emotionally void person. I liked the oh shit moment that happens in the middle of the film because I didn't see it coming and it hit me hard because it shows just how damaged Affleck was/is. I'm also a little annoyed with the ending because there really isn't any resolution to the mess that we just watched for two plus hours. It doesn't have to be neatly wrapped up with a bow, but I feel the audience deserves some sort of payoff. Is Affleck going to stay in Boston and have Patrick live with another family or is he going to stay with Patrick? Because I felt either ending would be possible. I'm sure some people liked the ambiguous nature of the ending and liked that the writing made us come up with our own conclusion but I'm not fully into that kind of payoff. I definitely felt like the longer the film went on, my love for it nosedived from being close to the top to being middle of the pack. I'll have to figure out where it stands after some time thinking about it and seeing if it settles in me or not. I have a feeling this film will be up or down for most people with some loving it and some hating it.
This was a fun year to follow closely. For most of the year La La Land was the presumed winner and we all know how Oscar night went down with them winning but not really winning. It made for a memorable ceremony and at least had some intrigue in what was becoming almost a stale year. I hate when there's a front runner that goes wire to wire with little drama going on. So Moonlight winning was awesome and I'm with the Academy on this one, a really great choice. Hell or High Water is my number two because it's just such a tight, well done piece of film making. It's the one film in this bunch I would watch again and again with no hesitation. La La Land would come up third because I do like the vibrancy it brings and the fact that it brings back the musical. I could take more musicals like this, honestly. Arrival is a great bit of science fiction and I want more Denis Villeneuve in the Best Picture race in the future. He is going to be a stud director more than he already is. I had my issues with Manchester by the Sea but I really did enjoy the overall story and how it was told and Casey Affleck's acting. It was a frustrating film, though. I considered dropping Fences all the way to second to last because Denzel overpowered the film so much, but I recognize that he brought together a pretty good film and one that was interesting to watch. Hacksaw Ridge was entertaining and Mel Gibson can tell a hell of a story but it was hokey at times and it could have been a tad more serious than what it was for a war film. Lion, though I enjoyed it, was a rehash of Slumdog Millionaire in a lot of ways so that's why it is so low for me. It's still a good film, though. Hidden Figures is last simply because it doesn't really feel like a Best Picture type of film. I get that it tells an important story about our shared history but it probably shouldn't have made this group. This is a fun group to sift through and there are three black majority films and a film about an Indian boy with a musical, a science fiction film, and a war film all thrown in there as well. It's diverse and this is why I like that there can be up to 10 nominees. I wish it was a flat 10 nominees instead of a possibility because we'd get a diverse group every year just like this. I'm interested in what this year's Oscar race will bring as I haven't even heard much buzz yet, though it is still earl in the year. But for now, I'm on to the 70s!
Oscar Winner: Moonlight
My Winner: Moonlight
Hell or High Water
La La Land
Arrival
Manchester by the Sea
Fences
Hacksaw Ridge
Lion
Hidden Figures
Leading Actor 2016
This was mostly a neck and neck race between Affleck and Denzel, with many people thinking Denzel was getting his third Oscar. I was rooting for Affleck all the way without having seen any of these but I am excited to see how both of them do in their roles and the other three, too.
2016 Best Actor
Casey Affleck - Manchester by the Sea
This was probably the one acting performance I was most excited to finally watch. I am a big Affleck fan and love most of his work. I'm a fan of the brooding, introspective acting that Affleck does in most of his work. He doesn't have to say much, he can just look forlorn or wracked with guilt or overcome with sadness or whatever and display all of those emotions on his face and in his body language and in his very being. Pretentious kinda, I know, but my point stands that Affleck isn't just an actor who gives in to histrionics or big, grand moments. It's like he studies every move his character could make and goes for the unexpected because a lot times you can get frustrated with his characters for not talking or for not acting a certain way. But that's what I like about Affleck and I think he's very good at that type of acting. We get a lot of that in this film as he plays a guy whose brother dies of a heart attack and then has to take care of his nephew. Affleck also has some personal tragedies that have gone on before the current story that we see in flashbacks that further explains why his character is so emotionally void and confused. We also see the change when in flashbacks, Affleck is jovial and cracking jokes with his bro while out on the boat with his nephew and when partying at home. But then the thing happens and there's a moment where we see the realization on his face that his life is irrevocably changed and his world crashes inside of him. In the current story, he trudges along staying emotionally removed from most people though he is very protective of Patrick, his nephew and new charge. There is just so much depth and layers to Affleck's performance, so much subtlety in how he moves or reacts and how he responds that it's just a treat to watch him work. It's like you have to do some work of your own to parse through just what is going on for Affleck's character and that makes the performance richly rewarding, to me anyway. It's why I enjoy watching Affleck do his thing and yes, it can be frustrating at times but he definitely pulls it off for his Oscar win. I'm very happy that Casey won because I feel like it's been a long time coming.
Andrew Garfield - Hacksaw Ridge
I wrote and re-wrote this review a couple times because I felt like I wasn't saying anything more than Garfield was okay. This is a difficult role to pull off and I think Garfield was the perfect choice to play Desmond Doss. Doss is a conscientious objector from the Virginia boonies who enlists in the Army to be a medic but won't touch a gun which gets his commanders above him pissed off and his fellow soldiers wary of him as an equal, thinking he won't protect them. Doss keeps at it and makes it all the way through boot camp before they court martial him because he didn't complete the rifle range. He's saved at the last minute by a letter from a General friend of his father's and can go to war like everyone else. I say this is a difficult role because in this first part of the film, Garfield has to be this charming, countrified, cornball and make it look natural and not cringey. His Doss is such a goober, but a sweet, firm in his beliefs and convictions kind of goober. He's a good ol' boy with an aw shucks type of demeanor and it works for Garfield. We see that Doss isn't like other men and is firm in his moral beliefs even if the performance to this point is hokey and goofy. Doss suffered through a tough upbringing with an alcoholic veteran father and he almost killed his brother when fighting. His dad beat the family whenever he felt like it so there was turmoil for Doss to overcome and rectify with his own faith. Garfield does a good job in showing all of that turmoil in the early parts of them even if Gibson makes these scenes turn out somewhat sentimental in nature. I think Garfield really excels in the second part of the film where he goes off to Okinawa and we see the battles scenes atop Hacksaw Ridge. His story is so unbelievable that I'm surprised it took this long for a film to be made about his actions. Doss saved something like 75 men, Japanese and Americans alike, on his own while out on the ridge with no Americans around him except the wounded. He overcame rough terrain and tough odds and run ins with the Japanese to pull this truly heroic deed off. But Garfield succeeds in this part of the performance because he treats Doss the same way as in the first part. There are no gung ho action hero type moments or big heroic speeches or any nonsense other than a man believing his faith will help him find more men to save. Garfield is scared but determined and we see these little moments of introspection that show us that Doss wasn't super human or even God-like, he was just a man doing his job to the best of his abilities. That's mostly why I think Garfield is the perfect choice for the role of Desmond Doss. I don't see any other actor portraying the cornball hillbilly and the American hero without letting one of the two suffer greatly. Garfield takes on both roles and gives us something really interesting and compelling to watch that isn't over the top which the role seems to invite. I feel like there's a lot more to this character and performance than what you might see on first watch. When you really look into it is when you see how much work and effort Garfield put into this. It might not be obvious or classical but his performance is something that stands out in the film. I also think his performance in Silence helps him land a spot in this group, too. This might not be the one I like the best but I can enjoy Garfield's performance for not adhering to stereotypes and giving us something much more intelligent and compelling to watch.
Ryan Gosling - La La Land
I am a Gosling fan. He does some great work and has been really amazing in some indie films, one of which he got nominated in 2006 for Half Nelson. He's also getting into bigger films with the new Blade Runner sequel coming out this year so things are exciting for Gosling and his fans. My big question going into this film was if Gosling just came along for the ride with the film or if he really stood out on his own, independent of all the La La Land hype. I would say it's a mixture of both. If the film wasn't so loved, I'm not sure he gets nominated. But that doesn't mean Gosling does a poor job. He is actually quite perfect for the role of Seb, a jazz musician trying to find his way in LA. Gosling has that old school movie star quality with his good looks and presence and that helps him here in this performance. He has great chemistry with Emma Stone, as the two have been in a couple films prior to this and clearly have established a great rapport with one another and it's palpable onscreen. They sizzle together and it makes watching the film enjoyable just from them alone. Gosling also excels at the comedic aspect of the role. He has great comedic timing and he does it all in this sort of dry, sarcastic way almost. So he is hilarious when the film calls for it and it makes his performance that much better. I think my main issue with Gosling in this film and his others is that he can become an emotional void at times. He has this stoic quality about him that at times it takes the place of actual emotion. He does it here a little bit and it's the one thing that annoys me about his performances. It might be appropriate in some of his other roles like in his Nicolas Winding Refn work, but Gosling shouldn't just play the cool, reserved dude always. Give me some passion and energy, especially in a film so energetic and happy as this one. So while I do think he does a good enough job for this role and adds overall to the film, I want more out of him. I want him to push himself beyond just being a merely good performance in a well liked film. Be a great performance in a well liked film! But, let me reiterate, Gosling is pretty good in this film. The chemistry, the music (his singing is okay but not amazing), the screen presence and comedic talent all add up to a good performance. I just know he could have been great here. This could end up being the weaker link of the five but that's not exactly a terrible knock against him when he makes a very good five.
Viggo Mortensen - Captain Fantastic
What I know about this performance and film from the Oscar race last year is that it came out of nowhere. In the lead up to awards season, I don't remember a single mention about Viggo anywhere. Then all of the sudden he's landing a SAG nomination and Golden Globe nom and things were heating up for him to make an Oscar play and then, voila, he was nominated here. A lot of the reason why is that he seems to be extremely well liked in the industry and people noticed his performance in the film and decided to reward him for it. It also happens to be a really, um, fantastic performance. Viggo is a father who lives out in the forest with his 6 kids while their mother is getting treatment somewhere else. Viggo trains and teaches all the kids in self defense and music and physical fitness and regular school stuff. They are essentially hippies living on the land and hating on the man. But we quickly learn early on that their mother and his wife has killed herself. This leads to them making a journey to the funeral that she expressly did not want and lots of issues for Ben (Viggo). Ben is a great dad and the kids are super smart and well behaved and not very well versed in everyday human interactions. What I really love about the performance is that Viggo is a lot of different things with the character. He is a selfish asshole at times, putting his beliefs before the family. Another reviewer called him exasperating, which fits his character perfectly. There are times where you want to yell at his character that he needs to think more about his kids than himself or to stand his ground like at the funeral or to just take a breath and just talk to his kids or to his wife's father or whoever. But Viggo also comes across as such a warm, caring, standup person who does actually love and put his family first and who does understand their well being is paramount. It's a gentle performance from Viggo and it really impressed me. He is so good with the child actors (who are all mostly great, the one who hates him for some of the film is kinda meh but that's being picky) and just exudes so much fatherly love throughout the film that it's palpable. Other reviewers called him arrogant which he definitely is, having raised a bunch of geniuses out in the woods. I think Ben just feels strong in his convictions that being an arrogant asshole like when calling out his sisters' kids or tearing down religion while in a church at a funeral is not something that he even thinks about. There's so much subtlety and nuance and grace in Viggo's performance that you really have to pay attention to him, especially his facial expressions. There are times where his face tells what he's truly thinking and feeling even though he may be saying something else. To me, there is just a lot to like about Viggo in this performance. I suspect that not many people have actually watched this film and just dismissed it as one of those Academy bones to a respected actor. But I honestly think this film could have and probably should have been nominated for Best Picture. Although, I do feel like having a liberal bent to your own self ideals certainly helps. Viggo, though, is amazing in the role and isn't simply a throwaway nomination. I highly recommend watching this film.
Denzel Washington - Fences
Okay, so during the Oscar race, Denzel literally took the lead for the majority of the season and was a threat to win his third Oscar. There are a surprising number of people who feel Denzel deserves a third Oscar a la Streep or Daniel Day-Lewis but I'm not of that society. Denzel does not deserve a third Oscar. He is a great actor and is one of the very few black actors with a Best Actor award but forget giving him a third Oscar just because. If you've followed me, you know I don't like merit Oscars. Earn the fucking Oscar or get out. There was a ton of talk of Denzel getting rewarded for this role and honestly, I wasn't sure who was winning this come Oscar night. Denzel won the SAG Award which was a huge oh shit! moment for the prognosticators. My point is that I don't just want to reward someone because they are considered Oscar royalty. Earn your fucking Oscar! So during the season I wasn't sure if he was worthy or not but now I know Denzel was. Denzel is Fences. He directed and produced and starred in it. This is his baby. My issue is that this feels like a play on film and Denzel feels like he rehearsed for months and then filmed it. It's too wordy and slick and he doesn't shut the fuck up for like 40 minutes. The more quiet, introspective moments with his baby (actual baby in the film) are cool but not earned and feel scripted (it IS a play) and don't have the emotional impact they should. Denzel is flipping good in this. This is the best he's been in ages. I thought he was great with his role in Flight, but that was the first time we'd paid attention to him since his win for Training Day. This was just as great as those nominations and shows that Denzel is a force to be reckoned with for Broadway. Denzel is solid but I still need to see a couple performances to see exactly where he ranks in this group of five. I just know that Denzel really chews the scenery in this film and dominates every scene and every supporting actor, too. He shows how great he is as an actor, but sometimes you have to let your acting breathe a little and Denzel just keeps his foot on the gas pedal all the way through the film. I like it, but certainly not enough for a third Oscar.
This category had some heavy hitters going up against each other. There is no bad performance here, which is always nice to see. I went back and forth on who would bring up the rear and went with Gosling. Really that's because he plays his cool guy, charming persona like he always does and while he is funny and entertaining, he's not anything spectacular. He comes along with the film. Garfield has a tough role in making a hokey character into something not so hokey and actually believable as a hero soldier. I think he does quite well with what he's given to work with and his battle scenes elevate him from the bottom. Denzel is Denzel. He chews the hell out of the scenery in his film and at times it's great and at times you want him to shut the hell up and let the other characters do something for a change. Because he dominates so much, I have him in third because it's way too much Denzel for me to take. Now, Viggo, any other year and he wins easily. I was ready to write him off as just a token nominee but he is so damn good in his film. Watch it right now, please. You'll see just how wonderful his performance is. I wish I could give him the win but I just really like Affleck's acting. I'm glad he won and not Denzel because I honestly don't think he deserved a third acting wise. But yeah, I'm happy Affleck won and I hope that next year gives us some really great performances like these.
Oscar Winner: Casey Affleck - Manchester by the Sea
My Winner: Casey Affleck - Manchester by the Sea
Viggo Mortensen
Denzel Washington
Andrew Garfield
Ryan Gosling
2016 Best Actor
Casey Affleck - Manchester by the Sea
This was probably the one acting performance I was most excited to finally watch. I am a big Affleck fan and love most of his work. I'm a fan of the brooding, introspective acting that Affleck does in most of his work. He doesn't have to say much, he can just look forlorn or wracked with guilt or overcome with sadness or whatever and display all of those emotions on his face and in his body language and in his very being. Pretentious kinda, I know, but my point stands that Affleck isn't just an actor who gives in to histrionics or big, grand moments. It's like he studies every move his character could make and goes for the unexpected because a lot times you can get frustrated with his characters for not talking or for not acting a certain way. But that's what I like about Affleck and I think he's very good at that type of acting. We get a lot of that in this film as he plays a guy whose brother dies of a heart attack and then has to take care of his nephew. Affleck also has some personal tragedies that have gone on before the current story that we see in flashbacks that further explains why his character is so emotionally void and confused. We also see the change when in flashbacks, Affleck is jovial and cracking jokes with his bro while out on the boat with his nephew and when partying at home. But then the thing happens and there's a moment where we see the realization on his face that his life is irrevocably changed and his world crashes inside of him. In the current story, he trudges along staying emotionally removed from most people though he is very protective of Patrick, his nephew and new charge. There is just so much depth and layers to Affleck's performance, so much subtlety in how he moves or reacts and how he responds that it's just a treat to watch him work. It's like you have to do some work of your own to parse through just what is going on for Affleck's character and that makes the performance richly rewarding, to me anyway. It's why I enjoy watching Affleck do his thing and yes, it can be frustrating at times but he definitely pulls it off for his Oscar win. I'm very happy that Casey won because I feel like it's been a long time coming.
Andrew Garfield - Hacksaw Ridge
I wrote and re-wrote this review a couple times because I felt like I wasn't saying anything more than Garfield was okay. This is a difficult role to pull off and I think Garfield was the perfect choice to play Desmond Doss. Doss is a conscientious objector from the Virginia boonies who enlists in the Army to be a medic but won't touch a gun which gets his commanders above him pissed off and his fellow soldiers wary of him as an equal, thinking he won't protect them. Doss keeps at it and makes it all the way through boot camp before they court martial him because he didn't complete the rifle range. He's saved at the last minute by a letter from a General friend of his father's and can go to war like everyone else. I say this is a difficult role because in this first part of the film, Garfield has to be this charming, countrified, cornball and make it look natural and not cringey. His Doss is such a goober, but a sweet, firm in his beliefs and convictions kind of goober. He's a good ol' boy with an aw shucks type of demeanor and it works for Garfield. We see that Doss isn't like other men and is firm in his moral beliefs even if the performance to this point is hokey and goofy. Doss suffered through a tough upbringing with an alcoholic veteran father and he almost killed his brother when fighting. His dad beat the family whenever he felt like it so there was turmoil for Doss to overcome and rectify with his own faith. Garfield does a good job in showing all of that turmoil in the early parts of them even if Gibson makes these scenes turn out somewhat sentimental in nature. I think Garfield really excels in the second part of the film where he goes off to Okinawa and we see the battles scenes atop Hacksaw Ridge. His story is so unbelievable that I'm surprised it took this long for a film to be made about his actions. Doss saved something like 75 men, Japanese and Americans alike, on his own while out on the ridge with no Americans around him except the wounded. He overcame rough terrain and tough odds and run ins with the Japanese to pull this truly heroic deed off. But Garfield succeeds in this part of the performance because he treats Doss the same way as in the first part. There are no gung ho action hero type moments or big heroic speeches or any nonsense other than a man believing his faith will help him find more men to save. Garfield is scared but determined and we see these little moments of introspection that show us that Doss wasn't super human or even God-like, he was just a man doing his job to the best of his abilities. That's mostly why I think Garfield is the perfect choice for the role of Desmond Doss. I don't see any other actor portraying the cornball hillbilly and the American hero without letting one of the two suffer greatly. Garfield takes on both roles and gives us something really interesting and compelling to watch that isn't over the top which the role seems to invite. I feel like there's a lot more to this character and performance than what you might see on first watch. When you really look into it is when you see how much work and effort Garfield put into this. It might not be obvious or classical but his performance is something that stands out in the film. I also think his performance in Silence helps him land a spot in this group, too. This might not be the one I like the best but I can enjoy Garfield's performance for not adhering to stereotypes and giving us something much more intelligent and compelling to watch.
Ryan Gosling - La La Land
I am a Gosling fan. He does some great work and has been really amazing in some indie films, one of which he got nominated in 2006 for Half Nelson. He's also getting into bigger films with the new Blade Runner sequel coming out this year so things are exciting for Gosling and his fans. My big question going into this film was if Gosling just came along for the ride with the film or if he really stood out on his own, independent of all the La La Land hype. I would say it's a mixture of both. If the film wasn't so loved, I'm not sure he gets nominated. But that doesn't mean Gosling does a poor job. He is actually quite perfect for the role of Seb, a jazz musician trying to find his way in LA. Gosling has that old school movie star quality with his good looks and presence and that helps him here in this performance. He has great chemistry with Emma Stone, as the two have been in a couple films prior to this and clearly have established a great rapport with one another and it's palpable onscreen. They sizzle together and it makes watching the film enjoyable just from them alone. Gosling also excels at the comedic aspect of the role. He has great comedic timing and he does it all in this sort of dry, sarcastic way almost. So he is hilarious when the film calls for it and it makes his performance that much better. I think my main issue with Gosling in this film and his others is that he can become an emotional void at times. He has this stoic quality about him that at times it takes the place of actual emotion. He does it here a little bit and it's the one thing that annoys me about his performances. It might be appropriate in some of his other roles like in his Nicolas Winding Refn work, but Gosling shouldn't just play the cool, reserved dude always. Give me some passion and energy, especially in a film so energetic and happy as this one. So while I do think he does a good enough job for this role and adds overall to the film, I want more out of him. I want him to push himself beyond just being a merely good performance in a well liked film. Be a great performance in a well liked film! But, let me reiterate, Gosling is pretty good in this film. The chemistry, the music (his singing is okay but not amazing), the screen presence and comedic talent all add up to a good performance. I just know he could have been great here. This could end up being the weaker link of the five but that's not exactly a terrible knock against him when he makes a very good five.
Viggo Mortensen - Captain Fantastic
What I know about this performance and film from the Oscar race last year is that it came out of nowhere. In the lead up to awards season, I don't remember a single mention about Viggo anywhere. Then all of the sudden he's landing a SAG nomination and Golden Globe nom and things were heating up for him to make an Oscar play and then, voila, he was nominated here. A lot of the reason why is that he seems to be extremely well liked in the industry and people noticed his performance in the film and decided to reward him for it. It also happens to be a really, um, fantastic performance. Viggo is a father who lives out in the forest with his 6 kids while their mother is getting treatment somewhere else. Viggo trains and teaches all the kids in self defense and music and physical fitness and regular school stuff. They are essentially hippies living on the land and hating on the man. But we quickly learn early on that their mother and his wife has killed herself. This leads to them making a journey to the funeral that she expressly did not want and lots of issues for Ben (Viggo). Ben is a great dad and the kids are super smart and well behaved and not very well versed in everyday human interactions. What I really love about the performance is that Viggo is a lot of different things with the character. He is a selfish asshole at times, putting his beliefs before the family. Another reviewer called him exasperating, which fits his character perfectly. There are times where you want to yell at his character that he needs to think more about his kids than himself or to stand his ground like at the funeral or to just take a breath and just talk to his kids or to his wife's father or whoever. But Viggo also comes across as such a warm, caring, standup person who does actually love and put his family first and who does understand their well being is paramount. It's a gentle performance from Viggo and it really impressed me. He is so good with the child actors (who are all mostly great, the one who hates him for some of the film is kinda meh but that's being picky) and just exudes so much fatherly love throughout the film that it's palpable. Other reviewers called him arrogant which he definitely is, having raised a bunch of geniuses out in the woods. I think Ben just feels strong in his convictions that being an arrogant asshole like when calling out his sisters' kids or tearing down religion while in a church at a funeral is not something that he even thinks about. There's so much subtlety and nuance and grace in Viggo's performance that you really have to pay attention to him, especially his facial expressions. There are times where his face tells what he's truly thinking and feeling even though he may be saying something else. To me, there is just a lot to like about Viggo in this performance. I suspect that not many people have actually watched this film and just dismissed it as one of those Academy bones to a respected actor. But I honestly think this film could have and probably should have been nominated for Best Picture. Although, I do feel like having a liberal bent to your own self ideals certainly helps. Viggo, though, is amazing in the role and isn't simply a throwaway nomination. I highly recommend watching this film.
Denzel Washington - Fences
Okay, so during the Oscar race, Denzel literally took the lead for the majority of the season and was a threat to win his third Oscar. There are a surprising number of people who feel Denzel deserves a third Oscar a la Streep or Daniel Day-Lewis but I'm not of that society. Denzel does not deserve a third Oscar. He is a great actor and is one of the very few black actors with a Best Actor award but forget giving him a third Oscar just because. If you've followed me, you know I don't like merit Oscars. Earn the fucking Oscar or get out. There was a ton of talk of Denzel getting rewarded for this role and honestly, I wasn't sure who was winning this come Oscar night. Denzel won the SAG Award which was a huge oh shit! moment for the prognosticators. My point is that I don't just want to reward someone because they are considered Oscar royalty. Earn your fucking Oscar! So during the season I wasn't sure if he was worthy or not but now I know Denzel was. Denzel is Fences. He directed and produced and starred in it. This is his baby. My issue is that this feels like a play on film and Denzel feels like he rehearsed for months and then filmed it. It's too wordy and slick and he doesn't shut the fuck up for like 40 minutes. The more quiet, introspective moments with his baby (actual baby in the film) are cool but not earned and feel scripted (it IS a play) and don't have the emotional impact they should. Denzel is flipping good in this. This is the best he's been in ages. I thought he was great with his role in Flight, but that was the first time we'd paid attention to him since his win for Training Day. This was just as great as those nominations and shows that Denzel is a force to be reckoned with for Broadway. Denzel is solid but I still need to see a couple performances to see exactly where he ranks in this group of five. I just know that Denzel really chews the scenery in this film and dominates every scene and every supporting actor, too. He shows how great he is as an actor, but sometimes you have to let your acting breathe a little and Denzel just keeps his foot on the gas pedal all the way through the film. I like it, but certainly not enough for a third Oscar.
This category had some heavy hitters going up against each other. There is no bad performance here, which is always nice to see. I went back and forth on who would bring up the rear and went with Gosling. Really that's because he plays his cool guy, charming persona like he always does and while he is funny and entertaining, he's not anything spectacular. He comes along with the film. Garfield has a tough role in making a hokey character into something not so hokey and actually believable as a hero soldier. I think he does quite well with what he's given to work with and his battle scenes elevate him from the bottom. Denzel is Denzel. He chews the hell out of the scenery in his film and at times it's great and at times you want him to shut the hell up and let the other characters do something for a change. Because he dominates so much, I have him in third because it's way too much Denzel for me to take. Now, Viggo, any other year and he wins easily. I was ready to write him off as just a token nominee but he is so damn good in his film. Watch it right now, please. You'll see just how wonderful his performance is. I wish I could give him the win but I just really like Affleck's acting. I'm glad he won and not Denzel because I honestly don't think he deserved a third acting wise. But yeah, I'm happy Affleck won and I hope that next year gives us some really great performances like these.
Oscar Winner: Casey Affleck - Manchester by the Sea
My Winner: Casey Affleck - Manchester by the Sea
Viggo Mortensen
Denzel Washington
Andrew Garfield
Ryan Gosling
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)