I just gotta say that the 31 Days of Oscar marathon that TCM does in February/March is my favorite time of the year. I can just put on the channel and relax even if I don't really pay attention to the films. Inevitably, I'll see films like A Guy Named Joe starring Spencer Tracy that I've never even heard of and I come to really enjoy. It's fun to find new films to love and this marathon lets me do just that. I have seen none of these performances so my hopes are high that it's a great year.
1984 Best Supporting Actress
Peggy Ashcroft - A Passage to India
I was somewhat worried about watching this nomination and it being a token nomination in a stuffy British period film featuring a veteran actress not doing much getting an Oscar win because she's old and well liked by the Academy. I feel that's natural to think given the history of Oscar but thankfully it's not the case here. The film is a throw back to David Lean's films of yesteryear, yes, but it's also very socially conscious and and not at all stuffy. Ashcroft fully deserved at least a nomination as she is an integral part of the film and story. I like that both she and her son's suitor (Judy Davis) are appalled at the treatment of the Indians upon their arrival in India by the English living there. She seems like a swell enough old lady, coming to visit her son and escort his possible future wife and her daughter-in-law. She loves her son, is very friendly with Davis, hates that those already there treat the natives like crap, and wants to experience the real India and not avoid the locals. She just seems like a really nice old lady that you'd like to get to know and hear her stories and learn from her. That's the vibe and performance she gives off. And once the incident happens in the caves, I like that she doesn't succumb to the witch hunt the other British folk do and stays true to her own belief that Dr. Aziz is innocent and a great man. Unfortunately, Ashcroft gets an ignominious end to her character that isn't very satisfying but I guess does make sense within the story. Would have preferred her being a thorn in the side of the racist British folk but that's not the story. Ashcroft is wonderful in the role and fits the character perfectly and I don't feel like this was a completely unearned or wasted win. I'll have to look at everyone else in this category but Ashcroft getting the win isn't all that upsetting after watching her performance. I was definitely pleasantly surprised I liked her and the film so much.
Glenn Close - The Natural
This was the third of three straight Best Supporting Actress nominations. That's impressive but when you watch the film, you see that it is also completely undeserved. I don't see any reason as to why Close was nominated for her performance in this film other than she was the hot ticket according to the Academy. Maybe they were trying to reward her with an Oscar? But then they also nominated Geraldine Page who was on her 7th nomination so that is very poor timing. The Natural is a cool film with some super cheesy parts and some moments you know because they are so iconic even if you haven't seen the film ever. Close plays a woman who grew up with Robert Redford and was a brief love interest in his youth before he went off to play baseball but was then shot and wounded. He starts playing ball as an old timer 16 years later and she eventually comes to a game of his after seeing him on a newsreel and they talk. Okay, that's the extent of her performance about an hour and a half into the film that's two hours and seventeen minutes. She then visits him at the end of the film when he's in the hospital and they talk and she goes to the pennant clinching game where he hits a bomb of a homerun. There's really not much else to her performance. She's a brief love interest and a link to Redford's past and that is it. Her only real big moment is when she stands up in the crowd at Wrigley and she's lit up from above and Redford hits a homer. This is the Academy going with what's familiar to them and nothing else. If you're going to nominate someone from the film, it would be Kim Basinger who has a way meatier role and actually does something with it. I don't understand this nomination at all.
Lindsay Crouse - Places in the Heart
This is an odd nomination. Crouse is part of a subplot of the film that seems entirely pointless and frivolous. While Sally Field is going through her story of making the farm work despite the numerous problems she faces, there is also the side story of Crouse who is only tangentially related to the main plot by being Field's sister. Crouse in the film is married to Ed Harris who is cheating on her with Amy Madigan's (his real life wife) character. Crouse finally figures out Harris is cheating on her and it leads to the only noteworthy scene she has in the film where she predictably slaps Harris and says she doesn't love him anymore. This entire subplot never feels like in belongs in this film and indeed drags the rest of the film down, too. So I don't really get what people saw in this to nominate it. Sure, she plays the wronged wife with a steadfast strength and maturity but it has no bearing on the rest of the film at all. It could have been about anything and it would still have the same effect on the audience. So I have to ask if just being a strong woman performance is enough to warrant her a nomination for this film? I don't think so since it has nothing to do with what else is going on in the film even if you take the small town life angle. That's why it feels like Crouse just came along for the ride and was never really going to contend for anything with this performance. It's a head scratcher that doesn't offer up anything all that interesting when her big scene is predictable and underplayed.
Christine Lahti - Swing Shift
After going through these last few Supporting Actress categories, I've come to expect these lesser known actresses (by me, anyway) to have brief, unmemorable performances that make me question why they were nominated to begin with. It's nice when that's not actually the case. Lahti is actually really good and an actually fully fleshed out character who has an arc and contributes to the story. The film is about Goldie Hawn whose husband goes off to war and she starts working at a factory and meets a very young Kurt Russell. They hit it off and drama ensues when the hubby comes back home and Lahti fools around with Russell, too. Lahti plays a neighbor that Ed Harris, the husband, seems to dislike because she's a singer at a club and dresses sexy (though not that much differently than Goldie, but whatever). Hawn isn't that friendly with her either until both are working at the factory where they become pals after a bit and then besties. I like the performance because it has it's own thing going on besides just being support for Goldie. She has a guy who owns the club and they are on and off again and she wants to sing more to make it a career. So while she is Goldie's friend, she also has her own life and a lot of Supporting nominees don't. They show up to be a foil or add comedy or something along those lines and don't do anything else for the story. The film is a bit melodramatic and a throwback to the WWII era of films but Lahti is the one character who seems the most real. She's a tough lady trying to make it in a time when women didn't have the best choices. She also seems more of a realist than the idealistic Goldie, maybe that makes her seem cynical or bitter (and she is) but I think she's got a better grasp on the world than anyone else. Lahti is good in the role because she never overplays her character and brings a realistic element to the melodrama. She also steals the film from Goldie, whose character is what you'd expect and not all that interesting because you can see the beats she's supposed to hit before they arrive. I'd rather the film focus on Lahti because of her performance and character being way more compelling than Goldie. Interesting performance from Lahti that could have been really great if the film was any better.
Geraldine Page - The Pope of Greenwich Village
Here we find Miss Page again gunning for that Oscar. Unlike for The Trip to Bountiful where the whole film was designed to get her that elusive Oscar, this is a small role that packs a punch but is still designed to get some Oscar love. So in two consecutive years you almost have the complete opposite of roles which to me highlights Page's acting ability. Her win was for a pleasant, quirky, lovable old lady who wanted to see her old home once again. Very sentimental stuff but still a decent performance from Page. Her role in this film is literally only two scenes. And she is nothing like her doddering old woman role in 1985. Page plays both scenes with the intensity and acting style turned up to eleven. The first scene she is talking with her cop son and it establishes Page as a rough, hardened lady who gives her son shit but in a motherly, tough love kind of way. I think some of the choices she makes for her character are great and add a lot of substance to the performance. When the son goes to kiss her goodbye, she gets close and then scoffs and pushes him away before grabbing him quickly and hugging and kissing him. In that brief moment, a lot is conveyed about Page's character and who she is as a mother and a person. There's a lot packed into just a couple minutes of screen time. The second scene of hers is when she is confronted by two corrupt cops who check in on her to try to hassle her to give them information on what her son was doing and what he knew (he's recently killed). And man, does Page bring the fury and the anger! She is righteous like she's straight out of a Tarantino film. She mourns her son but at the same time reveals how strong she is as a woman/mother/person and knocks the corrupt cops down a few pegs. It's amazing to watch and really great acting and I can see why the Academy wanted to try and reward her for this short role. But it feels like it belongs in a different film because Pope is a very different film than those scenes would suggest if you watch them in a vacuum. Mickey Rourke and Eric Roberts pal around and deliver some intense acting of their own but only more ridiculous and funny. Page's role is very baity and almost a cameo in the vein of Brando in A Dry White Season, yet better. It impacts the film and is memorable but just feels out of place and like a wasted effort for a weird buddy/crime type film. Didn't think I'd write so much about this performance but it's really interesting when compared to a lot of other things. Page is good but not sure where I'll put her overall.
I was kinda dreading that this would be another awful category all the way through but I am pleasantly surprised that's not the case. I totally get why Ashcroft won and I liked her performance because it actually added to the story. It's nice when the winners are actually good. She wouldn't be my winner, though, because I definitely liked Lahti a lot more. She stole the film from Goldie Hawn and I was more interested in her character overall. I wasn't expecting much more than a friend who stays in the background but Lahti was a big part of the story and I liked that. Page was great in her two scenes. It feels like she's acting in a different movie, yes, but she's tremendous. I knock her down because it feels so different from the film and so baity but you can't deny she has a strong presence that you want to watch more of. Close and Crouse are the lesser performances. Close doesn't have much to do and her nomination feels more like the Academy trying to make her a star with like her 3rd nomination in a row. Crouse is in a subplot of her film that is completely pointless and her little story is so generic and obvious that it's boring to me and Crouse does nothing to make it interesting. Not a bad year and the two not so good ones are at least in decent films. On we go!
Oscar Winner: Peggy Ashcroft - A Passage to India
My Winner: Christine Lahti - Swing Shift
Peggy Ashcroft
Geraldine Page
Glenn Close
Lindsay Crouse
No comments:
Post a Comment