Platoon was my favorite movie of all time growing up. I love that film a ton and have seen it a whole bunch of times. Nothing will beat it this year but I guess for continuity sake, I'll watch the other four that are nominated.
1986 Best Picture
Platoon
For the longest time this was my favorite film of all time. I thought it was the greatest film ever made and I grew up watching it over and over and romanticized about the war aspect of it even though the point was not to glamorize war. I'd say it had a very strong impact on me joining the Army in some noble, misguided way. Not that I'm an idiot that can't separate film from reality but I just loved the film so much that I know it seeped into my subconscious. I think this film is a complete package. You have some of the best acting ever from Tom Berenger and Willem Dafoe as the two competing platoon sergeants. Then factor in all the other supporting players from a terrific Keith David (who is such a great guy to meet in person) to Kevin Dillon, John C. McGinley, Forest Whitaker, Johnny Depp, Corey Glover all giving something special to the film. It captures so many raw elements of war that I could never really grasp as a kid and only understood after I myself deployed. It was made by Oliver Stone as a response to the rah rah films of John Wayne in The Green Berets (which I still love) and shows the flip side of combat. It's not all heroic and is mostly terrible and chaotic and frustrating. When I think of Platoon, the first thing that pops into my head is Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings. It is haunting and beautiful and emotional and just absolutely perfect as the soundtrack to the film. The two are inseparable for me. It might as well have been written explicitly for the film because anytime I hear it in another film I get angry that it's ripping off Platoon. The emotional attachment with that song is very high for me. Stone isn't a very subtle guy with the movies he makes and in his writing and directing but I feel even Platoon eschews that and uses his not so subtle ways to great effect. This is unequivocally his masterpiece, having lived the events himself you know this is from his soul. It shows. This is my second favorite film of all time and I love it even more every time I watch it. Simply a perfect film that I'm glad the Academy was able to reward for others to see.
Children of a Lesser God
I was pretty excited to finally watch this film. Way back when I always got this mixed up with Children of the Corn, which would make for an interesting choice here for sure. But this film is juuust slightly better than the Stephen King film. It tells the story of a new teacher who comes to a small school to help teach deaf kids and notices a young female janitor who is super smart, yet angry and tries to woo her and teach her at the same time. Sounds like some Good Will Hunting type shit, huh? I kinda thought it might really echo that film a bit but it did of course forge it's own way. It's all about the relationship between William Hurt and Marlee Matlin. My first real issue is that the relationship is sprung on us so quickly. I guess that the film didn't want to take an hour leading up to them hooking up and being a couple so we got sort of an abridged version of the events that led up to all that. We establish that she is smart and angry and that he is a quirky teacher who gets results and really likes Matlin almost from the start. That's probably the one major thing I'd change, just make it a bit longer and not make the romance seem so abrupt and forced. Once it gets going, it is great. Lots of sign language without subtitles so you're in the lurch at times if no subtitles, but I feel like that's a purposeful decision to make you feel like the deaf kids in this. Hurt and Matlin have good chemistry and even shacked up together right after filming before I guess they had a tumultuous real life relationship. But the chemistry is there which makes the film better. Eventually you do care about them staying together even if Matlin's conversion is convenient. She becomes less angry and more accepting to Hurt's belief. The big issue in the film is that Matlin doesn't want to have to speak and enter the world of the hearing, she wants guys to learn sign language and be content with silence. The film has it's limitations, though. Why can't either of them compromise earlier and meet in the middle? The deafness feels like a new twist on a way to complicate a love story. The acting is phenomenal and I like the overall film but it isn't as strong as it could be. But also, what other films are dealing this directly with deafness and introducing us to that world? For that, the film is a must see and deserves to be on this list. It's probably the runner up since nothing will beat Platoon and we could all stand to watch this film and learn a little.
Hannah and Her Sisters
This is the first time I've been able to talk about a Woody Allen film at length without focusing on a specific performance since Midnight in Paris in 2011. That's like 25 years in between Best Picture nominations for Allen. One of the things I've been doing alongside this project is watching every single Woody Allen film (going backwards, of course) even if nothing was nominated because he has so many of his films in the Oscar discussion somewhere. Plus, I felt that I needed to educate myself on Allen's oeuvre because he's so prolific and such a part of film history and Oscar history. It's been a fun ride and there's a lot of good stuff from Allen and a lot of shit, too. This film is classic Woody. About three sisters who are upper class intellectuals with a large family and a nice apartment/house, they spout off about operas and art and fancy things. It's the same mold he was doing over and over but this one feels more full, more complete. It's also got a lot going on and is very wordy. We follow the three sisters and their loves over three Thanksgivings which means a lot changes. It's interesting and I like the use of title cards with quotes from the scenes or allusions to upcoming scenes. Allen always is imaginative in his stories. He is always trying something new or different or riffing off another director he loves. I've always thought that his films would be stronger if he didn't act in them and I do think his scenes are the most uninteresting and forced. When I see him I automatically think of him instead of a character and he can never really become much more than just an exaggerated version of himself anyway. I also didn't really like Michael Caine in this one. He was not a very good surrogate for Allen and I don't think he did anything especially well. He was his typical charming self but with the bumbling of Allen thrown in for good measure. A lot of people absolutely love this film and now after watching it, I think I would actually prefer Crimes and Misdemeanors and Husbands and Wives over this. I'd rather this film ended on a more realistic note where Caine's wife finds out he was cheating with her sister and all hell breaks loose but the studio didn't want that. I think I prefer the much more serious Allen, even if he's pretty great at writing about women. I just feel like the film could have been more important and more intense, which is what I think it needed. Especially if you're going to have Allen married to two of the sisters and Caine banging two of the sisters. There needed to be some serious looks at sisterhood and family and love and all that kinda stuff. It's a decent film and it's a very good Allen film but I'm wanting more since this scored a Best Picture nomination. I really do mean that this is top Allen stuff, I've seen enough of his hurried garbage to realize this is why people love his films. And I know I have a couple beloved films of his to watch going back in time but I was hoping for more from this one.
The Mission
This is a very interesting film. It would make a great companion piece to this year's Scorsese film, Silence. It's about Jesuit priests in South America who because of some treaty, lose the protection of the Catholic Church when the mission they have changes hands between Spanish and Portuguese forces. The Portuguese are pro-slavery and plan on taking the natives and this film shows the struggle the mission faces. A lot of the reviews I read online paint this as a boring film where not much happens and I don't get it. Yes, this is a slower film with long stretches of no dialogue but hardly boring. The cinematography won an Oscar and for good reason: the film is luscious and beautiful to look at. It's the strength of the film, for sure, and makes those stretches of silence not matter. The score is fantastic as well from Ennio Morricone and some research shows it consistently showing up near the top of Best Score ever lists. It really adds to the feeling of the film. The acting, though, is really great. Jeremy Irons is perfect as the head Jesuit priest of the mission and while I have my issues with Robert De Niro in this, he's still really good as the intense slaver turned priest. My issue with De Niro is that he sounds like De Niro. Now, the film doesn't really try at any authentic accents but I can't buy De Niro as a priest in 1750 South America with a New York Italian accent. I would have liked some attempt at authenticity, though. His character arc is pretty good, however, and makes for a decent performance. He was once a slaver operating near the mission and then gets arrested and Irons takes him on as he drags a big bag of his things behind him in penitence. He eventually becomes a priest and then defends the mission from the Portuguese who come to destroy everyone. It's a satisfying arc and De Niro is all in with his character, giving it an intensity that makes it worth a watch. And that's the thing about the film: it's a hopeless story. The Jesuit priests are trying to convert natives in South America way back when and then have to realize that because of far off decisions, their territory is now in Portuguese hands and the Catholic Church has abandoned them and they are left to wait for the eventual slaughter. It's a tough film in that respect because there is no Hollywood ending and that's a big reason why I really like it. It's bleak yet beautiful and contemplative. If it wasn't for Platoon, this would be my winner hands down. I'm very glad this was nominated because it's terrific.
A Room with a View
I will have to check but this might be the last of the Merchant-Ivory films I have to watch for the project. I've been a fan of most of them as they have been pretty interesting and decent literary adaptations with some good performances. This film has a very young Helena Bonham Carter, Maggie Smith, and a wonderfully proper and pretentious Daniel Day-Lewis in some of the roles so you think it would be a lot better than it is. I found this film to be mostly boring, though. And really it's the fault of the story and maybe a little bit with the direction. The story is about Carter going to Italy for vacation with her overseer/cousin/chaperone, Maggie Smith. They switch rooms with a father and son so they can have a room with a view. Carter falls for the son who is very progressive and free spirited which is a change from the restrictive and oppressive England so it's a nice little change of pace for her. Smith isn't too keen on Carter and this boy flirting and getting together and tries to keep them apart and tells Carter to not say anything. When they return to England, Carter becomes engaged to DDL, though she isn't all that interested in him. By coincidence, the boy she met in Italy (who is English played by Julian Sands) moves near her in England and they start spending time together and she calls off her engagement and they marry and life is happy. Simple enough stuff but the telling it of it isn't very interesting to me. This film should be very passionate and romantic and have some great drama to it and intrigue and comedy and all that but it doesn't. Subsequent Merchant-Ivory films have more of that type of vibrant writing and direction so maybe it's just the source material for this film? I'm not sure, but I just could not really get into the film even though I wanted to, given the talent involved. It's just dry and boring, unfortunately. I did like that it used title cards to separate scenes into chapters almost and used some of the text from the book as descriptors. That was somewhat fresh feeling and didn't make this film a complete dud for me. It's interesting that this is the second Best Picture film after Hannah and Her Sisters that uses the same sort of technique. The acting is good just underwhelming. And Merchant-Ivory films never lack for great art direction and costumes and all that period piece stuff you come to expect. All in all, this seems like what people think of when they think of stuffy, British period dramas that seem to plague the Oscars and keep people from getting too excited about them. Can't blame them on this one.
Thus concludes 1986. Kind of a mixed bag as far as all the categories go. Best Picture field was pretty good, though. One of my favorite films and one of the strongest BP winners ever helps this year be pretty awesome. And then I find a film in The Mission that is surprisingly great. Like I really liked that film even if a lot of people think it's boring. It's right up my alley and just looks beautiful. Children of a Lesser God is pretty good, also, though it could have been better. Either of these may have won in different years because they seem to tick off a lot of Academy sweet spots and are good films to boot. Hannah and Her Sisters has it's moments but I'm not sure why this Woody Allen film got so much love over some of his other films. A Room with a View is pretty boring, sadly. It has some good performances but they can't save the film for me. I'll take three really good films for a year every time, though. And really the bottom two aren't super terrible or anything. This is a decent year all things considered.
Oscar Winner: Platoon
My Winner: Platoon
The Mission
Children of a Lesser God
Hannah and Her Sisters
A Room with a View
Monday, January 16, 2017
Leading Actor 1986
I'm a big Paul Newman fan and really like him in this film. I haven't seen any of the others and they are all interesting on the surface. I'll have to see if anyone can dethrone him.
1986 Best Actor
Paul Newman - The Color of Money
I haven't seen The Hustler but I know all about it. I don't think it's a prerequisite to watching this film, though I'm sure it helps add depth to the character of "Fast Eddie" Felson. This film stands on its own and is a very good film, though a lot of people seem to put it down because it's Scorsese continuing someone else's story. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard and this is some great Scorsese stuff. Great shots, helms in the characters, keeps the story tight and mysterious - all around great. But Paul Newman. Newman's Own. A lot of folks think he was robbed in 1961 and though I can't say for sure since I've not seen any of those films, I'd probably agree looking at the names. A lot of folks call this a makeup Oscar for Newman given his body of work and history of snubs. I don't really care about all of that. Newman is quite awesome in this film in 1986. It's the classic story of older guy teaches younger guy the ropes of whatever. In this case, Newman schools Cruise in the art of being a pool shark. His teacher role is fantastic to watch. He latches on to Cruise by way of his girlfriend Mary Elizabeth Mastroantonio and it's a brilliant strategy. She sees the bigger picture and Newman recognizes this, that she has some control over his hot headedness. Newman is Newman. That shouldn't have to be explained really. He's perfect in the role because this is his second go around with the character and gives him exactly the touch he needs. Felson is also a flawed individual. He's not this perfect creation by the story to make everyone happy. He takes on Forrest Whitaker and loses and is very human in those moments. He gets prideful and pissed when Cruise beats him or when, spoiler, Cruise dumps on him to maximize his earning potential in the green room and future tournaments. That means Cruise went easy when Newman thought they were both going toe to toe equally. When Felson realizes this, it's a thing of great acting. I also like that it goes from Newman being out of the game and using his hustling skills to hawk liquor to him getting back in the billiards business teaching Cruise to eventually getting back into playing for real for himself. Who else is going to win this year, seriously? This is your only choice and it's still a great one. Newman is so natural which is part of that lived in effect of having played Felson already. He's at his best when actually playing pool and being back in the game. The tournament at the end is the highlight because it shows how determined he is and how in control Cruise is at different moments. And Newman is great in all of this. I absolutely love this win even if Newman should have been a multi year winner for his other work. But his Felson here is easily worth a win itself and worth watching Scorsese's denigrated masterpiece.
Dexter Gordon - Round Midnight
I was really interested in watching this performance because I'd never heard of Gordon or the film and then once I researched both, I found out he was a well respected and loved jazz saxophone player and didn't have any acting experience. Upon reading about all of that, I was expecting to be blown away by the performance as something really great that could even impress the Academy. I was very wrong about that. This was more in the vein of Jennifer Hudson's unfortunate nomination and terrible win. I guess he's a jazz legend (I'm not a jazz guy) and seems to be nominated simply because of that reason instead of his acting. The performance isn't that good at all. There's no soul or passion behind his character. He plays an old jazz guy playing in a club in Paris and struggling with alcoholism though he doesn't seem to care as much as those around him. Some French guy who loves him becomes like a manager and their lives intertwine. This is actually a French film and it kinda shows and there are lots of scenes where Gordon is playing on stage (live apparently, which is pretty cool) or there is music happening. It's obvious that the producers wanted someone who could actually play music and be great at it at the sacrifice of actual acting ability. Gordon is a bit stiff and can feel like he's just reading lines at times. I think some other people would point to that as realism for the character but it makes me not like watching his character, which is a big problem for the film. Luckily there are so many scenes of him playing sax that he doesn't have to carry the film by acting. The script gives him these inane, flowery things to say as almost one liners that don't do any favors with his gruff, detached, emotionally void voice. Unfortunately, this isn't a Best Actor worthy performance though it is a very interesting inclusion. I can't outright hate it, but I don't think it's all that good, either. A curious Academy choice.
Bob Hoskins - Mona Lisa
I didn't know Bob Hoskins was British. I remember him from Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Super Mario Bros and yes, Hook, but I thought that was a fake accent. Now I know Hoskins is very much a British individual. He plays a guy fresh out of prison who then is made to drive around a prostitute, one which reminded me of the girl from The Crying Game which was, surprise, directed by the same guy, Neil Jordan. Just thought that was interesting. Hoskins puts in a performance that is too good for the film. He is so dedicated and earnest but the film is so crap. He gets out of prison and drives a prostitute around and then goes into super savior mode and tries to save this girl his client knows. Then the film devolves into like a crusade against child prostitution and it feels really weird. He has a lot of range that he has to show off, being a tough guy but also caring and human. He's got to be funny while also being like a detective and kind of a hero type. It really stretches the acting of Hoskins and he's certainly up to the task. He can be scared and timid and assured and confident and in charge and all these different sides to the same character. And that's the thing is that he has built a character. He's the only real reason to watch the film, although it does also star Michael Caine and Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid from Harry Potter) and Clarke Peters (Lester Freamon for you The Wire fans). I just wish the film was better around him. It's so tonally up and down. One minute it's a comedy, the next it's a detective type savior story, then it's a thriller, then it's almost a horror film, and then an intimate portrayal of a man reestablishing himself in society and...well you get the idea. Oh yeah, there's also a shootout. It's a really interesting choice by the Academy because Hoskins is really strong but the film isn't at all. It really made me want to look into any other serious roles Hoskins has done because he commands your attention. I don't expect many have seen this but it is worth checking out to see more of Hoskins than what you know from his children's films. I guess I should thank the Academy for making me watch a film I never would have even known about and seeing a really good Bob Hoskins performance. I don't know where I'll rate this but it gives me something to think about for sure.
William Hurt - Children of a Lesser God
I am really growing to like William Hurt as an actor. I already enjoyed him and thought he was brilliant in A History of Violence, among other things. In this film, Hurt plays a new teacher to a small town who is there to teach deaf kids to speak and takes on a former student who is brilliant and sexy and headstrong. They inevitably fall in love and we watch the relationship go through it's ups and downs. Hurt, just like in everything else I've seen him in, is such an understated actor. He's so calm and collected and natural that it's easy to like him. He's all of that here, of course, as he traverses his relationship with Marlee Matlin. I was actually kinda worried that he was just going to be a quirky teacher character because that is how we are first introduced to him. He does a handstand and other atypical things and I'm thinking of Robin Williams! Luckily, those oddities were mostly it, as Hurt is more of a free spirited type of teacher. I also like that Hurt can easily switch between different emotions without it seeming like he is going from one extreme to another. Hurt and Matlin have great chemistry which obviously helps the film as a whole and the performances individually. Hurt is more hopeful and optimistic about life and the relationship and Hurt's natural charisma helps hammer those feelings home. He also is enthusiastic about helping the deaf kids reach their full potential and those scenes are quite effective for the character, getting us to really like Hurt and see he has a good heart. This was the second of his three Best Actor nominations in a row and you can definitely see that Hurt was on top of his game here. It's a strong performance and the interplay between Hurt and Matlin are the star of the film. If not for Paul Newman winning his much overdue Oscar, Hurt could have contended for a second win in a row. This one is definitely worth seeking out.
James Woods - Salvador
This is the lesser of the two 1986 Oliver Stone features. It's also the one people don't even remember he made. You say 1986 and Stone and everyone automatically thinks of Best Picture Winner Platoon and rightfully so. This film is about the US meddling in the El Salvador civil conflict because communism or some lame scare tactic. Woods is a photojournalist who is kind of a screw up in life who goes down to this conflict to make some money and then of course sees what is really going on and tries to fight against it with his lens and help the people down there. I think you either love or hate James Woods and his frenetic energy. That is certainly on display here as he's going a mile a minute and seems perpetually on cocaine or something. He starts out as a sad sack character getting kicked out of his apartment, having to borrow money to try and get another job, using his "friends" to get what he needs - not a very sympathetic character. But Woods is good at portraying his guy as a scummy lowlife who knows how to wheel and deal and get what he wants. He then goes down to El Salvador and meets up with a lot of contacts he has here and gets into a lot of tough spots that he can get out of because he's so good at bribing and talking his way out of things. That's where Woods' energetic style serves him well. Eventually the style wears thin because there are times where you just want him to shut up and you get tired of his antics. He also doesn't think anything through which is why he ended up in El Salvador because he just wanted to make money quick and didn't stop to think about being in a country with a civil war bubbling up. He dives head long into anything he does and we see why the man is broke with many lovers and homeless. Woods fits this character pretty well and makes him into a believable person who has been all over the world in the middle of conflicts probably drinking, screwing, and narrowly missing death. Inevitably, Woods' character begins to react personally to what is going on, mostly because he has an El Salvadorian girlfriend and a kid (I think) and wants to get them out. He also gets angry at the US diplomats and military guys he knows because they are what is helping to make situations worse in the country. He becomes more caring and involved and not out to just make a quick buck and have a drink. It was a change you could see coming a mile away but Woods still does a good job selling it. This film isn't nearly as good as Platoon is and some of that helps bring down Woods a tad but I also think Woods isn't that good enough to elevate the material much. He's fine and it's that he has a nomination but this certainly wasn't going to be much of a front runner.
This is a kind of interesting group. It was Newman's win from the start, though I did read that Hoskins had a lot of traction with some precursor awards which is really interesting because I had never even heard of the film or performance. Gordon is the easy 5th because it's not Best Actor worthy. Give him a Best Song or something and be done with rewarding him but not a nomination here. Makes no sense. Woods is decent and really has to carry his film with his non stop energy. Not good enough for a win, but I get the nomination. Now for second place, I feel Hoskins does enough to push him over the edge versus Hurt. He has a lot to do in a film that is all over the place and is what keeps it from being a total mess. For that reason, he's the second choice. Hurt gets pushed to third but is still very good and could have won if not for Newman. Newman is great and deserved the win. No doubt I'll probably give him a couple more over the course of the project.
Oscar Winner: Paul Newman - The Color of Money
My Winner: Paul Newman - The Color of Money
Bob Hoskins
William Hurt
James Woods
Dexter Gordon
1986 Best Actor
Paul Newman - The Color of Money
I haven't seen The Hustler but I know all about it. I don't think it's a prerequisite to watching this film, though I'm sure it helps add depth to the character of "Fast Eddie" Felson. This film stands on its own and is a very good film, though a lot of people seem to put it down because it's Scorsese continuing someone else's story. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard and this is some great Scorsese stuff. Great shots, helms in the characters, keeps the story tight and mysterious - all around great. But Paul Newman. Newman's Own. A lot of folks think he was robbed in 1961 and though I can't say for sure since I've not seen any of those films, I'd probably agree looking at the names. A lot of folks call this a makeup Oscar for Newman given his body of work and history of snubs. I don't really care about all of that. Newman is quite awesome in this film in 1986. It's the classic story of older guy teaches younger guy the ropes of whatever. In this case, Newman schools Cruise in the art of being a pool shark. His teacher role is fantastic to watch. He latches on to Cruise by way of his girlfriend Mary Elizabeth Mastroantonio and it's a brilliant strategy. She sees the bigger picture and Newman recognizes this, that she has some control over his hot headedness. Newman is Newman. That shouldn't have to be explained really. He's perfect in the role because this is his second go around with the character and gives him exactly the touch he needs. Felson is also a flawed individual. He's not this perfect creation by the story to make everyone happy. He takes on Forrest Whitaker and loses and is very human in those moments. He gets prideful and pissed when Cruise beats him or when, spoiler, Cruise dumps on him to maximize his earning potential in the green room and future tournaments. That means Cruise went easy when Newman thought they were both going toe to toe equally. When Felson realizes this, it's a thing of great acting. I also like that it goes from Newman being out of the game and using his hustling skills to hawk liquor to him getting back in the billiards business teaching Cruise to eventually getting back into playing for real for himself. Who else is going to win this year, seriously? This is your only choice and it's still a great one. Newman is so natural which is part of that lived in effect of having played Felson already. He's at his best when actually playing pool and being back in the game. The tournament at the end is the highlight because it shows how determined he is and how in control Cruise is at different moments. And Newman is great in all of this. I absolutely love this win even if Newman should have been a multi year winner for his other work. But his Felson here is easily worth a win itself and worth watching Scorsese's denigrated masterpiece.
Dexter Gordon - Round Midnight
I was really interested in watching this performance because I'd never heard of Gordon or the film and then once I researched both, I found out he was a well respected and loved jazz saxophone player and didn't have any acting experience. Upon reading about all of that, I was expecting to be blown away by the performance as something really great that could even impress the Academy. I was very wrong about that. This was more in the vein of Jennifer Hudson's unfortunate nomination and terrible win. I guess he's a jazz legend (I'm not a jazz guy) and seems to be nominated simply because of that reason instead of his acting. The performance isn't that good at all. There's no soul or passion behind his character. He plays an old jazz guy playing in a club in Paris and struggling with alcoholism though he doesn't seem to care as much as those around him. Some French guy who loves him becomes like a manager and their lives intertwine. This is actually a French film and it kinda shows and there are lots of scenes where Gordon is playing on stage (live apparently, which is pretty cool) or there is music happening. It's obvious that the producers wanted someone who could actually play music and be great at it at the sacrifice of actual acting ability. Gordon is a bit stiff and can feel like he's just reading lines at times. I think some other people would point to that as realism for the character but it makes me not like watching his character, which is a big problem for the film. Luckily there are so many scenes of him playing sax that he doesn't have to carry the film by acting. The script gives him these inane, flowery things to say as almost one liners that don't do any favors with his gruff, detached, emotionally void voice. Unfortunately, this isn't a Best Actor worthy performance though it is a very interesting inclusion. I can't outright hate it, but I don't think it's all that good, either. A curious Academy choice.
Bob Hoskins - Mona Lisa
I didn't know Bob Hoskins was British. I remember him from Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Super Mario Bros and yes, Hook, but I thought that was a fake accent. Now I know Hoskins is very much a British individual. He plays a guy fresh out of prison who then is made to drive around a prostitute, one which reminded me of the girl from The Crying Game which was, surprise, directed by the same guy, Neil Jordan. Just thought that was interesting. Hoskins puts in a performance that is too good for the film. He is so dedicated and earnest but the film is so crap. He gets out of prison and drives a prostitute around and then goes into super savior mode and tries to save this girl his client knows. Then the film devolves into like a crusade against child prostitution and it feels really weird. He has a lot of range that he has to show off, being a tough guy but also caring and human. He's got to be funny while also being like a detective and kind of a hero type. It really stretches the acting of Hoskins and he's certainly up to the task. He can be scared and timid and assured and confident and in charge and all these different sides to the same character. And that's the thing is that he has built a character. He's the only real reason to watch the film, although it does also star Michael Caine and Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid from Harry Potter) and Clarke Peters (Lester Freamon for you The Wire fans). I just wish the film was better around him. It's so tonally up and down. One minute it's a comedy, the next it's a detective type savior story, then it's a thriller, then it's almost a horror film, and then an intimate portrayal of a man reestablishing himself in society and...well you get the idea. Oh yeah, there's also a shootout. It's a really interesting choice by the Academy because Hoskins is really strong but the film isn't at all. It really made me want to look into any other serious roles Hoskins has done because he commands your attention. I don't expect many have seen this but it is worth checking out to see more of Hoskins than what you know from his children's films. I guess I should thank the Academy for making me watch a film I never would have even known about and seeing a really good Bob Hoskins performance. I don't know where I'll rate this but it gives me something to think about for sure.
William Hurt - Children of a Lesser God
I am really growing to like William Hurt as an actor. I already enjoyed him and thought he was brilliant in A History of Violence, among other things. In this film, Hurt plays a new teacher to a small town who is there to teach deaf kids to speak and takes on a former student who is brilliant and sexy and headstrong. They inevitably fall in love and we watch the relationship go through it's ups and downs. Hurt, just like in everything else I've seen him in, is such an understated actor. He's so calm and collected and natural that it's easy to like him. He's all of that here, of course, as he traverses his relationship with Marlee Matlin. I was actually kinda worried that he was just going to be a quirky teacher character because that is how we are first introduced to him. He does a handstand and other atypical things and I'm thinking of Robin Williams! Luckily, those oddities were mostly it, as Hurt is more of a free spirited type of teacher. I also like that Hurt can easily switch between different emotions without it seeming like he is going from one extreme to another. Hurt and Matlin have great chemistry which obviously helps the film as a whole and the performances individually. Hurt is more hopeful and optimistic about life and the relationship and Hurt's natural charisma helps hammer those feelings home. He also is enthusiastic about helping the deaf kids reach their full potential and those scenes are quite effective for the character, getting us to really like Hurt and see he has a good heart. This was the second of his three Best Actor nominations in a row and you can definitely see that Hurt was on top of his game here. It's a strong performance and the interplay between Hurt and Matlin are the star of the film. If not for Paul Newman winning his much overdue Oscar, Hurt could have contended for a second win in a row. This one is definitely worth seeking out.
James Woods - Salvador
This is the lesser of the two 1986 Oliver Stone features. It's also the one people don't even remember he made. You say 1986 and Stone and everyone automatically thinks of Best Picture Winner Platoon and rightfully so. This film is about the US meddling in the El Salvador civil conflict because communism or some lame scare tactic. Woods is a photojournalist who is kind of a screw up in life who goes down to this conflict to make some money and then of course sees what is really going on and tries to fight against it with his lens and help the people down there. I think you either love or hate James Woods and his frenetic energy. That is certainly on display here as he's going a mile a minute and seems perpetually on cocaine or something. He starts out as a sad sack character getting kicked out of his apartment, having to borrow money to try and get another job, using his "friends" to get what he needs - not a very sympathetic character. But Woods is good at portraying his guy as a scummy lowlife who knows how to wheel and deal and get what he wants. He then goes down to El Salvador and meets up with a lot of contacts he has here and gets into a lot of tough spots that he can get out of because he's so good at bribing and talking his way out of things. That's where Woods' energetic style serves him well. Eventually the style wears thin because there are times where you just want him to shut up and you get tired of his antics. He also doesn't think anything through which is why he ended up in El Salvador because he just wanted to make money quick and didn't stop to think about being in a country with a civil war bubbling up. He dives head long into anything he does and we see why the man is broke with many lovers and homeless. Woods fits this character pretty well and makes him into a believable person who has been all over the world in the middle of conflicts probably drinking, screwing, and narrowly missing death. Inevitably, Woods' character begins to react personally to what is going on, mostly because he has an El Salvadorian girlfriend and a kid (I think) and wants to get them out. He also gets angry at the US diplomats and military guys he knows because they are what is helping to make situations worse in the country. He becomes more caring and involved and not out to just make a quick buck and have a drink. It was a change you could see coming a mile away but Woods still does a good job selling it. This film isn't nearly as good as Platoon is and some of that helps bring down Woods a tad but I also think Woods isn't that good enough to elevate the material much. He's fine and it's that he has a nomination but this certainly wasn't going to be much of a front runner.
This is a kind of interesting group. It was Newman's win from the start, though I did read that Hoskins had a lot of traction with some precursor awards which is really interesting because I had never even heard of the film or performance. Gordon is the easy 5th because it's not Best Actor worthy. Give him a Best Song or something and be done with rewarding him but not a nomination here. Makes no sense. Woods is decent and really has to carry his film with his non stop energy. Not good enough for a win, but I get the nomination. Now for second place, I feel Hoskins does enough to push him over the edge versus Hurt. He has a lot to do in a film that is all over the place and is what keeps it from being a total mess. For that reason, he's the second choice. Hurt gets pushed to third but is still very good and could have won if not for Newman. Newman is great and deserved the win. No doubt I'll probably give him a couple more over the course of the project.
Oscar Winner: Paul Newman - The Color of Money
My Winner: Paul Newman - The Color of Money
Bob Hoskins
William Hurt
James Woods
Dexter Gordon
Leading Actress 1986
I just want to say thank you to those wonderful people who put extended or director's cut versions of films online. Yes, I watch most of these films online in some way or another. But it's pretty awesome when you watch one and then look up info on it and see that the version you watch was the extended version with an extra 20 minutes and includes deleted scenes. There has been a couple times where that's been the case and I've remarked on it in my reviews. I'd rather watch those versions anyway if that's the director's true vision. Just saying. Haven't seen any of these ladies but very excited for them all!
1986 Best Actress
Marlee Matlin - Children of a Lesser God
Obviously the first thing you have to consider about this performance and win is the deafness factor. There's a lot of Oscar trivia attached to this one win and nomination. Matlin is the youngest winner ever at 21. She won an Oscar in her film debut, which is super rare. She is the only deaf actress to win an acting award. This was the first major film that even starred a deaf actor in a leading role since 1926. Lots of interesting notes, for sure. But was this a case of the Academy rewarding her more for her condition instead of her actual performance? That was the one thing I really wanted to find out about for this year. I really liked Matlin's turn in The West Wing and knew she was a good actress from that show. I will say that the deafness factor helps her out in the performance because since it is a non-speaking role, she has to emote and convey a whole lot just from looks and body language. When we first meet her, she's kind of like this wild woman, very angry and brooding. I was worried that this would be a very broad performance and prone to big acting but eventually Matlin settles into the character as we learn more about her. She's angry, yes, but we understand where that anger comes from as she doesn't want to be made to speak because she wants others to learn to sign. She's also headstrong and stubborn which Matlin shows us to great effect. The film and story rushes into the relationship with her and Hurt, which is my one big gripe about the film. It doesn't get the chance to develop totally naturally and the story seems impatient with this part. But the chemistry between Hurt and Matlin is palpable and when you learn they were an item for a couple years after, it makes complete sense. And really the film hinges on believing them as a couple, so credit to Matlin for helping in that. I also think that the film changes Matlin from the bullish, tough girl in the beginning to a more accepting and open girl at the end a little too easily and quickly. These are things I think the film does wrong as maybe it needed a bit more development of the characters for me to really believe Matlin had changed from being so stubborn but Matlin does all she can with the material. The performance is good, no doubt, though I'm not sure I consider this a slam dunk in maybe some other years. It shows from time to time that this is her first film role and she's a little rough around the edges at points. But overall, this is a very good performance from Matlin and I was glad to see the nomination and win wasn't just about her being deaf. I'll have to see all the other performances to make sure she really should have been the winner.
Jane Fonda - The Morning After
Is it weird that I kinda really like this film on a purely 80s aesthetic and because it kinda sums up 80s films to me? Yeah, it's not that great of a film but it's entertaining on a basic level. Jane Fonda has big hair. Jeff Bridges is a hunky guy who helps her out. It's a thriller about Fonda waking up after a night of drinking with a dead guy in her bed. Then she has to figure out if she did it or if she's in danger....cue chintzy 80s thriller music! One of the things that impresses me the most about the film is that Fonda takes the time to super clean the apartment where she woke up and even cleans all the fingerprints she might have left behind. I like that a lot because it's attention to detail. Also, Fonda reminds me a whole lot of Jessica Lange and yes, I know they are different actresses and Fonda is her own woman but I think it's the aesthetic of the blonde hair, sunglasses, and the hair wrap. Just an observation. I also really like Fonda in Grace and Frankie on Netflix, she and Lily Tomlin are great together. I know this is me making a lot of non-sequitur type statements but this is an 80s thriller performance - you know what you're getting from it from the start. Fonda does elevate the material and performance by virtue of her being Jane Fonda and doing a little more than say a Michelle Pfeiffer might. Well, actually, Sidney Lumet (ya know, the guy who directed 12 Angry Men for his first film) kinda directs it as a throwback at times, especially with the music. The thriller part is also that Fonda isn't a crazy white bitch, but a woman being chased and pursued by nefarious peoples, the other side of the thriller coin. Fonda plays a pretty decent drunk, too, in everything I've seen her in so far, especially here where it matters to the story. It's nothing amazing and is pure 80s so if you enjoy those types of films, you'll enjoy this. But certainly not Fonda's best nominated work.
Sissy Spacek - Crimes of the Heart
Normally I try to make these reviews a bit longer than the Supporting ones because they are bigger performances. Not sure I'll have a whole hell of a lot to say for Spacek here. Spacek plays a woman who has shot her husband, so her other two sisters come home to deal with the crisis. It's one of those southern woman family films that throws a lot of well known actresses together and everyone loves seeing them all interact, which is totally the appeal here. It's Spacek and Jessica Lange and Dianne Keaton all having fun together, crying, laughing, getting emotional - the usual stuff. Spacek plays the younger sister, who as mentioned above, has shot her husband and is out of jail. She also was sleeping with a 15 year old black kid (why that gets completely glossed over, I don't know) which precipitated the shooting. It's scandalous but the film doesn't really care about that. It's more concerned about the family dynamics and the interactions between all the Oscar winning sisters than anything else. Spacek is a little bit crazy and plays it up for effect, though she doesn't go overboard. It teeters between comedy and the melodramatic so at least she keeps a handle on the character. It's regular Southern Gothic eccentric behavior. Spacek is good and her performance is somewhat fun, if not very bizarre in that she shoots her husband and bangs a 15 year old boy and no one seems to really care. She won a Golden Globe for this performance but I don't know what sets it apart exactly. Why her over Keaton or Lange? I think because she gets to play crazy and that's more interesting than Lange's ingenue or Keaton's mousy introvert. While it is kinda fun, it's not something that really grabs me and we've seen better versions of the crazy Southern woman before.
Kathleen Turner - Peggy Sue Got Married
This is a really fun and sweet film at it's heart. It also has a bunch of famous people at the very beginning of their careers. It features a fantastic Nic Cage doing a ridiculous voice in the 1960 scenes that just fits Cage's style perfectly. It also has Jim Carrey doing his thing, a young Joan Allen and Helen Hunt and is directed by Francis Ford Coppola (his daughter is just as bad here as she was in The Godfather Part III). Turner does a great job playing a woman in 1985 whose life is crumbling and headed for a mid life crisis. She's getting divorced from Cage who is a local big shot and goes to her high school reunion and faints. She wakes up back in 1960 knowing everything as if she were still in 1985 so that she can not make the same mistakes again. Of course the film is about whether or not she wants to make those same mistakes again or try and start a new life. Turner puts in work here and does a great job essentially carrying the film. I do feel she has it easy because the story makes her an adult in a teen's body/mind so those scenes are ones where she is super confident and not worried with life and very strong for a young girl back in that time. So while I do think Turner is pretty good, the story and script do a lot of work for her. But she brings a youthfulness to the 1960 scenes which makes the performance feel like not just a grown woman trying to do kid things, but instead a grown woman letting her old self take over. So I think that's what I like the most about the performance, is that she can make it seem like she's the grown up at times and make it look like she is the young woman at other times. This feels more like a nod to sentimentalism and the way things were than anything else. Turner won't blow you away but she is really effective in her role and very entertaining. I'm glad that the Academy nominated her so I could watch the film because it's this little small gem that is hidden in plain sight with all who are involved in it. Never going to win, but a decent Oscar watch.
Sigourney Weaver - Aliens
Yes, I did in fact watch Alien before watching this film. I had never actually watched Alien all the way through. I'd bet that I've seen that film a few times in various clips and knew exactly what happened in it. So it was nice to watch it start to finish finally. In that film, Weaver starts out as part of an ensemble cast and isn't really focused on until more towards the end when she's one of the last crew members alive. Before that she isn't anything amazing. By the end, she is showing off her leading lady potential and is able to carry the film easily and be a bad ass in the process. Aliens continues her story after being in hypersleep at the end of the first film and waking up way later than expected in this film. Now she is told that the planet they investigated in the first film is being terraformed by a colony and they have had issues contacting them and to go explore it looking for the xenomorph. Whereas the first film was a very intimate, contained horror film, this film is pure action film all the way. Sure, you can say it's got horror elements because of the xenomorphs but nah, it's an action film. But! That means this is the first female fronted action film to score a Best Actress nomination which is pretty cool. Weaver is great in this, honestly. I was a bit concerned that she would turn into the ultimate bad ass and just be a super heroine but she maintains a lot of her original characterization. She is concerned about those still on the planet and then worried about her own crew members when actually there. She's smart enough to deduce a lot of things going on like Burke the company man (Paul Reiser!) trying to get her impregnated by the alien to take home and sell. She's a very smart woman and she is very wary of everything going on and very much a bad ass when necessary. It's the ultimate female role, really, and Weaver does it a great service. She's really great in the film, that's really all you can say. I think it's interesting that you can compare this film to Avatar and find a ton of similarities, not the least of which is Weaver being involved. I was worried because at the beginning it follows that film's broad action adventure style before finally becoming more closed off when the gang goes to the planet and gets sealed in. The end is where Weaver truly shines because she does go all beast mode and it's not a schlocky mess, well not entirely. Weaver is pretty great and her only competition is Marlee Matlin so I'll have a big decision on who to vote for.
This is a tough one! I'll start at the bottom where Spacek is clearly the weakest of all of them here. I'm left wondering why her for that role. It's a weird one, for sure. Fonda is crazy in a purely distilled 80s film and I love it, even if it's a weak Fonda performance overall. She's fun but would this ever win? Of course not. Turner is fun also and does well with her almost dual role. The film itself kinda bumps up her performance to third. Kind of interchangeable with Fonda, really. The real battle is between Matlin, who is your typical kinda Oscar role and a decent winner, going against Weaver who would make for an awesome win. And don't let anyone tell you oh, it's just an action role so she would never win and shouldn't win because Oscar doesn't go for that. Well, Oscar could have chosen her easily here because she is very good in the role and is a very strong female performance. Ripley is an iconic character and having Weaver win an Oscar for that role wouldn't be that awful or far fetched. It's ludicrous and really stupid to dismiss it purely because it's an action film. Matlin looks good, too, because here's a deaf woman winning an Oscar which shows a lot of women and even men that they can overcome their disability and maybe even win an Oscar some day. It's a nice sentiment and both have their pros for winning. I prefer Weaver because I like the character overall but Matlin is good and a deserving winner, too. Tough choice. I choose Weaver because I like the precedent it sets for the Academy and maybe we see more roles like this if she wins. Matlin gets kudos but I'm not sad if she isn't a winner. A very interesting year for Best Actress!
Oscar Winner: Marlee Matlin - Children of a Lesser God
My Winner: Sigourney Weaver - Aliens
Marlee Matlin
Kathleen Turner
Jane Fonda
Sissy Spacek
1986 Best Actress
Marlee Matlin - Children of a Lesser God
Obviously the first thing you have to consider about this performance and win is the deafness factor. There's a lot of Oscar trivia attached to this one win and nomination. Matlin is the youngest winner ever at 21. She won an Oscar in her film debut, which is super rare. She is the only deaf actress to win an acting award. This was the first major film that even starred a deaf actor in a leading role since 1926. Lots of interesting notes, for sure. But was this a case of the Academy rewarding her more for her condition instead of her actual performance? That was the one thing I really wanted to find out about for this year. I really liked Matlin's turn in The West Wing and knew she was a good actress from that show. I will say that the deafness factor helps her out in the performance because since it is a non-speaking role, she has to emote and convey a whole lot just from looks and body language. When we first meet her, she's kind of like this wild woman, very angry and brooding. I was worried that this would be a very broad performance and prone to big acting but eventually Matlin settles into the character as we learn more about her. She's angry, yes, but we understand where that anger comes from as she doesn't want to be made to speak because she wants others to learn to sign. She's also headstrong and stubborn which Matlin shows us to great effect. The film and story rushes into the relationship with her and Hurt, which is my one big gripe about the film. It doesn't get the chance to develop totally naturally and the story seems impatient with this part. But the chemistry between Hurt and Matlin is palpable and when you learn they were an item for a couple years after, it makes complete sense. And really the film hinges on believing them as a couple, so credit to Matlin for helping in that. I also think that the film changes Matlin from the bullish, tough girl in the beginning to a more accepting and open girl at the end a little too easily and quickly. These are things I think the film does wrong as maybe it needed a bit more development of the characters for me to really believe Matlin had changed from being so stubborn but Matlin does all she can with the material. The performance is good, no doubt, though I'm not sure I consider this a slam dunk in maybe some other years. It shows from time to time that this is her first film role and she's a little rough around the edges at points. But overall, this is a very good performance from Matlin and I was glad to see the nomination and win wasn't just about her being deaf. I'll have to see all the other performances to make sure she really should have been the winner.
Jane Fonda - The Morning After
Is it weird that I kinda really like this film on a purely 80s aesthetic and because it kinda sums up 80s films to me? Yeah, it's not that great of a film but it's entertaining on a basic level. Jane Fonda has big hair. Jeff Bridges is a hunky guy who helps her out. It's a thriller about Fonda waking up after a night of drinking with a dead guy in her bed. Then she has to figure out if she did it or if she's in danger....cue chintzy 80s thriller music! One of the things that impresses me the most about the film is that Fonda takes the time to super clean the apartment where she woke up and even cleans all the fingerprints she might have left behind. I like that a lot because it's attention to detail. Also, Fonda reminds me a whole lot of Jessica Lange and yes, I know they are different actresses and Fonda is her own woman but I think it's the aesthetic of the blonde hair, sunglasses, and the hair wrap. Just an observation. I also really like Fonda in Grace and Frankie on Netflix, she and Lily Tomlin are great together. I know this is me making a lot of non-sequitur type statements but this is an 80s thriller performance - you know what you're getting from it from the start. Fonda does elevate the material and performance by virtue of her being Jane Fonda and doing a little more than say a Michelle Pfeiffer might. Well, actually, Sidney Lumet (ya know, the guy who directed 12 Angry Men for his first film) kinda directs it as a throwback at times, especially with the music. The thriller part is also that Fonda isn't a crazy white bitch, but a woman being chased and pursued by nefarious peoples, the other side of the thriller coin. Fonda plays a pretty decent drunk, too, in everything I've seen her in so far, especially here where it matters to the story. It's nothing amazing and is pure 80s so if you enjoy those types of films, you'll enjoy this. But certainly not Fonda's best nominated work.
Sissy Spacek - Crimes of the Heart
Normally I try to make these reviews a bit longer than the Supporting ones because they are bigger performances. Not sure I'll have a whole hell of a lot to say for Spacek here. Spacek plays a woman who has shot her husband, so her other two sisters come home to deal with the crisis. It's one of those southern woman family films that throws a lot of well known actresses together and everyone loves seeing them all interact, which is totally the appeal here. It's Spacek and Jessica Lange and Dianne Keaton all having fun together, crying, laughing, getting emotional - the usual stuff. Spacek plays the younger sister, who as mentioned above, has shot her husband and is out of jail. She also was sleeping with a 15 year old black kid (why that gets completely glossed over, I don't know) which precipitated the shooting. It's scandalous but the film doesn't really care about that. It's more concerned about the family dynamics and the interactions between all the Oscar winning sisters than anything else. Spacek is a little bit crazy and plays it up for effect, though she doesn't go overboard. It teeters between comedy and the melodramatic so at least she keeps a handle on the character. It's regular Southern Gothic eccentric behavior. Spacek is good and her performance is somewhat fun, if not very bizarre in that she shoots her husband and bangs a 15 year old boy and no one seems to really care. She won a Golden Globe for this performance but I don't know what sets it apart exactly. Why her over Keaton or Lange? I think because she gets to play crazy and that's more interesting than Lange's ingenue or Keaton's mousy introvert. While it is kinda fun, it's not something that really grabs me and we've seen better versions of the crazy Southern woman before.
Kathleen Turner - Peggy Sue Got Married
This is a really fun and sweet film at it's heart. It also has a bunch of famous people at the very beginning of their careers. It features a fantastic Nic Cage doing a ridiculous voice in the 1960 scenes that just fits Cage's style perfectly. It also has Jim Carrey doing his thing, a young Joan Allen and Helen Hunt and is directed by Francis Ford Coppola (his daughter is just as bad here as she was in The Godfather Part III). Turner does a great job playing a woman in 1985 whose life is crumbling and headed for a mid life crisis. She's getting divorced from Cage who is a local big shot and goes to her high school reunion and faints. She wakes up back in 1960 knowing everything as if she were still in 1985 so that she can not make the same mistakes again. Of course the film is about whether or not she wants to make those same mistakes again or try and start a new life. Turner puts in work here and does a great job essentially carrying the film. I do feel she has it easy because the story makes her an adult in a teen's body/mind so those scenes are ones where she is super confident and not worried with life and very strong for a young girl back in that time. So while I do think Turner is pretty good, the story and script do a lot of work for her. But she brings a youthfulness to the 1960 scenes which makes the performance feel like not just a grown woman trying to do kid things, but instead a grown woman letting her old self take over. So I think that's what I like the most about the performance, is that she can make it seem like she's the grown up at times and make it look like she is the young woman at other times. This feels more like a nod to sentimentalism and the way things were than anything else. Turner won't blow you away but she is really effective in her role and very entertaining. I'm glad that the Academy nominated her so I could watch the film because it's this little small gem that is hidden in plain sight with all who are involved in it. Never going to win, but a decent Oscar watch.
Sigourney Weaver - Aliens
Yes, I did in fact watch Alien before watching this film. I had never actually watched Alien all the way through. I'd bet that I've seen that film a few times in various clips and knew exactly what happened in it. So it was nice to watch it start to finish finally. In that film, Weaver starts out as part of an ensemble cast and isn't really focused on until more towards the end when she's one of the last crew members alive. Before that she isn't anything amazing. By the end, she is showing off her leading lady potential and is able to carry the film easily and be a bad ass in the process. Aliens continues her story after being in hypersleep at the end of the first film and waking up way later than expected in this film. Now she is told that the planet they investigated in the first film is being terraformed by a colony and they have had issues contacting them and to go explore it looking for the xenomorph. Whereas the first film was a very intimate, contained horror film, this film is pure action film all the way. Sure, you can say it's got horror elements because of the xenomorphs but nah, it's an action film. But! That means this is the first female fronted action film to score a Best Actress nomination which is pretty cool. Weaver is great in this, honestly. I was a bit concerned that she would turn into the ultimate bad ass and just be a super heroine but she maintains a lot of her original characterization. She is concerned about those still on the planet and then worried about her own crew members when actually there. She's smart enough to deduce a lot of things going on like Burke the company man (Paul Reiser!) trying to get her impregnated by the alien to take home and sell. She's a very smart woman and she is very wary of everything going on and very much a bad ass when necessary. It's the ultimate female role, really, and Weaver does it a great service. She's really great in the film, that's really all you can say. I think it's interesting that you can compare this film to Avatar and find a ton of similarities, not the least of which is Weaver being involved. I was worried because at the beginning it follows that film's broad action adventure style before finally becoming more closed off when the gang goes to the planet and gets sealed in. The end is where Weaver truly shines because she does go all beast mode and it's not a schlocky mess, well not entirely. Weaver is pretty great and her only competition is Marlee Matlin so I'll have a big decision on who to vote for.
This is a tough one! I'll start at the bottom where Spacek is clearly the weakest of all of them here. I'm left wondering why her for that role. It's a weird one, for sure. Fonda is crazy in a purely distilled 80s film and I love it, even if it's a weak Fonda performance overall. She's fun but would this ever win? Of course not. Turner is fun also and does well with her almost dual role. The film itself kinda bumps up her performance to third. Kind of interchangeable with Fonda, really. The real battle is between Matlin, who is your typical kinda Oscar role and a decent winner, going against Weaver who would make for an awesome win. And don't let anyone tell you oh, it's just an action role so she would never win and shouldn't win because Oscar doesn't go for that. Well, Oscar could have chosen her easily here because she is very good in the role and is a very strong female performance. Ripley is an iconic character and having Weaver win an Oscar for that role wouldn't be that awful or far fetched. It's ludicrous and really stupid to dismiss it purely because it's an action film. Matlin looks good, too, because here's a deaf woman winning an Oscar which shows a lot of women and even men that they can overcome their disability and maybe even win an Oscar some day. It's a nice sentiment and both have their pros for winning. I prefer Weaver because I like the character overall but Matlin is good and a deserving winner, too. Tough choice. I choose Weaver because I like the precedent it sets for the Academy and maybe we see more roles like this if she wins. Matlin gets kudos but I'm not sad if she isn't a winner. A very interesting year for Best Actress!
Oscar Winner: Marlee Matlin - Children of a Lesser God
My Winner: Sigourney Weaver - Aliens
Marlee Matlin
Kathleen Turner
Jane Fonda
Sissy Spacek
Supporting Actor 1986
Two nominees from one of my favorite films of all time and then three others I've never seen (yeah never saw Hoosiers, not really a basketball guy). Let's see if any of those three can even come close and if Caine is deserving or not.
1986 Best Supporting Actor
Michael Caine - Hannah and Her Sisters
Alright, so I've had beef with this performance before I ever saw it because it beat out the two guys from my favorite film for a long time. So I've irrationally hated this performance without ever seeing it, so I was pretty eager to finally watch it and see why the fuck it won. Well, I'm still waiting after finally seeing it. What exactly made this a winner? I can't for the life of me figure out why it won other than Berenger and Dafoe split the vote and a bunch of other dopes were duped into voting for this. I hate Michael Caine's other win for The Cider House Rules because it was a bullshit win, but this was an even more egregious win. Caine does nothing... nothing! to stand out. He is a poor surrogate for Woody Allen and portrays a man in love with his wife's sister. He's supposed to be this bumbling, charming guy but we are never given a reason to like him. I certainly didn't find him very interesting when his whole time is spent pathetically pining over Barbara Hershey, forcing her to like him, and then trying to amend things once he finally banged her. I just don't see what was worth a vote at all. I don't buy the charm, the bumbling persona. I really did think it was the worst part of the film, even worse than Woody Allen himself. I wanted to like it. I like Caine in almost all his other endeavors but his two Oscar wins are just brutal for me. I think they are wholly undeserved and I wish I could rectify them now. Mainly because I don't think Caine is very memorable in this film. Watch this film and tell me what you think stands out because I don't think it will be Caine. Maybe this was a make-up win from his previous nominations or because of the split, I don't know. I just know I didn't think Caine was anything special, yet he won. That's going to bug me forever. It's Caine playing Caine with a slight Woody Allen twist. If he doesn't win, I say it's a decent enough minor Caine nomination but he won. I will never let this go and will say this is the worst win in this category that I've encountered so far...and this is my favorite category!
Tom Berenger/Willem Dafoe - Platoon
These two are really that inseparable that I decided to combine their reviews in an Oscar Ballyhoo first. I wish I could give these guys both the win and I probably will in all honesty. They are the driving force of the film. You've got Good (Dafoe) and Evil (Berenger) battling it out in Vietnam for Charlie Sheen's soul. They are both really, really fucking good. I fell in love with this film at a young age and really enjoyed how Dafoe and Berenger were so different, yet so alike in many ways. I always slightly preferred Berenger simply because his role was the more complex of the two. Dafoe was more of the good version of a soldier and his part of the platoon liked to chill out and smoke dope and have a good time, waiting out their time before they could go home. Dafoe's SGT Elias is a guy who takes on one of the two different leadership styles. His is a more friendly, kinder, gentler role within the platoon, helping to guide the men without yelling and getting angry. He's kind and likeable and very sharp about the war and staying alive. Dafoe makes this realization that he's the good presence seem more subtle than it could have been. Berenger is obviously the evil/bad version of the soldier in Vietnam. SSG Barnes' leadership style is the tough love variety. At first he's the grizzled, scarred vet who has been there before and has seen a lot of shit and a lot of young privates come and go but then he devolves into a more personal hatred of Elias and the way everything is going. Barnes is the one who kills innocent civilians and clashes with Elias about this. Elias was obviously once very idealistic and hopeful about the war but we see that this idealism is growing weary and tired as he doesn't believe in what they are doing as much anymore but he still wants to protect his men and do the right thing on the battlefield - like not kill civilians. Berenger's performance shows what happens when the war and bureaucratic bullshit and multiple deployments and suicidal missions gets to a man. It becomes about his power over the war and the other men that really guides him at the end. He loses it in an almost Heart of Darkness type of way and becomes the villain even over the Vietcong. Meanwhile, Dafoe keeps his humanistic quality about him and even after he is killed goes out in a Christ-like fashion (he was phenomenal in The Last Temptation of Christ, by the way). That's where the slight edge goes to Berenger because he has to portray so many more emotions and that keep him as a human being but also as a murderous villain. Both of these actors' roles are complex and the film really is elevated because of their performances. Without these two guys, the film would suffer terribly. They are the film completely. There is just so much going on in both of their performances that I have no idea how a shitty Michael Caine performance could win besides vote splitting. I could watch both of these guys over and over in the film without ever getting tired and still find some new little nuance about their character that I hadn't seen before. They are both tremendous and deserved the Oscar.
Denholm Elliot - A Room with a View
Here's an interesting tidbit: Daniel Day-Lewis wasn't interested in campaigning for an Oscar nomination for this film and nixed ads being placed on his behalf. Elliot was more than willing to play the game and campaign and have ads for him. Sometimes it's that easy to figure out why someone was nominated. I'd honestly rather see DDL nominated because he's very good at the pretentious, stuffy upperclass guy he portrays. Elliot plays a middle to lower class older guy who doesn't exactly adhere to the common standards of the time. He is simply not the typical proper British person you'd expect in this story and era. He says what he wants and is more of a free spirited individual so he sticks out in the story for that. Elliot isn't really in the film all that much. We are introduced to him in the beginning when he speaks over a tour guide at an Italian vacation spot and just has a personality of someone that kinda does what he wants regardless of what society thinks. He is the father of the boy that Helena Bonham Carter falls in love with and is a supportive father and yeah, that's about all you can say. There is one scene towards the end of the film where he confronts Carter about denying her feelings for his son and trying to run from those feelings which clicks something inside her to make her realize her true feelings. Decent stuff, but minor stuff indeed. He just isn't given a whole lot to do within the story and that's why DDL would have been a much better nominee from the film. Now, Elliot was coming off three straight BAFTA wins and finally broke through with an Oscar nom, so this could be seen as a nod to his career at the moment and the work he had been doing recently. This isn't really any more than 4th or 5th for the category.
Dennis Hopper - Hoosiers
The first thing you have to talk about with this performance is that Hopper isn't really nominated for Hoosiers, no. He is nominated for Blue Velvet yet the Academy went with the more palatable film instead of the better performance. It's legit the only reason Hopper is nominated here. Hoosiers is a great sports film, probably the best basketball film I've ever seen and filmed by the guy who directed Rudy. Hopper is fine in this performance, though. He plays the town drunk who has an encyclopedic knowledge of basketball and it's history and catches the eye of Gene Hackman. He asks him to be an assistant coach and to help scout the other teams. There is friction because Hopper is an alcoholic and Hackman wants him to be sober around the team and Hopper has a hard time quitting. It's decent stuff. It's very sports movie trope stuff, absolutely. It's just made better by it being Hackman and Hopper. Once Hopper coaches, he doesn't do much else. He goes and gets drunk then bursts into a game and starts slurring and berating a ref and then goes to a recovery place. That's about it which is why you factor in the Blue Velvet aspect also. That performance is so memorable and messed up that you really get a sense of Hopper's range going from that to playing a drunk assistant coach in the beloved Hoosiers. It's crazy to think it is the same actor. You can't really vote for this because it's the wrong film but I'm fine with Hopper being nominated since it's his only acting nomination (he was nominated for Screenplay for Easy Rider).
Two of my favorite supporting actor nominees in one of my favorite films, it's a no-brainer who I want to win this year. I'd give a slight edge to Berenger if forced to pick a winner but I'd love for both of these guys to tie for the win. Caine is such a bad winner. Both of his wins are really bad wins. It makes me hate Caine even though he's a great actor. These wins are just really undeserved and it makes me angry. He basically is his usual self with a Woody Allen bent to it and it's nothing special. I'd rather take Hopper over Caine, even if he's nominated for the wrong film. He's good in Hoosiers but memorable and crazy in Blue Velvet. Elliot is an afterthought. The correct choice even if he didn't want to campaign is Daniel Day-Lewis. He leaves an impression unlike Elliot. Really wish this category turned out differently. Could have been one of the best winners, but instead we get Caine.
Oscar Winner: Michael Caine - Hannah and Her Sisters
My Winner: Tom Berenger/Willem Dafoe - Platoon
Dennis Hopper
Michael Caine
Denholm Elliot
1986 Best Supporting Actor
Michael Caine - Hannah and Her Sisters
Alright, so I've had beef with this performance before I ever saw it because it beat out the two guys from my favorite film for a long time. So I've irrationally hated this performance without ever seeing it, so I was pretty eager to finally watch it and see why the fuck it won. Well, I'm still waiting after finally seeing it. What exactly made this a winner? I can't for the life of me figure out why it won other than Berenger and Dafoe split the vote and a bunch of other dopes were duped into voting for this. I hate Michael Caine's other win for The Cider House Rules because it was a bullshit win, but this was an even more egregious win. Caine does nothing... nothing! to stand out. He is a poor surrogate for Woody Allen and portrays a man in love with his wife's sister. He's supposed to be this bumbling, charming guy but we are never given a reason to like him. I certainly didn't find him very interesting when his whole time is spent pathetically pining over Barbara Hershey, forcing her to like him, and then trying to amend things once he finally banged her. I just don't see what was worth a vote at all. I don't buy the charm, the bumbling persona. I really did think it was the worst part of the film, even worse than Woody Allen himself. I wanted to like it. I like Caine in almost all his other endeavors but his two Oscar wins are just brutal for me. I think they are wholly undeserved and I wish I could rectify them now. Mainly because I don't think Caine is very memorable in this film. Watch this film and tell me what you think stands out because I don't think it will be Caine. Maybe this was a make-up win from his previous nominations or because of the split, I don't know. I just know I didn't think Caine was anything special, yet he won. That's going to bug me forever. It's Caine playing Caine with a slight Woody Allen twist. If he doesn't win, I say it's a decent enough minor Caine nomination but he won. I will never let this go and will say this is the worst win in this category that I've encountered so far...and this is my favorite category!
Tom Berenger/Willem Dafoe - Platoon
These two are really that inseparable that I decided to combine their reviews in an Oscar Ballyhoo first. I wish I could give these guys both the win and I probably will in all honesty. They are the driving force of the film. You've got Good (Dafoe) and Evil (Berenger) battling it out in Vietnam for Charlie Sheen's soul. They are both really, really fucking good. I fell in love with this film at a young age and really enjoyed how Dafoe and Berenger were so different, yet so alike in many ways. I always slightly preferred Berenger simply because his role was the more complex of the two. Dafoe was more of the good version of a soldier and his part of the platoon liked to chill out and smoke dope and have a good time, waiting out their time before they could go home. Dafoe's SGT Elias is a guy who takes on one of the two different leadership styles. His is a more friendly, kinder, gentler role within the platoon, helping to guide the men without yelling and getting angry. He's kind and likeable and very sharp about the war and staying alive. Dafoe makes this realization that he's the good presence seem more subtle than it could have been. Berenger is obviously the evil/bad version of the soldier in Vietnam. SSG Barnes' leadership style is the tough love variety. At first he's the grizzled, scarred vet who has been there before and has seen a lot of shit and a lot of young privates come and go but then he devolves into a more personal hatred of Elias and the way everything is going. Barnes is the one who kills innocent civilians and clashes with Elias about this. Elias was obviously once very idealistic and hopeful about the war but we see that this idealism is growing weary and tired as he doesn't believe in what they are doing as much anymore but he still wants to protect his men and do the right thing on the battlefield - like not kill civilians. Berenger's performance shows what happens when the war and bureaucratic bullshit and multiple deployments and suicidal missions gets to a man. It becomes about his power over the war and the other men that really guides him at the end. He loses it in an almost Heart of Darkness type of way and becomes the villain even over the Vietcong. Meanwhile, Dafoe keeps his humanistic quality about him and even after he is killed goes out in a Christ-like fashion (he was phenomenal in The Last Temptation of Christ, by the way). That's where the slight edge goes to Berenger because he has to portray so many more emotions and that keep him as a human being but also as a murderous villain. Both of these actors' roles are complex and the film really is elevated because of their performances. Without these two guys, the film would suffer terribly. They are the film completely. There is just so much going on in both of their performances that I have no idea how a shitty Michael Caine performance could win besides vote splitting. I could watch both of these guys over and over in the film without ever getting tired and still find some new little nuance about their character that I hadn't seen before. They are both tremendous and deserved the Oscar.
Denholm Elliot - A Room with a View
Here's an interesting tidbit: Daniel Day-Lewis wasn't interested in campaigning for an Oscar nomination for this film and nixed ads being placed on his behalf. Elliot was more than willing to play the game and campaign and have ads for him. Sometimes it's that easy to figure out why someone was nominated. I'd honestly rather see DDL nominated because he's very good at the pretentious, stuffy upperclass guy he portrays. Elliot plays a middle to lower class older guy who doesn't exactly adhere to the common standards of the time. He is simply not the typical proper British person you'd expect in this story and era. He says what he wants and is more of a free spirited individual so he sticks out in the story for that. Elliot isn't really in the film all that much. We are introduced to him in the beginning when he speaks over a tour guide at an Italian vacation spot and just has a personality of someone that kinda does what he wants regardless of what society thinks. He is the father of the boy that Helena Bonham Carter falls in love with and is a supportive father and yeah, that's about all you can say. There is one scene towards the end of the film where he confronts Carter about denying her feelings for his son and trying to run from those feelings which clicks something inside her to make her realize her true feelings. Decent stuff, but minor stuff indeed. He just isn't given a whole lot to do within the story and that's why DDL would have been a much better nominee from the film. Now, Elliot was coming off three straight BAFTA wins and finally broke through with an Oscar nom, so this could be seen as a nod to his career at the moment and the work he had been doing recently. This isn't really any more than 4th or 5th for the category.
Dennis Hopper - Hoosiers
The first thing you have to talk about with this performance is that Hopper isn't really nominated for Hoosiers, no. He is nominated for Blue Velvet yet the Academy went with the more palatable film instead of the better performance. It's legit the only reason Hopper is nominated here. Hoosiers is a great sports film, probably the best basketball film I've ever seen and filmed by the guy who directed Rudy. Hopper is fine in this performance, though. He plays the town drunk who has an encyclopedic knowledge of basketball and it's history and catches the eye of Gene Hackman. He asks him to be an assistant coach and to help scout the other teams. There is friction because Hopper is an alcoholic and Hackman wants him to be sober around the team and Hopper has a hard time quitting. It's decent stuff. It's very sports movie trope stuff, absolutely. It's just made better by it being Hackman and Hopper. Once Hopper coaches, he doesn't do much else. He goes and gets drunk then bursts into a game and starts slurring and berating a ref and then goes to a recovery place. That's about it which is why you factor in the Blue Velvet aspect also. That performance is so memorable and messed up that you really get a sense of Hopper's range going from that to playing a drunk assistant coach in the beloved Hoosiers. It's crazy to think it is the same actor. You can't really vote for this because it's the wrong film but I'm fine with Hopper being nominated since it's his only acting nomination (he was nominated for Screenplay for Easy Rider).
Two of my favorite supporting actor nominees in one of my favorite films, it's a no-brainer who I want to win this year. I'd give a slight edge to Berenger if forced to pick a winner but I'd love for both of these guys to tie for the win. Caine is such a bad winner. Both of his wins are really bad wins. It makes me hate Caine even though he's a great actor. These wins are just really undeserved and it makes me angry. He basically is his usual self with a Woody Allen bent to it and it's nothing special. I'd rather take Hopper over Caine, even if he's nominated for the wrong film. He's good in Hoosiers but memorable and crazy in Blue Velvet. Elliot is an afterthought. The correct choice even if he didn't want to campaign is Daniel Day-Lewis. He leaves an impression unlike Elliot. Really wish this category turned out differently. Could have been one of the best winners, but instead we get Caine.
Oscar Winner: Michael Caine - Hannah and Her Sisters
My Winner: Tom Berenger/Willem Dafoe - Platoon
Dennis Hopper
Michael Caine
Denholm Elliot
Supporting Actress 1986
One of the things I like about going back and seeing these older movies is that you get to see the old movie studio intros. Tri-Star, Orion, old Fox and Warner Bros and it's very nostalgic. I like it. I've seen none of these but am very hopeful for a good birth year retrospective.
1986 Best Supporting Actress
Dianne Wiest - Hannah and Her Sisters
Here we are again with Wiest winning for a role in a Woody Allen film. And what is kind of synergistic is that she is an actress in this one as well. Though this time she plays a sister of Hannah and is an aspiring actress working with Carrie Fisher (talk about synergy, RIP) at a catering company. She is feisty and she is the oddball of the three sisters. And I can't understand why she won unless the rest of this category is just god awful. She doesn't get all that much to do, really. She is the third sister of the three, meaning she is the least paid attention to by the overall story. She does her struggling artist thing and we see her working hard at the catering thing once and going to a couple auditions but it's never anything amazing to make you really stand up and go wow. It's also very Allen-esque for the female roles. You've seen this a million times in his films because she's similar to a lot of the parts he's written for women and going backwards, this doesn't feel new, it just feels used and outdated. But if I put myself in 1986, I can maybe see the Academy identifying with the struggling artist aspect. The ending with her character is pretty hokey to say the least. It's done because the studio wanted a happier ending so we get her telling Allen she's pregnant. I don't get why they reconnect after a failed date years and years ago but it is forced by the script. I'm trying to rack my brain as to what else Wiest did to possibly deserve the win and I can't come up with anything. That sounds harsh but I'd rather my winners stand out and not just be popular or whatever is left standing. She is fast talking and slick but I struggle to see what singles her out from say Barbara Hershey, the second sister. I like this better than her second win, I think, but did she even deserve this one? 2017 ain't starting off strong!
Tess Harper - Crimes of the Heart
Here is another one where I'm racking my brain to figure out why exactly she was nominated. Harper plays a nosey neighbor who is kind of annoying and just a busy body really but that's the extent of the performance. She has a couple brief scenes in the beginning where she is all up in the business of the main characters, kind of being a pain and is shooed away. She pops up briefly a couple times at the end and does the same thing, annoys the sisters and gets chased away once and brushed aside once. It's not memorable in any way. The film is about three sisters (Diane Keaton, Jessica Lange) coming back home because one (Sissy Spacek) shot her husband. It's one of those southern fried family sort of comedy/drama type films where the draw is seeing those three sisters all act together. That's what you remember about the film is three previous Oscar winning women all having fun together. You don't really pay attention or remember Harper. The only things I can think of as to why she was nominated is that voters remembered this film and wanted to nominate someone for supporting but the sisters are all co-leads so Tess Harper benefited. And the other that I read about was that a lot of people felt she was snubbed for her role in Tender Mercies a couple years prior and that this was a make up/apology nomination as a result. That all makes sense to me because you can't really point to anything about the performance that should be nominated. Not much else to say. This year is off to a poor start so far.
Piper Laurie - Children of a Lesser God
There have been many times when I've railed against nominated performances that are short or aren't really much of a factor in their small amount of screen time. A lot of times it's because of who the actor is or even the film they are attached to. Laurie isn't in this film much. In fact she's only in two scenes essentially, both at the very end of the film. Maybe the placement of where the scenes are has an impact on them getting nominated and the film itself, probably. But small scene performances like these need to be effective and need to be good for me to be okay with them included in a category. Laurie is good and I feel her performance is effective for what it is. It's certainly not Viola Davis in Doubt good, but she conveys a lot in her short time that is needed to understand Marlee Matlin's character a lot more. Laurie plays Matlin's mother who takes her in when her relationship with William Hurt sours and she needs a place to escape to. You can kinda see why Matlin is so bitter and angry about life in her return to mama. I don't want to pretend that Laurie eschews convention and stands above the rest of the cast and delivers some towering performance. She has two scenes that she does a fine job with and helps us to understand Matlin more in the process. She's not a good signer which might not be on purpose but I took it as Laurie was reluctant to learn it for her daughter and then never got the chance to really practice it. The two scenes are her taking in her daughter and then telling her that Hurt came by and to say hey, he does love you. I am fine with the nomination because Laurie manages to do a lot in those two extended scenes without actually doing a lot. It's in the fiber of the performance (pretentious alert) that we see and experience things with the character that aren't plainly spoken or seen. Laurie conveys a lot more than just being the caring mom. I dunno, I like the small performance and feel this is a decent inclusion.
Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio - The Color of Money
You know, a lot of what I read about this nomination was people dismissing it as another typically weak Scorsese female character. When I first watched this years ago, Mastrantonio was one of the things that really stood out to me in the film. Watching it again only confirmed that same sentiment to me. She is really strong in the role and even if she is a marginalized character without much help from the script or Scorsese, she makes her character stand out and works it. She plays Tom Cruise's older girlfriend who has latched onto him because she sees that he is a brilliant pool player and she can make some money from him. She's not totally a sycophant but actual makes their relationship seem natural and normal enough that you don't question her intentions. You don't feel as if she would leave him over some little issue but that she is helping to mold him and loves him at the same time. She is basically his manager and when we first meet her is when Paul Newman realizes she is the key to getting to Cruise and we see exactly how influential she is in all of this. Mastrantonio also is so natural in the character. She doesn't look like obvious acting and really is the yin to Cruise's yang, they compliment each other well. That's why I think she is so strong in the film because she tempers Cruise and forges her own way without being the stereotypical girlfriend. I wanted to see more of her. I wanted to know more about her past and how she came to be so strong and independent and in charge of Cruise. I wanted to see where she went from there after they both played Newman at the end. She is the only one in this category that made me pay attention and for that she is my clear cut winner and way more deserving than Wiest.
Maggie Smith - A Room with a View
I have been struggling to start writing this review for a little bit. Not because Maggie is bad or because I'm blase about her performance, just that she's pretty good in the role and there's not much to really get dramatic about. She plays Helena Bonham Carter's cousin and chaperone on a trip to Italy where Carter meets a boy and Smith goes into over protection mode and tries to steer her away from him. The film has to do with Edwardian England and it's oppressive, restrictive morals in society so Smith doesn't want Carter to fall for the carefree, free spirited boy. It also speaks to her past where she made mistakes, I guess, and doesn't want Carter to do the same thing. Smith is very good at playing the protective worrywart and she is a quintessential British actress so she can pull off that proper manor and it works perfectly. And that's what she brings to this role - a workman-like quality without any big, grand displays. It's solid acting and her getting a nomination for it is more than okay. She already has two Oscar wins under her belt and this didn't blow me away, so it's hard to champion this as a winner when I liked Mastrantonio more. But Smith is an easy second place in the category. A lot of people might actually put her first since she's really good at playing fretful, like when she and Judi Dench are walking a little alley and pass by some Italian guys and Smith makes these slight faces and kinda hop skips by them - it's good. These are the kinds of supporting performances I wish we saw more of in the category instead of like Tess Harper's.
Not the most amazing category I've watched but it's alright, I guess. I get tired of nominations like Harper because there is nothing to them. You can't tell me you watched that film and singled in on that performance. Not a fan of Wiest as a winner (for both of her wins, honestly) because I don't think she even really stands out among the other women in the film. Why not Barbara Hershey? Not a good winner. Piper Laurie has two extended scenes but I think she's effective in them. She's nothing more than a third for me. Smith is good and really could compete for a win. But I like Mastrantonio the most. Just a strong female role that I wanted to see more of in the film. Don't get why so many people dismissed it in reviews. Anyway, ho hum start to the year, so hopefully it gets better.
Oscar Winner: Dianne Wiest - Hannah and Her Sisters
My Winner: Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio - The Color of Money
Maggie Smith
Piper Laurie
Dianne Wiest
Tess Harper
1986 Best Supporting Actress
Dianne Wiest - Hannah and Her Sisters
Here we are again with Wiest winning for a role in a Woody Allen film. And what is kind of synergistic is that she is an actress in this one as well. Though this time she plays a sister of Hannah and is an aspiring actress working with Carrie Fisher (talk about synergy, RIP) at a catering company. She is feisty and she is the oddball of the three sisters. And I can't understand why she won unless the rest of this category is just god awful. She doesn't get all that much to do, really. She is the third sister of the three, meaning she is the least paid attention to by the overall story. She does her struggling artist thing and we see her working hard at the catering thing once and going to a couple auditions but it's never anything amazing to make you really stand up and go wow. It's also very Allen-esque for the female roles. You've seen this a million times in his films because she's similar to a lot of the parts he's written for women and going backwards, this doesn't feel new, it just feels used and outdated. But if I put myself in 1986, I can maybe see the Academy identifying with the struggling artist aspect. The ending with her character is pretty hokey to say the least. It's done because the studio wanted a happier ending so we get her telling Allen she's pregnant. I don't get why they reconnect after a failed date years and years ago but it is forced by the script. I'm trying to rack my brain as to what else Wiest did to possibly deserve the win and I can't come up with anything. That sounds harsh but I'd rather my winners stand out and not just be popular or whatever is left standing. She is fast talking and slick but I struggle to see what singles her out from say Barbara Hershey, the second sister. I like this better than her second win, I think, but did she even deserve this one? 2017 ain't starting off strong!
Tess Harper - Crimes of the Heart
Here is another one where I'm racking my brain to figure out why exactly she was nominated. Harper plays a nosey neighbor who is kind of annoying and just a busy body really but that's the extent of the performance. She has a couple brief scenes in the beginning where she is all up in the business of the main characters, kind of being a pain and is shooed away. She pops up briefly a couple times at the end and does the same thing, annoys the sisters and gets chased away once and brushed aside once. It's not memorable in any way. The film is about three sisters (Diane Keaton, Jessica Lange) coming back home because one (Sissy Spacek) shot her husband. It's one of those southern fried family sort of comedy/drama type films where the draw is seeing those three sisters all act together. That's what you remember about the film is three previous Oscar winning women all having fun together. You don't really pay attention or remember Harper. The only things I can think of as to why she was nominated is that voters remembered this film and wanted to nominate someone for supporting but the sisters are all co-leads so Tess Harper benefited. And the other that I read about was that a lot of people felt she was snubbed for her role in Tender Mercies a couple years prior and that this was a make up/apology nomination as a result. That all makes sense to me because you can't really point to anything about the performance that should be nominated. Not much else to say. This year is off to a poor start so far.
Piper Laurie - Children of a Lesser God
There have been many times when I've railed against nominated performances that are short or aren't really much of a factor in their small amount of screen time. A lot of times it's because of who the actor is or even the film they are attached to. Laurie isn't in this film much. In fact she's only in two scenes essentially, both at the very end of the film. Maybe the placement of where the scenes are has an impact on them getting nominated and the film itself, probably. But small scene performances like these need to be effective and need to be good for me to be okay with them included in a category. Laurie is good and I feel her performance is effective for what it is. It's certainly not Viola Davis in Doubt good, but she conveys a lot in her short time that is needed to understand Marlee Matlin's character a lot more. Laurie plays Matlin's mother who takes her in when her relationship with William Hurt sours and she needs a place to escape to. You can kinda see why Matlin is so bitter and angry about life in her return to mama. I don't want to pretend that Laurie eschews convention and stands above the rest of the cast and delivers some towering performance. She has two scenes that she does a fine job with and helps us to understand Matlin more in the process. She's not a good signer which might not be on purpose but I took it as Laurie was reluctant to learn it for her daughter and then never got the chance to really practice it. The two scenes are her taking in her daughter and then telling her that Hurt came by and to say hey, he does love you. I am fine with the nomination because Laurie manages to do a lot in those two extended scenes without actually doing a lot. It's in the fiber of the performance (pretentious alert) that we see and experience things with the character that aren't plainly spoken or seen. Laurie conveys a lot more than just being the caring mom. I dunno, I like the small performance and feel this is a decent inclusion.
Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio - The Color of Money
You know, a lot of what I read about this nomination was people dismissing it as another typically weak Scorsese female character. When I first watched this years ago, Mastrantonio was one of the things that really stood out to me in the film. Watching it again only confirmed that same sentiment to me. She is really strong in the role and even if she is a marginalized character without much help from the script or Scorsese, she makes her character stand out and works it. She plays Tom Cruise's older girlfriend who has latched onto him because she sees that he is a brilliant pool player and she can make some money from him. She's not totally a sycophant but actual makes their relationship seem natural and normal enough that you don't question her intentions. You don't feel as if she would leave him over some little issue but that she is helping to mold him and loves him at the same time. She is basically his manager and when we first meet her is when Paul Newman realizes she is the key to getting to Cruise and we see exactly how influential she is in all of this. Mastrantonio also is so natural in the character. She doesn't look like obvious acting and really is the yin to Cruise's yang, they compliment each other well. That's why I think she is so strong in the film because she tempers Cruise and forges her own way without being the stereotypical girlfriend. I wanted to see more of her. I wanted to know more about her past and how she came to be so strong and independent and in charge of Cruise. I wanted to see where she went from there after they both played Newman at the end. She is the only one in this category that made me pay attention and for that she is my clear cut winner and way more deserving than Wiest.
Maggie Smith - A Room with a View
I have been struggling to start writing this review for a little bit. Not because Maggie is bad or because I'm blase about her performance, just that she's pretty good in the role and there's not much to really get dramatic about. She plays Helena Bonham Carter's cousin and chaperone on a trip to Italy where Carter meets a boy and Smith goes into over protection mode and tries to steer her away from him. The film has to do with Edwardian England and it's oppressive, restrictive morals in society so Smith doesn't want Carter to fall for the carefree, free spirited boy. It also speaks to her past where she made mistakes, I guess, and doesn't want Carter to do the same thing. Smith is very good at playing the protective worrywart and she is a quintessential British actress so she can pull off that proper manor and it works perfectly. And that's what she brings to this role - a workman-like quality without any big, grand displays. It's solid acting and her getting a nomination for it is more than okay. She already has two Oscar wins under her belt and this didn't blow me away, so it's hard to champion this as a winner when I liked Mastrantonio more. But Smith is an easy second place in the category. A lot of people might actually put her first since she's really good at playing fretful, like when she and Judi Dench are walking a little alley and pass by some Italian guys and Smith makes these slight faces and kinda hop skips by them - it's good. These are the kinds of supporting performances I wish we saw more of in the category instead of like Tess Harper's.
Not the most amazing category I've watched but it's alright, I guess. I get tired of nominations like Harper because there is nothing to them. You can't tell me you watched that film and singled in on that performance. Not a fan of Wiest as a winner (for both of her wins, honestly) because I don't think she even really stands out among the other women in the film. Why not Barbara Hershey? Not a good winner. Piper Laurie has two extended scenes but I think she's effective in them. She's nothing more than a third for me. Smith is good and really could compete for a win. But I like Mastrantonio the most. Just a strong female role that I wanted to see more of in the film. Don't get why so many people dismissed it in reviews. Anyway, ho hum start to the year, so hopefully it gets better.
Oscar Winner: Dianne Wiest - Hannah and Her Sisters
My Winner: Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio - The Color of Money
Maggie Smith
Piper Laurie
Dianne Wiest
Tess Harper
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)