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
No comments:
Post a Comment