This is actually a crazy year when you look at the films versus nominations. There are only 10 (TEN!) films that I have to watch for 5 total categories and 25 total nominations. There are only 2 films with just 1 nomination each. The rest of the films have multiple nominations. And there are 3 films that hit the Big 5 (Picture, Actor, Actress, Director, Screenplay) in this year - Reds, On Golden Pond, and Atlantic City. Reds even was nominated in all 5 categories that I review here. I doubt this happens all that often in Oscar history. I've seen just one for this whole year so it will be fun to watch them all.
1981 Best Picture
Chariots of Fire
Chariots of Fire is not as lame or dumb or bad or whatever as you have possibly been led to believe it is. Probably what you know about this film is that it's a running movie and that it has an iconic and distinctive score. A score that you would recognize in a second even if you've never seen this film. It's honestly transcended the original source and become it's own thing. But score aside, this film is actually quite strong. That's what struck me after seeing it for the time knowing many people hate on this as a winner. It's about a group of runners, focusing mainly on a devout Scottish Christian and a Jewish kid, who compete against each other before going to the 1924 Olympics in Paris. It's more than just a running film and it's more than just a Christian versus Jewish runner film. It's more about them as people how the Jewish guy, Harold Abrahams, was proud to run for Great Britain because his dad came from Europe and allowed him to go to Cambridge and be a great citizen. The Scottish guy, Eric Liddell, had already been a national hero in rugby but found he was even better at running. His thing was that he refused to run on the Sabbath because of how devout he was which made him change from the 100m to the 400m race. But he was steadfast in adhering to his principles even when the Prince of Wales and other important people sat him down and asked him to reconsider. He stuck to his beliefs and that's a nice thing to see. The races themselves are actually very compelling for running as the film makes the tension and intrigue a main focus. You can easily guess the outcomes for some of the races but watching how they get there is what makes the film great. It turns what could and should be a boring subject into something that is highly compelling and intensely interesting. My argument is that it's more than just the beach running scene with the iconic music playing. There is an actual film behind it which is the reason it was nominated for Best Picture and won. I would say don't dismiss this film based on what you've heard and watch it for yourself and judge it.
Atlantic City
This film is never talked about anymore to the point that I didn't even know what it's legacy or reputation was. A lot of these films come up time and again when reading and talking about the Oscars with others but not a thing for Atlantic City. Really all I knew about it was that it was Susan Sarandon's first Oscar nomination and Burt Lancaster's last nomination. Feelings about the film seem to be all over the place. Some people hate it and don't like the leads or the story and some people rave that it's an underrated classic and deserves to be seen by more people. After watching it, I'm firmly in the latter camp. Lancaster gives a tremendous performance that I wasn't expecting and Sarandon shows why she would become an Oscar darling in the following years. The film is also a Louis Malle film, which has the French auteurs fingerprints all over it. It looks great, for one, and also has interesting camera movements and scene composition. I contrast it with another prestige film of the year in Absence of Malice and how dull and boring and uninspiring it made Miami of all places look. It was a pedestrian film but Atlantic City had vibrancy just through the direction alone. Add in a compelling that story that could easily fit back in the 40s or 50s but still feels very modern and you've got a great film. I like that the story focuses on Lancaster's character and uses the nefarious underworld of Atlantic City as more of a subplot. The film feels more personal that way and Lancaster blows me away with his performance. The film is about what you think a film titled Atlantic City would be about. An older bit player wannabe gangster type in Lancaster gets involved with Sarandon after her estranged husband pops back into her life and is killed because of drugs. Lancaster sees it as a way to reclaim his glory days, whatever that really was/is we don't know, and to protect Sarandon who he likes. I'm really glad the Academy chose it for the category because I feel like it definitely belongs and I didn't miss out on being able to watch it. I highly recommend watching this film and hope it's an underrated gem for you, too.
On Golden Pond
This film isn't quite as awful as I had expected. Now, let me temper that with I don't believe this is really Best Picture worthy but is at least entertaining. The film did make a lot of money coming in at number 2 in the box office race for the year and starred two veteran acting giants in Katharine Hepburn and Henry Fonda. Those factors together were bound to get the Academy to vote for it in a bunch of categories, which they did. It's a simple story of an older couple who live on a lake in a cabin and their daughter comes to visit with her new fiancee and his son. They leave the boy and Henry Fonda and the kid bond and fish and all that sappy stuff. That's really all the film is about so it's not a heavy hitter at all. It does have good acting from the leads, though I don't believe Hepburn was worthy of a win. Jane Fonda doesn't really add much to the film with her role, either. If not for the two leads, this film would have probably been a very good Hallmark Channel type of film. Henry Fonda makes the film way better than it really is because he is so hysterical as the grumpy old man even though the film has that saccharine sort of look and feel to it. I don't mind the overall product but it just isn't something I'd nominate or vote for. I actually see it's importance of being a Best Picture film starred by two older actors and I see that as a plus. Can't really hate on the film too much when I do like parts of it. I don't really know what else to say about it!
Raiders of the Lost Ark
I'm on record saying I love when films like these get nominated for Best Picture. It's entertaining with a decent story and good acting and it made a ton of money at the box office. There is never ending debate even in today's world about Oscar needing to represent the everyman by including more mainstream, Hollywood blockbuster type films and not just indie, foreign, Oscar bait, rarely seen type of films. That's the perception of the Oscars for most people, though the Academy routinely includes a big, popular moneymaker all the time. Recent examples are Avatar, Mad Max, Toy Story 3, and even Hidden Figures this past year. Critics of the process and the show seem to want stuff that doesn't quite make you think Oscar like the Marvel films or Fast and the Furious or whatever big popcorn flick that's out. The films should have some artistic merit to them and not just big explosions and all that. Raiders fits that mold of being entertaining and a quality film with a great performance at the heart of it, which I think is one of those things that separates the other films mentioned. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones and he whisks us away on his adventures because he is a great actor. There are so many iconic moments and memorable scenes that the film stays with you for all time. The tarantulas on the back scene at the very beginning still haunts me, but everyone can pick out a scene that they love (or hate). Karen Allen is good in her role (also enjoyed her in the underrated Starman) and the supporting characters themselves are memorable. It's just a great movie that everyone loves and is infinitely rewatchable. Did Raiders deserve to be the Best Picture of the year? Nah, I don't think so. It's still really campy and cheesy and full of cringey moments. But it lives on 35 plus years later seeing as how no one remembers Atlantic City or watches Reds or On Golden Pond and only know Chariots of Fire because of the music and running. That's quite an achievement. Anyway, you should all know what this movie is about and should have seen it already so you know whether it should be on a Best Picture list or not.
Reds
Taking on this film felt daunting. I knew it had nominees in every category I write about for a total of 5, which is the most I've had to write for one film in probably over a decade. And I knew that the film was a long epic about the rise of communism in America and was unsure how that could really be exciting or engaging. But that's why I watch the films - to see for myself why they were nominated. Reds is Warren Beatty's magnum opus. He directed (and won an Oscar for it), produced, wrote, and starred in this film which he continued to do with his films in the future. But this is obviously his labor of love, a film that is actually more of a love story using the communist angle as more of a backdrop. I was surprised because I really thought it was going to be this action focused epic that dealt with uprisings and revolutions and lots of grand scenes but that isn't the case at all. It's a very personal, almost insular epic that focuses more on the relationship of Beatty's John Reed and Diane Keaton's Louise Bryant. It actually works for me and is fantastically paced. I never really felt bored even though this is over 3 hours long as it moves along at a brisk pace and rotates it's characters and settings in and out with efficiency. The film follows Keaton as a married woman who sees Beatty speak in Portland and then she is energized to join the movement and ends up in NYC to crash at Beatty's place and a tumultuous love affair begins. Keaton herself becomes a writer for the growing movement and asserts herself right alongside Beatty as he helps lead the charge for communism to take root in the US. That's the first half of the film and it succeeds for me because so much is going on and it introduces all these characters and builds towards something that is compelling. I know that sounds vague but the first half is really engaging and the Beatty/Keaton relationship twists and turns and keeps you interested while all the other communism related stuff goes on behind them. I do feel like the second half of the film kinda slows everything down and almost becomes stagnant though it still moves along well. This is when Beatty heads to Russia and gets sick and Keaton tries to find him over there and things just focus on the two more specifically. The ending is actually somewhat touching but lets the scene speak for itself. It's an all around really great effort by Beatty in everything he did even if the acting is too much like Beatty instead of John Reed. I was expecting a long bore of a film about a subject that I honestly don't care about but Beatty made it compelling and added more than just pure history to the story. There's even these real life talking head transitions of old people talking about the time period and the characters like Band of Brothers does (or Up in the Air, to use an Oscar reference). It's innovative even though it's confusing some of the time as they contradict each other or just don't make sense, but anyway it's an interesting way to transition scenes. But would I watch it again? Probably not on purpose because while it is interesting and compelling and has good acting and sets, it doesn't leave me wanting more or feeling like I watched a can't miss classic.
Kind of a weird year to be honest. When you look at this year what sticks out and what do you remember. Most people would say Raiders and then depending on how old or how into movies they are On Golden Pond and Chariots of Fire. But really the Indiana Jones film is the most memorable and most people probably don't even realize it was nominated for Best Picture. So we are left with a bunch of films that no one really talks about in today's world anymore. On Golden Pond is my 5th choice because it is like Hallmark movie with great actors. It's actually not bad but not Oscar worthy, either. And then I don't really know how to rank them. Obviously I'd rather watch Raiders over any of the others but can I rank it all that high? It's good fun but I prefer Temple of Doom more. I recognize Reds as a pretty good epic that was interesting and didn't feel overly long but I'm in no rush to watch it again. I liked Atlantic City a lot because of the acting and the story felt old but fresh at the same time and the directing was excellent. But I think I'll side with the Academy here because Chariots of Fire just has that prestige Best Picture Oscar feel to it and it's quite good. I may over time decide I prefer Atlantic City but I feel the winner is correct for now. I didn't hate any of the films which is always nice and I found a gem in Atlantic City which is awesome, too. Not a bad year overall. One more year in the 80s and then I can finally hit the 70s!
Oscar Winner: Chariots of Fire
My Winner: Chariots of Fire
Atlantic City
Reds
Raiders of the Lost Ark
On Golden Pond
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Leading Actor 1981
I always wonder how many of these films I'll ever watch again. I feel like this journey is going to end up taking so long and I have tons of other films I want to finally see also. Lots of classic foreign films and cult classics and like all of Nicolas Cage's films. I just wonder if I'll ever actually decide to revisit say Absence of Malice like 10 years from now. Seems we watch films once rate it as great or not great and hold to that opinion forever and debate furiously about one way or the other. Anyway, every name on this list should be known, maybe not Dudley Moore, but you'll recognize him at least. Given the names, I'm expecting this to be a great category again.
1981 Best Actor
Henry Fonda - On Golden Pond
I have had my issues with this film and its performances but Henry Fonda is not part of that. I feel like I'd be called out for not mentioning the fact that this was Fonda's last nomination because he died soon after, but also because he holds the record of most years between nominations with 41 years. That's insane because this is Henry Fonda. He's done great work. I mean 1940 was a stacked year for Best Actor but The Grapes of Wrath was/is a classic. Anyway, I was concerned as to how this performance would be. Was this just a bullshit veteran win or was this a legit win? Well, Fonda is absolutely hilarious in the role of Norman. He is basically the grumpy old man and he spouts off these super funny lines one after the other. He's just got this dry humor that is from an old man and I laughed so much when watching him and this film. I didn't expect to actually laugh or feel much of anything from this old people Hallmark film. But Fonda was a hoot and he brought a personality to the role. I feel like he actually makes the film a success just because of his humor and grumpy old man persona. Other older actors may have faltered in the role so Fonda really added a dimension to the role that was necessary. I still don't know if Henry is the winner this year. I like the fact that he has an Oscar but I hope that it isn't at the expense of another, more worthy performance. I haven't seen the others yet because this was the first film I watched for the year but Fonda is good. My concern is that we denigrate a legend for a softball role that he knocked out of the park even though it was the Academy who voted him for the win. Fonda is good in the role but I need to see the rest of this group to figure out who my winner is.
Warren Beatty - Reds
I am beginning to see more and more with Warren Beatty roles that Warren Beatty is really great at playing Warren Beatty. There is no doubt that he is a super talented man. Hell, he wrote, directed, produced, and starred in this film. It is his magnum opus. But I have always seen Beatty as more of a movie star (at least in his roles going back in time to this point) who wants to look good even if the film or role or circumstance calls for him to be real or gritty or flawed. Beatty is the star of Reds. He looks good throughout, even while dying, and his character seems to move through the story with relative ease. There's not much to challenge Beatty. He stays pretty righteous and glorious and untouched throughout the film. Adversity is nothing to him. Yeah he might yell and run and fight and do heroic things but it all feels geared to make Beatty look like a movie star. That's my take on his acting. I want to know who John Reed is because apparently he is this very influential man who helped shape communism in America and tried to help shape it in Russia and was a leader and an acclaimed writer. We are shown a lot of this as an audience by way of Beatty going through the motions but do we ever really know who Reed is? Not really because Beatty only barely scratches the surface of the man, being more concerned with the love story with Louise Bryant and projecting an air of authority and good guy everyman. Reds is an epic that gets too romantic with it's subject and we are left trying to figure out who exactly John Reed is. His relationship with Keaton (Bryant) is odd thing of twists and turns and tumultuous love. There's times where I can't even tell if they are together because the two lack chemistry and are so blase with each other. Other times the passion is there, but I felt like if Beatty became Reed, he'd be more invested in that relationship and it would make those twists and turns feel more real and harrowing. Beatty is a good actor but he needed to actually become John Reed and not the Hollywood glamorized paper thin version of John Reed. I think I've hammered home the point that Beatty needs to be more believable in his roles hard enough. The film could have been so much better and a true classic if he'd have invested more in the character. The performance is far from awful but it could have been great.
Burt Lancaster - Atlantic City
I went into this film not knowing a thing about it or how it was generally received by people. It was this sort of blank spot in 1981 where no one mentioned Atlantic City when looking online. What you can find is a mixed reaction of reviewers loving it or hating it. So I was intrigued to finally watch it and to see Lancaster's final Oscar nomination. I had enjoyed his performance in Field of Dreams and some felt he should have been nominated for that one. Would this just be a veteran nomination in keeping with the theme of this year or would this be a legit, well earned nomination for Lancaster? It's definitely the latter and Lancaster really does blow me away with his performance in this film. I wasn't expecting to like it so much but I'm glad he delivered something I look forward to watching again. Lancaster plays an old, two bit gangster who runs numbers and lives with a reclusive old woman. He is neighbors with Susan Sarandon and becomes involved with her issues after he estranged husband pops back in and is murdered for stealing drugs from the mafia. Lancaster's performance is one of those from a veteran who still has that old acting style but also gives it a modern update. He isn't stuck acting like he is back in the 50s or 60s and sticking out like a sore thumb in the film. It makes me think that Lancaster could have been great even if his career had started in the 80s because his acting is timeless, he fits easily into an 80s story and aesthetic. I also love how Lancaster plays Lou as both a confident man and man afraid of failing. Lancaster mixes the two personalities well and wraps them up in his character so that he's experiencing these emotions separately and at once. Towards the end of the film when Lou shoots a man after having spent a lot of the film describing himself as an important gangster in Vegas in his past, he busts out into child like glee and spastically celebrates that he actually killed a man. That tough gangster facade comes down and we see the reality that is Lou: a wannabe that can't actually handle what the gangster life truly means. It's great acting from Lancaster and really cements how much he has to do with portraying his character. Timeless is definitely the word I would use to describe the performance because it would still work if played in 1965 and that is all because of Lancaster. This very well could end up being my winner.
Dudley Moore - Arthur
This is actually a pretty inspired nomination from the Academy. I've marveled at it being chosen especially given the makeup of this group as a whole. There are four veteran actors and Oscar darlings in this group, three of which get their first nominations in quite a long time, and then there's Dudley Moore. In a comedy. Where he's a drunk rich guy who goes out getting prostitutes before meeting Liza Minnelli. And his family wants him to marry a woman he's not into. The character is so damn hysterical at times. But you have to get through his annoying, drunken laugh which seems to occur after every joke. After a while I didn't mind it, but I imagine there are some people that hate it. Awful laugh aside, I can't reiterate how funny Moore is in this performance. Both he and John Gielgud are pitch perfect with their comebacks and one liners and quips and whatever else you want to call them. I was laughing pretty good through most of the film and Moore was a big reason for that. He also probably gives one of the better, okay - one of the best, drunk performances you'll ever see. The drunkenness was hilarious and authentic feeling and never felt out of place or exaggerated. He also is still very charming in the role of Arthur. A rich, drunk guy could easily become an asshole you can't stand yet Moore does it in an affable and lovable way. The film has him sort of grow up into a realization that he'd rather have true love than money and Moore sells that in a believable way. And Arthur still seems likable and genuine even when he's sober. The love Arthur shows for Gielgud's character never feels hokey or contrived. Arthur just seems like a nice person who is also a massive alcoholic. I'm sure lots could be written on that subject but it's a comedy so I'm not going to get too deep into it. I just know that this kind of comedy performance getting nominated is a rare thing, at least in the last 35 plus years of Oscar. It's nice to see comedy rewarded even though Moore stood no chance at winning this year.
Paul Newman - Absence of Malice
I feel like this was in a time period where the Academy started to try and get Newman an Oscar which he had not won yet. So you get a performance like this that gets nominated though I'm not sure it should be and certainly isn't one of Newman's top performances in his career. That seems harsh since Newman has had so many iconic and great performances that this looks dull by comparison. Newman plays a man who is the son of a mafioso who gets a story run in the paper written by Sally Field that says he's being investigated for a murder. This is to put the squeeze on him by the cops to try and get information for them. He was actually off with Melinda Dillon for a sensitive issue so he didn't do it and he wants to clear his name. Sounds way more exciting than it really is, trust me. I don't want to say that Newman sleepwalks through the performance because there are scenes where he really does shine but most of his performance is just him being Paul Newman. There is one scene where Newman gets very angry with Field when she talks to him after his friend Dillon died but then none of that anger really carries over into the rest of the performance which you think it would. Sure, he gets his revenge but it doesn't seem to fit his character. He is like a man that wants to be left alone that gets dragged into something that he has to fix, which I can see somewhat in the performance, but it just feels like lesser Newman work. There's no charisma with Field at all and I don't think that's an acting choice, either. And really Newman just spends a lot of time reacting to things going on around him as others do more of the work. The film is okay but it certainly doesn't thrill you or provide any tension. It's saved at the end by a wonderful Wilford Brimley but other than that it just kinda skates on by just like Newman's performance.
I guess I'd call this a somewhat underwhelming group. The names alone should mean it was a great group but not everyone lives up to their billing. I'm disappointed in Newman who seems to just float through his film and doesn't really try. Feels like the Academy was trying to get him an award, which in this year was a theme for the whole group. Beatty gives us his magnum opus but gets by acting wise with sheer movie star quality which doesn't actually make for a great performance. I think he gets in because he did everything for the film. He won Best Director so he wasn't winning Best Actor on top of that. Now the next two is kinda hard to place. Both Moore and Fonda are really funny in their roles in different ways. Moore is the drunk millionaire who is a laugh a second. Fonda plays the grumpy old man role almost to perfection. I think Moore's performance will grow on me more as the years go by even though he can be a tad annoying. I'm fine with Fonda in second for now and I'm okay with his win because he finally gets one. But I did like Lancaster way more in his role. Those two guys were being nominated for the first time in decades so there was a little battle there going on with Fonda being the sentimental favorite. I just felt Lancaster did more with his role which was tougher and more layered than Fonda's grumpy old man warms up to a boy role. And like I said in his review, Lancaster's performance has a timeless quality to it. I can see it doing well in the 50s or 60s just like it did well in 1981. I'm cool with Fonda's win but I'll vote for Lancaster here.
Oscar Winner: Henry Fonda - On Golden Pond
My Winner: Burt Lancaster - Atlantic City
Henry Fonda
Dudley Moore
Warren Beatty
Paul Newman
1981 Best Actor
Henry Fonda - On Golden Pond
I have had my issues with this film and its performances but Henry Fonda is not part of that. I feel like I'd be called out for not mentioning the fact that this was Fonda's last nomination because he died soon after, but also because he holds the record of most years between nominations with 41 years. That's insane because this is Henry Fonda. He's done great work. I mean 1940 was a stacked year for Best Actor but The Grapes of Wrath was/is a classic. Anyway, I was concerned as to how this performance would be. Was this just a bullshit veteran win or was this a legit win? Well, Fonda is absolutely hilarious in the role of Norman. He is basically the grumpy old man and he spouts off these super funny lines one after the other. He's just got this dry humor that is from an old man and I laughed so much when watching him and this film. I didn't expect to actually laugh or feel much of anything from this old people Hallmark film. But Fonda was a hoot and he brought a personality to the role. I feel like he actually makes the film a success just because of his humor and grumpy old man persona. Other older actors may have faltered in the role so Fonda really added a dimension to the role that was necessary. I still don't know if Henry is the winner this year. I like the fact that he has an Oscar but I hope that it isn't at the expense of another, more worthy performance. I haven't seen the others yet because this was the first film I watched for the year but Fonda is good. My concern is that we denigrate a legend for a softball role that he knocked out of the park even though it was the Academy who voted him for the win. Fonda is good in the role but I need to see the rest of this group to figure out who my winner is.
Warren Beatty - Reds
I am beginning to see more and more with Warren Beatty roles that Warren Beatty is really great at playing Warren Beatty. There is no doubt that he is a super talented man. Hell, he wrote, directed, produced, and starred in this film. It is his magnum opus. But I have always seen Beatty as more of a movie star (at least in his roles going back in time to this point) who wants to look good even if the film or role or circumstance calls for him to be real or gritty or flawed. Beatty is the star of Reds. He looks good throughout, even while dying, and his character seems to move through the story with relative ease. There's not much to challenge Beatty. He stays pretty righteous and glorious and untouched throughout the film. Adversity is nothing to him. Yeah he might yell and run and fight and do heroic things but it all feels geared to make Beatty look like a movie star. That's my take on his acting. I want to know who John Reed is because apparently he is this very influential man who helped shape communism in America and tried to help shape it in Russia and was a leader and an acclaimed writer. We are shown a lot of this as an audience by way of Beatty going through the motions but do we ever really know who Reed is? Not really because Beatty only barely scratches the surface of the man, being more concerned with the love story with Louise Bryant and projecting an air of authority and good guy everyman. Reds is an epic that gets too romantic with it's subject and we are left trying to figure out who exactly John Reed is. His relationship with Keaton (Bryant) is odd thing of twists and turns and tumultuous love. There's times where I can't even tell if they are together because the two lack chemistry and are so blase with each other. Other times the passion is there, but I felt like if Beatty became Reed, he'd be more invested in that relationship and it would make those twists and turns feel more real and harrowing. Beatty is a good actor but he needed to actually become John Reed and not the Hollywood glamorized paper thin version of John Reed. I think I've hammered home the point that Beatty needs to be more believable in his roles hard enough. The film could have been so much better and a true classic if he'd have invested more in the character. The performance is far from awful but it could have been great.
Burt Lancaster - Atlantic City
I went into this film not knowing a thing about it or how it was generally received by people. It was this sort of blank spot in 1981 where no one mentioned Atlantic City when looking online. What you can find is a mixed reaction of reviewers loving it or hating it. So I was intrigued to finally watch it and to see Lancaster's final Oscar nomination. I had enjoyed his performance in Field of Dreams and some felt he should have been nominated for that one. Would this just be a veteran nomination in keeping with the theme of this year or would this be a legit, well earned nomination for Lancaster? It's definitely the latter and Lancaster really does blow me away with his performance in this film. I wasn't expecting to like it so much but I'm glad he delivered something I look forward to watching again. Lancaster plays an old, two bit gangster who runs numbers and lives with a reclusive old woman. He is neighbors with Susan Sarandon and becomes involved with her issues after he estranged husband pops back in and is murdered for stealing drugs from the mafia. Lancaster's performance is one of those from a veteran who still has that old acting style but also gives it a modern update. He isn't stuck acting like he is back in the 50s or 60s and sticking out like a sore thumb in the film. It makes me think that Lancaster could have been great even if his career had started in the 80s because his acting is timeless, he fits easily into an 80s story and aesthetic. I also love how Lancaster plays Lou as both a confident man and man afraid of failing. Lancaster mixes the two personalities well and wraps them up in his character so that he's experiencing these emotions separately and at once. Towards the end of the film when Lou shoots a man after having spent a lot of the film describing himself as an important gangster in Vegas in his past, he busts out into child like glee and spastically celebrates that he actually killed a man. That tough gangster facade comes down and we see the reality that is Lou: a wannabe that can't actually handle what the gangster life truly means. It's great acting from Lancaster and really cements how much he has to do with portraying his character. Timeless is definitely the word I would use to describe the performance because it would still work if played in 1965 and that is all because of Lancaster. This very well could end up being my winner.
Dudley Moore - Arthur
This is actually a pretty inspired nomination from the Academy. I've marveled at it being chosen especially given the makeup of this group as a whole. There are four veteran actors and Oscar darlings in this group, three of which get their first nominations in quite a long time, and then there's Dudley Moore. In a comedy. Where he's a drunk rich guy who goes out getting prostitutes before meeting Liza Minnelli. And his family wants him to marry a woman he's not into. The character is so damn hysterical at times. But you have to get through his annoying, drunken laugh which seems to occur after every joke. After a while I didn't mind it, but I imagine there are some people that hate it. Awful laugh aside, I can't reiterate how funny Moore is in this performance. Both he and John Gielgud are pitch perfect with their comebacks and one liners and quips and whatever else you want to call them. I was laughing pretty good through most of the film and Moore was a big reason for that. He also probably gives one of the better, okay - one of the best, drunk performances you'll ever see. The drunkenness was hilarious and authentic feeling and never felt out of place or exaggerated. He also is still very charming in the role of Arthur. A rich, drunk guy could easily become an asshole you can't stand yet Moore does it in an affable and lovable way. The film has him sort of grow up into a realization that he'd rather have true love than money and Moore sells that in a believable way. And Arthur still seems likable and genuine even when he's sober. The love Arthur shows for Gielgud's character never feels hokey or contrived. Arthur just seems like a nice person who is also a massive alcoholic. I'm sure lots could be written on that subject but it's a comedy so I'm not going to get too deep into it. I just know that this kind of comedy performance getting nominated is a rare thing, at least in the last 35 plus years of Oscar. It's nice to see comedy rewarded even though Moore stood no chance at winning this year.
Paul Newman - Absence of Malice
I feel like this was in a time period where the Academy started to try and get Newman an Oscar which he had not won yet. So you get a performance like this that gets nominated though I'm not sure it should be and certainly isn't one of Newman's top performances in his career. That seems harsh since Newman has had so many iconic and great performances that this looks dull by comparison. Newman plays a man who is the son of a mafioso who gets a story run in the paper written by Sally Field that says he's being investigated for a murder. This is to put the squeeze on him by the cops to try and get information for them. He was actually off with Melinda Dillon for a sensitive issue so he didn't do it and he wants to clear his name. Sounds way more exciting than it really is, trust me. I don't want to say that Newman sleepwalks through the performance because there are scenes where he really does shine but most of his performance is just him being Paul Newman. There is one scene where Newman gets very angry with Field when she talks to him after his friend Dillon died but then none of that anger really carries over into the rest of the performance which you think it would. Sure, he gets his revenge but it doesn't seem to fit his character. He is like a man that wants to be left alone that gets dragged into something that he has to fix, which I can see somewhat in the performance, but it just feels like lesser Newman work. There's no charisma with Field at all and I don't think that's an acting choice, either. And really Newman just spends a lot of time reacting to things going on around him as others do more of the work. The film is okay but it certainly doesn't thrill you or provide any tension. It's saved at the end by a wonderful Wilford Brimley but other than that it just kinda skates on by just like Newman's performance.
I guess I'd call this a somewhat underwhelming group. The names alone should mean it was a great group but not everyone lives up to their billing. I'm disappointed in Newman who seems to just float through his film and doesn't really try. Feels like the Academy was trying to get him an award, which in this year was a theme for the whole group. Beatty gives us his magnum opus but gets by acting wise with sheer movie star quality which doesn't actually make for a great performance. I think he gets in because he did everything for the film. He won Best Director so he wasn't winning Best Actor on top of that. Now the next two is kinda hard to place. Both Moore and Fonda are really funny in their roles in different ways. Moore is the drunk millionaire who is a laugh a second. Fonda plays the grumpy old man role almost to perfection. I think Moore's performance will grow on me more as the years go by even though he can be a tad annoying. I'm fine with Fonda in second for now and I'm okay with his win because he finally gets one. But I did like Lancaster way more in his role. Those two guys were being nominated for the first time in decades so there was a little battle there going on with Fonda being the sentimental favorite. I just felt Lancaster did more with his role which was tougher and more layered than Fonda's grumpy old man warms up to a boy role. And like I said in his review, Lancaster's performance has a timeless quality to it. I can see it doing well in the 50s or 60s just like it did well in 1981. I'm cool with Fonda's win but I'll vote for Lancaster here.
Oscar Winner: Henry Fonda - On Golden Pond
My Winner: Burt Lancaster - Atlantic City
Henry Fonda
Dudley Moore
Warren Beatty
Paul Newman
Leading Actress 1981
Looking at the list of names and I see 4 giants of the Best Actress category. I somewhat know what to expect from these ladies and fully expect good performances. But there's a wildcard here for me. I don't know anything about Marsha Mason but see this is her third total nomination which is impressive. So is she going to be able to hang with the others or not? Let's find out!
1981 Best Actress
Katharine Hepburn - On Golden Pond
I was always wary of this win. This was Hepburn's record 4th Oscar but we know how the Academy likes to reward its veterans. I knew this was a film about two respected veteran actors so I was prepared for a very cringe worthy performance. I've seen other old actor/old people films nominated and they were godawful. I was at least glad that Hepburn wasn't awful in her role. She plays the wife to Henry Fonda and they live in a cabin in the woods and have a daughter who leaves a stepson with them for a month. Hepburn still has that old school style of acting and that distinctive voice of hers. She is basically the supportive wife who encourages her husband to go out and do things. She loves her daughter and wishes she would get along with her father. She is perpetually happy and upbeat and sort of the driving force of her family. She gets everyone to where they should be and turns things into good moments that might not be and just is overall facilitating things. Her performance is workmanlike. Like I can see nominating her because of this performance because she is acting royalty and you want to give her one more nomination, but a win just doesn't make sense. There is nothing she does that is worthy of another win. The woman had 3 wins before this! It's not like she was due for a win or something. I still have to watch all the other women in this category but I hope she didn't steal a win from someone just because she's old. And that's really the only reason I can think of that she won. She is Oscar history and people voted for that. She's good in her role but it's not worth a win. I hope someone else in this group is worth voting for just so I can not feel like such a vindictive person.
Diane Keaton - Reds
This is actually the last review I'm writing for 1981 as writing the Best Picture and Actor blurbs for Reds was a lot easier and quicker. I've been stuck on trying to figure out what to say about Keaton for awhile now. The film actually focuses intently on Keaton as a character for most of the run time until we get to the end. I gotta say that Keaton holds her own under the weight of being a major focus of a three plus hour film. Keaton plays Louise Bryant, a socialite who hears John Reed (Warren Beatty) talk in Portland and decides she wants to join the cause and eventually makes her way to his apartment/house in NYC. They begin a torrid love affair and she becomes a prominent writer and she stays dedicated to him for the film. Keaton got to play all kinds of layers in her character going from the progressive socialite to the lovestruck/awestruck woman chasing a man across a whole country to the woman who is meek and can't speak up while out with other members of the cause to becoming a prominent writer who establishes her voice and her sense of self to a woman owning her sexuality to a woman who is steadfast for the cause to a woman steadfast to a man and so on. Keaton gets to play so many different parts with just one woman and she does a great job of balancing all of that and not making any one facet look unbelievable or ridiculous. We can easily see her as any of the above and she pulls off all of the above. Obviously, that all shows how her character grows into who she would ultimately become and sort of why she would follow Beatty to the ends of the earth in deep Russia. It's unfortunate that the chemistry with Beatty lacks at times which is surprising because they were dating at the time. I get that the romantic relationship has its ups and downs but there are times when I sense no actual passion between them. Keaton has a tall order in this film with her performance and keeping her head above water the entire time so to speak. One false move and those layers would cave in on themselves and become a huge mess for the film. I feel like Keaton is the only one putting in work for her performance and the film, though! I might not be a big Keaton fan but I can recognize that she does a tremendous job with what she's given to do. Even though she does do a good job given the circumstances, it's not a performance that I'd really want to revisit any time soon. It's enough to see it once if you're not a Keaton fan like me.
Marsha Mason - Only When I Laugh
Miss Mason had me hooked almost from the start with her voice over alone. I know that's sort of weird to say and makes it seem as if her voice is amazing or something but I think it was more the alcoholic subject that hit home for me. I was then worried it was going to be a very theatrical performance because it kinda started heading that way but Mason ended up impressing me with her performance. She plays a freshly rehabbed alcoholic actress coming back home to NYC. The film deals with her getting back into the groove of things like finally interacting with her daughter that she didn't have much to do with for years prior. She also gets back into acting and talking with her former beau and adjusting to sober life while her friends welcome her back. This part of the film is good and establishes Mason as a mile a minute talker. There are times where the performance turns theatrical here and scenes and lines (that go on for awhile) feel rehearsed like in a play. But I feel Mason settles in and I chalk it up to it being a Neil Simon written film which is why the writing feels so play like. Mason is strong in all this and is very dominating with her screen presence. Eventually Mason has her relapse and Mason plays it tremendously. It's cringe inducing because she becomes super talkative and just makes a fool of herself and her friends and her daughter while talking shit on everyone but being too drunk to realize she's saying hurtful things. It's a scene that goes on for awhile and has the sting of real life to it. Some of us have witnessed something like this or even been like that ourselves before and it hurts to see. I let out an audible NOOOOO when she started drinking because Mason had made us invest so much already into her character just with her performance. It felt like someone we knew personally relapsing and it hits hard. Then she spends the next little bit continuing to spiral out of control even after it seems like she's okay and she eventually ends up bloodied and bruised after a guy attacks her. She then sobers up and realizes what has happened and what she has done and talks it out with her daughter and friends. You can tell that Mason is super comfortable acting within a Simon script (she was actually married to him at the time and this was her third Oscar nomination for a film of his) and just runs wild with the material and really makes it her own. She dominates without overacting which would be easy in a role like this and brings an authenticity to the character that is truly remarkable. Maybe it connects more with me because of the alcohol factor, I don't know, but I do know that Mason delivers quite a performance that I wasn't expecting, especially considering I thought this was just going to be a light comedy!
Susan Sarandon - Atlantic City
A young Susan Sarandon who looks exactly the same as she does now at 70 years old, it's crazy. I had no idea she was that old but she looks great today. Anyway, this was Sarandon's first Oscar nomination for a really interesting film. From reading about this online and in reviews, it's a mixed bag on what people think about her performance. There are some that think she's great and a breath of fresh air and something to look forward to. And then there's the other side that think her performance is a joke and terrible and just not that good. The film itself falls into this weird dichotomy of interpretation. Sarandon plays the role of a woman who works in Atlantic City as a oyster shucker/waitress type and her estranged husband and her pregnant sister who are together come to town. He stole some drugs and is going to sell them and Sarandon's older neighbor, Burt Lancaster is privy to the same info and he likes Sarandon and the film just goes off from there. I find the film to be pretty interesting and Sarandon is like a more raw Susan Sarandon. That's the best way I can describe her performance. After watching a few of her films, you should know what that means. A woman who kinda stands up for herself and who wants to be independent involves herself with dangerous men or circumstances. This performance basically shows us just how good Sarandon will be for the next few decades. It's strange because people's younger roles can be so different yet this is the blueprint for Sarandon. Granted, I think she was like 30 or so when it was filmed at the end on 79 to hit the festival circuit in 80 to be released for Oscar in 81. She's a tough woman who is going to come out the other side, possibly wounded, but stronger for the effort. I like Sarandon in this and you can definitely tell that she was destined for bigger and better things. The end might not be very satisfying but at least it stays true to her character. Sarandon made a mark even if it's not her best work.
Meryl Streep - The French Lieutenant's Wife
Number 17 for me, down to just 3 more Streeps to go. Again, Meryl comes at us with an accent performance though I don't feel like her British accent here is all that great or convincing like her turn in The Iron Lady. This is actually a dual role for Streep, as she plays a woman in the current day (1980) who is an actress on a film and also plays an outcast woman in the late 1800s. The two roles mirror each other as they are both about affairs, though with drastically different outcomes. The modern day performance is mostly whatever. That time period isn't given much screen time until the end and Streep plays an American woman and doesn't do much acting with the character. Most of the film is spent on Sarah, the late 1800s version of the character. She is this outcast woman who I think had an affair with a Frenchman and the people all know and she is shamed and mournful and a walking emotional wreck. That sums up Streep's performance in that there is so much deep emotion that it ends up not even really making sense and feels way too over the top at times. It's almost more about the aesthetic of having emotion than actually letting us feel the emotions with her. It's like the film came up with the iconic scene of Streep out on a jetty and turning to the camera while wearing a hood and having a puzzling expression that is full of emotions and then basing the way the character is dealt with off that snapshot. I never connected with Streep's character or understood why she had to run off after having sex with Jeremy Irons so she could find herself. The film built up to them needing each other and then she disappears on him as he faces turmoil for breach of promise since he was engaged to be married. To me, the film was all about the appearance of emotions rather than the film and characters earning those emotions so that the viewer can become invested, too. It was also kinda dry and boring at times and the modern times only served to parallel the other story until the end. I didn't think Streep was anything all that amazing and I'd say this is one of her lesser nominations for sure.
Yep, Marsha Mason could hang. She is my runaway winner and it wasn't even close. Which was surprising given the names listed behind her. Even more surprising, or really not if I'm being honest, is that Hepburn brings up the rear. She's fine in her role and it's cutesy and fun seeing Hollywood royalty do her thing one last time but there is no reason she should have won. Her performance is not that good at all, especially going up against her competition. I would take everyone else on the list over her and it makes me mad because she didn't need a fourth (!) damn Oscar for that. Streep gives an okay performance that is more about showing off emotions than coming up with something coherent. It's an interesting concept but just doesn't work for me. Next up is kind of interesting because I have Sarandon third but I'd rather watch her performance again instead of Keaton's. Hers is a performance of an actress on the way up that's not fully polished to what we know she can do but is still enjoyable. Keaton is strong and carries an epic film and has to go through a ton of different layers with her character yet I'm not all that interested in watching it again. But I can recognize that she should be second over Sarandon. And Mason is my winner because she is so good. I was mesmerized and enthralled with her performance. It's also maybe a little more personal so it gets a bump in that regard but it's a great performance regardless. I highly recommend watching that film for Mason alone. All in all a good year. No stinkers. I liked Hepburn but it just shouldn't have won. I'll take years like this, though.
Oscar Winner: Katharine Hepburn - On Golden Pond
My Winner: Marsha Mason - Only When I Laugh
Diane Keaton
Susan Sarandon
Meryl Streep
Katharine Hepburn
1981 Best Actress
Katharine Hepburn - On Golden Pond
I was always wary of this win. This was Hepburn's record 4th Oscar but we know how the Academy likes to reward its veterans. I knew this was a film about two respected veteran actors so I was prepared for a very cringe worthy performance. I've seen other old actor/old people films nominated and they were godawful. I was at least glad that Hepburn wasn't awful in her role. She plays the wife to Henry Fonda and they live in a cabin in the woods and have a daughter who leaves a stepson with them for a month. Hepburn still has that old school style of acting and that distinctive voice of hers. She is basically the supportive wife who encourages her husband to go out and do things. She loves her daughter and wishes she would get along with her father. She is perpetually happy and upbeat and sort of the driving force of her family. She gets everyone to where they should be and turns things into good moments that might not be and just is overall facilitating things. Her performance is workmanlike. Like I can see nominating her because of this performance because she is acting royalty and you want to give her one more nomination, but a win just doesn't make sense. There is nothing she does that is worthy of another win. The woman had 3 wins before this! It's not like she was due for a win or something. I still have to watch all the other women in this category but I hope she didn't steal a win from someone just because she's old. And that's really the only reason I can think of that she won. She is Oscar history and people voted for that. She's good in her role but it's not worth a win. I hope someone else in this group is worth voting for just so I can not feel like such a vindictive person.
Diane Keaton - Reds
This is actually the last review I'm writing for 1981 as writing the Best Picture and Actor blurbs for Reds was a lot easier and quicker. I've been stuck on trying to figure out what to say about Keaton for awhile now. The film actually focuses intently on Keaton as a character for most of the run time until we get to the end. I gotta say that Keaton holds her own under the weight of being a major focus of a three plus hour film. Keaton plays Louise Bryant, a socialite who hears John Reed (Warren Beatty) talk in Portland and decides she wants to join the cause and eventually makes her way to his apartment/house in NYC. They begin a torrid love affair and she becomes a prominent writer and she stays dedicated to him for the film. Keaton got to play all kinds of layers in her character going from the progressive socialite to the lovestruck/awestruck woman chasing a man across a whole country to the woman who is meek and can't speak up while out with other members of the cause to becoming a prominent writer who establishes her voice and her sense of self to a woman owning her sexuality to a woman who is steadfast for the cause to a woman steadfast to a man and so on. Keaton gets to play so many different parts with just one woman and she does a great job of balancing all of that and not making any one facet look unbelievable or ridiculous. We can easily see her as any of the above and she pulls off all of the above. Obviously, that all shows how her character grows into who she would ultimately become and sort of why she would follow Beatty to the ends of the earth in deep Russia. It's unfortunate that the chemistry with Beatty lacks at times which is surprising because they were dating at the time. I get that the romantic relationship has its ups and downs but there are times when I sense no actual passion between them. Keaton has a tall order in this film with her performance and keeping her head above water the entire time so to speak. One false move and those layers would cave in on themselves and become a huge mess for the film. I feel like Keaton is the only one putting in work for her performance and the film, though! I might not be a big Keaton fan but I can recognize that she does a tremendous job with what she's given to do. Even though she does do a good job given the circumstances, it's not a performance that I'd really want to revisit any time soon. It's enough to see it once if you're not a Keaton fan like me.
Marsha Mason - Only When I Laugh
Miss Mason had me hooked almost from the start with her voice over alone. I know that's sort of weird to say and makes it seem as if her voice is amazing or something but I think it was more the alcoholic subject that hit home for me. I was then worried it was going to be a very theatrical performance because it kinda started heading that way but Mason ended up impressing me with her performance. She plays a freshly rehabbed alcoholic actress coming back home to NYC. The film deals with her getting back into the groove of things like finally interacting with her daughter that she didn't have much to do with for years prior. She also gets back into acting and talking with her former beau and adjusting to sober life while her friends welcome her back. This part of the film is good and establishes Mason as a mile a minute talker. There are times where the performance turns theatrical here and scenes and lines (that go on for awhile) feel rehearsed like in a play. But I feel Mason settles in and I chalk it up to it being a Neil Simon written film which is why the writing feels so play like. Mason is strong in all this and is very dominating with her screen presence. Eventually Mason has her relapse and Mason plays it tremendously. It's cringe inducing because she becomes super talkative and just makes a fool of herself and her friends and her daughter while talking shit on everyone but being too drunk to realize she's saying hurtful things. It's a scene that goes on for awhile and has the sting of real life to it. Some of us have witnessed something like this or even been like that ourselves before and it hurts to see. I let out an audible NOOOOO when she started drinking because Mason had made us invest so much already into her character just with her performance. It felt like someone we knew personally relapsing and it hits hard. Then she spends the next little bit continuing to spiral out of control even after it seems like she's okay and she eventually ends up bloodied and bruised after a guy attacks her. She then sobers up and realizes what has happened and what she has done and talks it out with her daughter and friends. You can tell that Mason is super comfortable acting within a Simon script (she was actually married to him at the time and this was her third Oscar nomination for a film of his) and just runs wild with the material and really makes it her own. She dominates without overacting which would be easy in a role like this and brings an authenticity to the character that is truly remarkable. Maybe it connects more with me because of the alcohol factor, I don't know, but I do know that Mason delivers quite a performance that I wasn't expecting, especially considering I thought this was just going to be a light comedy!
Susan Sarandon - Atlantic City
A young Susan Sarandon who looks exactly the same as she does now at 70 years old, it's crazy. I had no idea she was that old but she looks great today. Anyway, this was Sarandon's first Oscar nomination for a really interesting film. From reading about this online and in reviews, it's a mixed bag on what people think about her performance. There are some that think she's great and a breath of fresh air and something to look forward to. And then there's the other side that think her performance is a joke and terrible and just not that good. The film itself falls into this weird dichotomy of interpretation. Sarandon plays the role of a woman who works in Atlantic City as a oyster shucker/waitress type and her estranged husband and her pregnant sister who are together come to town. He stole some drugs and is going to sell them and Sarandon's older neighbor, Burt Lancaster is privy to the same info and he likes Sarandon and the film just goes off from there. I find the film to be pretty interesting and Sarandon is like a more raw Susan Sarandon. That's the best way I can describe her performance. After watching a few of her films, you should know what that means. A woman who kinda stands up for herself and who wants to be independent involves herself with dangerous men or circumstances. This performance basically shows us just how good Sarandon will be for the next few decades. It's strange because people's younger roles can be so different yet this is the blueprint for Sarandon. Granted, I think she was like 30 or so when it was filmed at the end on 79 to hit the festival circuit in 80 to be released for Oscar in 81. She's a tough woman who is going to come out the other side, possibly wounded, but stronger for the effort. I like Sarandon in this and you can definitely tell that she was destined for bigger and better things. The end might not be very satisfying but at least it stays true to her character. Sarandon made a mark even if it's not her best work.
Meryl Streep - The French Lieutenant's Wife
Number 17 for me, down to just 3 more Streeps to go. Again, Meryl comes at us with an accent performance though I don't feel like her British accent here is all that great or convincing like her turn in The Iron Lady. This is actually a dual role for Streep, as she plays a woman in the current day (1980) who is an actress on a film and also plays an outcast woman in the late 1800s. The two roles mirror each other as they are both about affairs, though with drastically different outcomes. The modern day performance is mostly whatever. That time period isn't given much screen time until the end and Streep plays an American woman and doesn't do much acting with the character. Most of the film is spent on Sarah, the late 1800s version of the character. She is this outcast woman who I think had an affair with a Frenchman and the people all know and she is shamed and mournful and a walking emotional wreck. That sums up Streep's performance in that there is so much deep emotion that it ends up not even really making sense and feels way too over the top at times. It's almost more about the aesthetic of having emotion than actually letting us feel the emotions with her. It's like the film came up with the iconic scene of Streep out on a jetty and turning to the camera while wearing a hood and having a puzzling expression that is full of emotions and then basing the way the character is dealt with off that snapshot. I never connected with Streep's character or understood why she had to run off after having sex with Jeremy Irons so she could find herself. The film built up to them needing each other and then she disappears on him as he faces turmoil for breach of promise since he was engaged to be married. To me, the film was all about the appearance of emotions rather than the film and characters earning those emotions so that the viewer can become invested, too. It was also kinda dry and boring at times and the modern times only served to parallel the other story until the end. I didn't think Streep was anything all that amazing and I'd say this is one of her lesser nominations for sure.
Yep, Marsha Mason could hang. She is my runaway winner and it wasn't even close. Which was surprising given the names listed behind her. Even more surprising, or really not if I'm being honest, is that Hepburn brings up the rear. She's fine in her role and it's cutesy and fun seeing Hollywood royalty do her thing one last time but there is no reason she should have won. Her performance is not that good at all, especially going up against her competition. I would take everyone else on the list over her and it makes me mad because she didn't need a fourth (!) damn Oscar for that. Streep gives an okay performance that is more about showing off emotions than coming up with something coherent. It's an interesting concept but just doesn't work for me. Next up is kind of interesting because I have Sarandon third but I'd rather watch her performance again instead of Keaton's. Hers is a performance of an actress on the way up that's not fully polished to what we know she can do but is still enjoyable. Keaton is strong and carries an epic film and has to go through a ton of different layers with her character yet I'm not all that interested in watching it again. But I can recognize that she should be second over Sarandon. And Mason is my winner because she is so good. I was mesmerized and enthralled with her performance. It's also maybe a little more personal so it gets a bump in that regard but it's a great performance regardless. I highly recommend watching that film for Mason alone. All in all a good year. No stinkers. I liked Hepburn but it just shouldn't have won. I'll take years like this, though.
Oscar Winner: Katharine Hepburn - On Golden Pond
My Winner: Marsha Mason - Only When I Laugh
Diane Keaton
Susan Sarandon
Meryl Streep
Katharine Hepburn
Friday, July 14, 2017
Supporting Actor 1981
I feel like I need to do some editing of the blog. I want the side bar to be like most other movie blogs where you can separate everything by year or decades for easier navigating. I think I have to tag all of my posts with what I want to separate them into. Not really sure, definitely have to dive into that at some point. If anyone can help me, send a message! As for the year, there's a bunch of films I've wanted to see for a while and some performances I have been waiting to check out. Let's get into it.
1981 Best Supporting Actor
John Gielgud - Arthur
Arthur seems to be a film that people will either love or hate. Dudley Moore plays a drunk rich guy who will either get on your nerves or make you think he's hysterical. Gielgud is the one constant that I think everyone can agree on in being terrific. Gielgud plays Arthur's (Moore) butler and babysitter if we're being honest. It's a standard role but what sets Gielgud's performance apart from other roles like this is just how caustically sarcastic and biting his little witty, dry retorts are. Gielgud verbally tears down every one but does so in a way that they don't see as put downs. His verbal barbs are genuinely hilarious and I enjoyed waiting for whatever he was going to say next. But there is more to the performance than just Gielgud being an asshole to people. He adds a depth of humanity and warmth to the character that peek out now and again, mostly when dealing with Arthur. He takes on an almost fatherly role for Arthur and you can tell at the end that he does indeed love him and see the good in Arthur and want the best for him. I think that's partially why the nomination works because it's way more than just an Alfred type butler guy talking shit about people in a sophisticated, funny way. It's a simple looking performance that is effective in getting us to laugh with a surly man who actually has a good heart. The twist at the end isn't played up for very much schmaltz and Gielgud seems to deflect some of the sentimentality with his trademark quips. That's another reason that I like it because it's not just an abrupt asshole is now a warm and fuzzy good guy because of circumstances. It's earned ever so slightly throughout the film and Gielgud does a great job of getting the character there. This is one of those veteran actor wins that feels wholly earned.
James Coco - Only When I Laugh
I always get a little wary of names I've never heard of and wonder if this is going to be a legit great one off performance or if it just comes along for the ride with a film that the Academy has fallen in love with. This film is a Neil Simon film and he definitely has a track record with the Academy of getting acting nominations and just generally being well received by them. This nomination has the distinction of being one of the few Oscar nominees to also be nominated for a Razzie award (which is the opposite of the Oscars if you don't know). Now, I enjoyed Coco's comedic performance as the gay best friend to Marsha Mason. It seems like really standard gay best friend stuff. He's always making catty quips, is obviously gay without being flamboyant, and enjoys being one of the girls so to speak. But to have this nominated for a Razzie is just mean and absurd. I know that group started out as a joke really, but still. It's not bad at all so I'm wondering why it was considered to be one of the worst of the year. He's a truly supporting character to Mason, basically being her rock when she needs someone to take care of her and he's an emotionally available friend, commiserating and complaining right along with his girl friends. It could easily sum up the gay best friend character just without the flamboyant styling. It's certainly not an awful performance even though it never had a chance to actually win. It might not be a standout but you aren't going to hate it, either.
Ian Holm - Chariots of Fire
I had been waiting to watch this film forever mostly because it gets ridiculed as a Best Picture winner - unfairly, I may add. I think this film is really strong and a little more than just a simple running story. Holm plays the Jewish guy's running coach. The film is about a group of runners, mainly a Jewish guy and a Scottish Christian guy who push each other to get better and succeed. The Jewish guy (because I forget his name and yes I could look it up but I'm lazy) hires Holm as his running coach and Holm is like the best coach in the country. So Holm starts to whip Jewish guy into running shape, though there is an issue that this now makes him not an amateur for the 1924 Olympics. He's chosen anyway and goes. But Holm's character has a different style of teaching and that gets shown. It's almost like his character is Hercule Poirot in a way. I know that's an odd connection to make but he has the hat and mustache combo along with being very serious about his job. But Holm does have that odd style to his coaching where he mumbles and gets mad though he is the best at what he's doing. So the performance has that camaraderie feel to it between Holm and Jewish guy. The best moment Holm has is by himself in a hotel waiting to see what the result of the race is and he sees the Union Jack fly up a flag pole and he gets excited and punches through his hat and mutters "My Son" in a prideful moment. It's a nice scene that encapsulates what Holm's performance is about. I do feel, however, that Holm's nomination came along for the ride with the film and was representative of all the actors on the film. Not to denigrate his work but it's just not something you'd really single out. Even if you did, it's not something that would win. It's a fun nomination for him but not much else.
Jack Nicholson - Reds
Now I'm getting to the point where I see a Nicholson nomination and groan. We all know that he's a great actor and has a bunch of great performances but right now I guess I'm in that time frame where he was getting nominated because he's Jack Nicholson. You can argue that the Terms of Endearment win wasn't all that special or entirely deserved and that Prizzi's Honor was meh and Ironweed (which I liked, performance-wise anyway) was Oscar bait. Nicholson here portrays the playwright Eugene O'Neill. I'll preface all this by saying I like him in the role. He has an affair with Diane Keaton's character which takes up most of his early screen time which isn't all that much. But he definitely has a presence. Like a low key calmness that hides a whirlwind of emotion inside him. Nicholson is smooth but you can sense frustration and anger and trauma peeking through cracks but never spilling out. It's like Nicholson is on another level in the film and it's really fascinating to watch. It's like his character in The Shining before he explodes and without the smarmy, dead eyed looks. It's suave and determined, I dunno how to really describe it other than Nicholson is doing something interesting with his few scenes that don't even set up his character. We don't really know who he is and are expected to know who Eugene O'Neill is already. I didn't know anything other than he was a writer of some sort. I also rather enjoyed one of his last scenes where he's helping Keaton find Beatty and he's actually doing something besides standing around all cool with a drink and his nice mustache. But you can also look at this as Jack playing Jack playing O'Neill and sticking out in the film. It's intriguing to say the least but was it really enough for a nomination? I actually really liked Gene Hackman in his small role and at first wondered why he didn't get recognition but Nicholson does have a bigger, more well known part. Luckily, there were some other good performances this year I liked better so I don't have to wring my hands at a win.
Howard Rollins - Ragtime
Ragtime is a pretty interesting film. It has all the hallmarks of a Best Picture type of film but it never fully comes together. It's an epic film about New York City in the early 1900s in the time before WWI. It's based off a highly regarded book and the story weaves together many different characters and plots that feature prominent historical figures of the time. I was intrigued to watch it because it's a time period that is rarely covered and one I don't personally know a whole lot about. It's a grand sounding story and film but the product we get is very personal and minor in scope. I think the film would have been better served being more epic and focused on all the different plotlines rather than focusing more on Rollins' story. So yeah, Rollins is basically the lead even though there are lots of other actors in the film which probably is why he's in Supporting but it's not a very egregious thing really. Rollins is a black man who plays piano well and had a baby with a woman who abandoned her child behind a white upper class family's home. That brings him into contact with the family as he's looking for the woman and it sorta sets off his story. He drives a new Model T car and is stopped near a firehouse full of racist firemen who block him in and then vandalize his car. Rollins can't get satisfaction for making those men pay and no one will help him take it to court and basically he's black and they are white and he's not going to be able to do anything to them legally. So he becomes a sort of vigilante and taking the law into his own hands and he kills some firemen and blows up some buildings and then takes over a library downtown. The whole story is about the black struggle that was still very much going on at the turn of the century even in NYC. Rollins is really strong in the role. He plays it as man pushed to his limits because he isn't getting out of life what he thinks he should simply because he is black. Rollins makes that frustration clear in his performance that he sees himself as just an American and a human though everyone else sees black. He just wants to be treated with dignity and Rollins communicates that to us in a very convincing manner. But Rollins' performance does feel like it's lacking some oomph. I don't know if it's the character holding him back or the film that won't allow him to puncture scenes with some razor sharp acting. I kept thinking about Chiwetel Ejiofor and his role in 12 Years a Slave and how he was able to explode at times with righteous anger and give his performance an edge even though it was a more quiet and steady role at times. That's what I was looking for from Rollins but then I'm comparing a Best Actor performance to a Supporting so should I really expect that from Rollins? And does that mean Rollins is much stronger than his Supporting label? Yes to that question. I think Rollins is strong but needed a little more in his performance but this will be something I strongly consider for the win unless someone else just blows me away. Didn't think I'd write that much for Mr. Rollins!
As usual this category brings me another interesting group. I liked all of them and find it difficult in where to rank everyone and if I should stick with the Academy's winner. I do think you can interchange both Holm and Coco at the end. Both are fine in their roles but don't offer up anything long lasting in terms of performance. Almost stock roles now, they added their own flares to them. Coco at least gets to be one of the few gay nominees in acting, so there's that. Nicholson lands in the middle with a fascinating character that I can't figure out if he's brilliant or just doing his own thing or what. There's something there that I like but the two ahead are better. Then we come to Gielgud versus Rollins. Gielgud is hilarious and warm, while Rollins essentially carries his film and could be a lead. I wanted just a little more from Rollins but I thought he was great and was let down by a boring film at times. Imagine if Steve McQueen (the director, not the actor) got a hold of that film and that performance. I think he'd be electric. But can I vote for potential and what ifs? No, I think I have to go with what we see here and Gielgud is a hoot and helps make the film so damn funny. It might seem and easy role but he has to teeter on being funny and just being a flat out asshole. Gielgud is funny. This category never lets me down.
Oscar Winner: John Gielgud - Arthur
My Winner: John Gielgud - Arthur
Howard Rollins
Jack Nicholson
James Coco
Ian Holm
1981 Best Supporting Actor
John Gielgud - Arthur
Arthur seems to be a film that people will either love or hate. Dudley Moore plays a drunk rich guy who will either get on your nerves or make you think he's hysterical. Gielgud is the one constant that I think everyone can agree on in being terrific. Gielgud plays Arthur's (Moore) butler and babysitter if we're being honest. It's a standard role but what sets Gielgud's performance apart from other roles like this is just how caustically sarcastic and biting his little witty, dry retorts are. Gielgud verbally tears down every one but does so in a way that they don't see as put downs. His verbal barbs are genuinely hilarious and I enjoyed waiting for whatever he was going to say next. But there is more to the performance than just Gielgud being an asshole to people. He adds a depth of humanity and warmth to the character that peek out now and again, mostly when dealing with Arthur. He takes on an almost fatherly role for Arthur and you can tell at the end that he does indeed love him and see the good in Arthur and want the best for him. I think that's partially why the nomination works because it's way more than just an Alfred type butler guy talking shit about people in a sophisticated, funny way. It's a simple looking performance that is effective in getting us to laugh with a surly man who actually has a good heart. The twist at the end isn't played up for very much schmaltz and Gielgud seems to deflect some of the sentimentality with his trademark quips. That's another reason that I like it because it's not just an abrupt asshole is now a warm and fuzzy good guy because of circumstances. It's earned ever so slightly throughout the film and Gielgud does a great job of getting the character there. This is one of those veteran actor wins that feels wholly earned.
James Coco - Only When I Laugh
I always get a little wary of names I've never heard of and wonder if this is going to be a legit great one off performance or if it just comes along for the ride with a film that the Academy has fallen in love with. This film is a Neil Simon film and he definitely has a track record with the Academy of getting acting nominations and just generally being well received by them. This nomination has the distinction of being one of the few Oscar nominees to also be nominated for a Razzie award (which is the opposite of the Oscars if you don't know). Now, I enjoyed Coco's comedic performance as the gay best friend to Marsha Mason. It seems like really standard gay best friend stuff. He's always making catty quips, is obviously gay without being flamboyant, and enjoys being one of the girls so to speak. But to have this nominated for a Razzie is just mean and absurd. I know that group started out as a joke really, but still. It's not bad at all so I'm wondering why it was considered to be one of the worst of the year. He's a truly supporting character to Mason, basically being her rock when she needs someone to take care of her and he's an emotionally available friend, commiserating and complaining right along with his girl friends. It could easily sum up the gay best friend character just without the flamboyant styling. It's certainly not an awful performance even though it never had a chance to actually win. It might not be a standout but you aren't going to hate it, either.
Ian Holm - Chariots of Fire
I had been waiting to watch this film forever mostly because it gets ridiculed as a Best Picture winner - unfairly, I may add. I think this film is really strong and a little more than just a simple running story. Holm plays the Jewish guy's running coach. The film is about a group of runners, mainly a Jewish guy and a Scottish Christian guy who push each other to get better and succeed. The Jewish guy (because I forget his name and yes I could look it up but I'm lazy) hires Holm as his running coach and Holm is like the best coach in the country. So Holm starts to whip Jewish guy into running shape, though there is an issue that this now makes him not an amateur for the 1924 Olympics. He's chosen anyway and goes. But Holm's character has a different style of teaching and that gets shown. It's almost like his character is Hercule Poirot in a way. I know that's an odd connection to make but he has the hat and mustache combo along with being very serious about his job. But Holm does have that odd style to his coaching where he mumbles and gets mad though he is the best at what he's doing. So the performance has that camaraderie feel to it between Holm and Jewish guy. The best moment Holm has is by himself in a hotel waiting to see what the result of the race is and he sees the Union Jack fly up a flag pole and he gets excited and punches through his hat and mutters "My Son" in a prideful moment. It's a nice scene that encapsulates what Holm's performance is about. I do feel, however, that Holm's nomination came along for the ride with the film and was representative of all the actors on the film. Not to denigrate his work but it's just not something you'd really single out. Even if you did, it's not something that would win. It's a fun nomination for him but not much else.
Jack Nicholson - Reds
Now I'm getting to the point where I see a Nicholson nomination and groan. We all know that he's a great actor and has a bunch of great performances but right now I guess I'm in that time frame where he was getting nominated because he's Jack Nicholson. You can argue that the Terms of Endearment win wasn't all that special or entirely deserved and that Prizzi's Honor was meh and Ironweed (which I liked, performance-wise anyway) was Oscar bait. Nicholson here portrays the playwright Eugene O'Neill. I'll preface all this by saying I like him in the role. He has an affair with Diane Keaton's character which takes up most of his early screen time which isn't all that much. But he definitely has a presence. Like a low key calmness that hides a whirlwind of emotion inside him. Nicholson is smooth but you can sense frustration and anger and trauma peeking through cracks but never spilling out. It's like Nicholson is on another level in the film and it's really fascinating to watch. It's like his character in The Shining before he explodes and without the smarmy, dead eyed looks. It's suave and determined, I dunno how to really describe it other than Nicholson is doing something interesting with his few scenes that don't even set up his character. We don't really know who he is and are expected to know who Eugene O'Neill is already. I didn't know anything other than he was a writer of some sort. I also rather enjoyed one of his last scenes where he's helping Keaton find Beatty and he's actually doing something besides standing around all cool with a drink and his nice mustache. But you can also look at this as Jack playing Jack playing O'Neill and sticking out in the film. It's intriguing to say the least but was it really enough for a nomination? I actually really liked Gene Hackman in his small role and at first wondered why he didn't get recognition but Nicholson does have a bigger, more well known part. Luckily, there were some other good performances this year I liked better so I don't have to wring my hands at a win.
Howard Rollins - Ragtime
Ragtime is a pretty interesting film. It has all the hallmarks of a Best Picture type of film but it never fully comes together. It's an epic film about New York City in the early 1900s in the time before WWI. It's based off a highly regarded book and the story weaves together many different characters and plots that feature prominent historical figures of the time. I was intrigued to watch it because it's a time period that is rarely covered and one I don't personally know a whole lot about. It's a grand sounding story and film but the product we get is very personal and minor in scope. I think the film would have been better served being more epic and focused on all the different plotlines rather than focusing more on Rollins' story. So yeah, Rollins is basically the lead even though there are lots of other actors in the film which probably is why he's in Supporting but it's not a very egregious thing really. Rollins is a black man who plays piano well and had a baby with a woman who abandoned her child behind a white upper class family's home. That brings him into contact with the family as he's looking for the woman and it sorta sets off his story. He drives a new Model T car and is stopped near a firehouse full of racist firemen who block him in and then vandalize his car. Rollins can't get satisfaction for making those men pay and no one will help him take it to court and basically he's black and they are white and he's not going to be able to do anything to them legally. So he becomes a sort of vigilante and taking the law into his own hands and he kills some firemen and blows up some buildings and then takes over a library downtown. The whole story is about the black struggle that was still very much going on at the turn of the century even in NYC. Rollins is really strong in the role. He plays it as man pushed to his limits because he isn't getting out of life what he thinks he should simply because he is black. Rollins makes that frustration clear in his performance that he sees himself as just an American and a human though everyone else sees black. He just wants to be treated with dignity and Rollins communicates that to us in a very convincing manner. But Rollins' performance does feel like it's lacking some oomph. I don't know if it's the character holding him back or the film that won't allow him to puncture scenes with some razor sharp acting. I kept thinking about Chiwetel Ejiofor and his role in 12 Years a Slave and how he was able to explode at times with righteous anger and give his performance an edge even though it was a more quiet and steady role at times. That's what I was looking for from Rollins but then I'm comparing a Best Actor performance to a Supporting so should I really expect that from Rollins? And does that mean Rollins is much stronger than his Supporting label? Yes to that question. I think Rollins is strong but needed a little more in his performance but this will be something I strongly consider for the win unless someone else just blows me away. Didn't think I'd write that much for Mr. Rollins!
As usual this category brings me another interesting group. I liked all of them and find it difficult in where to rank everyone and if I should stick with the Academy's winner. I do think you can interchange both Holm and Coco at the end. Both are fine in their roles but don't offer up anything long lasting in terms of performance. Almost stock roles now, they added their own flares to them. Coco at least gets to be one of the few gay nominees in acting, so there's that. Nicholson lands in the middle with a fascinating character that I can't figure out if he's brilliant or just doing his own thing or what. There's something there that I like but the two ahead are better. Then we come to Gielgud versus Rollins. Gielgud is hilarious and warm, while Rollins essentially carries his film and could be a lead. I wanted just a little more from Rollins but I thought he was great and was let down by a boring film at times. Imagine if Steve McQueen (the director, not the actor) got a hold of that film and that performance. I think he'd be electric. But can I vote for potential and what ifs? No, I think I have to go with what we see here and Gielgud is a hoot and helps make the film so damn funny. It might seem and easy role but he has to teeter on being funny and just being a flat out asshole. Gielgud is funny. This category never lets me down.
Oscar Winner: John Gielgud - Arthur
My Winner: John Gielgud - Arthur
Howard Rollins
Jack Nicholson
James Coco
Ian Holm
Supporting Actress 1981
It can be a struggle to come up with something interesting to say for these little introductions sometimes. Usually I just want to get on to the films. I'll try to be more clever next time. I have seen zero of these films and performances and some of them really intrigue me. I am expecting good things from some of these so hopefully they deliver.
1981 Best Supporting Actress
Maureen Stapleton - Reds
I was wondering if the fact that Reds got four of it's actors nominated actually meant all four were really great or if some got swept up in the voting process along with the film. Stapleton has a somewhat juicy part as she gets to play Emma Goldman, an anarchist woman who caused a lot of problems in her day and was very progressive for her time. So Stapleton got to play a woman who is very confident and self assured and says whatever she wants. She calls out Diane Keaton's character at one point in almost a let the adults talk, child, kinda way. For most of the film Stapleton just pops in when there's a big gathering of the anarchists/communists and is this bullish type of lady who belongs right along side the men. I don't think the performance up until that point is worth a nomination, let alone a win, but her role expands when the film starts to wind down. Goldman was deported to Russia at the time that Keaton was there looking for Beatty. Stapleton's character sees her and then takes her under her wing for a bit and shows some actual human quality and not just cold hearted anarchist. She shows some concern and helps point Keaton in the right direction to track down Beatty. The character is strong, obviously, and Stapleton is able to show that to us perfectly. It's just that Stapleton is more like a famous cameo than bonafide supporting character in the film. I know that Stapleton had been nominated a couple times in the previous few years so maybe this was the Academy's chance to finally reward her in what is frankly a very weak year. If that's the case, fine. Sometimes it's just who is left over to pick for a win. Stapleton isn't bad, just not something you'd expect to win.
Melinda Dillon - Absence of Malice
I like these types of films. The adult drama genre is fine but what I like about it is seeing the old cars and fashions and the Budweiser cans, all of that stuff and mainly from the 80s and 90s. I just like seeing how things were from back when I was young which is why I love watching old Law and Order episodes. Anyway, my weird personal interests aside, this film is mostly alright. It's about a reporter lady (Sally Field) who seems to follow no journalistic protocol or integrity when getting her stories. That all serves the plot but there are lots of reviews and articles online about how Field acts in the film. The main story is writing about an investigation into a possible murder suspect without actually following up on it. That suspect would be Paul Newman. He doesn't like that his name is out there and it's ruining his business. His good friend Dillon enters the picture because she was with him the day/night of whoever was killed's disappearance. The film sets Dillon up as a nervous-y, cigarette smoker who works at a Catholic school. Dillon plays the character as she should with the requisite worry and anxiousness that would go along with the predicament she finds herself in. Dillon talks with Newman who guides her in what to say if anyone comes snooping. Then Dillon goes and has a chat with Field to try and help clear Newman's name. And - spoiler - Dillon confesses that Newman was with her because she was getting an abortion and he was there for support. This is a huge confession and big deal because she's a devout Catholic worried that it will harm the school she works at reputation and that her father will find out and be upset. Dillon treats this confession exactly as the situation warrants which is with not only courage but with some naivete. She doesn't want the information printed, she just wants it to help Newman. Field of course prints it and then Dillon kills herself. It's a short performance but one that works well within the film and Dillon does a good job of portraying how worried and scared her character is. That's really all we know of her character because her role is so short, though. I wonder if the subject matter of the confession helped get her nominated because I don't see this as being all that memorable even if her confession is strong acting. It's decent enough but certainly not going to win.
Jane Fonda - On Golden Pond
I was apprehensive about this film because I was worried it would be a Hallmark level movie. It obviously has some good acting from its leads which pushes it out of TV movie territory, thankfully. The film is about an older couple, Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn, who live off a lake and their daughter stops by and drops off her fiancée's kid for a month. Their daughter is Jane Fonda and she really doesn't make much of an impression on the film. She shows up with her future hubby and disappears outside to skinny dip and we see that she has animosity with her dad because he wanted a son, I guess? She then leaves and returns at the very end to pick up her stepson and does a back flip off a dock which apparently heals some old wounds with her father. That's legitimately it for Jane. There is no doubt in my mind that she probably campaigned for her dad and was voted in by association because she's a previous winner. Her role is minuscule and leaves no impact on the film at all. If she didn't have her name and wasn't Henry Fonda's daughter, she wouldn't have been nominated at all. I understand that it supposedly mirrors her real life relationship with her Dad, but that doesn't make the acting any better. And that's one of those things about the Academy that really bothers me because there has to be some other woman out there who would be actually deserving to be in this spot. Fonda is a non entity in this category.
Joan Hackett - Only When I Laugh
I really enjoyed this film even though it's a tad overly long. I'll save the getting too into the film criticism for the other reviews of this one and keep this one mostly short. Hackett is very funny in an understated way with her performance. She plays Marsha Mason's friend who is very prim and proper and upper class. She is more concerned with looking good and looking young than anything else. Therein lies the humor in her performance such as when she says she found a grey hair and will kill her husband if it's someone else's hair or kill herself if it's hers. She has a very sardonic sense of humor and Hackett makes it work wonderfully in her performance. Besides the humor there is really only one scene where Hackett gets to stretch her legs and deliver more than just a few biting remarks. After Mason's character relapses and was out all night and was attacked by a man she ends up at Hackett's place where Hackett eventually explodes in a fountain of repressed anger and frustration at being her friend. It's a real, authentic moment in the film and performance. The rest is just one big ball of depression and sunken sadness with which Hackett is adept at showing. While the role might not be very big or showy, Hackett at least does a good job with the little screen time she has to work with and makes it all interesting and watchable.
Elizabeth McGovern - Ragtime
I went into great detail about the film itself when writing about Howard Rollins but to refresh, Ragtime is a film about NYC at the turn of 20th Century and handles a few different stories about the people of the time. McGovern portrays Evelyn Nesbit, a chorus girl and model who was involved with some rich and influential men of the time period. She was married to some millionaire guy who was convinced that another old millionaire guy had defiled his wife when she was young and then shot him in the head. That sparked a big trial and all kinds of notoriety for Nesbit. It's actually a really interesting story in itself that gets rushed through in this film. McGovern is great as Nesbit and I really enjoyed every moment she was on screen. She gave a performance that didn't treat her character like some dumb model or even just a simple gold digger. Sure she was using these older, wealthy men to her own benefit but McGovern shows us that there is more to Nesbit than just being young and pretty. She walks around the streets and observes the lower class people living and talks with them and she wants to sing and dance and be someone. McGovern injects some liveliness into the performance that doesn't overtake her strong headed ways. The most memorable scene is where McGovern is interrupted while having an affair of sorts and argues with some lawyers while completely naked for an extended period of time. It's almost not sexy because of how McGovern turns it into a business like moment of trying to get her money from her promised divorce. I really liked it because it showed how determined Nesbit is without her seeming too much like a whiny baby as she eventually just accepts what's given to her and moves on. It's a strong showing from McGovern to be naked for so long while also giving a great performance to boot. She leaves a mark on the film with her performance which lately has been a tough thing to find in this category so I'm thankful for that. Ragtime might be a little flat given its subject but it's at least worth watching for Rollins and McGovern.
Some years you expect a bad group and a get a great one. Some years you expect good things and get a group that mostly is uninspiring. That is 1981 for me. I was expecting some of the films to be really good and lead to performances that belonged here but this year was really a two horse race and even then one was more interesting to me than the other. Fonda, just ugh. I like her Netflix stuff and some of her other performances but this was just a waste of a nomination. I don't care about how the film was cathartic for her and it mirrored her relationship with Dad, Henry. The performance just wasn't good. Dillon just is too short and while her confession is handled well, that's all the performance really is. I need more than that for a win. Hackett is kinda fun in her role in a film that was a lot better than I thought it would be, but it's still too slight to take. Stapleton is really just a cameo type of performance playing a famous person in her film. I need more than just walking around being brutish for a couple scenes and then one pity taking scene. She's good and I get what the Academy saw in it coupled with her previous couple nominations but it just wasn't for me. McGovern is the one that stood out head and shoulders above everyone else because she forms a fully realized character. She leaves a mark on the film and is memorable in a good way. I just really enjoyed her performance which is hard to say about the rest.
Oscar Winner: Maureen Stapleton - Reds
My Winner: Elizabeth McGovern - Ragtime
Maureen Stapleton
Joan Hackett
Melinda Dillon
Jane Fonda
1981 Best Supporting Actress
Maureen Stapleton - Reds
I was wondering if the fact that Reds got four of it's actors nominated actually meant all four were really great or if some got swept up in the voting process along with the film. Stapleton has a somewhat juicy part as she gets to play Emma Goldman, an anarchist woman who caused a lot of problems in her day and was very progressive for her time. So Stapleton got to play a woman who is very confident and self assured and says whatever she wants. She calls out Diane Keaton's character at one point in almost a let the adults talk, child, kinda way. For most of the film Stapleton just pops in when there's a big gathering of the anarchists/communists and is this bullish type of lady who belongs right along side the men. I don't think the performance up until that point is worth a nomination, let alone a win, but her role expands when the film starts to wind down. Goldman was deported to Russia at the time that Keaton was there looking for Beatty. Stapleton's character sees her and then takes her under her wing for a bit and shows some actual human quality and not just cold hearted anarchist. She shows some concern and helps point Keaton in the right direction to track down Beatty. The character is strong, obviously, and Stapleton is able to show that to us perfectly. It's just that Stapleton is more like a famous cameo than bonafide supporting character in the film. I know that Stapleton had been nominated a couple times in the previous few years so maybe this was the Academy's chance to finally reward her in what is frankly a very weak year. If that's the case, fine. Sometimes it's just who is left over to pick for a win. Stapleton isn't bad, just not something you'd expect to win.
Melinda Dillon - Absence of Malice
I like these types of films. The adult drama genre is fine but what I like about it is seeing the old cars and fashions and the Budweiser cans, all of that stuff and mainly from the 80s and 90s. I just like seeing how things were from back when I was young which is why I love watching old Law and Order episodes. Anyway, my weird personal interests aside, this film is mostly alright. It's about a reporter lady (Sally Field) who seems to follow no journalistic protocol or integrity when getting her stories. That all serves the plot but there are lots of reviews and articles online about how Field acts in the film. The main story is writing about an investigation into a possible murder suspect without actually following up on it. That suspect would be Paul Newman. He doesn't like that his name is out there and it's ruining his business. His good friend Dillon enters the picture because she was with him the day/night of whoever was killed's disappearance. The film sets Dillon up as a nervous-y, cigarette smoker who works at a Catholic school. Dillon plays the character as she should with the requisite worry and anxiousness that would go along with the predicament she finds herself in. Dillon talks with Newman who guides her in what to say if anyone comes snooping. Then Dillon goes and has a chat with Field to try and help clear Newman's name. And - spoiler - Dillon confesses that Newman was with her because she was getting an abortion and he was there for support. This is a huge confession and big deal because she's a devout Catholic worried that it will harm the school she works at reputation and that her father will find out and be upset. Dillon treats this confession exactly as the situation warrants which is with not only courage but with some naivete. She doesn't want the information printed, she just wants it to help Newman. Field of course prints it and then Dillon kills herself. It's a short performance but one that works well within the film and Dillon does a good job of portraying how worried and scared her character is. That's really all we know of her character because her role is so short, though. I wonder if the subject matter of the confession helped get her nominated because I don't see this as being all that memorable even if her confession is strong acting. It's decent enough but certainly not going to win.
Jane Fonda - On Golden Pond
I was apprehensive about this film because I was worried it would be a Hallmark level movie. It obviously has some good acting from its leads which pushes it out of TV movie territory, thankfully. The film is about an older couple, Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn, who live off a lake and their daughter stops by and drops off her fiancée's kid for a month. Their daughter is Jane Fonda and she really doesn't make much of an impression on the film. She shows up with her future hubby and disappears outside to skinny dip and we see that she has animosity with her dad because he wanted a son, I guess? She then leaves and returns at the very end to pick up her stepson and does a back flip off a dock which apparently heals some old wounds with her father. That's legitimately it for Jane. There is no doubt in my mind that she probably campaigned for her dad and was voted in by association because she's a previous winner. Her role is minuscule and leaves no impact on the film at all. If she didn't have her name and wasn't Henry Fonda's daughter, she wouldn't have been nominated at all. I understand that it supposedly mirrors her real life relationship with her Dad, but that doesn't make the acting any better. And that's one of those things about the Academy that really bothers me because there has to be some other woman out there who would be actually deserving to be in this spot. Fonda is a non entity in this category.
Joan Hackett - Only When I Laugh
I really enjoyed this film even though it's a tad overly long. I'll save the getting too into the film criticism for the other reviews of this one and keep this one mostly short. Hackett is very funny in an understated way with her performance. She plays Marsha Mason's friend who is very prim and proper and upper class. She is more concerned with looking good and looking young than anything else. Therein lies the humor in her performance such as when she says she found a grey hair and will kill her husband if it's someone else's hair or kill herself if it's hers. She has a very sardonic sense of humor and Hackett makes it work wonderfully in her performance. Besides the humor there is really only one scene where Hackett gets to stretch her legs and deliver more than just a few biting remarks. After Mason's character relapses and was out all night and was attacked by a man she ends up at Hackett's place where Hackett eventually explodes in a fountain of repressed anger and frustration at being her friend. It's a real, authentic moment in the film and performance. The rest is just one big ball of depression and sunken sadness with which Hackett is adept at showing. While the role might not be very big or showy, Hackett at least does a good job with the little screen time she has to work with and makes it all interesting and watchable.
Elizabeth McGovern - Ragtime
I went into great detail about the film itself when writing about Howard Rollins but to refresh, Ragtime is a film about NYC at the turn of 20th Century and handles a few different stories about the people of the time. McGovern portrays Evelyn Nesbit, a chorus girl and model who was involved with some rich and influential men of the time period. She was married to some millionaire guy who was convinced that another old millionaire guy had defiled his wife when she was young and then shot him in the head. That sparked a big trial and all kinds of notoriety for Nesbit. It's actually a really interesting story in itself that gets rushed through in this film. McGovern is great as Nesbit and I really enjoyed every moment she was on screen. She gave a performance that didn't treat her character like some dumb model or even just a simple gold digger. Sure she was using these older, wealthy men to her own benefit but McGovern shows us that there is more to Nesbit than just being young and pretty. She walks around the streets and observes the lower class people living and talks with them and she wants to sing and dance and be someone. McGovern injects some liveliness into the performance that doesn't overtake her strong headed ways. The most memorable scene is where McGovern is interrupted while having an affair of sorts and argues with some lawyers while completely naked for an extended period of time. It's almost not sexy because of how McGovern turns it into a business like moment of trying to get her money from her promised divorce. I really liked it because it showed how determined Nesbit is without her seeming too much like a whiny baby as she eventually just accepts what's given to her and moves on. It's a strong showing from McGovern to be naked for so long while also giving a great performance to boot. She leaves a mark on the film with her performance which lately has been a tough thing to find in this category so I'm thankful for that. Ragtime might be a little flat given its subject but it's at least worth watching for Rollins and McGovern.
Some years you expect a bad group and a get a great one. Some years you expect good things and get a group that mostly is uninspiring. That is 1981 for me. I was expecting some of the films to be really good and lead to performances that belonged here but this year was really a two horse race and even then one was more interesting to me than the other. Fonda, just ugh. I like her Netflix stuff and some of her other performances but this was just a waste of a nomination. I don't care about how the film was cathartic for her and it mirrored her relationship with Dad, Henry. The performance just wasn't good. Dillon just is too short and while her confession is handled well, that's all the performance really is. I need more than that for a win. Hackett is kinda fun in her role in a film that was a lot better than I thought it would be, but it's still too slight to take. Stapleton is really just a cameo type of performance playing a famous person in her film. I need more than just walking around being brutish for a couple scenes and then one pity taking scene. She's good and I get what the Academy saw in it coupled with her previous couple nominations but it just wasn't for me. McGovern is the one that stood out head and shoulders above everyone else because she forms a fully realized character. She leaves a mark on the film and is memorable in a good way. I just really enjoyed her performance which is hard to say about the rest.
Oscar Winner: Maureen Stapleton - Reds
My Winner: Elizabeth McGovern - Ragtime
Maureen Stapleton
Joan Hackett
Melinda Dillon
Jane Fonda
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Best Picture 1982
Sometimes I get stuck on films, either in having to start watching them or to finish writing about them. That happened with this year for me which is why it took so long to finish. Plus, I think I got a little burnt out and wanted to watch some Netflix shows and do some other things after work for a change. Eager to get into 1981 and close out the 80s soon. I've seen a couple of these films but it's been awhile so I'm excited to revisit them and see the new ones.
1982 Best Picture
Gandhi
I know this film sometimes gets shit on because it's such an obvious choice that everyone just calls it Oscar bait and moves on but I want to say that I really, really enjoy this film. Well, most of this film anyway. Ben Kinglsey was perfectly cast as Gandhi because he IS Gandhi. He looks so much like the Indian leader that it's scary. The Indian people thought they were seeing a ghost it was so uncanny. His performance isn't just pure looks, either. Kingsley becomes Gandhi and delivers a great acting job on top of the looks which is needed for the film to actually work. Kingsley grows into the role and is why the beginning of the film works so well for me. He's this idealistic young man who has become fed up with being racially segregated and persecuted. And this is all being done in South Africa which we forget is where he spent a lot of time. The idea then grows and changes into non-violence and it's interesting to watch Kingsley become the man we typically know of as Gandhi with his white robe and bald head. I'm not naive enough to think that Gandhi was a perfect man and that this film is 100% truth. I know it glosses over or fails to mention some of his more human qualities and that's okay. I know this is a movie and not a documentary. That seems to be a common complaint for the film. My complaint, however, is that the film essentially falls off a cliff near the end. Once Gandhi has grown old, it becomes more about the political maneuvering of the Hindus and Muslims and it just loses steam and my interest. If the last part was tightened up, this would be an even better film no doubt. This epic is all about the great acting of Kingsley, so once that is effectively ended by having him play the hunger striking, old man Gandhi, the film just doesn't work. Besides that, there are so many great scenes of India in this, which is something I said about for A Passage to India - it's hard to make a film about India look bad. There are good arguments for other films in this group to be Best Picture, but I am okay with Gandhi being the choice by the Academy. It's definitely worth watching at least once for Kingsley's performance.
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
I really like when the Academy chooses to reward films like this with a nomination because not every Best Picture film needs to be super serious or a strictly adult film. You can go down the years and find other examples like Babe, Beauty and the Beast, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws that all make you feel good about watching movies. E.T. is no exception to that fact. Other facts you may not know is that E.T. was the highest grossing film of the 80s and was the highest grossing film ever at one point. Also of note is that E.T. was actually considered a favorite to win Best Picture this year until fatigue over E.T. mania set in. The marketing was everywhere and places were selling anything and everything E.T. related that people just got sick of seeing it. Whether it actually could have won Best Picture remains to be seen but it was Spielberg and was a huge moneymaker and I feel like the Academy would have loved to have a box office smash win. You should probably know what this film is about already but if not it's about an alien who comes to Earth, gets left behind, befriends a kid, and tries to make his way home without getting caught by the big bad government. There are so many iconic moments from the Reese's Pieces, to the red finger, to E.T. phone home, to the bike ride. The practical effects help make these scenes so memorable along with the childhood sense of wonderment. I mean, E.T. is such a gentle creature that adults just don't understand and therein lies part of the message. The film is so heartfelt and warm and good for the whole family that it really does deserve to be here. This film is awesome and I can't wait to show it to my future non children or more likely my cool nephews. This is an easy watch.
Missing
I was very interested in watching this film because it stars Jack Lemmon, who I love, and Sissy Spacek in a politically charged thriller of sorts. Unfortunately, this is an incredibly tepid political thriller. Missing is a film about Lemmon going down to Chile to help find his son after he disappears following the coup in that nation. Spacek is the missing man's wife and she helps Lemmon navigate the area and the government red tape. It sounds like it could be really intriguing but Spacek might as well have phoned it in because she seems to go through the motions. She's not bad just doesn't stand out. Lemmon is good but the film doesn't give him much else to do but look worried and go around and talk to people about if they know anything about his son. There's not even much conflict because it never shows the violence that's going on except is sanitized moments. Even when Lemmon gets stonewalled he just waltzes into the American consul to redress the Ambassador or whatever government lackey and proclaim he wants answers because he's an American. The film is directed by Costa-Gavras who I know directed Z, which was highly regarded and well received (nominated for Best Picture), and Music Box, a Jessica Lange film that I thought was boring. This film leans closer to the Lange film than his Best Picture nominee. Maybe in 1982 this film had more importance surrounding its subject matter but nowadays, the Chile coup thing is not even in the minds of the American public. Not that that means you should completely disregard this film, just that it might explain why the Academy seemed to latch onto it then and nominate it for Best Picture. I was hoping for something more along the lines of Oliver Stone's Salvador, which had way more tension and held my interest more. I feel like this film could have been so much more compelling and better served its characters instead of hanging them out to dry. This just seems like the Academy voting for one of its political causes. I just wish they'd make sure the film is good enough to vote for!
Tootsie
I am writing this a couple weeks after watching the film because life gets in the way of things too often. But, time doesn't diminish that this is a very enjoyable film and if you go into it without expectations or even just expecting a drag film, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised that it's much deeper than the premise would indicate. This is more than just Dustin Hoffman dressing up like a woman. It actually takes a look into what it's like to step into someone else's shoes and does it in a very funny way. Sometimes that's an issue with older comedies is that the actual comedy is rather tepid when viewed 30 plus years later but the comedy in Tootsie still made me laugh. A large part of that is Hoffman comedic timing in the role and also the supporting players in the film. I didn't even remember that Bill Murray plays Hoffman's buddy in this and Sydney Pollack is great as Hoffman's agent. The women are good and you can include Hoffman as Dorothy in that statement. What could be a shrill, disastrous take on being a woman ends up being a warm, caring, and strong woman. In the same year that there were three big films nominated for Oscars that dealt with cross dressing or trans sort of issues (The World According to Garp and Victor/Victoria), this is the film that represents them all in the Best Picture race. It's also interesting in that it made something like cross dressing, even if played up for laughs, into a palatable thing for a broad audience. Not many negative things to say about it besides Hoffman's male role is not that pleasant but it makes his female role stronger. It's not a perfect film, but Tootsie is just a really enjoyable and funny film that stands up strong 30 years later. I feel like you could call this one a classic and not be wrong. I'll have to see how it stands up to the other films of this year for the win.
The Verdict
This is one of those films that completely holds your interest. Other Best Picture films can find your mind wandering and thinking how much longer while watching, but this one sucked me in from the start. I admit that I love Paul Newman so it had that going for it but as the story unraveled, I was hooked as to what was going to happen. This is a courtroom drama that also focuses on the lead up. This film is renowned for the courtroom aspect and is usually tops in courtroom drama lists. It has a reputation that precedes it if you are looking into it and I'd say it matches it. Newman is basically an ambulance chaser who was once a top attorney but now is a drunk opportunist who takes a case because he thinks he can get the Catholic archdiocese to settle and avoid trial. Newman looks into the case and is offended at the settlement offer and feels like he can win the case at trial. Then it's about him dealing with issues that pop up like a missing witness, finding new evidence, and believing in himself after moments of self doubt. Newman is the big draw as he's as good as ever in his performance. The writing and directing are pretty great from legends David Mamet and Sidney Lumet, respectively. Just look up their body of work and realize that all three of those legends coming together was a perfect storm for Oscar glory. It's a super well done film that just sucks you in completely and doesn't let go until the end. It's one of those powerful down and out person takes on a tough assignment versus a big entity in hopes that redemption for their past might come about type of films. It's solid all the way through with some pretty good supporting performances, too. This is a film you watch and say yeah, this is Oscar worthy and possibly good enough to win. I feel it's a film that you could put on and end up watching the whole thing or see it's on TCM and stop whatever you were doing and watch it. At risk of sounding like a broken record - it's solid and you'll most likely enjoy it and understand why it's so beloved. Just gotta see if it'll be a winner with me.
This is actually a pretty good group! Honestly, Missing is the only misstep by the Academy here. That film just fails to grab me and lacks tension to make a political thriller thrilling. Lemmon is good but can't save it. The next three are really interchangeable. Tootsie is a classic and a very funny film with some great acting. The Verdict is a really great trial film with some great acting, also. Both are easy to rewatch and I don't think I'd get sick of them. Both are worthy of being on this list. E.T. is a great family film and tugs on my nostalgia bone. It, too, is a film that is fun to watch over and over. All three of these have valid arguments to being Best Picture and I honestly would not be upset one way or another if any of them were. I'm going with Gandhi just because of Kingsley and because it feels like an 80s prestige picture, ya know? So I'm fine with that choice. But the fact that 4 of the 5 films could easily be Best Picture means this is a pretty damn good BP group. I do know that I'm just glad to be done with this year. I don't want to take as long with 81! Hopefully it is as good as 82.
Oscar Winner: Gandhi
My Winner: Gandhi
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
The Verdict
Tootsie
Missing
1982 Best Picture
Gandhi
I know this film sometimes gets shit on because it's such an obvious choice that everyone just calls it Oscar bait and moves on but I want to say that I really, really enjoy this film. Well, most of this film anyway. Ben Kinglsey was perfectly cast as Gandhi because he IS Gandhi. He looks so much like the Indian leader that it's scary. The Indian people thought they were seeing a ghost it was so uncanny. His performance isn't just pure looks, either. Kingsley becomes Gandhi and delivers a great acting job on top of the looks which is needed for the film to actually work. Kingsley grows into the role and is why the beginning of the film works so well for me. He's this idealistic young man who has become fed up with being racially segregated and persecuted. And this is all being done in South Africa which we forget is where he spent a lot of time. The idea then grows and changes into non-violence and it's interesting to watch Kingsley become the man we typically know of as Gandhi with his white robe and bald head. I'm not naive enough to think that Gandhi was a perfect man and that this film is 100% truth. I know it glosses over or fails to mention some of his more human qualities and that's okay. I know this is a movie and not a documentary. That seems to be a common complaint for the film. My complaint, however, is that the film essentially falls off a cliff near the end. Once Gandhi has grown old, it becomes more about the political maneuvering of the Hindus and Muslims and it just loses steam and my interest. If the last part was tightened up, this would be an even better film no doubt. This epic is all about the great acting of Kingsley, so once that is effectively ended by having him play the hunger striking, old man Gandhi, the film just doesn't work. Besides that, there are so many great scenes of India in this, which is something I said about for A Passage to India - it's hard to make a film about India look bad. There are good arguments for other films in this group to be Best Picture, but I am okay with Gandhi being the choice by the Academy. It's definitely worth watching at least once for Kingsley's performance.
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
I really like when the Academy chooses to reward films like this with a nomination because not every Best Picture film needs to be super serious or a strictly adult film. You can go down the years and find other examples like Babe, Beauty and the Beast, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws that all make you feel good about watching movies. E.T. is no exception to that fact. Other facts you may not know is that E.T. was the highest grossing film of the 80s and was the highest grossing film ever at one point. Also of note is that E.T. was actually considered a favorite to win Best Picture this year until fatigue over E.T. mania set in. The marketing was everywhere and places were selling anything and everything E.T. related that people just got sick of seeing it. Whether it actually could have won Best Picture remains to be seen but it was Spielberg and was a huge moneymaker and I feel like the Academy would have loved to have a box office smash win. You should probably know what this film is about already but if not it's about an alien who comes to Earth, gets left behind, befriends a kid, and tries to make his way home without getting caught by the big bad government. There are so many iconic moments from the Reese's Pieces, to the red finger, to E.T. phone home, to the bike ride. The practical effects help make these scenes so memorable along with the childhood sense of wonderment. I mean, E.T. is such a gentle creature that adults just don't understand and therein lies part of the message. The film is so heartfelt and warm and good for the whole family that it really does deserve to be here. This film is awesome and I can't wait to show it to my future non children or more likely my cool nephews. This is an easy watch.
Missing
I was very interested in watching this film because it stars Jack Lemmon, who I love, and Sissy Spacek in a politically charged thriller of sorts. Unfortunately, this is an incredibly tepid political thriller. Missing is a film about Lemmon going down to Chile to help find his son after he disappears following the coup in that nation. Spacek is the missing man's wife and she helps Lemmon navigate the area and the government red tape. It sounds like it could be really intriguing but Spacek might as well have phoned it in because she seems to go through the motions. She's not bad just doesn't stand out. Lemmon is good but the film doesn't give him much else to do but look worried and go around and talk to people about if they know anything about his son. There's not even much conflict because it never shows the violence that's going on except is sanitized moments. Even when Lemmon gets stonewalled he just waltzes into the American consul to redress the Ambassador or whatever government lackey and proclaim he wants answers because he's an American. The film is directed by Costa-Gavras who I know directed Z, which was highly regarded and well received (nominated for Best Picture), and Music Box, a Jessica Lange film that I thought was boring. This film leans closer to the Lange film than his Best Picture nominee. Maybe in 1982 this film had more importance surrounding its subject matter but nowadays, the Chile coup thing is not even in the minds of the American public. Not that that means you should completely disregard this film, just that it might explain why the Academy seemed to latch onto it then and nominate it for Best Picture. I was hoping for something more along the lines of Oliver Stone's Salvador, which had way more tension and held my interest more. I feel like this film could have been so much more compelling and better served its characters instead of hanging them out to dry. This just seems like the Academy voting for one of its political causes. I just wish they'd make sure the film is good enough to vote for!
Tootsie
I am writing this a couple weeks after watching the film because life gets in the way of things too often. But, time doesn't diminish that this is a very enjoyable film and if you go into it without expectations or even just expecting a drag film, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised that it's much deeper than the premise would indicate. This is more than just Dustin Hoffman dressing up like a woman. It actually takes a look into what it's like to step into someone else's shoes and does it in a very funny way. Sometimes that's an issue with older comedies is that the actual comedy is rather tepid when viewed 30 plus years later but the comedy in Tootsie still made me laugh. A large part of that is Hoffman comedic timing in the role and also the supporting players in the film. I didn't even remember that Bill Murray plays Hoffman's buddy in this and Sydney Pollack is great as Hoffman's agent. The women are good and you can include Hoffman as Dorothy in that statement. What could be a shrill, disastrous take on being a woman ends up being a warm, caring, and strong woman. In the same year that there were three big films nominated for Oscars that dealt with cross dressing or trans sort of issues (The World According to Garp and Victor/Victoria), this is the film that represents them all in the Best Picture race. It's also interesting in that it made something like cross dressing, even if played up for laughs, into a palatable thing for a broad audience. Not many negative things to say about it besides Hoffman's male role is not that pleasant but it makes his female role stronger. It's not a perfect film, but Tootsie is just a really enjoyable and funny film that stands up strong 30 years later. I feel like you could call this one a classic and not be wrong. I'll have to see how it stands up to the other films of this year for the win.
The Verdict
This is one of those films that completely holds your interest. Other Best Picture films can find your mind wandering and thinking how much longer while watching, but this one sucked me in from the start. I admit that I love Paul Newman so it had that going for it but as the story unraveled, I was hooked as to what was going to happen. This is a courtroom drama that also focuses on the lead up. This film is renowned for the courtroom aspect and is usually tops in courtroom drama lists. It has a reputation that precedes it if you are looking into it and I'd say it matches it. Newman is basically an ambulance chaser who was once a top attorney but now is a drunk opportunist who takes a case because he thinks he can get the Catholic archdiocese to settle and avoid trial. Newman looks into the case and is offended at the settlement offer and feels like he can win the case at trial. Then it's about him dealing with issues that pop up like a missing witness, finding new evidence, and believing in himself after moments of self doubt. Newman is the big draw as he's as good as ever in his performance. The writing and directing are pretty great from legends David Mamet and Sidney Lumet, respectively. Just look up their body of work and realize that all three of those legends coming together was a perfect storm for Oscar glory. It's a super well done film that just sucks you in completely and doesn't let go until the end. It's one of those powerful down and out person takes on a tough assignment versus a big entity in hopes that redemption for their past might come about type of films. It's solid all the way through with some pretty good supporting performances, too. This is a film you watch and say yeah, this is Oscar worthy and possibly good enough to win. I feel it's a film that you could put on and end up watching the whole thing or see it's on TCM and stop whatever you were doing and watch it. At risk of sounding like a broken record - it's solid and you'll most likely enjoy it and understand why it's so beloved. Just gotta see if it'll be a winner with me.
This is actually a pretty good group! Honestly, Missing is the only misstep by the Academy here. That film just fails to grab me and lacks tension to make a political thriller thrilling. Lemmon is good but can't save it. The next three are really interchangeable. Tootsie is a classic and a very funny film with some great acting. The Verdict is a really great trial film with some great acting, also. Both are easy to rewatch and I don't think I'd get sick of them. Both are worthy of being on this list. E.T. is a great family film and tugs on my nostalgia bone. It, too, is a film that is fun to watch over and over. All three of these have valid arguments to being Best Picture and I honestly would not be upset one way or another if any of them were. I'm going with Gandhi just because of Kingsley and because it feels like an 80s prestige picture, ya know? So I'm fine with that choice. But the fact that 4 of the 5 films could easily be Best Picture means this is a pretty damn good BP group. I do know that I'm just glad to be done with this year. I don't want to take as long with 81! Hopefully it is as good as 82.
Oscar Winner: Gandhi
My Winner: Gandhi
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
The Verdict
Tootsie
Missing
Leading Actor 1982
Wow. Look at the names on this list. Each one is a powerhouse actor and all have multiple nominations and at least one win (with O' Toole getting an Honorary Oscar because the Academy foolishly never rewarded him for acting). By name alone this is a heavy hitting group so I fully expect every single performance to be amazing. Anything less and I'll be let down.
1982 Best Actor
Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
Has there been another role that married so perfectly with its actor? Kingsley is the spitting image of Gandhi and it was said that even the Indian people thought they were seeing his ghost. It's a perfect casting choice that might disturb you to learn that there were a bunch of old white men who were considered for the part like Alec Guinness, Albert Finney, Anthony Hopkins, Peter Finch, even Dustin Hoffman! That blows my mind that a non-Indian would even be considered so I'm glad that they found Kingsley. I think what I like a lot about his performance is that Kingsley grows into it. I know that these aren't filmed in sequence but I'm impressed with how Kingsley gains confidence and calmness as the film goes on. It's the mark of a great actor that he can do that while shooting this out of sequence. I shouldn't have to really say anything besides pointing to a portrait of Kingsley as Gandhi because that's more than enough. Kingsley is Gandhi. It stretches over three hours and might not be the most exciting thing, but Kingsley is beyond phenomenal as the world icon. When Kingsley starts talking, you pay attention and every scene carries an authenticity that seems wholly earned. I think my only real issue with the performance has to do with the film/story. It labors hard in the last hour when Gandhi is old and sometimes on a hunger strike. Kingley is fine acting old and decrepit but the story doesn't give him all that much to do as the story swirls around him. But the rest of the performance is tremendous and this was an easy no-brainer for the Academy to choose as the winner and I wholeheartedly agree with their choice.
Dustin Hoffman - Tootsie
I was eager to see this performance again (watched it a long time ago) since I didn't remember too much about Hoffman's female performance. Would I enjoy it now as an adult? Would I find it sexist or demeaning? Yes and no. Hoffman is actually really strong in this performance. This role is an actor's wet dream personified because not only is it a dual role where one of the roles is a man playing a woman, but the other role is Hoffman playing a struggling actor who also teaches acting and is surrounding by beautiful women. Any actor would kill for that kind of role. Hoffman's male role is basically a douchebag who thinks he's more important and better than others in the profession and is difficult to work with. It's a very New York acting role that allows for Hoffman to ham it up at times and act very loudly and broadly. If we had to spend all of the film with this Michael role, we'd hate the character and probably the film by association. It's not a very likable character and Hoffman does a good job in showing how disconnected he is from being in tune with other people, especially women. All of that makes Hoffman's Dorothy almost a revelation. Just the way Hoffman moves and the Southern accent he uses helps completely transform Michael into a believable woman (if you don't worry about the looks part so much). Hoffman dove headfirst into the female role and it shows with how convincing he is and how empathetic and warm Dorothy is even though she can be very forthright and feisty, as well. The film succeeds because Hoffman succeeds as Dorothy. If it was a sexist caricature or an awful mess of a "woman" performance, Tootsie would be a failure. Instead, Hoffman is hilarious at times and has great comedic timing both verbal and physical. When Dorothy has to deal with Charles Durning hitting on her, Hoffman is a hoot and the scenes even have a bit of poignancy to them. Hoffman's dedication to being female really elevates the performance and makes it a memorable one. I also think Hoffman's Michael being so self centered and awful at times really helps Dorothy by being such a stark contrast to the goodness and joy that is Dorothy. I was surprised that I liked Hoffman in this so much probably because I was still annoyed at his Rain Man performance. But also probably because his Dorothy is so real and authentic that he makes it easy to root for her and laugh at her all the same. I'm unsure if this will be my winner but I'm glad that Hoffman gave a performance that I genuinely enjoyed even though it could have easily devolved into blatant shtick.
Jack Lemmon - Missing
Hey, my first Jack Lemmon write up! I was absolutely blown away by him in Glengarry Glen Ross and was eagerly anticipating actually watching one of his performances for the project (which makes it seem like I didn't know who he was and hadn't seen anything by him before - I have). This was his 8th and final nomination so I guess his last one maybe not being a powerhouse makes sense. Missing is about Lemmon who goes down to Chile after their coup to search for his son who is, get this, missing. The film itself is kind of conventional even though it's a political film. Lemmon goes down and searches for his son with his daughter-in-law and gets stonewalled at every turn before finally getting the info that his son is dead. But at least Lemmon does his best to make the film worth something by giving a very sincere and polished performance. I know polished can be a bad thing but I use it here to mean that Lemmon knows what is necessary for his character and efficiently gets the emotions of frustration, concern, anger, sadness across for the viewer. It's interesting to see Lemmon go from the man who believes his government can help and doesn't believe a thing about coverups and denials and the murkier political machinations going on to being the guy who has seen first hand his government and Chile's lie to his face and string him along and straight up tell him that his son deserved it because he poked his nose where it didn't belong. That gradual realization from Lemmon is great acting and why I'm excited to watch the rest of his nominations. It's too much of a plodding film yet Lemmon makes you pay attention. I love how he adds in these little, what feel like unscripted, tics and accidents and words that enhance the realism in his performance. I just really like his acting style, honestly. He tries to do his best for the film but it's a tepid political thriller. His chemistry with Sissy Spacek is lacking but they are unfamiliar father/daughter-in-law relatives and the two eventually warm up by the end. I wouldn't say this is Lemmon's strongest effort but he certainly gives it a good try. A good introduction to the man if you're going backwards through the Oscar history like a crazy person.
Paul Newman - The Verdict
There are a lot of people who felt that this was the year and the performance that Paul Newman would finally win his Oscar. But then he ran into the Gandhi buzzsaw and was a forgotten participant by the end of awards season. Obviously, Newman got a well deserved Oscar win a couple years later and it's kinda crazy that it took so long for one of the greatest actors of all time to even get a win, period. But then ask Peter O' Toole about deserving an Oscar, right? Anyway, Newman plays an alcoholic, ambulance chasing lawyer who hasn't won a case in like three years. He used to be a top lawyer before his life fell apart. He agrees to take on what he thinks is any easy settlement case of malpractice after a couple doctors give the wrong anesthetic to a woman in delivery and turn her into a vegetable. The Catholic Archdiocese who run the hospital want to settle, too, but Newman is offended by the amount and after digging into the case a bit, decides to go to trial. Newman goes through all kinds of trials and tribulations (bad pun fully intended) in the lead up to trial whether it's a missing star witness, new bombshell evidence, self doubt, and lots of other things. The story is richly compelling and a lot of that is because of Newman's performance (and Lumet's direction and Mamet's writing). Newman portrays his lawyer with a ton of self doubt on whether he can be a good enough lawyer again and win. He doesn't rely on the alcoholic thing, either, which is too easy to use as a crutch. This is a man who is tormented inside because of his past failings and is unsure if he's doing the right thing and can do a good enough job. That's where the appeal for the performances comes from for me, watching Newman wrangle with himself internally. We know he's going to give a solid performance no matter what but he doesn't just go through the court room drama motions so to speak. We have seen a million of those types of films and performances and it's something Newman could do in his sleep. Here, he actually brings a little more to the cliche role. He doesn't just stand up in trial and deliver some eloquent speech that changes everyone's mind. He doesn't just whip out some obscure law ruling that helps his client win. He doesn't know everything in a convenient manner for the plot. He actually fails in getting his bombshell evidence heard because it gets stricken from the record after the fact. One of his expert witnesses isn't very good on the stand. He faces challenges that are more interesting than him being a hotshot, perfect lawyer. And Newman makes his flawed character into a believably flawed character. That's why I like the performance and understand why people thought he'd win his Oscar for it.
Peter O' Toole - My Favorite Year
I was trying to figure out how to start this review off but all I could think was that this was a very expected performance and not in a good way. Granted, Peter (because I hate having to type O' Toole so much) is decent and charming and mostly funny, but it's a performance that is exactly what you think it would be. If you read the description of the role, it's an Errol Flynn like actor who is set to appear on a comedy variety show kinda like SNL in 1954 but is an alcoholic, womanizing, and unreliable actor. I feel like you can picture this performance in your mind before you even see it and after you do actually see it, it matches up almost note for note. I expected a proper British actor who says dry, funny things with an accent that makes them seem more charming. He fucks things up with his drinking but all is forgiven because he's a charming actor and then it throws in the more serious, dramatic aspect of whatever - in this case it's a daughter he doesn't see and being afraid of failing on live TV. The focus is on the comedy part because this is a Mel Brooks produced film that's based loosely on something from his early career/life. So O' Toole (okay I'll stick with that because writing just Peter seems weird) does a fine enough job with the character and role and material but it's just nothing that seems ground breaking or revelatory or out of his comfort zone. This is what you think of when you think of O' Toole in the later years. It's not a big stretch and the film isn't all that great or interesting and is entirely forgettable. This feels more like the Academy trying to reward him because he was overdue and because he is essentially acting royalty without an Oscar and this was a good chance to fix that. O' Toole is clearly having fun with the role but sometimes that's not enough to warrant a Best Actor nomination which I hate to say about such a renowned actor.
What should have been a very impressive Best Actor group actually lives up to my expectation - how about that! When Peter O' Toole is bringing up the rear, you know it's a good year. His was the only performance I really felt let down by because it was so expected and by the numbers that I wish he'd have done something different with it. He was good but he was also obvious. You know the role you're getting before you even see it. Lemmon is next because his film is kinda boring though he does his best to make it not so. He's very earnest and compelling but he can't overcome such a blase film that should actually be super riveting. Here is where I'm unsure of how to rank Hoffman and Newman. Newman is great as a lawyer seeking redemption and really does a lot more with what could have been just a cliche role. He also makes me want to watch his film again because he's so great and because the film is so compelling and fun to watch. Hoffman has the added bonus of playing two roles, one of which is a woman. It's because he knocks that woman role out of the park that I feel he's a good runner up this year. His Dorothy is so funny and fun to watch that it makes the film so much better, too. Kingsley is the obvious winner because he IS Gandhi. Simple as that. It's the perfect role for him and he was great. A very strong group even if I didn't like a couple of the films. Hopefully 81 is even better.
Oscar Winner: Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
My Winner: Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
Dustin Hoffman
Paul Newman
Jack Lemmon
Peter O' Toole
1982 Best Actor
Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
Has there been another role that married so perfectly with its actor? Kingsley is the spitting image of Gandhi and it was said that even the Indian people thought they were seeing his ghost. It's a perfect casting choice that might disturb you to learn that there were a bunch of old white men who were considered for the part like Alec Guinness, Albert Finney, Anthony Hopkins, Peter Finch, even Dustin Hoffman! That blows my mind that a non-Indian would even be considered so I'm glad that they found Kingsley. I think what I like a lot about his performance is that Kingsley grows into it. I know that these aren't filmed in sequence but I'm impressed with how Kingsley gains confidence and calmness as the film goes on. It's the mark of a great actor that he can do that while shooting this out of sequence. I shouldn't have to really say anything besides pointing to a portrait of Kingsley as Gandhi because that's more than enough. Kingsley is Gandhi. It stretches over three hours and might not be the most exciting thing, but Kingsley is beyond phenomenal as the world icon. When Kingsley starts talking, you pay attention and every scene carries an authenticity that seems wholly earned. I think my only real issue with the performance has to do with the film/story. It labors hard in the last hour when Gandhi is old and sometimes on a hunger strike. Kingley is fine acting old and decrepit but the story doesn't give him all that much to do as the story swirls around him. But the rest of the performance is tremendous and this was an easy no-brainer for the Academy to choose as the winner and I wholeheartedly agree with their choice.
Dustin Hoffman - Tootsie
I was eager to see this performance again (watched it a long time ago) since I didn't remember too much about Hoffman's female performance. Would I enjoy it now as an adult? Would I find it sexist or demeaning? Yes and no. Hoffman is actually really strong in this performance. This role is an actor's wet dream personified because not only is it a dual role where one of the roles is a man playing a woman, but the other role is Hoffman playing a struggling actor who also teaches acting and is surrounding by beautiful women. Any actor would kill for that kind of role. Hoffman's male role is basically a douchebag who thinks he's more important and better than others in the profession and is difficult to work with. It's a very New York acting role that allows for Hoffman to ham it up at times and act very loudly and broadly. If we had to spend all of the film with this Michael role, we'd hate the character and probably the film by association. It's not a very likable character and Hoffman does a good job in showing how disconnected he is from being in tune with other people, especially women. All of that makes Hoffman's Dorothy almost a revelation. Just the way Hoffman moves and the Southern accent he uses helps completely transform Michael into a believable woman (if you don't worry about the looks part so much). Hoffman dove headfirst into the female role and it shows with how convincing he is and how empathetic and warm Dorothy is even though she can be very forthright and feisty, as well. The film succeeds because Hoffman succeeds as Dorothy. If it was a sexist caricature or an awful mess of a "woman" performance, Tootsie would be a failure. Instead, Hoffman is hilarious at times and has great comedic timing both verbal and physical. When Dorothy has to deal with Charles Durning hitting on her, Hoffman is a hoot and the scenes even have a bit of poignancy to them. Hoffman's dedication to being female really elevates the performance and makes it a memorable one. I also think Hoffman's Michael being so self centered and awful at times really helps Dorothy by being such a stark contrast to the goodness and joy that is Dorothy. I was surprised that I liked Hoffman in this so much probably because I was still annoyed at his Rain Man performance. But also probably because his Dorothy is so real and authentic that he makes it easy to root for her and laugh at her all the same. I'm unsure if this will be my winner but I'm glad that Hoffman gave a performance that I genuinely enjoyed even though it could have easily devolved into blatant shtick.
Jack Lemmon - Missing
Hey, my first Jack Lemmon write up! I was absolutely blown away by him in Glengarry Glen Ross and was eagerly anticipating actually watching one of his performances for the project (which makes it seem like I didn't know who he was and hadn't seen anything by him before - I have). This was his 8th and final nomination so I guess his last one maybe not being a powerhouse makes sense. Missing is about Lemmon who goes down to Chile after their coup to search for his son who is, get this, missing. The film itself is kind of conventional even though it's a political film. Lemmon goes down and searches for his son with his daughter-in-law and gets stonewalled at every turn before finally getting the info that his son is dead. But at least Lemmon does his best to make the film worth something by giving a very sincere and polished performance. I know polished can be a bad thing but I use it here to mean that Lemmon knows what is necessary for his character and efficiently gets the emotions of frustration, concern, anger, sadness across for the viewer. It's interesting to see Lemmon go from the man who believes his government can help and doesn't believe a thing about coverups and denials and the murkier political machinations going on to being the guy who has seen first hand his government and Chile's lie to his face and string him along and straight up tell him that his son deserved it because he poked his nose where it didn't belong. That gradual realization from Lemmon is great acting and why I'm excited to watch the rest of his nominations. It's too much of a plodding film yet Lemmon makes you pay attention. I love how he adds in these little, what feel like unscripted, tics and accidents and words that enhance the realism in his performance. I just really like his acting style, honestly. He tries to do his best for the film but it's a tepid political thriller. His chemistry with Sissy Spacek is lacking but they are unfamiliar father/daughter-in-law relatives and the two eventually warm up by the end. I wouldn't say this is Lemmon's strongest effort but he certainly gives it a good try. A good introduction to the man if you're going backwards through the Oscar history like a crazy person.
Paul Newman - The Verdict
There are a lot of people who felt that this was the year and the performance that Paul Newman would finally win his Oscar. But then he ran into the Gandhi buzzsaw and was a forgotten participant by the end of awards season. Obviously, Newman got a well deserved Oscar win a couple years later and it's kinda crazy that it took so long for one of the greatest actors of all time to even get a win, period. But then ask Peter O' Toole about deserving an Oscar, right? Anyway, Newman plays an alcoholic, ambulance chasing lawyer who hasn't won a case in like three years. He used to be a top lawyer before his life fell apart. He agrees to take on what he thinks is any easy settlement case of malpractice after a couple doctors give the wrong anesthetic to a woman in delivery and turn her into a vegetable. The Catholic Archdiocese who run the hospital want to settle, too, but Newman is offended by the amount and after digging into the case a bit, decides to go to trial. Newman goes through all kinds of trials and tribulations (bad pun fully intended) in the lead up to trial whether it's a missing star witness, new bombshell evidence, self doubt, and lots of other things. The story is richly compelling and a lot of that is because of Newman's performance (and Lumet's direction and Mamet's writing). Newman portrays his lawyer with a ton of self doubt on whether he can be a good enough lawyer again and win. He doesn't rely on the alcoholic thing, either, which is too easy to use as a crutch. This is a man who is tormented inside because of his past failings and is unsure if he's doing the right thing and can do a good enough job. That's where the appeal for the performances comes from for me, watching Newman wrangle with himself internally. We know he's going to give a solid performance no matter what but he doesn't just go through the court room drama motions so to speak. We have seen a million of those types of films and performances and it's something Newman could do in his sleep. Here, he actually brings a little more to the cliche role. He doesn't just stand up in trial and deliver some eloquent speech that changes everyone's mind. He doesn't just whip out some obscure law ruling that helps his client win. He doesn't know everything in a convenient manner for the plot. He actually fails in getting his bombshell evidence heard because it gets stricken from the record after the fact. One of his expert witnesses isn't very good on the stand. He faces challenges that are more interesting than him being a hotshot, perfect lawyer. And Newman makes his flawed character into a believably flawed character. That's why I like the performance and understand why people thought he'd win his Oscar for it.
Peter O' Toole - My Favorite Year
I was trying to figure out how to start this review off but all I could think was that this was a very expected performance and not in a good way. Granted, Peter (because I hate having to type O' Toole so much) is decent and charming and mostly funny, but it's a performance that is exactly what you think it would be. If you read the description of the role, it's an Errol Flynn like actor who is set to appear on a comedy variety show kinda like SNL in 1954 but is an alcoholic, womanizing, and unreliable actor. I feel like you can picture this performance in your mind before you even see it and after you do actually see it, it matches up almost note for note. I expected a proper British actor who says dry, funny things with an accent that makes them seem more charming. He fucks things up with his drinking but all is forgiven because he's a charming actor and then it throws in the more serious, dramatic aspect of whatever - in this case it's a daughter he doesn't see and being afraid of failing on live TV. The focus is on the comedy part because this is a Mel Brooks produced film that's based loosely on something from his early career/life. So O' Toole (okay I'll stick with that because writing just Peter seems weird) does a fine enough job with the character and role and material but it's just nothing that seems ground breaking or revelatory or out of his comfort zone. This is what you think of when you think of O' Toole in the later years. It's not a big stretch and the film isn't all that great or interesting and is entirely forgettable. This feels more like the Academy trying to reward him because he was overdue and because he is essentially acting royalty without an Oscar and this was a good chance to fix that. O' Toole is clearly having fun with the role but sometimes that's not enough to warrant a Best Actor nomination which I hate to say about such a renowned actor.
What should have been a very impressive Best Actor group actually lives up to my expectation - how about that! When Peter O' Toole is bringing up the rear, you know it's a good year. His was the only performance I really felt let down by because it was so expected and by the numbers that I wish he'd have done something different with it. He was good but he was also obvious. You know the role you're getting before you even see it. Lemmon is next because his film is kinda boring though he does his best to make it not so. He's very earnest and compelling but he can't overcome such a blase film that should actually be super riveting. Here is where I'm unsure of how to rank Hoffman and Newman. Newman is great as a lawyer seeking redemption and really does a lot more with what could have been just a cliche role. He also makes me want to watch his film again because he's so great and because the film is so compelling and fun to watch. Hoffman has the added bonus of playing two roles, one of which is a woman. It's because he knocks that woman role out of the park that I feel he's a good runner up this year. His Dorothy is so funny and fun to watch that it makes the film so much better, too. Kingsley is the obvious winner because he IS Gandhi. Simple as that. It's the perfect role for him and he was great. A very strong group even if I didn't like a couple of the films. Hopefully 81 is even better.
Oscar Winner: Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
My Winner: Ben Kingsley - Gandhi
Dustin Hoffman
Paul Newman
Jack Lemmon
Peter O' Toole
Leading Actress 1982
There is a performance in this bunch that many consider to be one of the greatest of all time, so to say I'm eager to finally watch it is an understatement. I haven't seen any of these but these are all big names so I fully expect this to be an impressive group. I'll be let down if not!
1982 Best Actress
Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice
This is one of those performances that even casual movie goers seem to know or at least be familiar with. It gets talked about as one of the greatest performances of all time, regardless of sex, and has been hyped up to me just from reading and talking to people about the Oscars. I have purposefully stayed away from even really knowing what the film was about and was surprised when I saw that Kevin Kline was in this (his film debut). Honestly, I thought the film might be about abortion or something like that but I was definitely wrong which is okay because I went into this one almost entirely cold. It was nice not knowing where the film was going. As for Streep's performance, I feel she won this based on two things: the raw emotion she displays as a mother sent to a concentration camp and Polish accent and speaking a large portion of the film in Polish/German. By now, we all know how great Streep is with accents and foreign languages and that is on full display here. And it certainly is impressive the amount of dedication that took. It lends itself to making the character feel real and authentic and helps the film feel not so oddly done. The present day scenes show Sophie as this giggling, personable, easy to please woman who is with Kline and takes up a friendship with a Southern writer who has moved to NYC. Their dynamic can be a little odd at times with Kline being somewhat schizophrenic and the Southern writer being overly portective and in quasi love with Sophie. I say all that to juxtapose that part of the film with the flashbacks for Sophie in the concentration camp and how serious and emotional and stark they are. Streep is good in both parts but is clearly at her best in the emotional flashback scenes. She famously did the "choice" scene in one take and refused to do it again due to it being so emotionally draining and you can see that in the scene itself. I do feel that Streep earns the hype and reputation this performance has received over the years and agree that it is very strong and compelling and a work of art. I just don't think that this is a performance that I'd like to watch over and over partially due to how intense it is but mostly due to it not personally being a favorite of her hers - if that makes any sense to you. This was an easy choice for the Academy given the other performances in the group and definitely should have won anyway.
Julie Andrews - Victor/Victoria
Obviously when you think of Julie Andrews, you think of Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music and rightfully so. She was nominated for both and won her Oscar for the first one. Her legacy is one of accomplished and beautiful singing and dancing. That legacy is on full display in her performance here though the film is not as wholesome as her most memorable work. Andrews plays a scraggly woman who wants to be a performer but can't get hired. She meets a man (Robert Preston) who has been recently fired from his performing gig and the two hit off as friends and share similarities in their personality. They hatch a plan to have Andrews, a woman, play a man impersonating a woman for a club show. So Andrews is a woman playing a man playing a woman. I loved this film and part of the reason is just how great Andrews is in the role. She sings and dances wonderfully, yes, but she is also brilliantly funny with (as I've said in the other nominations for this film) impeccable comedic timing. The script is hilarious but the actors, especially Andrews, bring it to life in a way that knocks you over the head. Andrews almost has to take one three roles with the various stages of her character playing the female impersonator who is singing and dancing on stage, to the man who is pretending for everyone around them including James Garner's gangster type character, and to her original woman who wants to make it any way she can. The film and the character are farcical in nature but Andrews never lets the character(s) get away from her or out of control. She maintains her presence on each one and they are all enjoyable to watch as Andrews does her thing. The chemistry Andrews has with Preston is also part of what makes the film so good to me because they feed off each other like they were a longtime comedy duo and are a hoot to watch together. Mostly the reason I really like this performance from Andrews is that we all know she can sing and dance but she blows me away with her comedy which I wasn't expecting at all. Couple that with a film that really surprised me with how much I loved it and you've got a recipe for a film and performance that I would definitely recommend checking out.
Jessica Lange - Frances
Ah, Jessica Lange. This is my last go around with you and it's left me in a weird state. I think Lange is a great actress and is a fierce woman, yet I haven't really cared for most of her Oscar nominations and this one is no different. I think it's probably because her acting style makes it look like she's gunning for an Oscar every time because she brings an intensity to the roles in what are usually underwhelming films. I was so bored with Frances from the start even though I tried to get into it. But the story/film does itself no favors and lets down a very intense and melodramatic Lange. Melodramatic being the keyword on how I felt about her performance as a whole. Frances Farmer was a controversial young girl writing essays about God being dead and going to Russia before becoming an actress who didn't acquiesce to the studios and suffering mental health issues. That actually sounds like a really interesting topic for a biopic but man, is this film boring! Lange and fellow nominee Kim Stanley can't save the film even though they try to bring some fire to their performances. Lange is all over the map, in a good way mostly, as she gets to portray all these different emotions from extreme spit flying from the mouth anger, to sultry teasing, to fierce independent woman, to vulnerable young idealistic woman, to smartass heroine and on and on and on. You get the idea and understand that Lange has incredible acting range and is putting it all on show here. I can't deny that is true, but it just seems like a wasted effort for such a boring film that even Lange trying her hardest doesn't make it all that interesting. You'll read in a lot of the reviews for the film that she is fearless and breathtaking and exhilarating and I can see how people feel that way, but I still think her performance is more melodramatic than one of the greatest performances ever (according to Anthony Hopkins). I also failed to mention that a lot of the performance is Lange acting as a mental patient so there's a lot of the theatrics associated with that type of performance. Anyway, Lange does a very good job but not good enough to win, especially this year. Which is probably why the Academy went ahead and also put her in Supporting for Tootsie where she won.
Sissy Spacek - Missing
This performance is actually one of those tough ones to write about. I don't feel strongly one way or another about Spacek's performance. The film is about a guy who is married to Spacek goes missing during the coup down in Chile where they live. Jack Lemmon is the guy's father and he comes down there to help find his son and they both run into interference from both governments and other people. It's one of those performances where the person nominated doesn't really stand out or have any Oscar moments but also isn't bad at all, doing average to solid work. And that really describes Spacek in this film. We know she's a pretty great actress but she just kinda goes through the motions here no matter how well intentioned. There is no big moment for her as the film is mostly Spacek and Lemmon talking with each other about the missing son/husband and the two going out and trying to gather information looking through morgues and talking to people. The performance basically is what it is - no frills, no excitement, by the numbers political film wife role. I'd love to hear what others think of this one and if anyone feels passionately about it being a nominee because I can only see it being here because it's Sissy Spacek, no other reason. She was a recent winner and is in that window where if they are in a prestige picture or do work people can appreciate, they get nominated easily especially in Best Actress. I can't even say I really feel too sorry Spacek's character which I feel like Spacek should have done for the audience. She's sad and angry, yes, but never to the point where you feel like Spacek is connecting with the character so the performance almost feels sterile. I wish that I would have loved or hated this performance but it really is just a big 'ol meh for me, which sucks because I know Spacek can do some really good work.
Debra Winger - An Officer and a Gentleman
As I stated for Winger's review in 1983, I have become a very big Debra Winger fan because of this project. I just really like her as an actress and that holds true for her Netflix series, too. This was her breakout hit and I do feel like this was a star making nomination for the Academy. Now, I don't mean that in the way of some other choices by the Academy where the performance took a backseat to star quality and potential. No, Winger is clearly a strong actress here even with a very cliche and familiar role. Winger plays a woman who meets a Naval officer candidate (Richard Gere) who wants to be a pilot. They hit it off before some turmoil pops up in the relationship that complicates things and then eventually there is a Cinderella ending while a hit pop song plays underneath. It's stuff you've seen countless times but it's always about how does the woman differentiate herself from the similar roles. I think that Winger brings a confidence and independent woman type feeling to her character which is reflected in her not kowtowing to Gere and being more of a realist than maybe some other women in other films would be. While the role doesn't let Winger stretch herself all that much, she does bring her own take to it. She's not just a woman who wants to bag a military man and do whatever he wants. We do see some qualities that show up in her Terms of Endearment character and you can see that Winger could do a ton more with the role if given the chance. Unfortunately, it still is mostly a stock role. We only briefly see Winger working in a factory and she quickly gets back with Gere even though she should hold him more accountable for his behavior. Interesting thing I read was that apparently she and Gere didn't get along on set, yet Winger doesn't let that show through in the performance which is the mark of a professional. This is obviously not going to win and maybe the Academy knew that and nominated her to get her exposure. It's clear that Winger would go on to do some pretty great acting work in the coming years, too. I'm just sad that there are no more Winger nominations to watch.
On paper, this should be a stupidly strong year for Best Actress given the names and how everyone but Winger has at least one Oscar. Unfortunately, the group doesn't hit as hard as it should. I think we can all agree that Streep is the obvious winner and does a world class job with her performance whether you really want to watch it again or not. It's an all-timer. Spacek, though, doesn't really do much in her role. It's a political film but she never makes her character seem important or all that interesting. She's just kinda there and this reeks of the Academy just going to it's well of previous winners when they don't know what to nominate. Lange lands near the bottom for me because I feel like her performance is so melodramatic and done to possibly win an Oscar that it turns me off. I know a lot of people love this and feel it's so great but I don't see it because I'm not blinded by overacting. She'd get her win anyway in Supporting so she wasn't going to win here. Then we get to Winger who you can clearly see does a bit more with a stock role even though she is bound by the story and character. It's not amazing but Winger brings an authentic style to her work and I like that. Andrews surprises me with a super funny role that I wasn't expecting and made me want to watch her film again. I'd recommend watching her for some laughs. So this year was very underwhelming when I went in really expecting some great stuff. I guess I'll move on to 81 and see how that group does for me.
Oscar Winner: Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice
My Winner: Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice
Julie Andrews
Debra Winger
Jessica Lange
Sissy Spacek
1982 Best Actress
Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice
This is one of those performances that even casual movie goers seem to know or at least be familiar with. It gets talked about as one of the greatest performances of all time, regardless of sex, and has been hyped up to me just from reading and talking to people about the Oscars. I have purposefully stayed away from even really knowing what the film was about and was surprised when I saw that Kevin Kline was in this (his film debut). Honestly, I thought the film might be about abortion or something like that but I was definitely wrong which is okay because I went into this one almost entirely cold. It was nice not knowing where the film was going. As for Streep's performance, I feel she won this based on two things: the raw emotion she displays as a mother sent to a concentration camp and Polish accent and speaking a large portion of the film in Polish/German. By now, we all know how great Streep is with accents and foreign languages and that is on full display here. And it certainly is impressive the amount of dedication that took. It lends itself to making the character feel real and authentic and helps the film feel not so oddly done. The present day scenes show Sophie as this giggling, personable, easy to please woman who is with Kline and takes up a friendship with a Southern writer who has moved to NYC. Their dynamic can be a little odd at times with Kline being somewhat schizophrenic and the Southern writer being overly portective and in quasi love with Sophie. I say all that to juxtapose that part of the film with the flashbacks for Sophie in the concentration camp and how serious and emotional and stark they are. Streep is good in both parts but is clearly at her best in the emotional flashback scenes. She famously did the "choice" scene in one take and refused to do it again due to it being so emotionally draining and you can see that in the scene itself. I do feel that Streep earns the hype and reputation this performance has received over the years and agree that it is very strong and compelling and a work of art. I just don't think that this is a performance that I'd like to watch over and over partially due to how intense it is but mostly due to it not personally being a favorite of her hers - if that makes any sense to you. This was an easy choice for the Academy given the other performances in the group and definitely should have won anyway.
Julie Andrews - Victor/Victoria
Obviously when you think of Julie Andrews, you think of Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music and rightfully so. She was nominated for both and won her Oscar for the first one. Her legacy is one of accomplished and beautiful singing and dancing. That legacy is on full display in her performance here though the film is not as wholesome as her most memorable work. Andrews plays a scraggly woman who wants to be a performer but can't get hired. She meets a man (Robert Preston) who has been recently fired from his performing gig and the two hit off as friends and share similarities in their personality. They hatch a plan to have Andrews, a woman, play a man impersonating a woman for a club show. So Andrews is a woman playing a man playing a woman. I loved this film and part of the reason is just how great Andrews is in the role. She sings and dances wonderfully, yes, but she is also brilliantly funny with (as I've said in the other nominations for this film) impeccable comedic timing. The script is hilarious but the actors, especially Andrews, bring it to life in a way that knocks you over the head. Andrews almost has to take one three roles with the various stages of her character playing the female impersonator who is singing and dancing on stage, to the man who is pretending for everyone around them including James Garner's gangster type character, and to her original woman who wants to make it any way she can. The film and the character are farcical in nature but Andrews never lets the character(s) get away from her or out of control. She maintains her presence on each one and they are all enjoyable to watch as Andrews does her thing. The chemistry Andrews has with Preston is also part of what makes the film so good to me because they feed off each other like they were a longtime comedy duo and are a hoot to watch together. Mostly the reason I really like this performance from Andrews is that we all know she can sing and dance but she blows me away with her comedy which I wasn't expecting at all. Couple that with a film that really surprised me with how much I loved it and you've got a recipe for a film and performance that I would definitely recommend checking out.
Jessica Lange - Frances
Ah, Jessica Lange. This is my last go around with you and it's left me in a weird state. I think Lange is a great actress and is a fierce woman, yet I haven't really cared for most of her Oscar nominations and this one is no different. I think it's probably because her acting style makes it look like she's gunning for an Oscar every time because she brings an intensity to the roles in what are usually underwhelming films. I was so bored with Frances from the start even though I tried to get into it. But the story/film does itself no favors and lets down a very intense and melodramatic Lange. Melodramatic being the keyword on how I felt about her performance as a whole. Frances Farmer was a controversial young girl writing essays about God being dead and going to Russia before becoming an actress who didn't acquiesce to the studios and suffering mental health issues. That actually sounds like a really interesting topic for a biopic but man, is this film boring! Lange and fellow nominee Kim Stanley can't save the film even though they try to bring some fire to their performances. Lange is all over the map, in a good way mostly, as she gets to portray all these different emotions from extreme spit flying from the mouth anger, to sultry teasing, to fierce independent woman, to vulnerable young idealistic woman, to smartass heroine and on and on and on. You get the idea and understand that Lange has incredible acting range and is putting it all on show here. I can't deny that is true, but it just seems like a wasted effort for such a boring film that even Lange trying her hardest doesn't make it all that interesting. You'll read in a lot of the reviews for the film that she is fearless and breathtaking and exhilarating and I can see how people feel that way, but I still think her performance is more melodramatic than one of the greatest performances ever (according to Anthony Hopkins). I also failed to mention that a lot of the performance is Lange acting as a mental patient so there's a lot of the theatrics associated with that type of performance. Anyway, Lange does a very good job but not good enough to win, especially this year. Which is probably why the Academy went ahead and also put her in Supporting for Tootsie where she won.
Sissy Spacek - Missing
This performance is actually one of those tough ones to write about. I don't feel strongly one way or another about Spacek's performance. The film is about a guy who is married to Spacek goes missing during the coup down in Chile where they live. Jack Lemmon is the guy's father and he comes down there to help find his son and they both run into interference from both governments and other people. It's one of those performances where the person nominated doesn't really stand out or have any Oscar moments but also isn't bad at all, doing average to solid work. And that really describes Spacek in this film. We know she's a pretty great actress but she just kinda goes through the motions here no matter how well intentioned. There is no big moment for her as the film is mostly Spacek and Lemmon talking with each other about the missing son/husband and the two going out and trying to gather information looking through morgues and talking to people. The performance basically is what it is - no frills, no excitement, by the numbers political film wife role. I'd love to hear what others think of this one and if anyone feels passionately about it being a nominee because I can only see it being here because it's Sissy Spacek, no other reason. She was a recent winner and is in that window where if they are in a prestige picture or do work people can appreciate, they get nominated easily especially in Best Actress. I can't even say I really feel too sorry Spacek's character which I feel like Spacek should have done for the audience. She's sad and angry, yes, but never to the point where you feel like Spacek is connecting with the character so the performance almost feels sterile. I wish that I would have loved or hated this performance but it really is just a big 'ol meh for me, which sucks because I know Spacek can do some really good work.
Debra Winger - An Officer and a Gentleman
As I stated for Winger's review in 1983, I have become a very big Debra Winger fan because of this project. I just really like her as an actress and that holds true for her Netflix series, too. This was her breakout hit and I do feel like this was a star making nomination for the Academy. Now, I don't mean that in the way of some other choices by the Academy where the performance took a backseat to star quality and potential. No, Winger is clearly a strong actress here even with a very cliche and familiar role. Winger plays a woman who meets a Naval officer candidate (Richard Gere) who wants to be a pilot. They hit it off before some turmoil pops up in the relationship that complicates things and then eventually there is a Cinderella ending while a hit pop song plays underneath. It's stuff you've seen countless times but it's always about how does the woman differentiate herself from the similar roles. I think that Winger brings a confidence and independent woman type feeling to her character which is reflected in her not kowtowing to Gere and being more of a realist than maybe some other women in other films would be. While the role doesn't let Winger stretch herself all that much, she does bring her own take to it. She's not just a woman who wants to bag a military man and do whatever he wants. We do see some qualities that show up in her Terms of Endearment character and you can see that Winger could do a ton more with the role if given the chance. Unfortunately, it still is mostly a stock role. We only briefly see Winger working in a factory and she quickly gets back with Gere even though she should hold him more accountable for his behavior. Interesting thing I read was that apparently she and Gere didn't get along on set, yet Winger doesn't let that show through in the performance which is the mark of a professional. This is obviously not going to win and maybe the Academy knew that and nominated her to get her exposure. It's clear that Winger would go on to do some pretty great acting work in the coming years, too. I'm just sad that there are no more Winger nominations to watch.
On paper, this should be a stupidly strong year for Best Actress given the names and how everyone but Winger has at least one Oscar. Unfortunately, the group doesn't hit as hard as it should. I think we can all agree that Streep is the obvious winner and does a world class job with her performance whether you really want to watch it again or not. It's an all-timer. Spacek, though, doesn't really do much in her role. It's a political film but she never makes her character seem important or all that interesting. She's just kinda there and this reeks of the Academy just going to it's well of previous winners when they don't know what to nominate. Lange lands near the bottom for me because I feel like her performance is so melodramatic and done to possibly win an Oscar that it turns me off. I know a lot of people love this and feel it's so great but I don't see it because I'm not blinded by overacting. She'd get her win anyway in Supporting so she wasn't going to win here. Then we get to Winger who you can clearly see does a bit more with a stock role even though she is bound by the story and character. It's not amazing but Winger brings an authentic style to her work and I like that. Andrews surprises me with a super funny role that I wasn't expecting and made me want to watch her film again. I'd recommend watching her for some laughs. So this year was very underwhelming when I went in really expecting some great stuff. I guess I'll move on to 81 and see how that group does for me.
Oscar Winner: Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice
My Winner: Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice
Julie Andrews
Debra Winger
Jessica Lange
Sissy Spacek
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)