I am so happy to finally be in the 70s. Real progress is being made in this blog! I was also glad to be back to the old years after doing 2016 because these are all mostly unknown while I lived through the 2016 race and had read and heard about those films for months. I felt refreshed to come back to this year and power through. I've only seen Apocalypse Now previously but a few of the others look really interesting and I'm thinking this group will be pretty good.
1979 Best Picture
Kramer vs. Kramer
This was the first of two straight gritty, realistic dramas to win Best Picture. I am a fan of those types of films especially when they handle whatever subject matter in a frank, real way. Kramer vs. Kramer is a very authentic look at divorce and more particularly, life as a single father when dealing with a divorce. The story is mostly one sided as we follow Dustin Hoffman as he has to deal with raising his son on his own while juggling a hectic, demanding job. Throw in dating woes and a mother/ex-wife who comes back into the picture to get custody of the kid and you can see just how dramatic it gets. It's not often we get to see this side of the divorce coin, where the focus is on the man providing for the kid(s) and struggling to adapt to a new life and then fight for custody. Usually we see things from the other side, so this was really progressive for 1979. I can't even imagine this film being made today without a lot of changes because it makes the mother into almost a villain and can easily see the awful blogs written on Jezebel and elsewhere on the internet. The film, though, is about the father dealing with all this and losing his job because he'd rather take care of his kid and having an innocent moment where the kid busts his eyebrow open and Hoffman races him to the ER be used against him in court as if he's a terrible, dangerous father. It's really heavy stuff and makes for a highly compelling watch. It's got great acting (minus Justin Henry's undeserved nomination) and is surprisingly short at an hour and forty plus minutes. If this film were made today, there's no doubt this would be stretched to two plus hours and suffer, a la Manchester by the Sea. I feel like choosing this film for the win was maybe a statement or a way to bring light to the subject? I think the film is very powerful and has an important message and I wonder if that played into things at all. It's a great film worth checking out for some very good acting and a heavy hitting story.
All That Jazz
I had been excited to watch this because a few people I read online were exuberant in their love and praise for this film and it seemed like one of those films that has become underrated and underappreciated as time has gone by. I think that holds true after finally watching it. The main thing that every review talked about was how this was an egotistical, self reverential, indulgent semi-autobiographical work from Bob Fosse about Bob Fosse. It's just whether you fall on the side of this being a mess or it being a masterpiece. I lean towards the latter because the film is so interesting and intriguing and full of energy, no matter how maudlin. We follow Roy Scheider's version of Bob Fosse as he rehearses his new play, finishes his new film, and deals with his daughter, ex-wife, and girlfriend and all that goes along with that. He's a womanizer that drinks a lot, smokes a lot, and does drugs and that's how he is able to get through each day. Eventually he has a heart attack but continues his lifestyle even when staying in the hospital by partying in his room. He has more heart attacks and undergoes bypass surgery. The film is lively and turns it up when the bypass occurs and we get this dream sequence where people from Scheider's life come back and it's this intense, engaging spectacle. And I have forgotten to mention that this is a musical, so these scenes are done with singing and dancing and are very entertaining to watch. But this isn't some straightforward musical like you'd think from the 50s or 60s or something, it's a little avante garde and modern which gives it a freshness that's apparent even 40 years later. And it's interesting that the Bob Fosse character ends up in a body bag and he actually died of a heart attack a couple years after this, so he must have known where his life was going to end up. I would have liked if Scheider had been a little more lively and flamboyant (not in a gay way) and been a better dancer because I feel like that would have better served the character. Ultimately, your view of the film is going to be based off whether you like musicals and if you think this is a self indulgent mess or something tremendously refreshing to watch. I really enjoyed the film's craziness and it was a nice respite from super serious Oscar films that are always nominated. A little crazy every now and then is always good.
Apocalypse Now
You should know this film and should have seen it already. If not, just go watch it and cross it off your bucket list. The film is as big and crazy as you've ever heard from anyone that talks about it and it lives up to that billing. I think that after watching this film, one should be required to watch the documentary about the making of it to get the full effect of just how crazy the whole production truly was. The film shot for 16 months, went through a ton of changes both story and personnel wise, and was allowed to do things on location in the Philippines that wouldn't ever be allowed here in the States. The star, Martin Sheen, suffered a heart attack while filming that was kept hush hush so that the production could keep going without any interference. Marlon Brando showed up almost 90 pounds overweight and was therefore shot in the shadows to minimize his appearance which actually adds to the performance and film overall. Laurence Fishburne was 14 years old and lied about his age and ended up getting addicted to heroin because Dennis Hopper got him hooked. A bunch of different actors were considered for Sheen's part and Robert Duvall's iconic character. Francis Ford Coppola threatened suicide a few times while making it and used millions of his own money to fund it and get it made. It took three years for the film to actually come out because the editing and sound processes were so long. They actually killed a live water buffalo in the scene you see at the end of the film. All of that craziness was going on and yet somehow a coherent and masterful film was completed. Apocalypse Now is as good as everyone says it is. I watched the Redux version and it adds like 49 minutes of footage but I don't think it's necessary for the complete experience. The big additions are a terrible little trip to a French plantation with people still holed up and clinging to yesteryear. It grinds the film to a halt and is long and boring and ultimately pointless, which is why it probably doesn't make the theatrical version. The only other real big addition is that the guys in the boat meet the Playboy Bunnies stranded on some small base and trade gasoline for sex with them. But the film has so many iconic moments and lines and performances that it doesn't matter which version you watch. Some people might find it a little too cerebral and slow but I think if you stick with it, it's pretty rewarding. This Heart of Darkness adaptation is a cinematic classic and really transcends being just an Oscar film.
Breaking Away
Oh man, this is a great movie! There is no doubt that this film gets lost in this group because you have basically four heavy hitters. It might be the one most people don't know (although All That Jazz might be right there with it) unless they are from Indiana or really into sports films. Breaking Away is a sports film, yes, and many people view it as such with it getting put on lists where it ranks right up there as one of the best of all time. I understand that sentiment one hundred percent, but this film is so much more than just a sports film. It's about a group of cutters, or local boys in Bloomington, Indiana, who end up participating in a cycling race put on by the University. But that really only explains part of the film. It's also about the group of four friends and how frustrated they are to be second class citizens in their own town because they don't go to the university and their search for a purpose. The main character loves cycling and pretends to be Italian because he is so into it. Oh, and the friends are Dennis Quaid, Daniel Stern, Jackie Earle Haley, and the Italian loving Dennis Christopher. It's cool to see them all together in a film at such young ages and I've never even seen or heard of it before. Anyway, the film is so sweet and sincere which is why I really enjoyed it. This could easily devolve into kitschy cliches and become an outright joke, but it maintains its sincerity all the way through. Christopher's family is a hoot and his romantic fling is actually done really well. It's not a happy ending and it feels right in ending that way. Now, the impetus to actually getting to the bicycle race is a little contrived, I'll give you that, but it certainly doesn't bring the film down at all. The race at the end is also a highlight because it stayed compelling and tense all the way to the end. It's one of those ends where you're holding your breath until the moment happens and you give a little fist pump when it does. If a film can make me believe in its characters and its story so much then it has done a great job. I am super glad that this was nominated for Best Picture (and Supporting Actress) because I got to watch a film that is very easy to recommend. So Miss Peanut Gallery, find this and watch it pronto because I think you might enjoy it as much as I did.
Norma Rae
Norma Rae is probably the classic union film. I'm drawing a blank on any others besides like, Hoffa, but I think this is the film that comes to mind when you think of a union film. In it, Sally Field is the eponymous Norma Rae, a small town woman who works at a textile mill that treats all the workers like shit. She meets a New York labor union representative who comes to town and is convinced to help organize a union for the town mill. That's the film in a nutshell and it is invariably Field's film through and through. She fights the good fight because the mill treats everyone like slaves and pays them crap and doesn't have healthcare and if anyone tries to speak up they get canned. The mill does all this because the mill is all the townspeople have. Without it, they wouldn't be able to live so it's like a catch-22 and the mill knows this. Field fully earns her Best Actress Oscar by giving us a fully realized performance. She is the main draw and very much worth it. The film can also be seen as a woman's empowerment type of film. Field starts off as a bored single mother who is screwing a married man and then ultimately finds her true calling in life by organizing the union for the mill workers. The message being that even a small town single mother can do great things and not be limited by those around her. She fights hard and keeps long hours of going to work and raising her kids and looking after her husband (she eventually marries) and doing work for the union late into the night. It's awesome to watch Field become this strong woman who can take on a big mill and win. There is that iconic scene where she gets on a table in the mill as she's being escorted out after being fired where she holds up a handwritten union sign and the rest of the workers all shut their machines off. It's a really great scene that really encapsulates what the film is all about. I would say that the film is worth watching for Field's performance alone but the message part of it is a good reason to watch as well.
This is a very strong year. I liked every film and that really makes it tough to pick a winner and do a ranking of the films. I mean, I dunno. I do think Apocalypse Now is a classic masterpiece of film making and it being the winner would be great. I liked the realism of Kramer vs. Kramer and it really ushers in what films in the 80s were going to be about. Breaking Away is such a fun, sincere, hilarious film that I wasn't expecting at all and truly enjoyed immensely. Norma Rae is a strong female focused film that doesn't feel too preachy and doesn't sell out Sally Fields as a woman. It's a good film. And All That Jazz is such a crazy, indulgent mess that you'll either love or hate it and I loved what it was going for. So, I dunno. Below is my rankings and I'll take Apocalypse Now as my winner because it is an all time classic. Very good year, though. Every film was strong and this is what I'm looking for in every category. I just hope 1978 can live up to this year!
Oscar Winner: Kramer vs. Kramer
My Winner: Apocalypse Now
Kramer vs. Kramer
Breaking Away
Norma Rae
All That Jazz
Sunday, October 8, 2017
Friday, October 6, 2017
Leading Actor 1979
I have not seen any of these films yet, but they are all heavy hitters. We get Hoffman's first win and a couple other intriguing performances that aren't really talked about anymore. I'm eager to see how this one plays out.
1979 Best Actor
Dustin Hoffman - Kramer vs. Kramer
There is no doubt that Dustin Hoffman is a great actor. It is surprising that this was his first win after a couple of previous big performances but that seems to be how the Academy operates when it comes to the men. Here, Hoffman plays a man whose wife leaves him abruptly so that he has to take care of his son alone all while juggling a hectic, demanding job. The film itself is very good and a realistic look at divorce and the single parent lifestyle from the man's point of view. I think Hoffman does a good job working with the awful Justin Henry and develops a close connection throughout the film with him. I won't say they have great chemistry, but Hoffman is a pro that is able to work with a child actor and make it believable. I learned that Hoffman was going through his own real life divorce and helped with the authenticity of some dialogue and scenes and that clearly shows in the performance. He brings an anger to the character that is necessary and natural for the situation. When he has a fight with his son and yells at him in his room and calls him a little shit, it was great acting and seemed very real (I know I was glad someone was calling Henry a little shit). I also think Hoffman is terrific in the quiet scenes with his son or by himself that show that life still goes on and you have to adapt and grow. I like when we see him and his son eating breakfast and settling into their routine. My big issue with Hoffman, at least when it comes to these later performances of his, is that it always looks like he's acting. Like he's trying his hardest to create his character and make it believable and you can just see him acting. But Hoffman is good at showing the passion he has for his son. That obviously grows throughout the film and pays off at the end in the courtroom scenes where he makes his love known. This is a very good performance even if Hoffman looks like he is trying to act in some scenes. I'm unsure if this will be my winner because I was expecting to be blown away and wasn't, so I'll wait and see how the rest of the group shakes out first.
Jack Lemmon - The China Syndrome
Man, I love the hell out of Jack Lemmon. I say this without still seeing his role in Tribute, which will happen soon, but I think he's a fantastic actor. In this film, Lemmon is pretty solid all the way through and this looks like a typical later career performance for him. It reminds me a lot of his work in Missing, with a very similar character arc. In this one, Lemmon plays a nuclear power plant supervisor and we are introduced to him as he responds to a problem that occurs. We see he's this confident, assured supervisor who has been doing this forever. He snaps into action when the problem begins and wracks his brain to figure out what is wrong and we see him start to get more worried and panicked as he makes the tough decisions. We the audience realize that this is a situation that could be catastrophic and that a possible meltdown was just averted. The way Lemmon starts out joking and then turns serious and engaged in the situation comes off as a natural response from years of experience and training. Lemmon then downplays the seriousness of what happened to Jane Fonda's reporter and tries to find out what happened himself. He eventually does and tries to get the situation fixed yet is stonewalled by the company who apparently knew there was a problem and didn't do anything about it. Lemmon was a man ready to toe the company line and accept that this was a fluke thing but he realizes more and more that the company was covering up a huge, potentially deadly, problem. Lemmon then goes on a crusade to get someone to pay attention to the issue and takes Fonda into the plant to show her what is really going on. Lemmon grows more frustrated and we see this gradual change wear the man down because he knows this is a life or death situation being swept under the rug by the company. Lemmon plays the perfect everyman that you can see yourself being and who loses faith without losing our sympathy. The performance culminates with this wild ending that hammers home the message of the film (in an admittedly heavy handed way) and shocks you. But Lemmon is very effective in that last scene and does keep it from becoming too wild and crazy and a farce. Lemmon's performance is solid and realistic and makes you unnerved that something like that could possibly happen. That is the strength of Lemmon as an actor to make you feel strongly about something with just his acting.
Al Pacino - ...And Justice For All
I think that only hardcore Pacino fans and super Oscar nerds have ever heard of this film, let alone watched it. If I gave you a chance to name all of Pacino's nominations, I doubt anyone would get this one. So in saying all of that, I was intrigued by this little known Pacino film that he got an Oscar nomination for. Was this just the Academy going back to the same well over and over again? Or was this an actually earned nomination? I was betting on it being the Academy seeing Pacino had a film out and nominating him no matter what. After watching it, I'm still dumbfounded. Yeah, he does an alright job with the material given but there is a reason this is the unknown Pacino nomination. There is a scene where Pacino goes on a helicopter ride with a suicidal judge he is friendly with and it leads to some of the absolute worst acting I have ever seen. Not just from Pacino, but from anyone from Oscar to local community theater. It's truly awful and Pacino should be embarrassed by it. The film itself is not very good as Pacino plays a lawyer who tries to do good by poor, unfortunate people but seemingly can't actually be there for them when needed the most. There is the famous scene where he shouts to the judge that he is out of order, the whole court is out of order, blah, blah, blah, but it doesn't make the performance any better. I can actually understand how the Academy would vote for something like this based off highlights, but the film is no good and they are voting based off the name and history. It looks like a very competent performance but there is so much wrong with it when you actually look at it closely. Pacino is a great actor but there are too many moments in this film where I question his big star ability. If you forget Pacino ever did this, I won't blame you and I know this film and performance could have been much, much better instead of what we got.
Roy Scheider - All That Jazz
Sometimes it's hard to figure out what to write about for a performance. I guess the first thing I should mention is that you probably only really know Scheider as the police captain in Jaws, unless you're a super film buff. So when you first watch his performance in this film, it's a little shocking. I say that because Scheider plays a fictionalized version of legendary choreographer and director, Bob Fosse, who happens to be both the writer and director of this film. Shocking because I was used to the straight laced guy from Jaws and here he is a womanizing, dancing, drug and booze addled workaholic. Scheider isn't wrong for the part but the whole time I was wondering how the performance might be different (better?) if someone more flamboyant and frenetic was chosen instead. I say this not really knowing anything about Bob Fosse other than I like some of his films and will watch some of them very soon. I don't know what his personality was like but I assume Scheider was fine since Fosse was directing. But I do feel like the character kinda needed to be more amped up and active in the mayhem of his life. And that's what his life was - mayhem. In the film, we see him as he's casting and rehearsing his new Broadway musical and editing his new film (a version of Lenny) while balancing his ex-wife, daughter, girlfriend, and the stresses of it all. Schedier kinda plays it all real cool. Like he's kind of a dickhead but it's not really malicious. The other big thing about the performance is that Scheider isn't much of a dancer and I read that he was terrified of his first dance scene and needed to learn it for the film. That's where I feel a more experienced dancer would have helped, maybe, because Fosse is a well known choreographer so it makes sense to have those scenes feel authentic. Scheider is good in the role and it's really interesting seeing him pull of this version of Fosse because it's so against type and I am impressed that he didn't fall flat on his face with such a tough assignment. I don't mean that disparagingly, either, I was truly impressed. He brings an intensity to the role that changes the film and, I think, helps keep it from going off the rails. Maybe that's why Fosse chose Scheider to play him. I do feel like this is a performance that might take some time to grow in my head before I can fully appreciate it and I think another viewing, at some point, is in order. The film itself is divisive, so naturally people are going to feel wildly different about Scheider's performance based off how they view the film. I liked the film and I like this performance because it is so intriguing. I say watch it yourself and see what you think about it.
Peter Sellers - Being There
You probably know Peter Sellers as the Pink Panther and many (older) people have called him the greatest comedian of all time. Now, that is really stretching it but there is no doubt that Sellers is a great comedian. In this role, he plays a simple man who has been a gardener at an estate in DC when his master or whatever you call it dies and the house is sold. He has to leave and he wanders DC and is hit by a car that has a powerful CEO type guy's wife. He gets taken to their estate to get checked out and meets the big man, Mr. Rand (not the Iron Fist) who likes him and trusts him right away. This role is one of those roles where the character is like legit retarded but everyone completely misses that the man is off or slow and take his simple answers and lack of knowledge as being true wisdom and profound statements. You've probably seen something like this before and it can be used to great comedic effect. Sellers is very effective in making his retarded character very funny and memorable. He's simple and an emotional void and just wants to watch TV but the way Sellers delivers his lines and acts in a wooden manner is hilarious at times. It's a very subtle humor, though, to forewarn you. And a lot of it is predicated on everyone else reading into Sellers' words and mannerisms as being more important than they are. Even the doctor in this film can't seem to figure out he is a simpleton. But the story plays on and eventually Sellers sits in on a meeting with the President and the President puts something Sellers says about gardening into one of his economic speeches and Sellers becomes a sort of political celebrity. Though Sellers actually meant gardening things and not a metaphor for the economic climate of the time that everyone else runs with. It can be frustrating when everyone twists everything Sellers says and does into their own beliefs and thoughts because it does test your suspension of disbelief. But Sellers plays the character effectively with the monotone, dry vocal delivery and the pleasing, friendly demeanor. Even Mr. Rand's wife, played by Shirley MacLaine, begins to fall for him and throws herself at him and backs off when he tries to just watch TV as if he's being cautious. And him saying he likes to watch (as in TV) gets misconstrued by her to mean her getting herself off as well as another male guest at a party who thinks it means he likes to watch other guys have sex. These are funny moments but it does show all that the film has to offer for the character. You get easy jokes and awkward situations like that, and though Sellers is wonderful in the role that he wanted for so long, it becomes a bit one note over two plus hours. There's also an issue with an after the credits blooper reel of sorts that kinda kills the vibe of the performance that even Sellers himself wanted removed because he knew it was out of place. So don't watch the credits. Sellers is pretty good in the role and gives the right sincerity to it and the humor is perfect, it's just you might get a little tired of it after awhile.
By name alone, this is a big year. Everyone on this list is recognizable and puts in great work. So it's sad that Pacino doesn't hold up his end of the deal and give us a great performance. He comes in last because it's not all that great, it's average Pacino saved by an iconic, quotable scene that you've probably quoted to someone without knowing where it is from. I think he gets in because of his reputation and the fact that up to this point he hadn't won anything yet. Lemmon gives a very typical Lemmon performance that reminds me too much of his work in Witness. He's good but we know he can be better. Scheider is interested because I didn't expect that kind of role from him and I feel like it needs to marinate in my head a bit more for me to be able to rank it appropriately. You may or may not like his performance, though. Sellers is very funny at times and very effective as a simpleton, yet after awhile it feels like he's doing the same thing over and over and it grows stale. A lot of people wanted him to win and he's certainly good but I wasn't in love with this performance like some people were. Hoffman gives a really great, realistic portrayal of a single dad navigating through the treacherous waters of divorce. It's certainly one of the best Hoffman performances and I think the Academy was looking to finally reward him after a string of nominations. I'm fine with the win even if he didn't completely blow me away (sleeping on it allowed me to like it a little more than the review suggests) and the category overall was pretty good. A good start to the 70s but 1978 better step up!
Oscar Winner: Dustin Hoffman - Kramer vs. Kramer
My Winner: Dustin Hoffman - Kramer vs. Kramer
Peter Sellers
Roy Scheider
Jack Lemmon
Al Pacino
1979 Best Actor
Dustin Hoffman - Kramer vs. Kramer
There is no doubt that Dustin Hoffman is a great actor. It is surprising that this was his first win after a couple of previous big performances but that seems to be how the Academy operates when it comes to the men. Here, Hoffman plays a man whose wife leaves him abruptly so that he has to take care of his son alone all while juggling a hectic, demanding job. The film itself is very good and a realistic look at divorce and the single parent lifestyle from the man's point of view. I think Hoffman does a good job working with the awful Justin Henry and develops a close connection throughout the film with him. I won't say they have great chemistry, but Hoffman is a pro that is able to work with a child actor and make it believable. I learned that Hoffman was going through his own real life divorce and helped with the authenticity of some dialogue and scenes and that clearly shows in the performance. He brings an anger to the character that is necessary and natural for the situation. When he has a fight with his son and yells at him in his room and calls him a little shit, it was great acting and seemed very real (I know I was glad someone was calling Henry a little shit). I also think Hoffman is terrific in the quiet scenes with his son or by himself that show that life still goes on and you have to adapt and grow. I like when we see him and his son eating breakfast and settling into their routine. My big issue with Hoffman, at least when it comes to these later performances of his, is that it always looks like he's acting. Like he's trying his hardest to create his character and make it believable and you can just see him acting. But Hoffman is good at showing the passion he has for his son. That obviously grows throughout the film and pays off at the end in the courtroom scenes where he makes his love known. This is a very good performance even if Hoffman looks like he is trying to act in some scenes. I'm unsure if this will be my winner because I was expecting to be blown away and wasn't, so I'll wait and see how the rest of the group shakes out first.
Jack Lemmon - The China Syndrome
Man, I love the hell out of Jack Lemmon. I say this without still seeing his role in Tribute, which will happen soon, but I think he's a fantastic actor. In this film, Lemmon is pretty solid all the way through and this looks like a typical later career performance for him. It reminds me a lot of his work in Missing, with a very similar character arc. In this one, Lemmon plays a nuclear power plant supervisor and we are introduced to him as he responds to a problem that occurs. We see he's this confident, assured supervisor who has been doing this forever. He snaps into action when the problem begins and wracks his brain to figure out what is wrong and we see him start to get more worried and panicked as he makes the tough decisions. We the audience realize that this is a situation that could be catastrophic and that a possible meltdown was just averted. The way Lemmon starts out joking and then turns serious and engaged in the situation comes off as a natural response from years of experience and training. Lemmon then downplays the seriousness of what happened to Jane Fonda's reporter and tries to find out what happened himself. He eventually does and tries to get the situation fixed yet is stonewalled by the company who apparently knew there was a problem and didn't do anything about it. Lemmon was a man ready to toe the company line and accept that this was a fluke thing but he realizes more and more that the company was covering up a huge, potentially deadly, problem. Lemmon then goes on a crusade to get someone to pay attention to the issue and takes Fonda into the plant to show her what is really going on. Lemmon grows more frustrated and we see this gradual change wear the man down because he knows this is a life or death situation being swept under the rug by the company. Lemmon plays the perfect everyman that you can see yourself being and who loses faith without losing our sympathy. The performance culminates with this wild ending that hammers home the message of the film (in an admittedly heavy handed way) and shocks you. But Lemmon is very effective in that last scene and does keep it from becoming too wild and crazy and a farce. Lemmon's performance is solid and realistic and makes you unnerved that something like that could possibly happen. That is the strength of Lemmon as an actor to make you feel strongly about something with just his acting.
Al Pacino - ...And Justice For All
I think that only hardcore Pacino fans and super Oscar nerds have ever heard of this film, let alone watched it. If I gave you a chance to name all of Pacino's nominations, I doubt anyone would get this one. So in saying all of that, I was intrigued by this little known Pacino film that he got an Oscar nomination for. Was this just the Academy going back to the same well over and over again? Or was this an actually earned nomination? I was betting on it being the Academy seeing Pacino had a film out and nominating him no matter what. After watching it, I'm still dumbfounded. Yeah, he does an alright job with the material given but there is a reason this is the unknown Pacino nomination. There is a scene where Pacino goes on a helicopter ride with a suicidal judge he is friendly with and it leads to some of the absolute worst acting I have ever seen. Not just from Pacino, but from anyone from Oscar to local community theater. It's truly awful and Pacino should be embarrassed by it. The film itself is not very good as Pacino plays a lawyer who tries to do good by poor, unfortunate people but seemingly can't actually be there for them when needed the most. There is the famous scene where he shouts to the judge that he is out of order, the whole court is out of order, blah, blah, blah, but it doesn't make the performance any better. I can actually understand how the Academy would vote for something like this based off highlights, but the film is no good and they are voting based off the name and history. It looks like a very competent performance but there is so much wrong with it when you actually look at it closely. Pacino is a great actor but there are too many moments in this film where I question his big star ability. If you forget Pacino ever did this, I won't blame you and I know this film and performance could have been much, much better instead of what we got.
Roy Scheider - All That Jazz
Sometimes it's hard to figure out what to write about for a performance. I guess the first thing I should mention is that you probably only really know Scheider as the police captain in Jaws, unless you're a super film buff. So when you first watch his performance in this film, it's a little shocking. I say that because Scheider plays a fictionalized version of legendary choreographer and director, Bob Fosse, who happens to be both the writer and director of this film. Shocking because I was used to the straight laced guy from Jaws and here he is a womanizing, dancing, drug and booze addled workaholic. Scheider isn't wrong for the part but the whole time I was wondering how the performance might be different (better?) if someone more flamboyant and frenetic was chosen instead. I say this not really knowing anything about Bob Fosse other than I like some of his films and will watch some of them very soon. I don't know what his personality was like but I assume Scheider was fine since Fosse was directing. But I do feel like the character kinda needed to be more amped up and active in the mayhem of his life. And that's what his life was - mayhem. In the film, we see him as he's casting and rehearsing his new Broadway musical and editing his new film (a version of Lenny) while balancing his ex-wife, daughter, girlfriend, and the stresses of it all. Schedier kinda plays it all real cool. Like he's kind of a dickhead but it's not really malicious. The other big thing about the performance is that Scheider isn't much of a dancer and I read that he was terrified of his first dance scene and needed to learn it for the film. That's where I feel a more experienced dancer would have helped, maybe, because Fosse is a well known choreographer so it makes sense to have those scenes feel authentic. Scheider is good in the role and it's really interesting seeing him pull of this version of Fosse because it's so against type and I am impressed that he didn't fall flat on his face with such a tough assignment. I don't mean that disparagingly, either, I was truly impressed. He brings an intensity to the role that changes the film and, I think, helps keep it from going off the rails. Maybe that's why Fosse chose Scheider to play him. I do feel like this is a performance that might take some time to grow in my head before I can fully appreciate it and I think another viewing, at some point, is in order. The film itself is divisive, so naturally people are going to feel wildly different about Scheider's performance based off how they view the film. I liked the film and I like this performance because it is so intriguing. I say watch it yourself and see what you think about it.
Peter Sellers - Being There
You probably know Peter Sellers as the Pink Panther and many (older) people have called him the greatest comedian of all time. Now, that is really stretching it but there is no doubt that Sellers is a great comedian. In this role, he plays a simple man who has been a gardener at an estate in DC when his master or whatever you call it dies and the house is sold. He has to leave and he wanders DC and is hit by a car that has a powerful CEO type guy's wife. He gets taken to their estate to get checked out and meets the big man, Mr. Rand (not the Iron Fist) who likes him and trusts him right away. This role is one of those roles where the character is like legit retarded but everyone completely misses that the man is off or slow and take his simple answers and lack of knowledge as being true wisdom and profound statements. You've probably seen something like this before and it can be used to great comedic effect. Sellers is very effective in making his retarded character very funny and memorable. He's simple and an emotional void and just wants to watch TV but the way Sellers delivers his lines and acts in a wooden manner is hilarious at times. It's a very subtle humor, though, to forewarn you. And a lot of it is predicated on everyone else reading into Sellers' words and mannerisms as being more important than they are. Even the doctor in this film can't seem to figure out he is a simpleton. But the story plays on and eventually Sellers sits in on a meeting with the President and the President puts something Sellers says about gardening into one of his economic speeches and Sellers becomes a sort of political celebrity. Though Sellers actually meant gardening things and not a metaphor for the economic climate of the time that everyone else runs with. It can be frustrating when everyone twists everything Sellers says and does into their own beliefs and thoughts because it does test your suspension of disbelief. But Sellers plays the character effectively with the monotone, dry vocal delivery and the pleasing, friendly demeanor. Even Mr. Rand's wife, played by Shirley MacLaine, begins to fall for him and throws herself at him and backs off when he tries to just watch TV as if he's being cautious. And him saying he likes to watch (as in TV) gets misconstrued by her to mean her getting herself off as well as another male guest at a party who thinks it means he likes to watch other guys have sex. These are funny moments but it does show all that the film has to offer for the character. You get easy jokes and awkward situations like that, and though Sellers is wonderful in the role that he wanted for so long, it becomes a bit one note over two plus hours. There's also an issue with an after the credits blooper reel of sorts that kinda kills the vibe of the performance that even Sellers himself wanted removed because he knew it was out of place. So don't watch the credits. Sellers is pretty good in the role and gives the right sincerity to it and the humor is perfect, it's just you might get a little tired of it after awhile.
By name alone, this is a big year. Everyone on this list is recognizable and puts in great work. So it's sad that Pacino doesn't hold up his end of the deal and give us a great performance. He comes in last because it's not all that great, it's average Pacino saved by an iconic, quotable scene that you've probably quoted to someone without knowing where it is from. I think he gets in because of his reputation and the fact that up to this point he hadn't won anything yet. Lemmon gives a very typical Lemmon performance that reminds me too much of his work in Witness. He's good but we know he can be better. Scheider is interested because I didn't expect that kind of role from him and I feel like it needs to marinate in my head a bit more for me to be able to rank it appropriately. You may or may not like his performance, though. Sellers is very funny at times and very effective as a simpleton, yet after awhile it feels like he's doing the same thing over and over and it grows stale. A lot of people wanted him to win and he's certainly good but I wasn't in love with this performance like some people were. Hoffman gives a really great, realistic portrayal of a single dad navigating through the treacherous waters of divorce. It's certainly one of the best Hoffman performances and I think the Academy was looking to finally reward him after a string of nominations. I'm fine with the win even if he didn't completely blow me away (sleeping on it allowed me to like it a little more than the review suggests) and the category overall was pretty good. A good start to the 70s but 1978 better step up!
Oscar Winner: Dustin Hoffman - Kramer vs. Kramer
My Winner: Dustin Hoffman - Kramer vs. Kramer
Peter Sellers
Roy Scheider
Jack Lemmon
Al Pacino
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Leading Actress 1979
I've seen none of these but there are some big names. I'm hoping that they all live up to their names and give me a great group. I'm interested in Clayburgh because it's my first interaction with her and I've heard good things. Let's watch.
1979 Best Actress
Sally Field - Norma Rae
From the start Sally Field is pretty intense with her performance. We first see her at the textile mill she works at with her momma, who can't hear because of working there forever, so she takes her to the on site doctor and then screams at him for not doing anything for her. I honestly wasn't expecting the film and her performance to start off that way and it caught me off guard but it sure did make me pay extra attention right from the start. The film is about Field, a small town woman who works at a textile mill and meets a labor union representative and begins to advocate for a union. What I really enjoy about Field's performance is that her character is fully realized. She isn't just trying to organize a union. She also has a dynamic with her father that is explored, she has a kinda sorta sexual tension with the labor union rep, dates and gets married, and has to be a mother on top of all of that. Field balances all of it expertly without any other part of her story suffering. She is intense at the very beginning but she settles into the role quickly after that and we see she is a sarcastic, passionate, caring woman. We see that she loves her father who still tries to control her a bit even though she's a grown woman with two kids. She admits she is kind of a floozy and falls for the wrong guys and doesn't think getting some is wrong, either. She's passionate about her family, friends, and eventually her work. When the labor union rep comes around, she keeps running into him and he eventually convinces her that her mill needs a union so the workers can have healthcare and a livable wage and all that stuff that matters. Field has great chemistry with the New York Jew who is a fish out of water so to speak. But it's only a somewhat sexually tense sort of relationship. By the end, Field is deep into the union organizing thing. I mean, Field is very good in this role. It seems like she was destined to play it because she looks and sounds and feels so natural for the character. The performance feels lived in and Field makes it all look effortless. Her second win almost builds off this character with her down home, folksy Southern charm - like that was a continuation of this role. Field is just plain good, though, in this performance.
Jill Clayburgh - Starting Over
I didn't realize that Jill Clayburgh had only two Oscar nominations to her credit. I had looked over this Best Actress group so often that I confused her with someone else, I guess, because I could have sworn Clayburgh had like 4 nominations. Alas, she does not, only this one and a nomination for the prior year. My point for that was that I had some higher expectations for Clayburgh. I thought she was a force to be reckoned with and someone I needed to pay attention to. But that's not really the case when it comes to this film. Clayburgh portrays a woman who is set up on a date with Burt Reynolds and they kinda hit it off eventually. The two like each other, though Clayburgh is wary that Reynolds is too fresh off a divorce. He proves that he's into her and they shack up before things go awry. Clayburgh is pretty good in the role of the nursery teacher who overcomes her shyness. She also challenges Reynolds and doesn't let him get away with anything. She's tough and strong and wary for a reason. She is very unsure and when at a Thanksgiving dinner, she is referred to as a friend. Well that sets her off obviously and we see Reynolds scramble to recover. They move in together but the relationship is never solid though Clayburgh is loving and dedicated. Her performance is more of a supporting type of role because she isn't in the whole film. She is only in part of the film just like Candice Bergen and for a time I thought Clayburgh was done with the film after a bit. From what I read, this was also a token nomination for her getting screwed out of an Oscar win the year prior for which she also won Best Actress at Cannes. Apparently that film, An Unmarried Woman, did super well and by all accounts she possibly should have won the Oscar. I say that without having seen any of those and without knowing the background but it seems totally possible. Jane Fonda won a second so maybe there is some truth to that but I am very excited to see Clayburgh's first Best Actress nomination and if it does deserve a win. This nomination, however, was pretty underwhelming. Though I will say for this being a romantic comedy type of film, the performance is at least elevated from the usual stereotypes and tropes you see in those types of characters.
Jane Fonda - The China Syndrome
I am always prepared to hate Jane Fonda for some reason, maybe her politics and personal life, I dunno. But then I watch her act and I'm taken with how great she is. I like her current work with Netflix and I've enjoyed her work so far in this project minus On Golden Pond, but whatever. I know that she is a two time winner before these nominations so I'm always looking for a moving experience. I think this role really fits what Fonda is all about as a person. She plays a TV journalist who is looking for good TV pieces and goes to a nuclear power plant to do a showcase. While there, the plant has a crisis that is danger close to a meltdown and her camera guy films everything. And that's really what the film is about. She realizes she stumbles on a big story and pursues it. She circles the story like a Great White and she is steadfast. That is her character arc. The TV journalist who wants to do more than puff pieces and now has a chance at something legit. Fonda is serious in the role and she is actually really great in the role, it's just that the role doesn't give her much to do besides be the super nosy, noble journalist. But her best scene is the end when she is super journalist trying to get to the bottom of what happened in the plant and outside when talking to the employees. It is a very emotional scene and she handles everything well. I actually believe that Fonda could be a TV journalist because she's so good at the interactions before she's on camera, the actual conversation on camera, and her making sure everything was good afterwards. But really that's what Fonda's nomination is about. It's a warning that Three Mile Island could occur anywhere since it happened 12 days after this film premiered. It makes her performance prescient and I feel that might have a little bit to do with her getting nominated. It's still pretty good work that wasn't winning because it would have meant a second straight Oscar and third one overall, which wasn't happening.
Marsha Mason - Chapter Two
I was a big fan of the first Marsha Mason performance I watched in Only When I Laugh. So I was very excited to see what she would do here in another Neil Simon film. I was, alas, let down. Not that Mason was bad at all, just that this performance was nowhere near her 1981 performance I loved so much. Part of that has to do with expectations but some of it is just that the film is lesser as a whole. The film is about James Caan who is a recently widowed writer meeting Mason who is a recently divorced actress. What I learned in researching this is that this is autobiographical for Simon, which means Mason is playing herself basically. The two were married in real life and this is a riff on their relationship, I guess. That makes it really interesting, but it doesn't make it a better performance. The first 30 minutes is Caan and Mason talking on the phone. They eventually do meet and have a very theatrical romance. Meaning that the dialogue is very theater like and their banter is far from natural. They get real heavy, real fast and they burn out pretty quick, too. He still thinks about his dead wife while Mason is confused and trying to placate him. Mason is very charming and reads her husband's lines well. She is great at acting out his words but this is really nothing more than some odd romantic dramedy type stuff. Mason is likable in this but I'm not sure this is actually Oscar worthy acting. Maybe they were rewarding her for playing a version of herself in a difficult relationship? Wouldn't put it past the Academy to reward someone for being themselves. Mason is okay here but I just can't understand this Neil Simon film getting nominated for anything.
Bette Midler - The Rose
I guess you could consider this Bette Midler's magnum opus. Although, can it be a magnum opus if you aren't that widely known before this film debut? She was releasing albums as a singer prior to this but nothing like a rocker that she portrayed. Her second nomination in For the Boys is more like a culmination of her life work because in that she is basically a nightclub singer who becomes a USO darling with all the drama that brings. So yeah, this is her big work. Now, I'm not really a Bette Midler fan. I don't dig her singing at all, her acting is not that great, and all her star persona stuff just isn't for me. In this, she plays a Janis Joplin figure even though it's not Janis Joplin. The stuff I read basically said they didn't get the rights to the story but Midler said she didn't want to tell her story so soon after her death which is of course hogwash, but whatever. Midler is intense in this role. She has a few songs that she actually performs and sings her heart out on even though they aren't very good or memorable in any way. She takes to being this sort of bipolar woman who has high highs and low lows. She falls for a limo driver who rescues her from a situation she doesn't want to handle and they have a crazy night together. This is Midler's starring turn and she is fully committed to the role and if you told her she needed to actually do drugs or get wasted or fuck some random bar dude for authenticity, I feel like Midler would have considered it even if she wouldn't because that's the performance she gives. She makes her Rose trashy and it is no doubt an interesting thing to watch Midler unravel only to pull it all together once she hits the stage. Midler is dedicated to the character and does her best but ultimately this film isn't all that interesting. Partially because Midler is more concerned with the aesthetic and trying to be a rockstar than letting us into The Rose as a person. We watch her do her thing but never know what motivates her other than she wants to show those back home that she is something? It's underdeveloped and not entirely interesting and that's kinda Midler in a nutshell here for me.
As expected, a very shitty Best Actress group. I expected it because this category fails to deliver routinely. Field is the easy winner. It is no one but her and no one comes close. That's a sad fact. Mason brings up the rear with a boring performance. It was a romantic comedy type of performance and she just didn't do much and she played herself and made it uninteresting so here she is. Clayburgh is next because I at least enjoyed her a little bit more in her romantic comedy performance. Forgettable though. Midler is not someone I like at all. I don't give a shit about her shtick. Her whole lounge singer bullshit is not interesting in the least. I had her last but she is at least better than the romantic comedy girls. Some will love Midler and like the performance and want her to win but not for me. No way. Fonda is second because she couldn't win and didn't deserve to win. She doesn't deserve a third win and not a second consecutive win. Her performance ain't all that. Field is leaps and bounds better than everyone else COMBINED. This is a garbage group and 1978 better be better because I'm tired of crappy nominees.
Oscar Winner: Sally Field - Norma Rae
My Winner: Sally Field - Norma Rae
Jane Fonda
Bette Midler
Jill Clayburgh
Marsha Mason
1979 Best Actress
Sally Field - Norma Rae
From the start Sally Field is pretty intense with her performance. We first see her at the textile mill she works at with her momma, who can't hear because of working there forever, so she takes her to the on site doctor and then screams at him for not doing anything for her. I honestly wasn't expecting the film and her performance to start off that way and it caught me off guard but it sure did make me pay extra attention right from the start. The film is about Field, a small town woman who works at a textile mill and meets a labor union representative and begins to advocate for a union. What I really enjoy about Field's performance is that her character is fully realized. She isn't just trying to organize a union. She also has a dynamic with her father that is explored, she has a kinda sorta sexual tension with the labor union rep, dates and gets married, and has to be a mother on top of all of that. Field balances all of it expertly without any other part of her story suffering. She is intense at the very beginning but she settles into the role quickly after that and we see she is a sarcastic, passionate, caring woman. We see that she loves her father who still tries to control her a bit even though she's a grown woman with two kids. She admits she is kind of a floozy and falls for the wrong guys and doesn't think getting some is wrong, either. She's passionate about her family, friends, and eventually her work. When the labor union rep comes around, she keeps running into him and he eventually convinces her that her mill needs a union so the workers can have healthcare and a livable wage and all that stuff that matters. Field has great chemistry with the New York Jew who is a fish out of water so to speak. But it's only a somewhat sexually tense sort of relationship. By the end, Field is deep into the union organizing thing. I mean, Field is very good in this role. It seems like she was destined to play it because she looks and sounds and feels so natural for the character. The performance feels lived in and Field makes it all look effortless. Her second win almost builds off this character with her down home, folksy Southern charm - like that was a continuation of this role. Field is just plain good, though, in this performance.
Jill Clayburgh - Starting Over
I didn't realize that Jill Clayburgh had only two Oscar nominations to her credit. I had looked over this Best Actress group so often that I confused her with someone else, I guess, because I could have sworn Clayburgh had like 4 nominations. Alas, she does not, only this one and a nomination for the prior year. My point for that was that I had some higher expectations for Clayburgh. I thought she was a force to be reckoned with and someone I needed to pay attention to. But that's not really the case when it comes to this film. Clayburgh portrays a woman who is set up on a date with Burt Reynolds and they kinda hit it off eventually. The two like each other, though Clayburgh is wary that Reynolds is too fresh off a divorce. He proves that he's into her and they shack up before things go awry. Clayburgh is pretty good in the role of the nursery teacher who overcomes her shyness. She also challenges Reynolds and doesn't let him get away with anything. She's tough and strong and wary for a reason. She is very unsure and when at a Thanksgiving dinner, she is referred to as a friend. Well that sets her off obviously and we see Reynolds scramble to recover. They move in together but the relationship is never solid though Clayburgh is loving and dedicated. Her performance is more of a supporting type of role because she isn't in the whole film. She is only in part of the film just like Candice Bergen and for a time I thought Clayburgh was done with the film after a bit. From what I read, this was also a token nomination for her getting screwed out of an Oscar win the year prior for which she also won Best Actress at Cannes. Apparently that film, An Unmarried Woman, did super well and by all accounts she possibly should have won the Oscar. I say that without having seen any of those and without knowing the background but it seems totally possible. Jane Fonda won a second so maybe there is some truth to that but I am very excited to see Clayburgh's first Best Actress nomination and if it does deserve a win. This nomination, however, was pretty underwhelming. Though I will say for this being a romantic comedy type of film, the performance is at least elevated from the usual stereotypes and tropes you see in those types of characters.
Jane Fonda - The China Syndrome
I am always prepared to hate Jane Fonda for some reason, maybe her politics and personal life, I dunno. But then I watch her act and I'm taken with how great she is. I like her current work with Netflix and I've enjoyed her work so far in this project minus On Golden Pond, but whatever. I know that she is a two time winner before these nominations so I'm always looking for a moving experience. I think this role really fits what Fonda is all about as a person. She plays a TV journalist who is looking for good TV pieces and goes to a nuclear power plant to do a showcase. While there, the plant has a crisis that is danger close to a meltdown and her camera guy films everything. And that's really what the film is about. She realizes she stumbles on a big story and pursues it. She circles the story like a Great White and she is steadfast. That is her character arc. The TV journalist who wants to do more than puff pieces and now has a chance at something legit. Fonda is serious in the role and she is actually really great in the role, it's just that the role doesn't give her much to do besides be the super nosy, noble journalist. But her best scene is the end when she is super journalist trying to get to the bottom of what happened in the plant and outside when talking to the employees. It is a very emotional scene and she handles everything well. I actually believe that Fonda could be a TV journalist because she's so good at the interactions before she's on camera, the actual conversation on camera, and her making sure everything was good afterwards. But really that's what Fonda's nomination is about. It's a warning that Three Mile Island could occur anywhere since it happened 12 days after this film premiered. It makes her performance prescient and I feel that might have a little bit to do with her getting nominated. It's still pretty good work that wasn't winning because it would have meant a second straight Oscar and third one overall, which wasn't happening.
Marsha Mason - Chapter Two
I was a big fan of the first Marsha Mason performance I watched in Only When I Laugh. So I was very excited to see what she would do here in another Neil Simon film. I was, alas, let down. Not that Mason was bad at all, just that this performance was nowhere near her 1981 performance I loved so much. Part of that has to do with expectations but some of it is just that the film is lesser as a whole. The film is about James Caan who is a recently widowed writer meeting Mason who is a recently divorced actress. What I learned in researching this is that this is autobiographical for Simon, which means Mason is playing herself basically. The two were married in real life and this is a riff on their relationship, I guess. That makes it really interesting, but it doesn't make it a better performance. The first 30 minutes is Caan and Mason talking on the phone. They eventually do meet and have a very theatrical romance. Meaning that the dialogue is very theater like and their banter is far from natural. They get real heavy, real fast and they burn out pretty quick, too. He still thinks about his dead wife while Mason is confused and trying to placate him. Mason is very charming and reads her husband's lines well. She is great at acting out his words but this is really nothing more than some odd romantic dramedy type stuff. Mason is likable in this but I'm not sure this is actually Oscar worthy acting. Maybe they were rewarding her for playing a version of herself in a difficult relationship? Wouldn't put it past the Academy to reward someone for being themselves. Mason is okay here but I just can't understand this Neil Simon film getting nominated for anything.
Bette Midler - The Rose
I guess you could consider this Bette Midler's magnum opus. Although, can it be a magnum opus if you aren't that widely known before this film debut? She was releasing albums as a singer prior to this but nothing like a rocker that she portrayed. Her second nomination in For the Boys is more like a culmination of her life work because in that she is basically a nightclub singer who becomes a USO darling with all the drama that brings. So yeah, this is her big work. Now, I'm not really a Bette Midler fan. I don't dig her singing at all, her acting is not that great, and all her star persona stuff just isn't for me. In this, she plays a Janis Joplin figure even though it's not Janis Joplin. The stuff I read basically said they didn't get the rights to the story but Midler said she didn't want to tell her story so soon after her death which is of course hogwash, but whatever. Midler is intense in this role. She has a few songs that she actually performs and sings her heart out on even though they aren't very good or memorable in any way. She takes to being this sort of bipolar woman who has high highs and low lows. She falls for a limo driver who rescues her from a situation she doesn't want to handle and they have a crazy night together. This is Midler's starring turn and she is fully committed to the role and if you told her she needed to actually do drugs or get wasted or fuck some random bar dude for authenticity, I feel like Midler would have considered it even if she wouldn't because that's the performance she gives. She makes her Rose trashy and it is no doubt an interesting thing to watch Midler unravel only to pull it all together once she hits the stage. Midler is dedicated to the character and does her best but ultimately this film isn't all that interesting. Partially because Midler is more concerned with the aesthetic and trying to be a rockstar than letting us into The Rose as a person. We watch her do her thing but never know what motivates her other than she wants to show those back home that she is something? It's underdeveloped and not entirely interesting and that's kinda Midler in a nutshell here for me.
As expected, a very shitty Best Actress group. I expected it because this category fails to deliver routinely. Field is the easy winner. It is no one but her and no one comes close. That's a sad fact. Mason brings up the rear with a boring performance. It was a romantic comedy type of performance and she just didn't do much and she played herself and made it uninteresting so here she is. Clayburgh is next because I at least enjoyed her a little bit more in her romantic comedy performance. Forgettable though. Midler is not someone I like at all. I don't give a shit about her shtick. Her whole lounge singer bullshit is not interesting in the least. I had her last but she is at least better than the romantic comedy girls. Some will love Midler and like the performance and want her to win but not for me. No way. Fonda is second because she couldn't win and didn't deserve to win. She doesn't deserve a third win and not a second consecutive win. Her performance ain't all that. Field is leaps and bounds better than everyone else COMBINED. This is a garbage group and 1978 better be better because I'm tired of crappy nominees.
Oscar Winner: Sally Field - Norma Rae
My Winner: Sally Field - Norma Rae
Jane Fonda
Bette Midler
Jill Clayburgh
Marsha Mason
Supporting Actor 1979
I've only seen Duvall previously and I know he's going to be tough to beat but I hope this group can at least challenge him. I'm interested in seeing what Douglas brings in his win over Duvall. No musings from me, so let's get to it.
1979 Best Supporting Actor
Melvyn Douglas - Being There
This one is a legit head scratcher. Douglas was a previous winner for Hud in 1963 and had another nomination after that. So this was his third nomination and his second win and this is a completely undeserved win. Certainly the worst second win for an actor that I've come across. I have no doubts that Douglas was a great American actor who should have been rewarded by all that I've read online about him, but he was - back in 1963! This win reeks of the old Hollywood guard voting for a veteran actor to win because they liked the guy and nothing else. If Douglas wasn't even nominated, I don't think anyone would even bat an eye that he wasn't included. In this film, he plays Mr. Rand, a big shot corporate businessman who has the ear of the President and can influence economic policy. Sounds pretty meaty as far as roles go, but it's really just a wisp of a role and performance. He's an old, sick man who takes in Peter Sellers' simpleton character and hits it off with him. Douglas likes that Sellers is a man of few words but is very honest and trustworthy. Mostly we see Douglas in bed or getting tended to by the nurses and doctors he employs in his home. There is the scene where he has a meeting with the President but it doesn't stand out at all and Douglas himself never actually stands out in it. He's just a supporting player who latches on to Sellers and overlooks his being slow and confuses it with wisdom and power. That's all Douglas does in the film. There's nothing else to the role or performance. Yes, Douglas is good as the dying old man but you can't honestly watch it and decide that he deserves a second win. You just can't, especially with Robert Duvall giving a hell of a performance in the same category. So I have no idea what the Academy was thinking here other than reward a veteran which gets real old but I know it will continually happen as I go back in time.
Robert Duvall - Apocalypse Now
When you think of Apocalypse Now, one of the first things that springs to mind is Duvall's performance and his line of "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." When you think of Duvall, one of the first things that comes to mind is his performance in this film. The performance is that iconic for both the film and Duvall the actor. Duvall plays Colonel Kilgore, a mayhem loving, surf enthusiast, and all around badass. What's amazing about Duvall's performance to me, is that he' only onscreen for about 11 minutes or so and yet he still leaves such an enormous impact on the viewer and the film. It really sets up what the gung ho officer is like and sort of lampoons that type of character from the Vietnam War. What makes this nomination so great is that it is a perfect confluence of performance, role, and film. All three of those make it a nomination that really should have won the Oscar. No one even remembers any of the other four nominees. Duvall really brings the gravitas necessary to pull off a Colonel Kilgore, as he struts around barking out orders and not ducking with rounds flying past him and mortars going off nearby. He keeps his cool and just relishes the moment of being in a danger zone and being the man to cause all of the mayhem. He is fully in command of everything going on and his presence is a strong one. I also don't care that he's only in the film for a brief amount of time towards the beginning. Duvall leaves a lasting impact and I wished we had more time with him as a character. To me, this is your winner this year hands down. Duvall just takes the character and runs with it, creating something utterly iconic and memorable.
Frederic Forrest - The Rose
Okay, so this is an alright performance. Forrest is a limo driver that Bette Midler's Rose steals from another singer and convinces him to go with her to NYC on an adventure of sorts. Midler is a famous singer a la Janis Joplin so she's a rough specimen to say the least. Forrest goes along with it and they hit it off and he kinda protects her as they go to different places and is a listening post for Midler to sound off to. But they do get drunk together and end up back at her hotel room and they bang and Forrest becomes the sort of love interest to Midler's Rose character. He drives her around for a bit but she is a rock n roller and she goes off again doing her own thing. He does confide that he is actually AWOL from the Army and just laying low and driving limos. There is a stretch where Forrest isn't in the film and then he comes back into the picture as the two rekindle their love affair and go to Florida for her home state concert. While back in her hometown, she gets onstage at a bar and makes a fool of herself while locals catcall her about a gangbang she was part of (I think) and Forrest fights them and gets thrown out. He then leaves after hailing a passing truck and that's it. Forrest is the love foil. He's also a good dude that grounds the crazy Rose. He is a very good supporting character in the film and sort of guides Rose for parts of the film which is much needed. Forrest is nominated because he had this role and because he was in Apocalypse Now. That dual combo helped get him a nomination easily. Forrest is good at being what is needed from his character and certainly makes Midler more palatable. He isn't anything really amazing but he does a solid enough job in the role.
Justin Henry - Kramer vs. Kramer
Good thing I didn't write this review right after watching the film because I probably would have shredded Henry to pieces here. Henry is the youngest Oscar acting nominee ever at 8 years old and the most undeserving acting nominee ever. I am not a fan of child actors, especially this young, because they aren't really doing much acting. They are being told what to do and what to say and, in Henry's case, does everything in a cutesy, annoying way. He's not tapping into any real emotions or anything like that, he just gets told to throw a tantrum on a bed and does so poorly. Henry is just a prop for Dustin Hoffman to act with/against. The film itself is quite good and an honest, scorching look at divorce mostly from the man's point of view. It was also well liked, winning Best Picture, so obviously Henry came along for the ride. I can't imagine anyone actually voting for him based off acting ability or merit. This is just a vote for a cutesy little kid in an aww, how adorable kind of way. I just don't understand that sentiment and this makes a farce out of the whole Oscar nominating process. This kid is going up against Robert Duvall, I mean, how can anyone take that seriously? Whatever. This is a stupid nomination for a film that is very good despite Henry's child performance. I know he was only 8 years old, maybe even 7 when filming, but this isn't worth a nomination - flat out.
Mickey Rooney - The Black Stallion
What is this, an art film for kids? A legit question from the studio that made this film and shelved it for two years until it was finally released. An art film for kids is very apt as evidenced by me watching this from the Criterion version (if you don't know, they release films considered to be classics or artistic). The first half of the film is a silent film that basically ends up Blue Lagoon with a Horse. But the whole film lends itself to great cinematography and looks very gorgeous even in the later parts. I seriously can't believe this wasn't nominated for Best Cinematography because it is a worthy nominee for sure. That's the main takeaway from this film. Now, Rooney comes into the film over an hour into the thing and he isn't as bad as you would be led to believe. I had heard from reading some other blogs that Rooney was basically a joke, but he's not. He is a veteran nomination, no doubt. But I thought his performance was actually really good. Yeah, he kinda manipulated the kid with the horse, but he helped train him and helped school the kid in training the horse on his own. I legit thought this performance was going to be terrible and easily overlooked but Rooney is actually quite decent! He is the old guy and like an Obi Wan Kenobi type of person. He comes in and dispenses knowledge and is kind of a butthead while doing so. He does sell the horse but the kid gets to ride him as a jockey and win and it is a big deal. He is a mentor to the young kid and it shows. Takes risks and it works out but this is just a little more than a veteran nomination. Rooney definitely got a bone from his old friends and received a nomination for it but it's not as bad as you'll read elsewhere.
I am not happy at all with this group of Supporting Actors. What is typically my favorite group really blows this year. Douglas does absolutely nothing in his role and somehow wins his second Oscar for it. Completely unnecessary. He's only saved from being dead ass last because Henry is a joke of a nominee. He shouldn't be nominated because his kid character is terrible. There have been kids in film since he was nominated that act circles around what he does here. It's a garbage nomination and the Academy should retroactively rescind it because it's so fucking stupid. Ugh. Whatever. Forrest is decent and does what he can with his role in his nominated film but I think he gets on as a combination of that film and his work in Apocalypse Now. The two together justify a nomination, though neither would win on their own. I was surprised that I liked Rooney so much and his film because from all I heard it was a bad performance and boring film. Neither is true. Rooney is very good in his role and the film is brilliant in many aspects and worth checking out, even as a kids film. But the obvious, clear winner is Duvall. He should have won and it's a joke he didn't. A really disappointing category this year that I hope is better in 1978.
Oscar Winner: Melvyn Douglas - Being There
My Winner: Robert Duvall - Apocalypse Now
Mickey Rooney
Frederic Forrest
Melvyn Douglas
Justin Henry
1979 Best Supporting Actor
Melvyn Douglas - Being There
This one is a legit head scratcher. Douglas was a previous winner for Hud in 1963 and had another nomination after that. So this was his third nomination and his second win and this is a completely undeserved win. Certainly the worst second win for an actor that I've come across. I have no doubts that Douglas was a great American actor who should have been rewarded by all that I've read online about him, but he was - back in 1963! This win reeks of the old Hollywood guard voting for a veteran actor to win because they liked the guy and nothing else. If Douglas wasn't even nominated, I don't think anyone would even bat an eye that he wasn't included. In this film, he plays Mr. Rand, a big shot corporate businessman who has the ear of the President and can influence economic policy. Sounds pretty meaty as far as roles go, but it's really just a wisp of a role and performance. He's an old, sick man who takes in Peter Sellers' simpleton character and hits it off with him. Douglas likes that Sellers is a man of few words but is very honest and trustworthy. Mostly we see Douglas in bed or getting tended to by the nurses and doctors he employs in his home. There is the scene where he has a meeting with the President but it doesn't stand out at all and Douglas himself never actually stands out in it. He's just a supporting player who latches on to Sellers and overlooks his being slow and confuses it with wisdom and power. That's all Douglas does in the film. There's nothing else to the role or performance. Yes, Douglas is good as the dying old man but you can't honestly watch it and decide that he deserves a second win. You just can't, especially with Robert Duvall giving a hell of a performance in the same category. So I have no idea what the Academy was thinking here other than reward a veteran which gets real old but I know it will continually happen as I go back in time.
Robert Duvall - Apocalypse Now
When you think of Apocalypse Now, one of the first things that springs to mind is Duvall's performance and his line of "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." When you think of Duvall, one of the first things that comes to mind is his performance in this film. The performance is that iconic for both the film and Duvall the actor. Duvall plays Colonel Kilgore, a mayhem loving, surf enthusiast, and all around badass. What's amazing about Duvall's performance to me, is that he' only onscreen for about 11 minutes or so and yet he still leaves such an enormous impact on the viewer and the film. It really sets up what the gung ho officer is like and sort of lampoons that type of character from the Vietnam War. What makes this nomination so great is that it is a perfect confluence of performance, role, and film. All three of those make it a nomination that really should have won the Oscar. No one even remembers any of the other four nominees. Duvall really brings the gravitas necessary to pull off a Colonel Kilgore, as he struts around barking out orders and not ducking with rounds flying past him and mortars going off nearby. He keeps his cool and just relishes the moment of being in a danger zone and being the man to cause all of the mayhem. He is fully in command of everything going on and his presence is a strong one. I also don't care that he's only in the film for a brief amount of time towards the beginning. Duvall leaves a lasting impact and I wished we had more time with him as a character. To me, this is your winner this year hands down. Duvall just takes the character and runs with it, creating something utterly iconic and memorable.
Frederic Forrest - The Rose
Okay, so this is an alright performance. Forrest is a limo driver that Bette Midler's Rose steals from another singer and convinces him to go with her to NYC on an adventure of sorts. Midler is a famous singer a la Janis Joplin so she's a rough specimen to say the least. Forrest goes along with it and they hit it off and he kinda protects her as they go to different places and is a listening post for Midler to sound off to. But they do get drunk together and end up back at her hotel room and they bang and Forrest becomes the sort of love interest to Midler's Rose character. He drives her around for a bit but she is a rock n roller and she goes off again doing her own thing. He does confide that he is actually AWOL from the Army and just laying low and driving limos. There is a stretch where Forrest isn't in the film and then he comes back into the picture as the two rekindle their love affair and go to Florida for her home state concert. While back in her hometown, she gets onstage at a bar and makes a fool of herself while locals catcall her about a gangbang she was part of (I think) and Forrest fights them and gets thrown out. He then leaves after hailing a passing truck and that's it. Forrest is the love foil. He's also a good dude that grounds the crazy Rose. He is a very good supporting character in the film and sort of guides Rose for parts of the film which is much needed. Forrest is nominated because he had this role and because he was in Apocalypse Now. That dual combo helped get him a nomination easily. Forrest is good at being what is needed from his character and certainly makes Midler more palatable. He isn't anything really amazing but he does a solid enough job in the role.
Justin Henry - Kramer vs. Kramer
Good thing I didn't write this review right after watching the film because I probably would have shredded Henry to pieces here. Henry is the youngest Oscar acting nominee ever at 8 years old and the most undeserving acting nominee ever. I am not a fan of child actors, especially this young, because they aren't really doing much acting. They are being told what to do and what to say and, in Henry's case, does everything in a cutesy, annoying way. He's not tapping into any real emotions or anything like that, he just gets told to throw a tantrum on a bed and does so poorly. Henry is just a prop for Dustin Hoffman to act with/against. The film itself is quite good and an honest, scorching look at divorce mostly from the man's point of view. It was also well liked, winning Best Picture, so obviously Henry came along for the ride. I can't imagine anyone actually voting for him based off acting ability or merit. This is just a vote for a cutesy little kid in an aww, how adorable kind of way. I just don't understand that sentiment and this makes a farce out of the whole Oscar nominating process. This kid is going up against Robert Duvall, I mean, how can anyone take that seriously? Whatever. This is a stupid nomination for a film that is very good despite Henry's child performance. I know he was only 8 years old, maybe even 7 when filming, but this isn't worth a nomination - flat out.
Mickey Rooney - The Black Stallion
What is this, an art film for kids? A legit question from the studio that made this film and shelved it for two years until it was finally released. An art film for kids is very apt as evidenced by me watching this from the Criterion version (if you don't know, they release films considered to be classics or artistic). The first half of the film is a silent film that basically ends up Blue Lagoon with a Horse. But the whole film lends itself to great cinematography and looks very gorgeous even in the later parts. I seriously can't believe this wasn't nominated for Best Cinematography because it is a worthy nominee for sure. That's the main takeaway from this film. Now, Rooney comes into the film over an hour into the thing and he isn't as bad as you would be led to believe. I had heard from reading some other blogs that Rooney was basically a joke, but he's not. He is a veteran nomination, no doubt. But I thought his performance was actually really good. Yeah, he kinda manipulated the kid with the horse, but he helped train him and helped school the kid in training the horse on his own. I legit thought this performance was going to be terrible and easily overlooked but Rooney is actually quite decent! He is the old guy and like an Obi Wan Kenobi type of person. He comes in and dispenses knowledge and is kind of a butthead while doing so. He does sell the horse but the kid gets to ride him as a jockey and win and it is a big deal. He is a mentor to the young kid and it shows. Takes risks and it works out but this is just a little more than a veteran nomination. Rooney definitely got a bone from his old friends and received a nomination for it but it's not as bad as you'll read elsewhere.
I am not happy at all with this group of Supporting Actors. What is typically my favorite group really blows this year. Douglas does absolutely nothing in his role and somehow wins his second Oscar for it. Completely unnecessary. He's only saved from being dead ass last because Henry is a joke of a nominee. He shouldn't be nominated because his kid character is terrible. There have been kids in film since he was nominated that act circles around what he does here. It's a garbage nomination and the Academy should retroactively rescind it because it's so fucking stupid. Ugh. Whatever. Forrest is decent and does what he can with his role in his nominated film but I think he gets on as a combination of that film and his work in Apocalypse Now. The two together justify a nomination, though neither would win on their own. I was surprised that I liked Rooney so much and his film because from all I heard it was a bad performance and boring film. Neither is true. Rooney is very good in his role and the film is brilliant in many aspects and worth checking out, even as a kids film. But the obvious, clear winner is Duvall. He should have won and it's a joke he didn't. A really disappointing category this year that I hope is better in 1978.
Oscar Winner: Melvyn Douglas - Being There
My Winner: Robert Duvall - Apocalypse Now
Mickey Rooney
Frederic Forrest
Melvyn Douglas
Justin Henry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)