Best Picture 1983

Hello friends, Oscar Ballyhooer here. I have nothing of importance to say other than thank you for reading my words. I hope that I have interested you in some of these films in some way and that you have decided to watch a film based on my critiques. Film is awesome and I'm glad that I share that love with you, internet stranger, because it can really brings us all together. I have looked forward to watching 4 of these 5 films for a long time and am excited to finally get to see them. I'm super hopeful for a great bunch.

1983 Best Picture

Terms of Endearment

This is a film that when it came to remembering Best Picture winning films, was one that I had a hard time recalling. I never really knew what it was about and no one really seemed to talk about it much when it came to the best Oscar winners. The 80s seems like the perfect decade for forgotten Best Picture winning films, or at least overlooked, which might be a better word. Having finally seen the film I can say that I really enjoyed it but can understand why it's not talked about very much. It's about a mother-daughter duo (Shirley MacLaine and Debra Winger, respectively) and their lives and relationships. It's definitely one of those adult 80s films that mixes the comedy with the emotional and dramatic moments. It's also surprising in how tame it can be with some jokes and moments but also surprising with how frank and dirty it is with some of the other jokes. It's an interesting mix. The film is all about the relationship between MacLaine and Winger who are both fantastic and then focuses on Winger's young family and its problems and MacLaine's love affair with Nicholson. It's a very funny film at times and the humor can be very dry and understated, which I like a lot. The acting is the main draw because everyone does a great job with their role and you become interested in every single character, whether you like them or not. There is a big turn towards the end of the film which isn't really a twist so much that it's an unexpected family dilemma. How everyone reacts to it is interesting to watch play out after becoming attached to these characters. It's a good film that has great acting and a compelling story. But I kinda feel like as the years have gone by, this type of film has been done better. So this film might not quite wow and amaze like some other Best Picture winners which leads to it not being mentioned much by Oscar lovers all that much. Also, after seeing it once, would I want to watch it again? I'm not sure other than to watch the performances. I'd rather watch Broadcast News again which is also by James L. Brooks, which I think explains my point. I still have to see if it will even be my winner for this year.

The Big Chill

Written and directed by the same guy who wrote Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark, so contemplate that for a bit. Lawrence Kasdan actually wrote a whole bunch of interesting films that you wouldn't think one man wrote, so that's a thing to look into. This film is really interesting. It's about a group of college friends who come together because one of their friends died and they all stay in the same house and issues and loves all pop back up. The group is pretty great and consists of Kevin Kline, Tom Berenger, Glenn Close, Jeff Goldblum, William Hurt, Meg Tilly, two women you have never heard of and wouldn't recognize, and Kevin Costner (who you never see but is the dead friend). They all have their issues from their time in college together. Each one has gone on to be successful as a doctor, actor, journalist, drug dealer, wife, etc. but all have unfinished issues with each other. Ebert called it a film that has no point but I think the point is just how old friends can get together and rekindle old flames or fix old problems. There's a lot of twists and turns to this film and that's part of the draw in seeing these people navigate the friendships and relationships. The acting is good and it's really fun seeing Hurt and Goldblum and Berenger and Kline all just shooting the shit. I get why this would never have won Best Picture because it's just too lazy and unmotivated. These people come together and hash out some old issues but we never really see much growth or any kind of larger picture from them so I see Ebert's point. There isn't much to it. We are like a voyeur watching them interact and then when it's over we don't feel anything. It's fun to watch them but that's about it. I've read some places that really advocated for this to be the winner but it would be so forgettable, I think. It's a good, enjoyable film but nowhere near being a Best Picture type film.

The Dresser

When you watch a lot of films like I do and follow the Oscar history and read all these Oscar books and whatnot, you develop a keen sense of what the Academy likes in their Best Picture nominees and acting nominees, too. The Dresser fits what they like almost to a flipping standard. It's a good film, first of all before anything else. But it's a film about a touring theater company in Britain during WWII and they put on Shakespeare plays and are helmed by a domineering older actor in Albert Finney. We see all the goings on behind the scenes, especially between Finney's dresser/aide/confidante in Tom Courtenay. That alone would get the film nominated because the Academy loves films and performances about acting and how challenging and destructive it can be to people. It's a self congratulatory thing almost but history shows they love the hell out of films dealing with acting and actors. They vote for what the know and what they can relate to, nothing wrong with that. It's about the effeminate Courtenay who attends to Finney and keeps the show from going under and keeps Finney from self destructing. The acting is top notch and the interplay and relationship of the tow leads are the main reason to even watch the film. It's all about them and they elevate the film into something more than just a normal take on the theater. It's almost melodramatic at times as Finney is this bombastic, overbearing presence and Courtenay is the saving grace of everything as he flits about worrying on how to keep Finney focused on actually making it to the stage to act. It is interesting to see how the behind the scenes action takes place which I think is probably especially so for those that have never been around it. The music at times really hooked me and made me feel as if things were more important, so the score was a plus. I think the subject alone is what draws in the Academy members but I feel it's a decent inclusion to Best Picture. I may not have voted for it in a field of 5 but it's here and I can appreciate it. It also fills out the required British film spot for the BP field which I am totally making up but you know is totally true especially when it comes to the 80s Oscars. This is a film that you'll enjoy if you watch it but I'm unsure of it's lasting appeal besides the performances. This seems more like a one and done watch and that's it.

The Right Stuff

Yeah, I was not expecting this film to be over three hours long, which is probably it's biggest flaw. Watching and learning about how the space program got started is immensely intriguing but this film could have been edited down by about 30 minutes or so and been a really tight, intense film. There are scenes that linger far too long like when Vice President Johnson gets increasingly upset that John Glenn's wife won't see him. The point could have been made more succinctly but it seemed like they were going for some levity and laughs but it just went on and on. There are a few other scenes where things just seem to go on far longer than they should. I think if you get those edits done, the end product would be a much stronger candidate for Best Picture winner. As it stands now, The Right Stuff is already a very strong possibility for my winner. I really enjoyed the film and the ensemble acting is pretty great overall. Lots of big, recognizable names/faces in the film who put in some great work. I enjoyed seeing the juxtaposition of the old school pilots versus the new astronauts and how they viewed each other. Both groups were tied together through Sam Shepard's Chuck Yeager, who was the best old school pilot who respected the new guys and what they were accomplishing and he still wanted to chase the demon to new heights like they were doing. Great acting, compelling story, good space race visuals - what more could you want? I did find myself wondering how much better the space scenes would look if it were anything like Gravity or something. It's early 80s graphics but it's done well and the use of practical effects is nice since it's becoming more rare these days. The Right Stuff is a great historical film and I think it depends on if you like epic, sweeping films or the smaller, adult dramas as to which you might lean for a winner. I'll have to think hard about it but this film would have made a great winner and stood up well to the test of time. It might be over three hours, but it is very easy to watch and get lost in.

Tender Mercies

I had been looking forward to watching this film for a long time because it was supposed to be very similar to Crazy Heart which won Jeff Bridges his Oscar. I liked that film and was eager to hear Robert Duvall sing some country songs. If you've seen that film, then yes, this one is almost the exact same plot. That's okay to me that it ripped this off because films do that all the time with long layoffs in between. I mean, Mel Brooks' To Be or Not to Be from this year (Best Supporting Actor nominee) is just a rehash of that film from 1940 whatever. There's tons of examples of this throughout the years and I'm cool with that. I wanted to see how the original held up against Jeff Bridges' version because I know Duvall is a great actor. And Duvall is terrific in this film. It's a lot more down to earth and low key than Bridges' version. It follows the same script (and look, I hate saying follows as if this isn't the original but going backwards in this project presents some quirks when writing) pretty much with washed up alcoholic country western singer ending up somewhere and meeting a nice woman and her son and then becoming involved with them. He is still writing songs and gives up the bottle and starts to get back into writing and singing and performing. The big difference here which I don't particularly like for this film is that it ends without much happening. Duvall learns his daughter was killed in a car accident and his song is being played on the radio and we don't see what happens after that. Does he make it big again? Does he stay a quiet family man in a podunk town running a motel/gas station with his wife and step-son? This film could have been 30 minutes longer and it is not often that I say I wish a film was longer. I wanted some type of closure and I wanted to know more about Duvall's future. The music is decent but sparing. I was actually very upset at the end when the credits start rolling and we get some weird flute music that doesn't fit the film at all. It should have ended with Duvall's song or something country. Seems like a no brainer that was overlooked. The film is a nice little look into a man's redemption but I wish it was longer so it could be perfect instead of unfinished.


Alright, not a bad group at all! I still don't really know how I'll shake this one out but I enjoyed all of the films to some degree. I'm writing this with a couple days separation from watching most of these films so they've had time to sink in. I say that because I do think it affects my overall rating of them. The Dresser would be last at the moment because it's decent but more performance driven than anything. Once you watch it, do you want to watch it again? I don't think I will. Then I've got Tender Mercies which is a great performance by Duvall and super interesting as the original comparison to Jeff Bridges' Crazy Heart but is a nice little film. Third would be Terms of Endearment which might actually comes as a surprise. I like it a lot and think the women give some really great performances but I'm not sure I'd want to revisit it all that much. I think it's a good enough winner but I am okay without it winning, too. The Big Chill I was kinda hard on when re-reading what I wrote but I want to make clear that I really like it. Would it be a good winner? Probably not but maybe it would! Not a whole lot happens except us intruding on these peoples' lives. That's why we watch and the acting is all great and feels like a very 80s type film and even like a potential winner. I'd be okay with it winning, for the record. My runaway winner is The Right Stuff. It feels like an Oscar winner. It holds up even 30 plus years later and is very good. I like this film a ton even at being 3 plus hours. If this won, no one would an eye and it might even be talked about more. With so much discussion about all of these, this year is pretty interesting all the way around. Every film could win and I probably wouldn't be too mad. What a year, indeed.

Oscar Winner: Terms of Endearment
My Winner:  The Right Stuff
The Big Chill
Terms of Endearment
Tender Mercies
The Dresser

Leading Actor 1983

Shout out to the 4 visitors that I seem to be getting regularly. Leave a message if you want! Hopefully my reviews are decent enough for you. Haven't seen any of these yet, so not sure what to expect. Haven't even heard of the two Toms before so it will be interesting to see how they all are.

1983 Best Actor

Robert Duvall - Tender Mercies

I have been excited to watch this performance for such a long time knowing it was the great Robert Duvall's only Oscar win and because Jeff Bridges won his only Oscar for what many people say was a clone of this film in Crazy Heart. So having seen Bridges and liking him in that one, I wanted to see how the original stacked up. As you could probably guess, Duvall plays a washed up country singer stumbling through life while hooked on booze and unsure of what to do with his life. Duvall wakes up after a bender at a motel and stays to pay off his debt and befriends the owner, a widowed woman and her son. He stays longer and they eventually fall in love and marry. He stays off the booze and she keeps him focused. Eventually he gets a song he's written to an old manager and his ex-wife, a country music star, and daughter come into the picture again. He then entertains the idea of singing again though he swore it off and is excited about the prospect. I do the film no justice with my terrible recap but Duvall is an old country star who finds love again and starts writing songs again. Duvall speaks in this higher voice than normal that's a little strange at first but then you get used to it. He's good at singing the country songs and seems like a natural. He also wears a lot of emotion on his face and in his body language which is where I think Duvall succeeds with the character. The way he stands, the forlorn looks, the way he is dressed - all contribute to being a believable man at the end of his rope who has found some redemption through a new woman and through God. I'd have liked to see more struggles with alcohol besides one random drive around town to various bars and more singing. Scratch that, WAY more singing. Both of the films for Duvall and Bridges hide the fact that neither are singers by having them sing in short bursts or very rarely. I know both can sing so let them! That was the most convincing thing about the performance from Duvall, he can sing pretty well! This is definitely not an overwhelming performance. This is about subtlety and nuance and a man not prone to talking about himself. Duvall does a great job with the character and the demands of singing and looking the part. He (along with a great Tess Harper) make Tender Mercies a lot better than it should be.

Michael Caine - Educating Rita

At this point, if you've seen one Michael Caine performance, you've basically seen them all. Now, I imagine if you were going chronologically this would be even more of an issue because there's not much growth. But going backwards makes it almost not as bad because you see him younger and younger doing good work, just reminiscent of everything you've already seen. Then it becomes a question of if you like Caine and how much and which do you like more. I like Caine even though I'm on record of disliking both of his wins immensely because he beat out other, more deserving performances. Caine is plenty fine in this film as a professor who is tired of teaching until a woman comes along who he starts to like and who shows him different ways in looking at literature. Unsurprisingly, he plays an alcoholic and gets by with his charm and distinctive voice. I'd say this performance is a little more emotional than we normally see from Caine which is a nice change. He begins to care for Rita and is inspired by her to actually start teaching again and just be a better person overall. Is this an amazing performance? Nah, but it is good work by Caine in a very likable film so I can see why the Academy went for it. I think my issue with it is that Caine doesn't do much to separate it from his other performances and what we think of as typical Caine roles. I'm interested to see his early work to see what those are like in comparison. Like I said, a decent performance just nothing all that amazing and that we haven't already seen.

Tom Conti - Reuben, Reuben

A very hard to find film. I watched a shitty version on YouTube of all places where the video quality was indeed lacking. But you couldn't find it anywhere and apparently it's only available on limited DVD or something. Maybe because it's a small film about a Scottish poet (Conti) who is touring America and is a drunkard and womanizer is why it's so hard to find? I feel like this is where the Academy needs to step in and - somehow, some way - make sure it's nominee films are widely available. I know that takes money and power and blah blah blah but a Best Actor nominee shouldn't be so hard to actually watch! I know that's a pipe dream but maybe a streaming service from the Academy or something would be awesome. Anyway, you would think the film/performance wouldn't be very good since it is so hard to find a good quality copy of but actually Conti is really good! It surprised me because I wasn't expecting such a sardonically endearing performance but Conti delivered something interesting and very watchable. As mentioned already, he plays a womanizing, alcoholic, sarcastic Scottish poet who hasn't written anything in years but lives off touring with his previously heralded work. He's charmingly morose and reminds me a ton of Hugh Grant in the way he is very witty and full of self hating quips. He speaks in that quick, self deprecating way that is Grant's trademark and it was the main thing I noticed. I enjoyed the performance because he did make an insufferable character into someone you could like and empathize with. Conti is very good all the way through the film which he is in basically every single scene and the ending is what people would probably call the highlight - and probably shocking, too. You should see it coming within the first 10 minutes of the film but the acting by Conti is impassioned and emotionally riveting. While this isn't a winner for me, I did like it very much and I am glad that the project introduced me to it. I can guarantee no one has heard of Conti or this film and that's a shame as it's an interesting little film to watch.

Tom Courtenay - The Dresser

The second of the two Toms. One of the things I was thinking about when watching this performance was how you get actors that you've never heard of a lot in this project which is obvious. But you have nothing to compare their performance to the way you can for say a Robert Duvall who won this category. We know Duvall's history, his tics, his inclinations, and how he is as an actor. So we know when he's mailing in a performance or when he is really delivering a knockout performance. With actors like Courtenay, who you have never heard of, all we get to go on is this one performance. In a way, it shouldn't matter because every performance should be judged on its own but like with Duvall, we are going to naturally compare to other films of his, whether Oscar or not. Just an interesting thing I was considering while watching this film. With that said, Courtenay is pretty damn good here. Out of the two nominated from this film, Courtenay would be my pick, I think. Finney has a very loud, actor friendly performance that stands out, but Courtenay is a little more interesting in what he has to do. He plays The Dresser, the guy who aides Finney and dresses him and gets him ready to perform each night. He's a very effeminate man, with hands fluttering about and body language that let's you know he's a little different. None of that matters in this film and is never brought up. It's just an accepted fact which is actually kinda nice as we can focus on the performance more than Courtenay being obviously gay. Maybe there's some subtext there in his relationship with Finney but nothing is explicitly stated. Courtenay is the glue that keeps Finney together and probably keeps the theater company together. He has the challenge of reigning in the emotional and intense Finney which takes a lot of effort though he has the patience of a saint when it comes down to it. I think it comes down to preference on who you like watching more, but I really enjoyed Courtenay's performance because it was unexpectedly good and because he really wows in dealing with Finney and holding the film together. I think it's because he's doing a job and doing it well that we see our self in him, staving off disaster and holding together another person to do their job. We can all relate to Courtenay. I also think you need to take both Courtenay and Finney or none at all because their interplay is what the entire film is about. It's the two actors going at it that is the draw and both are fantastic. The behind the scenes look at the acting profession is compelling and it's easy to see why the Academy would nominate the two actors and the film. Courtenay delivers a good performance that is worth checking out, for sure.

Albert Finney - The Dresser

I was a fan of both of the two previous performances I saw of Finney's: Erin Brockovich and Under the Volcano. The latter really showed me how intense and actorly for lack of a better word that Finney could be. Well, this performance ratchets that all up to eleven. I imagine this was a lot of fun to play for Finney as he gets to be the head actor in a Shakespeare company putting on plays during WWII. The film is about his dresser/aide and they they interact. Finney's character is a bombastic, super theatrical guy who is never not performing, even off stage. I can't emphasize enough just how loud in every way that Finney's acting is. It's on purpose because that's how the character is and it's a lot of fun watching Finney do his thing. He's doing King Lear but also quotes some other Shakespeare in dramatic ways and is rarely quiet. It's pure acting because it involves Shakespeare as well as regular, personal interactions that are all over acted to great effect by a dominating presence in Finney. It's a bit of a throwback in that regard, too, because it hearkens back to the old acting style that's very deliberate and theatrical. The performance is easily liked because you realize that it's an actor's dream and Finney really digs into it without making it a farce or hamming it up. The interactions between Finney and Courtenay are the real draw as they are total opposites in ways but also extremely committed to putting on a good show for the audience in the film (and for us). The are like a legitimate relationship where both play the dominant partner and the needy, wanted partner, also. I feel like you can't have one nominated without the other because it wouldn't work, they are almost dependent on each other. Easy to see why the Academy would go for this performance and Courtenay just because of the whole backstage, heart of an actor thing going on. The Academy loves rewarding performances like this that speak to them on a more personal level and what better than an older actor dominating a touring theater company and intensely acting Shakespeare. A no doubter for them and a treat to watch for us.


A surprising Best Actor group because by name, you might not expect all that much from it. Some actors you've never heard of who deliver some very intriguing performances that are worth watching. Caine is good and the film is decent enough but Caine is Caine. He does his usual thing and doesn't stand out or wow you at all. So he is last. And then the hard part comes. I think I'd have to rate the guys from The Dresser next. The are basically inseparable. You have to take both or none. Finney is good and a lot of fun to watch and I can see people voting for him and if he won I wouldn't hate it. Same with Courtenay. The Academy gets a hard on for acting roles and films about acting so it's easy to see why they were nominated but they are also really damn good. I like Courtenay more than Finney by a little bit but could easily swap the two if bullied. I think their film is worth checking out once for the performances. Now Conti was a surprise. I was expecting shit and found a really good, interesting performance. It reminds me still of Hugh Grant which is probably why I like it so much. He's charming and self deprecating and just really intriguing. If he had actually won somehow, I'd probably tear the performance down. Maybe. But he's a solid number two for me. Others might not feel the same way, but maybe I share his same outlook on life and feel a kindred spirit in their somewhere, I dunno. I know I like it is all. Duvall is my winner and I agree with the Academy. I think it's a tender performance (okay that was lame as hell) but for real Duvall is really good in this. He definitely deserves an Oscar and this is a good representation for him. Overall this was a surprisingly great group that I thought might be a little worse and am glad it wasn't. I love when unexpected performances turn out to be good.

Oscar Winner: Robert Duvall - Tender Mercies
My Winner:  Robert Duvall - Tender Mercies
Tom Conti
Tom Courtenay
Albert Finney
Michael Caine

Leading Actress 1983

I was looking at some of the Best Actress groups that I have coming up and I was struck by how most of them are a showcase of very famous names and they have recurring Oscar winners and Oscar favorites. So there should hopefully be some really strong Best Actress groups coming and I'm pumped about that as long as they hold up. I haven't seen any of these films but I've heard a lot about some of them so I'm eager to dive in.

1983 Best Actress

Shirley MacLaine - Terms of Endearment

I have read a lot of talk online about how this was a makeup win due to missing out on a win previously in 1960. I can't really comment on that since I haven't seen any of those performances but it would be well within the expectations of what the Academy does so I can easily believe it. The thing is that this doesn't feel like just a makeup win. That carries a connotation of an undeserving win and/or nomination as well. This is a fully deserved nomination and I think a win, too. Debra Winger is very good in this film alongside MacLaine but I can see why Shirley won here. She plays the overbearing and negative mother of Winger. MacLaine is legitimately fantastic in this role. She is so wryly funny that you can almost miss a joke from her if you aren't paying attention. She has great chemistry with both Winger and Jack Nicholson, a womanizing, retired astronaut who lives next door. She has a nagging, almost neurotic relationship with her daughter, always having to call and see what's going on with her and the interplay of the two is fun to watch. The relationship MacLaine has with Nicholson is even more fun to watch as both actors throw verbal barbs at each other as they dance around eventually having sex. The scenes of those two are the best in the film because you can clearly see two top actors enjoying working with one another and displaying immense talent and comedic timing. She's very much a dominant personality within the film and helps carry the film into being so good. MacLaine also displays some great emotional scenes that never feel too sappy or unnatural to the character as you can tell she loves her daughter. That's why I am completely okay with her win because everything she does in the film works for me and I enjoyed every second she was onscreen. I admit that I did not know what to expect from her but was blown away by how great she was. I'll have to watch the rest of the women in the category but I feel like this is a good choice by the Academy.

Jane Alexander - Testament

I know this sounds kind of stupid but I thought this was the woman from 3rd Rock from the Sun for the longest time but that's actually Jane Curtin. No idea why I ever thought that but I at least now get to see the real Jane Alexander (who has been nominated for 4 Oscars) and this film. I had heard that this was a real gem of a little film with a pretty good performance so I was eager to see what exactly it was about. Alexander plays a normal suburban American housewife who has three kids and a husband and life seems good. There's a hint that she might be annoyed/frustrated with her husband but that doesn't have a chance to be explored because a nuclear attack happens somewhere in the world and the family is left stranded at home minus the husband who was away in San Francisco on business (they live somewhere else in California). The film becomes about Alexander dealing with this extremely tough circumstance while keeping her three kids safe and figuring out what exactly to do. Alexander's performance is really strong as she manages the kids and the other townspeople as they try to live and make it through the unknown. Alexander is very self controlled, almost stoic. She doesn't swing wildly into histrionics but instead stays even keeled as the days and stresses drag on. This is obviously one look at how a family would deal with an attack and Alexander reacts in a different manner than maybe most would. She writes in her journal about her feelings and her love for her lost husband and her kids and most of the emotion of the performance is done this way through voice over. I don't mind that that is how we see her emotion because it fits the character. There are a few moments where Alexander lashes out at the world and bares her soul but for the most part she stays composed which rubs off on her eldest son as he kinda becomes the man of the house. Even though there are deaths to the kids, Alexander stays mostly reserved, though she does act in an appropriate manner with some passion towards her kids. I liked the performance because it shows a woman who has to survive in the only way she knows how while being strong for her kids. This performance has also made me really look forward to her three other Oscar nominations because this is really good work that I would have voted for in a weaker year.

Meryl Streep - Silkwood

This is one of those performances that you run into that has a lot of meaning behind it, but isn't going to win. Doubly so for Streep because she won the year before for Sophie's Choice. This time Streep has a Southern accent and works at a nuclear facility. She's kind of a flighty young woman more concerned about getting off work partying and all that. But seeing as this is a whistleblower film, Streep is eventually going to wake up and realize that something nefarious is going on. It's actually pretty standard stuff for the time. It's a good performance as to be expected from Streep but it is nothing spectacular. The appeal is seeing Streep as an everyday woman who then fights back against an employer because of wrongdoing that sets in motion a big payoff. For Streep, it is standard stuff. She's done much better work the year before but these are still important films and roles for females that she is taking up. So in that regard, it's important. Any other actress and it's a just an Oscar grabbing attempt. Which is the power of Streep, really. I like that she plays a woman who stands up for herself and her rights and the safety of her coworkers. But that's really all the performance is. It's not that amazing, the subject matter is what is the draw here. And we don't even get a satisfying ending. We only get the draw up to the possible mysterious, scandalous ending where Streep dies in a one car crash after being a fervent nuclear safety advocate and union person. But Streep is good as per usual that we will see for the next 30 plus years, so I understand her inclusion and enjoy it.

Julie Walters - Educating Rita

This was the first of Walters' two nominations, the first being for Billy Elliot. It's also a very typical British actress type role. I don't say that to denigrate Walters or the performance at all, just that we've seen this type of role and performance quite a few times before. Walters plays a woman in her late 20s who starts taking a class at the University on literature to get an education. She's kind of lower class and works as a hairdresser and dresses sort of wildly and has blonde and pink hair. But she's eager to learn and approaches literature with a very unique way of interpreting things that is wholly her own. She talks a mile a minute and is very clever and witty and funny. It's like a couple other roles in that regard that I've reviewed for this project and seems to be part of the British film identity at the very least. This film reminds me a lot of Shirley Valentine with a similar sort of protagonist who wants more from her crummy life. It's a likable character and Walters does a fine job making us like Rita. She goes toe to toe with Michael Caine and comes off well and navigates her character's ups and downs skillfully. The story focuses on Caine really liking Walters and how freshly she approaches literature. Walters wants to be like all the stuffy college kids because she wants to better understand and articulate what she thinks but Caine doesn't want her to change that. Walters eventually leaves her husband and job and goes to school full time and starts dressing different and isn't as rambunctious as before. By the end we see how much Walters has changed but we realize that she chooses to be like this because she has the opportunity and because she wants to knowing she can be like her goofy first impression if she wants. It's a good performance that Walters first did on the stage before bringing it to film like a lot of the other similar performances we've seen. So it makes sense that she's very comfortable in the role and can make it her own. It's not strong enough to win, especially in this group but it's worth checking out.

Debra Winger - Terms of Endearment

I have become a big Debra Winger fan thanks to this project. I have enjoyed her work in everything I've seen of hers and even like the work she does in her Netflix series. The funny thing is that before doing this project I kept seeing her name in the nominations or in films nominated and had no clue what she looked like or who she was. I feel the same way now about some of the older actresses whose names I've seen a ton but can't put a face to them right now. I know once I go through the project I'll have a better understanding of who all the actresses are which is a nice bonus to doing this. Anyway, I'm a Winger fan (not the band) and was eager to see how she would do splitting the lead billing in the film and Best Actress nominations with the legendary Shirley MacLaine. Would she be overshadowed or overpowered at all? Simply, no. Winger is fantastic in her role as the daughter of MacLaine who has to deal with an overbearing mother while also dealing with her own family's issues. She has kids with Jeff Daniels, moves away from home, suspects her husband of cheating all while dealing with everyday motherhood and marital life. Winger and MacLaine have great chemistry together and really feel like a mother-daughter team. It's played up to dramatic and comedic effect but both deliver great performances that are emotional and heartfelt but funny and poignant all the same. Winger is also very upbeat which I guess she'd have to be to deal with her negative mother. That's what impresses me is that she can maneuver between all these different emotions and states of mind and still be a positive, sane person. There's also the ending that feels very real and authentic if a little too slick. It's sad and emotional but Winger is made to look like a great person despite the circumstances. If not for MacLaine, who is very deserving for a win herself, this might be my vote for the win. I think Winger ably carries this film no matter the hand her co-star plays in it. She makes the film worth watching and fully deserves to share a nomination with MacLaine.


Wow, so this one is a tough group to sort out which I'm always hoping to get from Best Actress. There is no bad performance in the bunch and I like each one in their own way. Honestly, the last spot would go to Streep who gives a good performance but is standard fare by her own standards. It's good and I'd watch it again but Streep has done way better. Walters would be next on a very likable performance that is fun to watch but isn't very important so to speak. Alexander is a nice surprise with a very solid performance that leaves me wanting to see the rest of her nominations. In a weak year, I'd vote for it no doubt. But we have two pretty good performances at the top with Winger and MacLaine. I'm so tempted to give Winger the win because she really carries the film but MacLaine is great which surprised me because I thought it would be standard stuff but was very enjoyable. I'm fine with the MacLaine win because she deserves an Oscar. I might easily change it to Winger, though, if you ask me tomorrow who I think should win. What a Best Actress group. More like this please.

Oscar Winner: Shirley MacLaine - Terms of Endearment
My Winner: Shirley MacLaine - Terms of Endearment
Debra Winger
Jane Alexander
Julie Walters
Meryl Streep

Supporting Actor 1983

I think I'm picking things up again so hopefully I can keep knocking out the last of the 80s and make my way into the 70s finally. I have seen none of these films but the actors are all big names except maybe Charles Durning but I'm hoping that means good stuff is coming my way.

1983 Best Supporting Actor

Jack Nicholson - Terms of Endearment

This was Nicholson's second win of his three Oscars and completes seeing his trifecta for me. I'll have to let this one marinate more and all three are a bit different but this might be the weakest of them. Now, Nicholson's weakest Oscar winning performance (let that phrase sink in) is obviously still very, very good. Part of the knock against this win is that you probably could/should characterize this as a leading role. Shirley MacLaine and Debra Winger are the two who drive the film and the true leads but Nicholson is featured a lot more than John Lithgow and Jeff Daniels (maybe only slightly more than Daniels but whatever). Because of his star power he feels more like a lead. If he were placed in Lead Actor, does he win? Probably not. So there you see why some criticize the win. How is the performance, though? Nicholson plays a retired astronaut who spends his days chasing younger women, drinking, driving his sports car and generally behaving like, well, Jack Nicholson at the time. I think that's mostly why I'd rate this win third of his three because it's more just Nicholson playing Nicholson. He's not really out of his depth at all and it feels like a real easy, breezy performance for him. He's obviously great at playing someone that's just like him and he is entertaining and funny and you enjoy whenever he's onscreen because he adds to the film. The big draw is his chemistry with MacLaine, as the two of them are so good together. They can be so sarcastic and stinging when they hate on each other and both are a hoot to watch especially if you pay attention to them because you might miss a joke with their deliveries. It's classic Jack and a heart and soul peek through the playboy exterior that adds to the emotion of the film. It's good but I'll have to wait and see if it's worth another Oscar win for Nicholson.

Charles Durning - To Be or Not to Be

You might see the name Charles Durning and not recognize it but you'll definitely recognize his face. He's one of those character actors that once you realize who he is, you see he was in a ton of great films. I mainly remember him as the Governor in O Brother, Where Art Thou? (one of my favorite movies) and he was perfectly cast in that. Once I realized who he was, I was hoping that him being nominated for a Mel Brooks film would mean it was a fun, hilarious performance. It seems like a really great fit but it's only an okay performance. It's funny, yes, but not overwhelmingly so and no where near as good as his Coen Bros work. Which is probably unfair of me to compare the two at all since the eras are completely different. Durning plays a Nazi Colonel who Mel Brooks fools multiple times into releasing prisoners and stopping this and preventing that thing from occurring, it's funny Mel Brooks stuff. Durning plays the role in an over exaggerated way that fits the comedy of the film and garners some laughs. Brooks, however, overshadows most of the other performers by being the main character and dominating every scene since it is his film. I think Durning could have been funnier and used a bit differently but I still think it's a neat little comedic performance that normally doesn't get the attention of the Academy. I know Durning was also nominated the year prior for another twisted comedic role, so maybe there was just something about Durning that they especially loved. It's cool because I didn't know he had one, let alone two, Oscar nominations. I'm looking forward to his first one now to see how it stacks up. A nice little comedy performance.

John Lithgow - Terms of Endearment

It always surprised me that John Lithgow was a two time Oscar nominee. I knew him from his TV stuff and thought he was fantastic as a cold serial killer in Dexter. So it should be no surprise that he's got the acting chops for two nominations. He's got a ton of other awards including Emmys and Tonys and I mention this simply because you might not think of him as a great actor, I know I certainly didn't really think of him as such. But he is and though he has a smaller role in this film, the talent is undeniable. In this film, Lithgow plays a married banker who has a little fling with Debra Winger's character and it shows how she deals with her husband doing the same to her. It is a kind of weird relationship. It's treated very nonchalantly and as a little cutesy type of thing when it feels like maybe it should have some heft to the scenes to really talk about the ideas and nuances of cheating to deal with problems. That's probably me reading way too much into things but Lithgow is good as the sad sack nice guy who just wants to get laid because his wife can't do it. He's sweet and cares about Winger and you get the sense that the two would be a good couple if they left their spouses but we don't see enough interaction between the two. Because we don't see too much of Lithgow, I can't vote for him to win but I like the small performance he gives in a very emotional film.

Sam Shepard - The Right Stuff

Sam Shepard is a good actor. This was actually the toughest review to write for me, however, and I don't really know why. I think because in a film like The Right Stuff where there's a huge ensemble of good actors, how do you set apart just one and then talk about that one? That's not to say I didn't like Shepard as much or anything like that. Shepard plays the badass Chuck Yeager, the man who broke the sound barrier. In the beginning of the film, the story focuses on those pilots paving the way for the future astronauts and Chuck is one of them. They push the limits in dangerous ways and are respected and adored. Yeager is quietly strong and commands respect with his presence and isn't much of a playboy. Shepard plays his Yeager with a lot of internal action. Yeah that sounds pretentious as hell but when you watch Shepard you can see a lot more going on underneath than he is outwardly showing. This is evident in the talks with his wife or when he's sitting at the bar while others are going on and on about whatever or when he's looking up at the sky at night. You get the sense that he longs for more but feels he's a pilot first and not just a crash test dummy to ride in a capsule. He bridges the old guard with the new guys for the audience and allows you to respect and admire both groups. He shows up in the film every now and then and defends the astronauts to someone and you see the kind of man he really is. The performance is more subtle and more about quiet intensity than being outwardly badass, which I like. I think Shepard is a good representation for the film since most of the actors are really good in this one. This might be my winner just based on the other performances so far, so we will see.

Rip Torn - Cross Creek

There are a lot of people out there who are happy that Rip Torn has an Oscar nomination. Most people know the name and maybe the face but couldn't tell you what he's been in. That was me. Anyway, Torn plays a local man with a family that Mary Steenburgen's Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings meets after moving to Florida. He has a tomboy daughter who is raising a young deer named Flag who becomes the direct inspiration for The Yearling. Torn is essentially a rough Florida cracker living on the land and is what you'd think of when thinking about an old country guy. The main part of Torn's performance is towards the end where the deer has gotten bigger and threatens to eat crops after it escapes so Torn has to shoot it which upsets his daughter. Torn's character goes on a bender in town and then is sitting in the woods drunk with a shotgun and is killed by the sheriff. The death of the deer seems to be a bigger moment than Torn getting killed which should clue in on his impact. It's an okay performance to me and fits the character and film just fine. But it's nothing that really stands out to me and feels like maybe they were trying to get him a nomination. I don't know if that's accurate at all but it's certainly not one that you're going to seek out unless you really like Rip Torn.


A year of big names and pretty interesting films ultimately comes down between just two of the guys for me. The bottom three are all okay but their performances are lacking and leave you wanting more. Rip Torn doesn't do a whole lot in his film besides play a Southern guy and be moody. It's decent but nothing I would single out. Then we get both John Lithgow and Charles Durning who are returning after being in the same spot a year before in 1982. Maybe the Academy just liked both or there was some other reason going on but both give good but underwhelming performances. Lithgow is a sad sack married guy hooking up with Debra Winger. He just doesn't get much focus in the film before he's left behind. Durning is funny but not outrageously so and for a comedic performance, I feel you need a little something more to be memorable. The winner then becomes a two way battle between Jack Nicholson and Sam Shepard. My issue with Nicholson is that he's essentially just playing a version of himself and has a lot of charm and is good but is that something we really need to reward? I feel like maybe the Academy really wanted to give him a second one because he was so heavily nominated and well liked. I think I'd prefer to give Shepard a win for his only nomination because I liked it and because it's something different and also rewards his film. By name this group looked great but ended up being kinda average so hopefully 82 is pretty awesome.

Oscar Winner: Jack Nicholson - Terms of Endearment
My Winner:  Sam Shephard - The Right Stuff
Jack Nicholson
Charles Durning
John Lithgow
Rip Torn

Supporting Actress 1983

I have seen none of these women but am excited to finally knock off some of these films. Hoping for a good year, but we will see. Let's do it.

1983 Best Supporting Actress

Linda Hunt - The Year of Living Dangerously

If you go into this film cold, finding out who Linda Hunt is will be quite a shock. I imagine not knowing and then watching makes the impact of her performance much greater to the viewer. If you go in already knowing that Hunt plays Billy Kwan, the dwarf photographer, then the shock won't be there and you can focus on paying attention to the performance. Hunt plays a convincing man minus the voice and I can see how people would be fooled. Hunt definitely puts her all into the role which is very serious. Kwan is a very serious and morally guided person which leads to a very intense performance from Hunt. As compared to the other actresses in this group, this role and performance has way more heft to it and stands out as being more important in a way. You can take away the playing a man part and the same sentiment would still apply which is why Hunt succeeds. Her man is believable but it's the performance that is impressive, not just the gender thing. I think that's why Hunt is a good winner here because it's not just a gimmicky role but the passion with which Hunt treats her Kwan. Watching Hunt is also more enjoyable than the other women who mostly don't do much to even affect their own film. So Hunt is really the only choice for the win here.

Cher - Silkwood

Well, I think from this first nomination that it was obvious that the Academy loved Cher for whatever reason. She got a Best Actress win for a role/film that wasn't the most amazing and this was the precursor to that. Cher plays the friend to Streep's burgeoning activist and she's a lesbian and that's about it as far as her performance. She doesn't do much at all besides be the friend and have a shocking moment where a beautiful blonde comes out of her room in the morning after Kurt Russell and Streep were having loud sex the night before. The blonde sticks around but Cher doesn't do anything else than lounge around. Then one day the blonde leaves and at most all Cher does is have a talk with Streep but that's it. I honestly don't see what's nomination worthy about it. She has no big scenes, even the lesbian reveal isn't big. She's legit just a woman who works at the nuclear facility and then by the end doesn't. She just lives at the Streep household and that's it. It's a bizarre nomination that if it didn't have a big name attached you'd question the sanity of the Academy members. This is very clearly them trying to bring Cher into their fold. Nothing at all to see here other than an activist movie.

Glenn Close - The Big Chill

I'll have to go back because I can't remember but I feel like I haven't voted for  Glenn Close performance to win ever. Yet you'll see online so many Close fans or just people saying that Close deserves an Oscar blah blah blah. I mean yeah she may for her body of work and being a great actress and all that but for what nomination exactly? I still have one more nomination of hers to watch but I feel like she has been a go to nominee because she was well liked. I don't know why Close was nominated for this film among the myriad of talent around her. Maybe it's easier because she's a woman and there are less performances to choose from but she doesn't stand out in this film/performance at all. The film is about a group of college friends who get together after the funeral of one of their friends (Kevin Costner, though deleted from the film) and old issues and loves and all that come back to the forefront. It's a film with Close, Tom Berenger, Kevin Kline, Jeff Goldblum, William Hurt, Meg Tilly, and two other women you've never heard of. Why is Close singled out? No clue. She does nothing to stand out and is good but average. There's a scene where she cries naked in a shower but it feels exploitative and unnecessary. She also has had a fling in the past with the dead friend which greatly affects her and therefore she isn't in many of the big group scenes because she's sad and off in her room. So that's why I question why she was chosen because she doesn't have a big presence in the film. She's representative of the others but probably shouldn't have been the representative.

Amy Irving - Yentl

Yentl is Barbra Streisand's directorial debut and I've got to admit it's very good as far as the direction goes. Interesting camera movements and angles and nice cinematography, it's a good debut no doubt. The question is can you stand a Streisand musical where only she sings the songs? If you can, Yentl is a decent enough film about Steisand pretending to be a man to get into school to study the Talmud. But then she ends up marrying a woman, Amy Irving, after Irving's initial engagement with Mandy Patinkin is called off. Irving isn't featured much in the first hour, she is just shown as the dutiful fiance giving food to Patinkin. In the second hour, she plays more of a role because she gets married to Streisand. She's more visible and gets to speak and all that but doesn't get much to do because she's opposite Streisand, who let's face it, isn't going to let anyone outshine her on the screen. So Irving just plays the love interest basically and not much else. There are no Oscar moments for her, nothing to make her really stand out other than her being a pretty redhead. Not sure why she was nominated other than this being a very weak year and the Streisand support behind her. The draw for this film is Streisand's direction, not Amy Irving's performance.

Alfre Woodard - Cross Creek

I really enjoy Alfre Woodard as an actress. She should probably have more nominations, honestly. Anyway, in this film she plays the help to Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, the author of The Yearling. I love the book and the film, so I was interested to watch the story of the woman behind it. It's about Rawlings who moves to the Florida wilderness and then writes the great American classic. Woodard is Geechee, a woman who comes to Rawlings' new run down digs and offers to help her however she can. The two become friends and then Geechee's husband gets out of jail and stops by and he doesn't want to stay and ultimately Geechee chooses to stay with Rawlings. It didn't really stand out as anything amazing to me but you can clearly see that Woodard is a talented actress who could be even better in the future. So with that, she probably brought more to the role of Geechee than maybe someone else would have. I'm not sure why exactly Woodard got singled out here for a nomination but I'm glad she did. It's great to see a black actress back then getting some recognition for her performance. It might not be a can't miss performance but it's at least worth seeing for Woodard and the historical aspect. It just sucks that she was stuck playing these stereotypical roles like this one and her performance in Passion Fish (which I loved her in).


Pretty awful group overall. Nothing to really hang your hat on and point to as amazing. Hunt playing a man in an intense performance is the obvious winner and is a decent performance but could be better because the film isn't totally amazing. Without her, though, this would be one of the worst of all time maybe. The rest of the ladies just don't actually do anything in their films! Woodard probably has the most oomph of the rest of the group because at least the leading lady in her film reacts to her choices. Close is the representative for her film but I don't know why. It feels like people were trying to make her a star by gifting her Oscar nominations but she does nothing in the film full of stars. Cher is just Cher. She doesn't do anything, either, but she has name recognition and the support of Streep behind her. You don't watch that film for Cher by any means. And then Irving is a wasted nomination because she offers up nothing. Point me to why she was nominated performance wise because there is nothing to see. A bad group and one that I'd like to forget by seeing an actual good group hopefully.

Oscar Winner: Linda Hunt - The Year of Living Dangerously
My Winner:  Linda Hunt - The Year of Living Dangerously
Alfre Woodard
Glenn Close
Cher
Amy Irving

Best Picture 1984

Not much to say. I hope I get back into the swing of things and update regularly. I've only seen the winner so I'm curious to see how the others stack up. I'm just ready to move on.

1984 Best Picture

Amadeus

I love this film. It's one of my all time favorites and is my Mom's favorite if I'm not mistaken. I always saw the box cover of the VHS of this when growing up and always thought it was some sort of Egyptian themed film like Stargate. Weird comparison, I know, but I'm glad I eventually watched it because I fell in love with both F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce's performances way before I ever got into this project and really started my appreciation for film and acting. The fact that they blew me away as a kid should speak volumes to how brilliant and transcendent their performances truly are. The film is about Abraham's Salieri being jealous of Hulce's Mozart. That's the simple description but it is so layered that you should watch it at least twice. Now according to real life, Salieri and Mozart got along well and all of this is fiction. I don't care because the events in this film are riveting and compose one of the greatest films ever. There is so much to love about this film, though! It makes the classical music of the era feel fresh and it makes the operas they are composing extremely interesting. So much so that I'd love to watch what they created just to understand them better. They are filmed in such an engaging way that you start enjoying the scenes and the themes and the music and everything. And I love how music plays into the film, as it should, but not in a grating, obvious way. It's not like oh, Mozart created this tune and it gets played or we see how some famous piece is shoehorned into the film. No, everything is organic and you don't mind that you don't recognize everything straightaway. The music is awesome in this because the story uses it to great effect. The film is also super funny. It's not obvious at all and is very contextual but I was laughing a lot because of the sly humor injected into the film. It keeps everything fresh and from becoming a dry film about old composers. The main story is the draw - Salieri vs Mozart. Salieri is jealous but also very respectful and admires what Mozart is able to do. There's a lot going on about God and how He chooses his vessels that makes for a much deeper understanding of the story. Again, there is so much going on with this film that you need to watch it a couple times. I think you get a better appreciation fro the film that way. You can see that Constanze is not just all boobs but a pretty shrewd woman and a great performance, too. I feel like this film is criminally left out of all time great film discussions and even great Oscar winner discussions. This is an all time film and people need to see it.

The Killing Fields

This film threw me for a loop. When you hear this film being about journalists trying to get out of Cambodia to avoid the Khmer Rouge, you think it'll be a politically tinged film exposing all the horrors in a typical Hollywood fashion. Something like Salvador springs to mind or even like Platoon with what you might get but this film goes a different route. It hits the ground running and doesn't let up much until an hour and a half in and even then there are very few slower, introspective moments. I went back and forth in my head on whether or not this was a weird film to me. There's a scene where Sam Waterston and Haing S. Ngor are getting people/family onto choppers to flee Cambodia and there is this pulsing, horror/thriller music going on in the background that really sort of changes the feel of the film, it's kind of awesome but also somewhat out of place. I got used to the 80s horror type music and it makes the film more interesting than the typical white guy with minority friend trying to get out of a bad situation thing. I guess you can say it makes it more stylistic and feels less like a formulaic Oscar film. The film itself is about Waterston and Ngor who are journalists in Cambodia when the US starts dropping bombs and then things go south really quickly and the Khmer Rouge take over. The film is all about Ngor who is incredible in a role that he lived through in real life. Why he was relegated to the Supporting category, I don't know, but good thing because he earned the win and probably wouldn't have beat F. Murray Abraham. The rest of the actors are great, too, with a young Waterston in a conflicted, tormented role and John Malkovich as a hotshot, abrasive photographer. I think the structure of the film is what I like the most. While other political films or historical ones like this will be a sequence of events with a character in the middle of all of it, this film lets everything happen in the background and the characters we follow react to things. Sometimes we get dropped into the middle of a scene that otherwise might have played out in full. That keeps the focus on the characters and doesn't just become a history lesson. And believe me, Dith Pran is worth focusing on. It's a very interesting film and brings to light a subject that most people aren't very well versed in (although this film doesn't exactly make anyone a subject matter expert on Cambodia) but it was never going to win against the juggernaut of Amadeus and that's okay. I'm definitely glad I got to watch this film if for nothing more than Ngor's performance.

A Passage to India

I was definitely worried that this would be a long, boring, British period piece but I'm happy to say that I actually thought it was very good. I know David Lean did a couple epics in the 60s and this was his return after like 15 years away but you always wonder if a director returning after a hiatus still has it or not. The film actually has a great pace to it which was the big worry that it would be very slow and boring but it zips along and has a very interesting story. Judy Davis and Peggy Ashcroft venture to India to see Ashcroft's son who is thinking about marrying Davis. The two are appalled at how the British living in India treat the native Indians and they want to go out and experience all the sights and sounds and talk to real people and dive into the culture. So the beginning part starts off this way and it's a little stuffy but the performances are good and of course India looks great. Luckily, the story takes a darker turn almost when Davis goes to visit some caves and an incident occurs. Dr Aziz, who was friends with Ashcroft and Davis, is accused of raping Davis. It's fascinating because this woman who was so into the culture and being friendly with the native people has a frightening experience in a cave and then allows other British people to pressure her into a rape accusation against a so-called friend. The rest of the film is the trial and everything else involved with the aftermath. It's compelling stuff and Ashcroft, Davis and Victor Banerjee (Dr Aziz) are all terrific. I feel that Banerjee should have had an acting nomination himself, he's that good. If they wanted, the Academy could have stuck him in Supporting and created a really diverse group for that category. It's a shame he wasn't nominated. My one huge beef with the film is that Alec Guinness is in brown face portraying an Indian spiritual guy. This is completely inexcusable even in 1984. Like what the hell was he thinking that he agreed to it and what the hell was David Lean thinking in allowing it to happen?? Just cast an actual Indian actor, it's not that hard. And honestly, that little detail brings the film down a lot. I can't vote for it to be my winner because it's just an absurd thing for a modern movie to have in it. And it's not even a little joking nod and wink to the audience or anything like that, he plays it straight. Anyway, the film itself is pretty good and I was surprised that it was so easy to watch and get into. You see films like this on the list and don't know what to expect from them, so it's nice to see the Academy isn't too full of itself and that the film is somewhat deserving of the honor. It was never going to win, but at least it was an entertaining film.

Places in the Heart

I was going to say that I wonder why the Academy fell in love with this film to the tune of seven Oscar nominations (winning two), but they obviously liked Sally Field at the time and, more importantly, chose this from the myriad of farming films that came out in 1984 as the representative of that type of film for Best Picture. I feel it's partially a statement on the cultural atmosphere at that time with the whole Farm Aid thing kicking off in 1985 so this was clearly in the hearts and minds of Hollywood before that. And I think that they thought this was the best representation of that niche over the other Best Actress nominated films of Country and The River. The film is about Field whose husband is killed by a drunk black boy in 1930s Texas. She starts a cotton farm on her property to try and save her home and provide for her kids. She enlists the help of Danny Glover, a black drifter she befriends and who helps her plant and pick her cotton, and more importantly, not get ripped off when selling it. She goes through a number of challenges like the bank demanding more money be paid on her loans, a tornado tearing through the farm, the KKK beating up Glover, and others. She rises to the occasion each time and becomes a less timid woman and much stronger than she ever was before. It's a decent story and easy to see why it would appeal to the Academy. Except, there is a subplot to the film that is absolutely pointless and frivolous that involves Fields' sister getting cheated on by her husband. I have no idea why it was ever included in the film because it breaks up the real story with a needless soap opera type story. I don't care about those characters because they don't factor into the main story at all besides the woman being Fields' sister. It really kills the vibe of the film and makes no sense. It also drags the impact of the film down because when you think of the farming story you then also think of the lame subplot that's leeched onto it. So that makes the overall product not as good as it could, and should, be.

A Soldier's Story

I had never heard of this film before and knew nothing about it and never heard anyone ever mention it, so I was definitely curious about how a majority black acted film could get an Oscar nomination for Best Picture. It's kinda cool how I'm watching this and writing about it mere days after Moonlight wins Best Picture (in a shocking way) because the two have a lot in common. They are majority black acted and both got BP, Supporting Actor, and Writing nominations. Of course, Moonlight won all of those while this film did not, but certainly this helped lay the ground work in some small way. It's one of the few black-centric films to get a Best Picture nod and that's really impressive because it's the one everyone knows the least about. I've at least heard of Sounder and The Color Purple, but this one remained a mystery. It tells the story (weak pun) about a black unit in the South in the early years of WWII and their Master Sergeant, who is a dick, is killed. A black officer (which is completely unheard of at the time and almost everyone had never seen one before) from DC is called in to investigate. At first it's thought maybe the local rednecks or KKK did it but then the film turns into this whodunnit, mystery film that is legitimately intriguing and completely sucks you in. There is heavy use of flashbacks but it's done in a way that you are waiting for the next time so it can unravel a bit more of the mystery. It's great that the black officer is the one leading the charge and gaining some respect (and earning some hatred) for thoroughly trying to do his job. He's a stranger in a strange land and the story does a good job of just presenting things as they really are. Meaning it doesn't over sensationalize the race stuff, which I like. The acting is really great all around and even features three black, Oscar nominated actors in Howard E. Rollins, Jr., Adolph Caesar, and Denzel Washington - I wonder if that's ever happened before? Denzel plays his typical early film self where he is angry black man out to prove he's something. He's good though, but Caesar is the standout and deservedly rewarded with an Oscar nomination. I just love how this somehow snuck into the Best Picture group because it seems so topical even today. I concede that others might not be so enamored with the story and how it's told but I love it. Yes, there are some musical cues that made me want to punch whoever responsible for making it seem so jaunty and jovial at times. This is not a Driving Miss Daisy type of film so the music shouldn't reflect that tone. But that's a nitpick and I do wish more people would check this film out.


An interesting group, definitely. Amadeus is an all time great film. It's one of the best ever and it's an obvious, easy winner. As for the next four, well, The Killing Fields is good because of Dith Pran and his performance. It's an important film (like most of these, honestly) and sheds light on a little known slice of history. It's well done and comes up second to a wrecking ball. I really liked A Soldier's Story because it seems topical even 30 years later and is really well done. Maybe I like it because of my soldier background but it's a good film, too. A Passage to India ends up fourth because it has a strong acting performance from Banerjee but it also is an up and down film. Places in the Heart is the de facto farm film for the year and the best representation of the three that could have been. Sally Field buoys it and makes it a contender but it's an easy 5th here. An interesting array of choices but there is only one real choice this year. I'm glad the Academy got it right.

Oscar Winner: Amadeus
My Winner:  Amadeus
The Killing Fields
A Soldier's Story
A Passage to India
Places in the Heart

Leading Actor 1984

Back after a long layoff. Lots of stupid things going on in my life but you meet it all head on and move on. Also been trying to watch more other movies and documentaries and TV shows and just try not to get burnt out doing this. That all said I'm looking forward to this group. I already know my top two because I love Amadeus a ton. Just need to see where the rest end up.

1984 Best Actor

F. Murray Abraham - Amadeus

There is no doubt to me that Abraham delivers one of the greatest acting performances ever with his Salieri. This is a win that the Academy got so right that my only complaint is that I wish Tom Hulce could have won right alongside Abraham because both are absolutely amazing in this terrific film. But there are times where Abraham is almost on another level. He has the dual role of playing young and old Salieri and is brilliant at both. Abraham's strong suit is that he can portray emotion better than most actors without over emoting. His face and voice seem to register any emotion you can think of and I honestly could watch him read the phonebook, he's so good. That's why I love Abraham as Salieri because when he's so expressive. He's kinda weasel-y in that he puts on a good face for both Mozart and the King of Germany but he's plotting his jealousy and to eventually kill Mozart (though he actually doesn't) and in dealing with the various women and when older and talking to the priest. He has all these different sides and facets to him and Abraham is the perfect person to portray all that. He's both a sympathetic and tragic figure while also being an almost villain type character. The fact that Abraham controls all of that and makes it into a cohesive performance is telling of his ability. Salieri is a classic figure and Abraham is great. I hate that this review isn't longer because all I can offer up is that Abraham is great but it's true. Not much else to say other than go watch it and see for yourself. There's no doubt you'll agree that it's a hugely deserving win and one of the best ever.

Jeff Bridges - Starman

Okay, so this nomination is amazing. There's a ton of reasons why it shouldn't even be nominated yet here it is and I'm super happy it is. So this is a film directed by John Carpenter who you should know and if you don't, look up his filmography. He's made a ton of great scary films but this one is so complete. The main thing I noticed about it is that it looks great. The acting is top notch and it has such a great sense of tension and dread to it. It's really a great film and no one ever, ever talks about it! I have no idea why but it should be up there with Carpenter's other beloved films like Halloween and The Thing. Bridges is the Starman. He answers our galactic call by way of satellite to come see earth. So this alien does and is shot down by the US Military and the film covers his escape to the pickup site to get out of here. Bridges actually studied birds to get the movements of his host's body right. He pecks around and looks very angular until he becomes accustomed to our language. What makes Bridges' performance so good is that he is so dedicated to the way the alien speaks and acts. Some might think it too weird or too much physical acting but it hits the spot for me. And looking around the internet I feel I'm mostly alone in thinking it's pretty awesome. Yeah, Bridges is kind of emotionally void but he's an alien visiting our world and learning how things go as he's on the run to get picked up. He's not going to act human so that argument baffles me. I think he's appropriately different and weird and he makes the film interesting. I personally like his monotone delivery of his lines and blank face, just adds to the whole alien thing. I get that others don't see this as amazing but I love the hell out of it.

Albert Finney - Under the Volcano

The main thing I kept hearing about this performance was that Finney was great but the film was not that great. After watching it, I'd agree to a point. Finney plays a British consul person in Mexico, I was never really sure what he was exactly, who has lost his job or quit - again not sure. But he is a man who has a lot of issues going on in his life, the biggest of which is his alcoholism. He is a huge alcoholic, we first see him knocking back like 6-7 shots of different liquor and he never really lets up. The thing with playing an alcoholic is that is it believable or is it cliche? There are very distinct differences between good and bad alcoholic portrayals. I guess you can make the distinction between drunk and alcoholic because it does matter and Finney is the latter. He can drink and drink and that's how he survives through life. This isn't him being drunk and stumbling and slurring and acting a fool, though that does sort of happen at times in the film. This is a man who needs to drink to function and deal with all his problems. His ex-wife comes back into the picture which is sort of the plot of the film and he resists getting back with her because he knows he has a problem and doesn't want to burden her with it. The film mostly focuses on Finney as he ventures around a little town in Mexico with the ex-wife and his brother who are both concerned about him. The film kinda meanders and doesn't make a lot of sense but the main thing is that Finney is really good. He is the only reason to watch (unless you are a John Huston completionist) and is worth the watch. This is one of those underrated and little seen films and performances that if people saw it, would probably be talked about more. It's good but when you compare it to the others in this category it gets overlooked.

Tom Hulce - Amadeus

The Best Laugh (or Most Annoying, depending on your viewpoint) Award definitely goes to Tom Hulce for playing Mozart. It's the most recognizable thing about the brilliant performance and gives it a fun quality. I think Hulce is amazing along with Abraham and as already mentioned both deserve the award equally. While Abraham's Salieri carries and drives the film, Hucle's Mozart steals the show at times and the pair are hard to separate. Mozart is portrayed as this crass, goofy, genius with undeniable talent that comes easy to him so Salieri hates and respects him for this reason. Hulce brings Mozart to life and I'm glad he's not portrayed as a stuffy, boring, classical music/opera writing lame ass. Wolfie is annoying but Hulce never makes him annoying to the audience, which is no easy thing given his character traits. I never tired of seeing him onscreen, though, and loved the interplay with Salieri. The two of them onscreen is a delight to watch because they are both so incredible. Seriously, either one could have won the Oscar and neither would have been a bad choice. Hulce imbues his Mozart with so much childlike passion that you can clearly see the genius behind some of the greatest music ever but also the real person that Mozart was. That's where Hulce succeeds for me. I only wish that he and Abraham would have tied that night because both deserve the win. I hate that this seems like such a short write up for a performance I feel is so great but it is what it is. Hulce is tremendous and really makes Mozart stand out but he also makes Abraham a better actor and vice versa. I wish they could both win but I can understand giving it to Abraham. Hulce shouldn't be forgotten or overlooked though, because his performance is just as good.

Sam Waterston - The Killing Fields

There are two things that really jump out immediately when watching this performance and film: that even though Waterston is considered the Lead, he's more of a supporting character and that Haing S. Ngor is the real star and draw of the film. It's neat to see Waterston before his Law and Order days looking and sounding really young. He plays a New York Times journalist in Cambodia covering the Vietnam War when all hell breaks loose in the country after the Americans start bombing it. The Khmer Rouge take over and the journalists, along with Waterston's pal, Dith Pran, need to get out of the country. Waterston offers up a realistic portrayal of a man trying to make his way through a bad situation. There are no histrionics or grand speeches or showy Oscar moments in the performance, just Waterston and his dodgy Boston accent reacting to everything going around him like a real person. His friendship with Ngor is authentic and not prone to unbelievable big scenes of affection. It's like we are plopped down in the middle of these guys being friends and they don't have to show and explain that they are, in fact, friends - which is actually refreshing. Yes, there are moments where it's reinforced but it never seems forced. As the story goes on, Waterston is able to get out of the country and Pran must try to evade the Khmer Rouge. Waterston's Schanberg feels guilty that he put his friend in the position to be killed while he easily escapes. He also seems to use him in his writing and wins awards and has to deal with his conflicted and tormented feelings of leaving Pran behind. Waterston plays this to great effect and does what is necessary of the character. When Waterston finds out Pran is alive and well, he is excited but not annoyingly so like in some films. He keeps it natural and real and the meeting between he and Pran is a fantastic scene because the two don't really have to say much, they just let the moment speak for itself. Waterston isn't blowing anyone away with this performance but it is very strong. It's definitely overshadowed by Ngor's performance but the two compliment each other well. It's strong but there's also not all that much that he needs to do for the film. When he is conflicted about leaving Pran, we only get shown a little bit of those emotions. Waterston is more the everyman we can identify with but don't go too deep into the character while Ngor does the heavy lifting. It's still a good performance and well worth the watch because I feel like people have forgotten about this film.


This is a great Best Actor group. There is not a bad performance in the bunch. The Amadeus guys are brilliant but everyone else is very good in their films as well. I would love for Abraham and Hulce to tie. It's my dream scenario because I can't and don't want to separate the two. They are amazing because of each other. I'll go with the Academy here but I'd give them the tie in my own parallel universe. Bridges blew me away the most because I wasn't expecting to love the film and the performance. This ranks up there with his The Dude and Rooster Cogburn characters. It's so good to me and I'm glad I got to find it because of this project. Finney is fourth simply because he is very strong in his lackluster film but is more the lead than Waterston is in his film. Waterston disappears for a long bit but Finney rocks his film. It's good and worth watching as is Waterston. This is one of the better Best Actor groups, for sure. This is what I'm hoping for every time I start a new year. I hope 1983 can compare!

Oscar Winner: F. Murray Abraham - Amadeus
My Winner:  F. Murray Abraham - Amadeus
Tom Hulce
Jeff Bridges
Albert Finney
Sam Waterston