Yeah, I know, another little delay in finishing these but life gets in the way. Of course, if anyone is reading this a year or two from now, they won't even know I took a couple weeks to finish this year! This is my favorite category and I'm always excited to see what it has to offer. I haven't seen any of the films so I've got a clean slate to review!
1982 Best Supporting Actor
Louis Gossett, Jr. - An Officer and a Gentleman
Sometimes context is important when reviewing these performances. If you watch Gossett and this film, you'll inevitably be reminded of other military films and drill instructor (or sergeant if you're Army like me) roles. Full Metal Jacket springs to mind for me because R. Lee Ermey is so iconic and memorable that you can forget he wasn't the first to do a role like that. In comes Gossett in a similar type of role, although way less profane and way more humane. Important to note that Ermey's performance was in 1987, so Gossett's performance was first and that apparently Ermey helped advise Gossett for the film. So with that in mind, it's easy to see how Gossett was nominated for a tough as nails Marine sergeant who threw out quotable lines while whipping his officer candidates into shape. I don't know if there are any performances like this one that came before Gossett but he definitely leaves a memorable mark while also showing some humanity in the process and that he's not just a heartless robot. Gossett looks and feels every bit the part which is half the performance right there. If you don't look or sound the part, your believability is toast. A drill sergeant is a pretty straightforward role, so you have to stand out at being the military guy while also going above and beyond just calling cadence and shouting insults. Gossett does this by actually wanting to see the officer candidates succeed even if this isn't explicitly shown or told to us in the film. Gossett does this in subtle ways that don't belie his tough exterior. I think that's why the performance works so well because it's not just a meathead yelling at people, there's an actual human quality to Gossett's work. There's also the fun fact that this is the first time a black man won Best Supporting Actor and was the first win for a black person since Sidney Poitier in 1963. That's crazy to think about but also lends some historical value to this win. The good thing is that the win is very much deserved and not solely because he's black. Gossett delivers a performance that is easily worth an Oscar.
Charles Durning - The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas
This was the first of Durning's two straight nominations in this category (along with Lithgow) and I think it should be obvious after watching this that he was not nominated solely for this performance. Durning was also in Tootsie this year and was pretty good in that as Jessica Lange's father who becomes interested in Dustin Hoffman's woman. A well liked film but maybe not a nomination worthy performance on its own, either. Combine that with his turn here as the Texas Governor who sings a song about obfuscating the public and you can kinda see why he's nominated on having the two roles. This one doesn't look all that strong because he doesn't show up until the last 30 minutes and then only really does the one song and has another short scene and that's it. I guess it can be somewhat memorable and is definitely funny in that he sings about committing to an answer to the reporters' questions. But I think when you watch this film, if you were to pick a Supporting Actor nominee from the bunch, you'd go with Dom DeLuise who is much more memorable and funny in his role as the television watchdog. I'd honestly rather see him with the nomination because Durning is too slight. I know we see this time and again with people campaigning for nominations or the Academy using someone's work in an entire year instead of rewarding based on just one good performance. No big deal really since I did get to watch this film which was funny at times and kinda risque at others with all the working girls. Anyway, Durning isn't winning for this one.
John Lithgow - The World According to Garp
As I said for his second nomination (remember, I'm going backwards!), I felt that Lithgow was strong in his small role but ultimately overshadowed by Jack Nicholson because Lithgow's story just kinda trailed off. But it was easy to see that he was an actor to pay attention to. That's even more clear in this film as Lithgow plays a transwoman who hangs out with Garp. What I liked about the performance is that Lithgow doesn't bring attention to being transsexual at all. If you didn't know any better, you might think his character was just a tall, ugly woman. His role isn't used a cheap laugh and Lithgow gives it the sincerity it needs to become a heartfelt performance in a very strange and quirky film. It's not stereotypical at all, which I find refreshing, and Lithgow doesn't play it up in some super gay way with all the affectations. Lithgow's transwoman is a normal character and it's interesting to see this going on in 1982, although maybe it's not surprising with this year having three Oscar nominated films dealing with gender switching and identities. There are times, though, where Lithgow seems more like a peripheral character who steps into the forefront every now and then. I don't feel like there's any Oscar moments, just Lithgow delivering a good performance. It's very inclusive of the Academy and maybe that's what they were going for when they nominated Lithgow but it's still a nice little surprise. His Roberta Muldoon is kind and sweet and a positive, hopeful presence in the film - not a bad way to be nominated.
James Mason - The Verdict
James Mason is a name I did not recognize when going down the list, but having finally come to his first nomination for me I looked into his filmography and was very impressed. Without listing all those films, just know that he's been in a lot of really famous films and was doing steady good work for decades. This was his third Oscar nomination on top of some other BAFTA and Golden Globe nods. After watching the performance, I can easily see why he had a lot of awards consideration. Mason plays the defense attorney that Paul Newman is going up against and Mason represents the Catholic Archdiocese and the doctors from their private hospital in Boston. He's a high powered attorney, one that you know right away is brilliant, ruthless, and highly respected/feared. We first see him with a team of lawyers preparing the defense in a sophisticated, professional way which contrasts to Newman's mess of a process. Mason is the kind of lawyer that can quickly turn witnesses statements against themselves and influence the jury without doing too much other than asking the right questions. He's slick and powerful and has a workman's like attitude to getting the job done. Mason encapsulates all of that well with his performance. Again, the word I use for that film and Mason here is solid. It really is solid work and Mason is fun to watch glide through his performance while Newman struggles with his character's flaws and demons (in a good way, mind you). Mason's performance is the second one that you really notice and gravitate towards after Newman (though Newman's partner, Jack Warden, would also get some consideration from me because he was very good, also) and a respected veteran actor putting in good work in a really well done and liked film is a no brainer for a nomination.
Robert Preston - Victor/Victoria
Wow, I really love this character and performance! I think it's natural to dismiss or be wary of names you aren't familiar with, but I'm learning more and more to just ignore that feeling. Which I think is a must because as I keep going back, I'm going to run into whole categories of names I don't know. So I need to be more open to new names instead of assuming I won't enjoy them because Preston was frankly awesome. Preston plays a performer at a club who gets fired after causing a brawl and happens upon Julie Andrews and the two eventually hatch a plan to have her play a man playing a woman with him as the sort of manager. As I've already said for the other reviews on this film, the whole cast has impeccable comedic timing and Preston is probably the best of the bunch with his dry, snappy lines. Almost everything he says is hilarious and he actually reminds me a great deal of F. Murray Abraham with his deep voice and large head and facial features. I could easily see Abraham playing this part as well as Preston did. Preston makes the film entertaining and I feel he really carries the comedy aspect of the film while Andrews does the singing and dancing. Though Preston does have a scene at the end where he takes Andrews' place in her show that is seriously hysterical. It just seems like Preston was made for the part as he really makes it his own. I think the main knock against the performance is that it kinda feels more like a leading part but I guess the film considers James Garner the male lead (and he's pretty good in this, too). But to me, I can't really find much wrong with his performance. He's great at the slapstick physical comedy aspect and both he and Andrews have excellent chemistry together as if they were a longtime comedy duo. It also makes me excited to see his most well known film, The Music Man, which was nominated for Best Picture in 1962 as well as anything else he did - that's his impact on me from this performance.
Another tough group to try and rank because all of the performances are pretty good with a couple contenders for the win. Durning brings up the rear because he doesn't really get much to do other than sing one song in his two major scenes at the end of his film. He's good, but it's not nearly enough for me. Lithgow is also pretty great at really humanizing his transsexual character and not making it about his sex. At times, though, he is more of a background character instead of truly supporting. Mason is also very good in his role as the defense attorney who is clearly smart and accomplished as an attorney. It's a strong performance from a veteran and shows off Mason's acting skill. Now the big question for me is do I stay with the historical win by Gossett who does a great job in his role? Or go with Preston who blew me away with his comedic sensibilities? It's a tough choice and honestly I've seen people online who have had those two win plus Lithgow and Mason as winners, so it's a strong group that is diverse and has it's individual backers. I think I'd like to stay with Gossett as the winner but Preston might grow on me enough to force me to change that. That's a pretty good dilemma to have.
Oscar Winner: Louis Gossett, Jr. - An Officer and a Gentleman
My Winner: Louis Gossett, Jr. - An Officer and a Gentleman
Robert Preston
James Mason
John Lithgow
Charles Durning
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Supporting Actress 1982
I both like and dislike when this category has nominees from films that have multiple nominations that I get to review. On one hand, it kinda makes the year go by quicker knowing that each of these films has at least two or more reviews attached to them. Finish this category and you've finished a bunch of other reviews, too. On the other hand, it's kinda nice to ease into a year with a one off nominee from a little film, almost like a break after closing out the year after which usually means watching the last film I probably didn't want to watch or had the most nominees or something. Anyway, both are fine I guess and I'm ready to dive in. I've seen Tootsie before but I don't remember the actual ladies from it and haven't seen any of the others.
1982 Best Supporting Actress
Jessica Lange - Tootsie
Well, the obvious thing here is this is Lange's consolation prize, so to speak. She wasn't winning Best Actress from Meryl for what some consider to be one of the best performances ever. Tootsie was well received and Lange was the lead in that film so naturally the Academy put her in Supporting to reward her because, well, Academy things. But seriously, Lange is the lead actress of Tootsie so this is very obvious category fraud. And admittedly Lange is pretty good in the role. You certainly remember her as Hoffman's love interest. She is an actress on a soap opera who gravitates towards Hoffman's Dorothy Michaels as someone to confide in and treat as a much needed friend. She sorta plays the straight role while Hoffman hams it up and Garr provides some comedic relief, as well. It's just solid acting from a good actress that will be an Oscar mainstay for awhile but it isn't really supporting. That's really the main gripe for the performance. It definitely wouldn't win Best Actress so this was the only shot Lange had at the win. Coupled with her other nomination, there was no way she was going home empty handed. Lange does a good job at showing a woman wanting to break free and be her own woman and showing her emotional, internal conflicts. She also balances out Hoffman, who is good no doubt, but can also be a bit much at times. Lange brings a stabilizing force to the film and the other characters. She also grounds the film where Hoffman could possibly take into farce territory, Lange makes her character feel real and authentic to women of the time period. So yes, Lange is very good in the role and brings a lot to the performance and film which is why it's easy to see why she won for this.
Glenn Close - The World According to Garp
This is a really strange film. There's a lot of people who find it endearing and quirky and fun but I can understand someone really hating this film, too. For one, it's very sexual, often in frank terms. That can set a lot of people on edge and turn them off to the film as a whole. But two, it's just strange overall. Close plays a woman who raped an anonymous airman because he had a boner and she wanted a child. She had Garp (Robin Williams) and then raises him in a weird moral stance. Doesn't want him wrestling but will go out and buy him a hooker and interview her to make sure she's okay for her son. There's also a lot of people who really love this Close performance. I haven't really thought her last couple nominations were all that worthy because there wasn't much to them. At least I feel like this one is earned with a solid enough performance. Her Jenny is odd as hell, yes, but it's a performance that she actually has something to do. She's motherly in her own strange way and supportive to Garp. She is definitely kooky and that's where the rub lies, can you stand that kind of performance or does it annoy you? I kinda fall in the middle. It's a strange one but it has some heart like the film itself does and can annoy me at times but at others I'm glad to see Close eating up a meaty role. I completely get why it was nominated and I don't mind the nomination at all since the Academy loves to nominate a ton of unworthy performances in this category. I say watch it and judge for yourself whether it appeals to you or not.
Teri Garr - Tootsie
I was reading the Inside Oscar book about this year and they mentioned that Garr was pretty pissed off that Lange was slotted in Supporting, essentially taking away her chance to win anything by siphoning votes from her. Which is something I totally understand from her perspective. Lange is clearly Leading in Tootsie. But that's the Academy for you. Now I'm not so certain it would have mattered for Garr anyway but it's possible if the Academy really loved Tootsie enough. Garr plays Hoffman's roommate and sometimes lover and she brings some comedic relief to the film as well as some female frustration. When reading about her online, the bloggers all go nuts for this performance and claim it's so great and all that but I'm left wondering what they saw. Now, I'm not saying Garr is bad because her performance is enjoyable enough, just not to the level of effusive flowery adjectives describing it. She's truly supporting and charmingly funny in her role. She's this bundle of hyper anxiety with moments of self loathing and self doubt, just super insecure. Garr makes it work and forms it into an actual performance and not just spastic, unconnected acting choices. But still, I don't find it as amazing as the bloggers and don't see it as a winner no matter Lange's involvement in the category. It's a nice little performance that captures what Garr is like and nothing more.
Kim Stanley - Frances
When I think of Kim Stanley, I think of the sci-fi writer Kim Stanley Robinson and I can't really help it. I need to read his Mars Trilogy some day. Anyway, Stanley plays the mother of the eponymous Frances Farmer, a controversial young girl who goes on to be an actress and deal with mental health issues. That's a simplification of the story but what is not is Stanley's impact on the film. The mother is intermittently shown and it involves Stanley yelling at her daughter and being gruff and just being an obnoxious mother and person. Stanley's life never amounted to much so she groomed Frances to be her nest egg, so to speak, and is the impetus of the mental health issues Frances faces throughout her life. Stanley is domineering and she clearly relishes in the infamy of her daughter, maneuvering to send her back to the loony bin when she fears she might lose her control over Frances. The role itself is interesting in seeing how a mother can be such a sycophant with her own daughter and screw her up so bad in the head. It's just that the story kinda lets the role down and Stanley is decent enough but she can't quite overcome the melodramatic nature of the film. There's lots of screaming and yelling and softer emotional moments but it's sort of expected. I felt like Stanley could have stood out more just by playing it slightly differently. I was mostly bored with the film but at least the moments where Lange and Stanley are together have some life to them. I don't want to make it seem like I hate this performance. Stanley is good but I was left wanting for more from her because there was something deeper there. I am intrigued to watch her other Oscar nomination in 1964, though, which is a good thing.
Lesley Ann Warren - Victor/Victoria
This film really surprised me with how much I thoroughly enjoyed it. It sags a bit towards the end but overall is really entertaining and downright hilarious. Part of what makes it so funny is the amazing job that all three nominated actors do with their comedic timing. Their timing is impeccable and Warren is no exception. She plays the nasally blonde moll who is somewhat dumb but a whole lot sexy. The role is a typical one for what it is but Warren goes all in with it and zealously makes the performance work despite it being mostly one note. I can't stress enough, though, how funny, sexy, goofy Warren is and how well the performance and role fit within the film. If everyone else wasn't as talented in their roles, this would probably stick out like a sore thumb but Warren brings the funny just like her co-stars. She's also not used all that much which helps the performance since we don't get annoyed with the character and get her comedy bits drop by drop instead of in a deluge. This is where less is more, Warren is used only when needed. It is one note like I said and isn't exactly pushing any boundaries but sometimes just being good at that one note is enough. She's very funny and attacks the role with a definite vitality that comes across onscreen. This film just really struck a chord in me somewhere because I laughed a lot while watching it and Warren is part of the reason why. Others might find it shrill and annoying and I get that but I was pleasantly surprised with how much I liked it. That said, I'm not sure this will be a winner but at least it'll be something I recommend.
Honestly, I was expecting a really bad group and was glad that wasn't the case. Even my bottom two are still okay to watch. Garr is good for what she is and delivers some funny moments and fits well into the film. It was just too slight to leap anyone else on the list. Stanley actually could have been 5th but I feel like there was something a bit deeper in the role that the story just wouldn't let out and Stanley didn't get the chance to show us. It's an interesting role that I would have liked to be expanded. The top 3 is where I'm not too sure of where to place everyone. Lange is a leading role forced into supporting because the Academy wanted her to win and because they also liked her turn in Frances. She's solid enough in the role and is a definite plus to her film. Close gives a sincere performance in a weird as hell film and really takes it to heart and gives us something interesting. Warren is downright hilarious but a little too slight and one note. I think Warren falls in the middle for me just because I wanted a little more of her. But I could easily bump her up tomorrow if you ask me. Lange would be my second because of category fraud (but I know that hasn't stopped me before from making someone a winner or keeping them from the win and will continue to happen as I go back) and because Close gave us something interesting and different and something worthy, for me. I'm fine with the Lange win but if Close would have won, would they both have been continuously nominated in the coming years? Would Lange have won her second Oscar? Lots of questions coming from this year based off who won. Something to think about from a surprising year.
Oscar Winner: Jessica Lange - Tootsie
My Winner: Glenn Close - The World According to Garp
Jessica Lange
Lesley Ann Warren
Kim Stanley
Teri Garr
1982 Best Supporting Actress
Jessica Lange - Tootsie
Well, the obvious thing here is this is Lange's consolation prize, so to speak. She wasn't winning Best Actress from Meryl for what some consider to be one of the best performances ever. Tootsie was well received and Lange was the lead in that film so naturally the Academy put her in Supporting to reward her because, well, Academy things. But seriously, Lange is the lead actress of Tootsie so this is very obvious category fraud. And admittedly Lange is pretty good in the role. You certainly remember her as Hoffman's love interest. She is an actress on a soap opera who gravitates towards Hoffman's Dorothy Michaels as someone to confide in and treat as a much needed friend. She sorta plays the straight role while Hoffman hams it up and Garr provides some comedic relief, as well. It's just solid acting from a good actress that will be an Oscar mainstay for awhile but it isn't really supporting. That's really the main gripe for the performance. It definitely wouldn't win Best Actress so this was the only shot Lange had at the win. Coupled with her other nomination, there was no way she was going home empty handed. Lange does a good job at showing a woman wanting to break free and be her own woman and showing her emotional, internal conflicts. She also balances out Hoffman, who is good no doubt, but can also be a bit much at times. Lange brings a stabilizing force to the film and the other characters. She also grounds the film where Hoffman could possibly take into farce territory, Lange makes her character feel real and authentic to women of the time period. So yes, Lange is very good in the role and brings a lot to the performance and film which is why it's easy to see why she won for this.
Glenn Close - The World According to Garp
This is a really strange film. There's a lot of people who find it endearing and quirky and fun but I can understand someone really hating this film, too. For one, it's very sexual, often in frank terms. That can set a lot of people on edge and turn them off to the film as a whole. But two, it's just strange overall. Close plays a woman who raped an anonymous airman because he had a boner and she wanted a child. She had Garp (Robin Williams) and then raises him in a weird moral stance. Doesn't want him wrestling but will go out and buy him a hooker and interview her to make sure she's okay for her son. There's also a lot of people who really love this Close performance. I haven't really thought her last couple nominations were all that worthy because there wasn't much to them. At least I feel like this one is earned with a solid enough performance. Her Jenny is odd as hell, yes, but it's a performance that she actually has something to do. She's motherly in her own strange way and supportive to Garp. She is definitely kooky and that's where the rub lies, can you stand that kind of performance or does it annoy you? I kinda fall in the middle. It's a strange one but it has some heart like the film itself does and can annoy me at times but at others I'm glad to see Close eating up a meaty role. I completely get why it was nominated and I don't mind the nomination at all since the Academy loves to nominate a ton of unworthy performances in this category. I say watch it and judge for yourself whether it appeals to you or not.
Teri Garr - Tootsie
I was reading the Inside Oscar book about this year and they mentioned that Garr was pretty pissed off that Lange was slotted in Supporting, essentially taking away her chance to win anything by siphoning votes from her. Which is something I totally understand from her perspective. Lange is clearly Leading in Tootsie. But that's the Academy for you. Now I'm not so certain it would have mattered for Garr anyway but it's possible if the Academy really loved Tootsie enough. Garr plays Hoffman's roommate and sometimes lover and she brings some comedic relief to the film as well as some female frustration. When reading about her online, the bloggers all go nuts for this performance and claim it's so great and all that but I'm left wondering what they saw. Now, I'm not saying Garr is bad because her performance is enjoyable enough, just not to the level of effusive flowery adjectives describing it. She's truly supporting and charmingly funny in her role. She's this bundle of hyper anxiety with moments of self loathing and self doubt, just super insecure. Garr makes it work and forms it into an actual performance and not just spastic, unconnected acting choices. But still, I don't find it as amazing as the bloggers and don't see it as a winner no matter Lange's involvement in the category. It's a nice little performance that captures what Garr is like and nothing more.
Kim Stanley - Frances
When I think of Kim Stanley, I think of the sci-fi writer Kim Stanley Robinson and I can't really help it. I need to read his Mars Trilogy some day. Anyway, Stanley plays the mother of the eponymous Frances Farmer, a controversial young girl who goes on to be an actress and deal with mental health issues. That's a simplification of the story but what is not is Stanley's impact on the film. The mother is intermittently shown and it involves Stanley yelling at her daughter and being gruff and just being an obnoxious mother and person. Stanley's life never amounted to much so she groomed Frances to be her nest egg, so to speak, and is the impetus of the mental health issues Frances faces throughout her life. Stanley is domineering and she clearly relishes in the infamy of her daughter, maneuvering to send her back to the loony bin when she fears she might lose her control over Frances. The role itself is interesting in seeing how a mother can be such a sycophant with her own daughter and screw her up so bad in the head. It's just that the story kinda lets the role down and Stanley is decent enough but she can't quite overcome the melodramatic nature of the film. There's lots of screaming and yelling and softer emotional moments but it's sort of expected. I felt like Stanley could have stood out more just by playing it slightly differently. I was mostly bored with the film but at least the moments where Lange and Stanley are together have some life to them. I don't want to make it seem like I hate this performance. Stanley is good but I was left wanting for more from her because there was something deeper there. I am intrigued to watch her other Oscar nomination in 1964, though, which is a good thing.
Lesley Ann Warren - Victor/Victoria
This film really surprised me with how much I thoroughly enjoyed it. It sags a bit towards the end but overall is really entertaining and downright hilarious. Part of what makes it so funny is the amazing job that all three nominated actors do with their comedic timing. Their timing is impeccable and Warren is no exception. She plays the nasally blonde moll who is somewhat dumb but a whole lot sexy. The role is a typical one for what it is but Warren goes all in with it and zealously makes the performance work despite it being mostly one note. I can't stress enough, though, how funny, sexy, goofy Warren is and how well the performance and role fit within the film. If everyone else wasn't as talented in their roles, this would probably stick out like a sore thumb but Warren brings the funny just like her co-stars. She's also not used all that much which helps the performance since we don't get annoyed with the character and get her comedy bits drop by drop instead of in a deluge. This is where less is more, Warren is used only when needed. It is one note like I said and isn't exactly pushing any boundaries but sometimes just being good at that one note is enough. She's very funny and attacks the role with a definite vitality that comes across onscreen. This film just really struck a chord in me somewhere because I laughed a lot while watching it and Warren is part of the reason why. Others might find it shrill and annoying and I get that but I was pleasantly surprised with how much I liked it. That said, I'm not sure this will be a winner but at least it'll be something I recommend.
Honestly, I was expecting a really bad group and was glad that wasn't the case. Even my bottom two are still okay to watch. Garr is good for what she is and delivers some funny moments and fits well into the film. It was just too slight to leap anyone else on the list. Stanley actually could have been 5th but I feel like there was something a bit deeper in the role that the story just wouldn't let out and Stanley didn't get the chance to show us. It's an interesting role that I would have liked to be expanded. The top 3 is where I'm not too sure of where to place everyone. Lange is a leading role forced into supporting because the Academy wanted her to win and because they also liked her turn in Frances. She's solid enough in the role and is a definite plus to her film. Close gives a sincere performance in a weird as hell film and really takes it to heart and gives us something interesting. Warren is downright hilarious but a little too slight and one note. I think Warren falls in the middle for me just because I wanted a little more of her. But I could easily bump her up tomorrow if you ask me. Lange would be my second because of category fraud (but I know that hasn't stopped me before from making someone a winner or keeping them from the win and will continue to happen as I go back) and because Close gave us something interesting and different and something worthy, for me. I'm fine with the Lange win but if Close would have won, would they both have been continuously nominated in the coming years? Would Lange have won her second Oscar? Lots of questions coming from this year based off who won. Something to think about from a surprising year.
Oscar Winner: Jessica Lange - Tootsie
My Winner: Glenn Close - The World According to Garp
Jessica Lange
Lesley Ann Warren
Kim Stanley
Teri Garr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)