Best Picture 1976

This is one of the years I have looked forward to the most. It actually is probably the one I've wanted to finally get to see the most along with 1939. Just look at that lineup! There are four bonafide classics and a film (Bound for Glory) that I have avoided knowing anything about just to be able to go into it without any expectations other than it being a Best Picture nominee. I have no clue what it's about. Maybe something to do with sports if I remember from my initial perusing of BP nominees way back when, I dunno. I am hoping it lives up to being more than just a fifth wheel and becomes the other legit contender. I am pumped for this year because I have put off watching these just to have that fresh take for the project (I've seen the winner a million times, so there's that).


1976 Best Picture

Rocky

I think a lot of people forget that Rocky won a Best Picture award and probably don't even realize it was nominated. Most people just love the film without really thinking too much about it and that's what Rocky is: a film for the people. It's the true underdog story that is as old as time but also a very American story that people can easily relate to and empathize with Balboa himself. I have seen this film so many times through the years because it's always on some station as part of a marathon of all the films. And while Rocky is the original, I've always kinda liked the first two sequels a bit more. They ramp up the Rocky stuff, give us a more memorable villain, give us that iconic song and the scenes that you probably associate with the original. But I think if you were to view this film back in 1976 without any preconceived notions about Stallone or the franchise or any of that, you'd be left with an honest crowd pleaser. I think that's what so many people and voters latched onto with the film. The Oscar book I have says that there were a lot of older Hollywood folk who wished they would have wrote it or directed it or starred in it and that the film took them back to Capra-esque Hollywood and touched their nostalgia bone. It was hugely popular and a cultural phenomenon and it's easy to see why, even in this stacked group, people would gravitate to Rocky. Stallone's performance is pretty awesome and perfect for what Balboa needed to be. A big lug that we could root for and believe could actually take on a top boxer. There's a lot of fun moments in the film but my one big gripe is that the supporting characters aren't that great to me. I'm not a fan of Young or Meredith and Shire doesn't stretch much from the shy, sheltered love interest. The film is all about Stallone and without him, it doesn't reach the levels it does. Obviously, without Stallone the film doesn't get made, either. He wrote it in a couple days while almost dead broke and sold it with the caveat that he had to play the lead role. It's amazing that the film ever even got made but that's the power of the story Stallone tells and it really speaks as to why this won a Best Picture award because it resonated with so many people. I think if there was a re-vote for this year today, Rocky wouldn't win as there are a couple really strong films that are widely considered to be all-time classics and not just a feel good sports film.But I can't hate this choice because I do enjoy it and because it is a great work of art, just on a different level than the others.

All the President's Men

This is one of those films that I've put off watching for so long because I wanted my reaction to watching it for this project to be fresh and authentic from me. I could have watched this a ton of times and definitely wanted to because I had always heard great things about it. So after finally watching it all I have to say is wow. This is intelligent, passionate American film making at it's very best. When the film was almost over, I was getting antsy because I wanted to know how they were going to end things even though I obviously know that Nixon ended up implicated and resigning. But the strength of the film lies in making me forget that and buying into the investigative work and wondering how they were going to piece it together to get to the end result. This film is about the process and the journalistic work involved in uncovering a massive conspiracy by the Republican party to remain in power by any means necessary. It was fascinating. I wanted more. That's my gripe about this film is that it should have been over two and a half hours long unlike other films I've watched for this project. They should have expanded a bit more after Nixon was re-elected and showed the continued work but I must admit that everything up to that point was almost perfect. The acting across the board was phenomenal. I have no idea why Redford and/or Hoffman weren't nominated for Best Actor. This was unequivocally the best work I have ever seen from Hoffman (I say that knowing I still have his early stuff to watch) and he was tremendous. He reminded me so much of the work Mark Ruffalo did in Spotlight. The two films are so similar that I wish I had seen this film before watching Spotlight, so as to better appreciate what it brought to the investigative genre. The two films would make for an amazing marathon with The Post (which I will see very soon). The supporting work is also pretty great as I for once don't hate Jason Robards in this. Jack Warden, Hal Holbrook, and I liked Jane Alexander's two brief scenes. There's a ton of gorgeous shots from Gordon Willis and I read how the actual Woodward and Bernstein oversaw the script and the whole thing was doubly verified for authenticity so as not to verge into the overly dramatic. This is an amazing film. This is what I'm looking for when I started this project. I mean, this could become a new favorite film of mine! This is just tight, suspenseful, engaging, intelligent work by all involved and I recommend watching this film right now, especially given today's political climate and the inevitable downfall of asshole Trump. I'm still scratching my head as to how Redford and Hoffman didn't get nominated for this. Just strong work all around.

Bound for Glory

Okay, so this was definitely not a sports film in any capacity! I think I was just remembering Breaking Away because both start with B? At any rate, this film is about the early life of Woody Guthrie. Or at least that's what the film purports itself to be. When reading up on this film, I found out that nothing in this film is true at all except that Guthrie had a wife. Finding that out had me asking why was the film even made or, more realistically, why say it's about Woody Guthrie when it's not. If this was a fictitious folk singer, I think the film would have more impact. Knowing none of it is true makes me feel like I was lied to since I don't know anything about Guthrie other than he was a folk singer and sang the 'This Land Is Your Land' song. When I first started watching the film, I was wondering when anything was going to start happening. We follow Guthrie as a poor man in Oklahoma who eventually decides to leave his family and make the trip to California. Nothing happens for the first thirty minutes when he's in his small hometown and I thought, okay, maybe now it will start picking up. But no, even with him making the trip to California not much happens. Guthrie is played by David Carradine and he is basically a passive spectator of his own life. He doesn't do much even though things are going on around him. Like during the trip to California, Guthrie hitchhikes with many different people and gets stopped by police not wanting vagrants and workers to enter the state. Nothing happens as he just decides to just walk off in another direction. Or when a group of armed men pull all the rail jumpers off a train, nothing happens to Guthrie even though there is a little violence. He is just a passive force in the film for the first half. Eventually, once Guthrie is noticed for his singing while in a Hooverville, things pick up. Guthrie becomes involved in trying to start unions and in workers' rights and Guthrie gets more fame while being on a radio show. He has a romance with a local rich woman before admitting he's married and then his wife and kids come out once he has money. But again, none of this actually happened, so while it was nice that Guthrie stopped being passive as a character, what did it all matter? I did like Carradine's acting. I thought he was perfectly cast as the singer and as the slow Okie who kinda ambles through life. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention how much it apes The Grapes of Wrath with it's story. It's essentially a lighter version of the classic for most of the film until it decides it wants to be about the singer and his (fake) life. I think part of the reason it was well received is that it was one of the first uses, if not the very first, of the Steadicam. The film won Best Cinematography for that reason and I think maybe the film got a lot of eyeballs that way. It's definitely a let down, though, after watching the four other classics in this group.

Network

This film was daunting to finally sit down and watch. I put it off for awhile until I was ready because it has six total reviews. It got five total acting nominations which has, surprisingly enough, been done quite a few times in Oscar history, just not in the last couple decades. And it's one of two films to win three total acting awards (the other being A Streetcar Named Desire). Plus, it resulted in the first posthumous acting win ever at the Oscars. Lots of Oscar history happening with this one film so I wanted to make sure I was prepared to watch this with no distractions. You probably know this film from the Mad As Hell speech that you've seen countless times and I would say it's a good representation of what the film is all about. Billed as a satire, I'd say the film is a little more on the nose and shockingly prophetic than just mere satire. The film easily stands up to today's news and entertainment world, with a lot of what is talked about in the film coming true. Reality TV still rules the day, talking heads ranting and raving are more the norm, and there has been plenty of suicides and real killings shown live on TV than was ever needed. So the film is prophetic but how is the story? Well, there's a ton of yelling in the film. I think almost everyone gets a scene where they yell something dramatic. But the story of Howard Beale setting off a cultural touchstone of the public wanting to see violence and sex and evangelical style ranting and ravings is interesting. The network clamoring to at first get rid of him until they see what a ratings bonanza he is and then fully promoting his brand of truth is prescient and a hoot. The scenes with the network big wigs trying to figure things out one way or the other and eventually wanting to kill him off really make the film. The one part I really hate is the relationship between Dunaway and Holden as it seems too forced and mostly unnecessary. It leads to some nice individual character moments but can drag the film down at times, too. Now, the ending is pretty absurd and that's when the dark satire turns to outright farce with the assassination. I get what the film is going for but it would lead to so many questions since one of their own shows killed off another one of their stars. But the film does have some very good acting, as evidenced by it's five nominations there. It's crazy how relevant the story is even in today's world and it was made 40 plus years ago. This is a well made film that should definitely be viewed at least once.

Taxi Driver

Another wow! I can't imagine what it must have been like for this to drop back in 1976 because it feels like it's just in another world. It feels fresh and modern and very much like a Scorsese picture. Even though this came first, I see bits of After Hours, Bringing Out the Dead, and The King of Comedy in this film. Although, I guess it's more appropriate to say I see bits of this film in those other Scorsese flicks for different reasons. It's obvious that Scorsese was obsessed with his hometown of NYC but also fascinated by what happens after dark with lonely, awkward, obsessive men who drive the city streets and observe what goes on. There's a film school essay or thesis in there somewhere. But Taxi Driver is all about loneliness. And it's that interesting kind of loneliness where one bemoans their being alone yet wallows in their isolation and secretly enjoys it. We should all know who Travis Bickle is because of De Niro's iconic performance, but he's a Vietnam veteran dealing with an obvious mental illness who drives a taxi at night because he can't sleep and becomes obsessed with Cybill Shepard's campaign manager lady. When that goes south because Travis doesn't know how to interact with another human, it sets in motion the plot of him wanting to kill the Senator she campaigns for and is the impetus for him amassing an arsenal. In this time he also notices a young hooker and wants to save her and that also becomes another obsession of his. I almost feel like the story shouldn't work so well, but it does and Scorsese and De Niro are the big reasons why it does. The big shootout at the end, though very violent and bloody, works to make Travis a sympathetic figure even if he isn't deserving of our sympathy because he's so pathetic as a human being. It's really great work all around and the score is brilliant with the loud, harsh motif that doesn't have any strings in it. Just fits the film perfectly and I wish it was featured more. This is a classic for a reason and I'm actually surprised that the Academy chose this as a BP nominee because they always seem a little resistant to films that are really progressive and push the boundary at times. I mean, they didn't even nominate Scorsese in Best Director, so how does that make any sense? This is a great film that you shouldn't wait years to see.



Well, four outta five ain't bad. Bound for Glory was a big swing and a miss, but I'll forgive it because there were four other legit classics in this group. The Woody Guthrie film just kinda makes me mad that none of it was true because then what's the point in saying it's a film about Woody Guthrie? Bizarre. Could have stuck Marathon Man there and had a huge testosterone filled category. Which is interesting seeing as how 1977 was so focused on female fronted films. I wonder if that was a response to this year or just how things shook out? I was trying to figure out where to put Rocky. It was never going to be my winner and I had to weigh whether I wanted to see it more than say Network. But I remembered I actually like the sequels more than the original so down in fourth it goes. Network is scarily relevant to today's world and makes for an interesting watch knowing not much has changed in 40 plus years. I liked it but I also don't feel like this is a film I'll come back to a lot. If it was on TV, I might not stop to watch some it. It's a classic and it's very good but not one I'd like to revisit, at least right now. Taxi Driver is another Scorsese classic and one that again still feels super relevant to today's world of lonely losers shooting up places. I feel like this film lived up to the hype I've heard so much about and that means it's a strong film to me. All the President's Men, though, easily becomes a new favorite. It's very close to a perfect film and it's one that I want to watch again right now. Just an amazing overall piece of work from everyone involved. Can't say enough good things about it. Pretty good year overall that could have been slightly better but that's nitpicking a year where there are four legit classics. I'd take a year like this every day of the week.

Oscar Winner: Rocky
My Winner:  All the President's Men
Taxi Driver
Network
Rocky
Bound for Glory

Leading Actor 1976

I was thinking about this while doing this year, but there are times in each year where it feels like I have to get over a hill to finally move on and feel like I'm almost to the next year. This year it was finishing Network and it's six reviews. I sat on that for awhile until I was ready to watch and write about it. Once done, I only had one more film but I felt relieved and ready to move on to 1975. Some years it's getting past a big film like that. Others it's finding a film that I know or think is going to give me trouble in finding and watching. And it can also be when I get to a year where I've seen a bunch of the films already knowing I have to watch them again and powering through that blah feeling and moving on. Just some insight into my crazy mind and how I sometimes sit on years for awhile. I've seen Stallone but not the rest and I'm very excited to dive in.

1976 Best Actor

Peter Finch - Network

Peter Finch was the first posthumous acting winner in Oscar history (the other being Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, both were also Australian actors). I feel like most people know Howard Beale, or at least of the character, and have probably seen the Mad As Hell speech in some form or another. I know they used to play it at sporting events (only parts of it, anyway) I went to where the team was down late and wanted everyone to rise up out of their seats to cheer the team on. That's the lasting legacy of that speech. I know a lot of people who know the speech and have never seen the film and know Finch won an Oscar and feel it was deserved just because of the one speech they've seen. It's a great speech, obviously, but there is a lot more to the performance. Beale is a News Anchor who is tired of his life, an alcoholic who hates that the news is all about ratings now. At the end of one show, he states that he's going to blow his brains out on air in one week which will help boost the ratings. This is a man who is fed up with where society is heading and this is his response to that in a way. The network is furious over it and fire him but he asks for one last proper send off. So they let him on air to do that and he again goes off about how it's all bullshit and the News Department head lets him continue on with his rant. That becomes a thing when ratings do actually go up and the head of TV programming want him to keep ranting at the end of the show. It's a minor ratings boost until Finch goes off into the awesome Mad As Hell speech and all hell breaks loose. Before that, Finch was more of a man disappointed and fed up with how everything was based on ratings. You could feel his despair and disappointment, like a man who had given up and didn't care what he did or said or how others would react to it. Then there was a scene where Finch hears a voice at night before the epic speech and the character changes into more of a person in the throes of an actual breakdown and not just a disappointment. From there, Beale continues on with his ranting and yelling and the character more or less stagnates. Finch is very, very good at the ranting and raving thing and you become enthralled watching him rip into whatever he rips into for that day. That's the strength of his performance but a lot of it is just him yelling a lot. He turns into an evangelical type doomsday preacher getting everyone riled up but I wish the film would have dove into what caused the change in behavior and what sustained it other than just pissing off the network and speaking truth to power. Some have said he's more supporting but I feel like he's a definite lead in this film. The whole thing is based around his character and every other person reacts because of what he does at first. But there are times where his performance is in the background on TV while other characters talk and yell themselves. I guess I am trying to flesh out how I feel about the performance while writing this right now. I like it and understand the win. I'm sure his death helped in getting some sympathy votes but I feel like he probably would have won even if he was still alive at the time. I just wish the character would have been more fleshed out even if his ranting is fun to watch and something you can't look away from. The character, though, still seems believable even when the breakdown happens and you can see this character happening on TV in today's world. I think this is a heavy performance that needs more time to digest but is certainly very good and worth watching.

Robert De Niro - Taxi Driver

I have always had a hard time starting my De Niro reviews. I think it's because it's so daunting to try and put into words just what he excels at and what makes his performances so great without sounding like a fanboy. I'm not a De Niro super fan, but I think he was consistently doing strong work back in the 70s and 80s. De Niro does iconic work as Travis Bickle. We all know his "Are you talking to me?" line and scene and we've all seen him put a bloody finger gun to his head. He created a character that lives on in our collective conscious as a real lonely loser who inspired a man to actually try and kill the President. If that doesn't speak to his performance then I don't know what does. What I like about this role is that De Niro is so good at portraying the sad sack, awkward, lonely loser type. This was the first time he did so, but compare it to his other Scorsese collaboration in The King of Comedy and see just how similar the two performances are. That's not a bad thing mind you. It's that De Niro knows how to play characters that are obsessed about someone and make you cringe from embarrassment and from knowing just how deranged he really is and how dangerous he is. I think the two films would make for a great Scorsese-De Niro double feature. You might end up hating De Niro after the fact because the two roles are so pathetic and screwed up and just really unlikable characters. But that is what makes De Niro so good in this film, he is dedicated to showing the mental illness of Bickle but also the loneliness and isolation he self imposes. De Niro was one of those super method actors and for this role, he drove Taxis in NYC for a month at night to prepare. What I like is that De Niro makes his character seem somewhat stable most of the time though we know that's not true because his real self comes out like when he confronts Cybill Shepard after she stops talking to him. There are these little moments where his anger and resentment and utter lack of self control peek through the facade. That's what De Niro does well is control his inner rage and attitude and hide it under the guise of the nice, quiet guy. If he wasn't an actor, De Niro would probably be a psychopath he's so good at hiding who he really is. It's amazing that he followed up his win for The Godfather Part II with this completely different role and nailed it the same as his Oscar win. Just a great performance.

Giancarlo Giannini - Seven Beauties

I was losing track of my Italian actors and thought maybe he had been nominated before or since, but no, this was Giannini's only Oscar nomination. It comes in a Lina Wertmuller film and that's significant because she was the first female nominee for Best Director ever and it was for this film. So this film got lots of eyeballs on it within the Academy and we got a nomination for this performance. Any other year, this would most likely never have been nominated. This spot would have gone to Robert Redford or more likely to Dustin Hoffman. Yet here we are with another Italian Best Actor nomination. This film is about a man who deserts the Army during WWII but is captured by the Nazis and sent to a concentration camp where he rapes a fellow female prisoner and is also made to sexually satisfy a fat, gross female guard for some food and then is told to pick six people to die. Oh, and before that in flashbacks we see him kinda living it up as a playboy and then he murders his sister's pimp and chops him up into pieces and sends the body parts to different places in suitcases but is caught and instead of going to jail is allowed to enlist in the Italian Army where he deserts. It's a trippy, weird story, for sure. It's really off putting most of the time because I wasn't sure if this is supposed to be comedic and I was supposed to laugh or if this was just a dark satire of life at that time. It's truly bizarre and I don't think it would have had a chance at a nomination without also getting the Best Director nomination. Now, Giannini himself is very good in what is assuredly a tough role for anyone to pull off. He is your typical charming Italian actor who can make you unsure if him raping a girl is actually funny or not actually the awful act it is. He has charm in spades and that helps keep this film from going completely off the deep end for me. He also has super expressive eyes. He could act with just those alone and still give a good performance. They are sad and hopeful and melancholy and flirty and tired and mischievous. They are probably the one big takeaway you'll have of Giannini besides this being such an odd story and performance. I guess you could say his strength as an actor in this film is getting us to sympathize with his character who is hardly someone that deserves it. This just must have been a year where the Academy wanted some international flavor for whatever reason and we ended up with this is a nomination.

William Holden - Network

Holden was the other lead from this film and is more of the straight man (insert something witty about Beatrice Straight here) of the film. He is the News President or Director or some such and a good friend of Howard Beale's. When Beale goes off the deep end, Holden tries to talk him back in and keep the peace with the network. But at a board meeting he learns the news department of the network is going to lose their autonomy and have to answer to someone and then stops caring that Beale goes off for a second time and doesn't stop it. This in turn leads to the rest of the film and things spinning rapidly out of control. Holden's character is more of the traditionalist. He wants to be a good newsman and do good work and doesn't really like the idea of gimmicks to boost ratings. His character, though, is one that is kind of all over the place. He seems to be used by the writer to put the viewer into the middle of everything and it works sometimes and doesn't work well at other times. The relationship with Beale makes since as they are both old newsmen having to navigate the quickly changing entertainment and news landscape that is becoming one. The network and programming head want to change things and want more of the ranting Beale as well as absurd shows like actual domestic terrorists committing crimes and then doing stories about them. So Holden is the guy asking why are we doing this and are you serious about letting Beale do that and well, fuck it lets see how it goes. The one thing I didn't really like about Holden's role is the relationship with Faye Dunaway. It seemed forced and more like a way to have a romance in the film as well as give Holden a reason to remain tied to some of the characters even after being fired. With him being more of a realist, it just didn't seem like his character would actually cheat on a wife of 25 years, especially knowing that it probably wouldn't last and that she was using him. Holden's performance is also the most understated and conventional. By that I mean, he's the only one not to have a dramatic yelling moment. But also his acting reminds me of old Hollywood. I think it's because Holden is sort of the conduit for the viewer so he stays mostly even keeled as the story progresses. I would have liked for Holden to be given more to do after leaving the Network, but the story ran hard with the satire/farce it had going on. Holden is good in the role and I liked his acting style but this wasn't going to win anything without going too over the top.

Sylvester Stallone - Rocky

Ah, Rocky Balboa. Stallone has played Rocky in like seven films in the last 40 years. He has actually been nominated twice for the same role (and lost both times) which I think has only been done a couple times in Oscar history (Bing Crosby and Al Pacino, not sure of any others). But Stallone is Rocky, period. Can you even imagine anyone else playing that character? I think a lot of people know the story of Stallone being basically broke and needing money so he wrote the script in a couple days and then when trying to sell it, would only do so if he was attached to star as well. It's a gamble that paid off well as Stallone works perfectly as Rocky. He is that big lug that wants to help people and is friendly with everyone because he's a genuinely good dude. Rocky is a slow man, maybe from repeated blows to the head, I dunno, but it works to make his character seem gentle. That works well in his relationship with Talia Shire, as it kind of resembles a boxing match. Rocky has a ton of patience and he waits out Adrian for a while before making his move. He finally knocks it out when they become an item. Boxing metaphors are fun. One thing I did notice on the re-watch is that Stallone talks a ton in his role as Rocky. I mean, Rocky seems to not ever shut up. He dominates the scenes with his dialogue and doesn't stop talking. That suits Stallone because he seems to be that way in real life but it works because it covers for the rest of the film. Rocky can just dominate while we ignore the rest of the faults of the story and that's Stallone's charm. He obfuscates the negatives of the story while keeping the story equally compelling. No one would ever mistake Stallone as a gifted actor but he has a presence that is undeniable as evidenced by his nomination 40 years later for the same role. I think the Academy was hoping he would become a great actor to come but he didn't and that's okay. He is Rocky for the rest of his life and he gave us an amazing underdog hero to enjoy for the rest of our lives.



I like this group, though I feel like it could have been even better with the inclusion of Dustin Hoffman or Robert Redford. I would probably excise Giannini in his very odd role/film. I think he does a good job with a difficult role but I wasn't much of a fan. And I don't completely hate the foreign nominees! It just seems like the ones who get nominated aren't really the best choices by the Academy. Holden would be next and I liked what he brought to his film as this even keeled force but also wasn't into the relationship subplot he had. It just felt forced and not needed. But Holden was good and I look forward to his other nominations soon. Stallone is kind of a tour de force in his film. I mean, the dude doesn't shut up for five seconds and has so much dialogue but it was his baby and I get it. Without Stallone, that film probably fails. He's fun to watch and root for and isn't as bad as he would later go on to be, acting wise. But he is still a mumbly scene hog. If he won, would we be upset? Probably not, but I don't think he needed a win for playing Balboa. Next up is Finch. I get why he won and I'm fine with his win, but he does become part of the background at times and essentially just yells for most of his performance. I like what he does and think it's a lot more than just yelling but I'll place him second. De Niro gets my win for an iconic performance, of which he's had many. But Travis Bickle lives on even in today's world and of course he inspired a guy to try and kill Reagan, that's the mark of a great performance. What else can I say? His lonely, awkward loser role is straight up impressive. So if you take off that fifth spot and add another one like Hoffman, this would be an amazing group. I'd possibly have given the win to Hoffman, honestly. But this is what we got and that's not too bad, either.

Oscar Winner: Peter Finch - Network
My Winner:  Robert De Niro - Taxi Driver
Peter Finch
Sylvester Stallone
William Holden
Giancarlo Giannini

Leading Actress 1976

This is a pretty interesting group. There are two foreign film nominees along with three recognizable names at various stages of their careers. It should make for some interesting watching for sure.

1976 Best Actress

Faye Dunaway - Network

Dunaway has a tough job of being the only really strong female presence in a film that is primarily all about men. It helps that Dunaway plays the head of programming like an actual man. She is very strong in this performance and it seems like she's quite at ease at portraying a female boss like she's a man. We first really see her when she calls some minions into her office to discuss ideas for some innovative programming and she is psyched up about her idea of a show ran by actual revolutionaries and showing them commit acts of terrorism on TV. At the end of the meeting she then threatens to fire them all for not reading a memo she sent out and you get she is no nonsense and means business. She seems to be purposefully written like a man and it works well only because Dunaway is able to deliver a performance worth watching. She is obsessed with getting her last place network to the top by any means necessary and that happens to include blood and guts and sex and violence and all these wild ideas. She knows the public wants to see real life depicted in easy to swallow entertainment nuggets. Dunaway's character latches onto making Beale into this prime time must see TV appointment with letting him go on air unfiltered, saying whatever he wants. But Dunaway makes what could easily be a one dimensional character into something compelling because she puts so much passion and zeal into getting these unorthodox shows onto the air. Now, my big issue with her character was the little relationship thing she has with William Holden's character that seemed forced and out of place. Less of that would have been for the better but it did allow for some of Dunaway's true character to shine through. During their lovemaking scene, Dunaway is getting more and more worked up while pitching ideas for shows as the two arrive back to a hotel or cabin or something and Holden says nothing the entire time as she gets more and more feverish and louder with her ideas and pitching. It's obviously meant to mirror actual sex with the show pitching being foreplay and the act itself before it comes to a conclusion with an idea that almost literally makes her finish. I thought Dunaway was superb in a scene that could have been laugh out loud ridiculous but actually made it feel real to who she was as a character. You can easily see this executive getting herself off to her own ideas. The whole thing is darkly satirical in nature as Dunaway is what would become what's wrong with the entertainment industry in the future. All of the reality TV and talking head shows where guests yell and scream at each other - all that crap, Dunaway is the embodiment of how that came to be. It's a good performance in a film where she could have easily been lost in the myriad of yelling and crazy characters. Plus it's a weak year for this category so she really stands out with a performance like this.

Marie-Christine Barrault - Cousin, Cousine

I don't really understand this nomination. Not just because it's from a French film, but because Barrault didn't have any other nominations anywhere. The film didn't play at Cannes, wasn't nominated for a Golden Globe, and she didn't even get nominated in the 1st Cesar Awards (the French Oscars). She had nothing yet here she is nominated for an Oscar for a film that is otherwise pretty basic. It's not dramatic and is more of a very slight kind of romantic comedy. Barrault doesn't even really particularly stand out. She plays a married woman who meets a man at a family wedding who is her cousin by marriage. The two hit it off with a very good friendship and both realize their spouses are awful cheaters who they don't really love. It's a weird little nothing film and while Barrault and her cousin have a very believable and lovely friendship that turns into more, it's not an amazing performance by any means. She's sweet and likable and cute but she certainly doesn't have to do anything considerable in the performance. And while the chemistry between the two leads is great, does that warrant a nomination? Of course not. For some reason this film was well liked by the Academy seeing as it got three total nominations and this smells like some small faction campaigning for the film hardcore to get it three noms. I don't know, it didn't deserve any of them, I don't think. I'm probably one of the few people to have watched this film in America after 1976 and that should tell you all you need to know.

Talia Shire - Rocky

I was really hoping that with the strong Best Picture year, we would have a strong Best Actress year, but it's not shaping up to be that way. I wanted to say this after seeing three of the five because I expected a whole lot more. Talia Shire got nominated for The Godfather Part II. She kinda represented that film on the female front. She does the same for Rocky. I think she is worse in her performance for this film than she is for The Godfather Part II. I say all that not to denigrate Talia, but to underscore that this is a pretty meh nomination. In fact, I feel like this is more of a Supporting nomination and doesn't deserve a Leading Actress designation. In the beginning of the film, she plays a very shy woman who wears a hat and glasses and is indistinguishable. She is nothing in the beginning of the film until Rocky starts to really fall for her. It's contrived, yes, but convenient for the plot. The two are together eventually but still Shire can't offer up anything worthwhile. She's a shy girl who has to break through an alcoholic brother only to be forgotten until Rocky is in the ring. She plays her role well but let's just call this what it is, a nomination from the popularity of the film. She doesn't do much and is much more of a supporting type of performance. She's too shy anyway to even make a difference for most people. She's more of the burgeoning inspiration here until she becomes the inspirational moment at then end of the second film. Anyway, Shire offers up a pretty basic role that isn't all that interesting.

Sissy Spacek - Carrie

Before I took on this project, I for some reason really disliked Sissy Spacek. I enjoyed her in Coal Miner's Daughter because I had seen that so much growing up, but just didn't like her maybe because she looks a little strange? Thankfully this project allowed me to see a bunch of her work, most of which has been great. I thought she should have won another Oscar for In the Bedroom, which she was riveting in. And really, I have been able to see how great of an actress she truly is and that's part of what I was looking for in this journey. Carrie was Spacek's first Oscar nomination and you can see the makings of a great actress here. I'll say straight away that the performance doesn't really do it for me as I'm not really a horror fan at all but there are things to like about Spacek here. We start off with the shower period scene where she has to be terrified and terrifying herself, scared that the blood she sees is because she's dying or something. It demands that mix of emotion and is made harder by the fact that she has to do it fully naked for all to see. She's good but also a little annoying in her shyness and naivete and young schoolgirl-ness. She's fine in those scenes but it doesn't stand out to me. Where Spacek really shines is when she has the blood dumped on her at prom and she instantly changes into this fierce demon woman thing. It's a complete 180 from earlier but feels completely natural and is acted almost perfectly. That shows Spacek's range and is a big part of why I think the Academy paid attention to her in a horror film. Spacek has a lot more to do in this film than I think initially meets the eye. I think the simple story betrays the amount of work she has to put it to make her character believable and not be a hot mess of a horror cliche. Spacek is very good even if the performance outside of her being the telekinetic badass doesn't quite do much for me. A good debut and a harbinger of things to come for Spacek.

Liv Ullmann - Face to Face

I did not like this film at all. It's an Ingmar Bergman film, a director that I've reviewed before. I enjoyed Autumn Sonata, as much as you can enjoy a depressing film, and I thought Liv Ullmann was better than Ingrid Bergman in that film, frankly. But this film is just not at all enjoyable. This is one of those films that critics love because it makes them seem worldly but is in fact not that amazing. So, this film follows Ullmann, who is a psychiatrist, and she goes through some trauma and then breaks down and has a psychotic break. It's dour and slow. It's a film that was first made as a 4-part TV series that was edited down to a theatrical release that was exhibited before the TV version. So a lot was probably lost in the transfer and the TV version has never been made available so all we have to judge Ullmann is this film. To me, this performance was all about the obvious acting. That's why I don't quite like it. Ullmann is straining to emote, especially in her breakdown scene and it just doesn't land with me. I wonder if this was an American film and Ullmann (or another actress) gave the same performance if we wouldn't be ridiculing it as a mess of a performance and just overall garbage. That's harsh, yes, but this performance seems to be more over the top and strained. I don't know what else I can say. Ullmann is fine as a doctor but doesn't show anything there and then gets worse when she actually starts to break down. I don't like it and you probably won't either. Bergman is a tough sell but I know Ullmann is better than that. I know all these meh reviews for the foreign acting nominees makes it seem like I really hate foreign films, but I really don't! It's just the Academy inexplicably chooses foreign performances that don't resonate with me and is never that actor's best work. I say this because there are a lot of foreign films that I love, it's just that they don't get nominated by the Academy except maybe in Best Foreign Film. So I can appreciate good work but haven't had much of that to praise lately for the foreign nominees, sadly.



What was interesting on face value ended up being not that interesting after it was all said and done. Shire comes in last place because it's not a very strong role. She does the sheltered and shy thing just fine but I need more than that from a Best Actress nominee. Stallone really dominates over the supporting characters and Shire doesn't get to be much more than just the girlfriend. Barrault is fine and really likable in her film, but it's not much more than just an affair relationship with her cousin by marriage. The two have great chemistry and make you challenge your thoughts on adultery but I need more than just a good romance for this category. Ullmann has a tougher role than Barrault and does what she can with being a psychiatrist who has a breakdown but it just doesn't land with me. I know she has done better work in a Bergman film before so I can't say this is as good as those other performances. I guess the Academy was just hungry for some international flavor this year and really went for it. Spacek gets her first nomination for a horror film and I liked parts of the role and feel she has great range as we know she does in future roles but there were parts that I wasn't into, also. Dunaway has one of the meatier roles and she dives right into full bore and gets to act like a man and clearly had fun with the role and was rewarded for that. It's good acting and Dunaway is the obvious winner. But this year did feel like a bit of let down. I always seem to say that and I know my hopes are always high and I probably demand too much from these nominees but I like what I like. I am always searching for that one year that completely wins me over and I know it'll come eventually.

Oscar Winner: Faye Dunaway - Network
My Winner:  Faye Dunaway - Network
Sissy Spacek
Liv Ullmann
Marie-Christine Barrault
Talia Shire

Supporting Actor 1976

I've been looking forward to a few of these performances and films for a long time and I'm glad I can finally cross them off my list. Really starting to get into some bonafide classic films and I'm loving it.

1976 Best Supporting Actor

Jason Robards - All the President's Men

Oh, you know I was looking forward to this performance. Now, I wasn't looking to shred it apart, but I was very intrigued by what exactly Robards was going to bring to the table. This was his first of two straight Supporting Actor wins and I strongly disliked his second win. It was a win that shouldn't have even been nominated so how was this going to shake out? Luckily, this is the Robards that I was always expecting to see in all his nominations but never got. Just a strong, confident, effortless performance that highlighted why he was such a good actor. In this, he plays editor Ben Bradlee who eventually oversees Woodward and Bernstein and is the man that focuses their investigative process. He knows what more needs to be done for the story and what needs to be excised and eventually stands behind his guys one hundred percent when they start rocking the boat. He definitely has this presence that sort of hangs over the film. After he's introduced where he just shreds their initial story, you wonder how he's going to react when they bring him their next article after hours and days and weeks of writing. You hang on to your seat along with Woodward and Bernstein as to whether what they have is good enough or not. And then when he gets mad and wants them to work their sources and angles harder, you feel his passion. When he backs them when they kick the hornets nest, you feel his pride and editorial protection for lack of a better term. He wants them to succeed and he knows they are on to the next huge story in American history but has to guide them to it. That's what Robards brings for this performance and it's about fucking time! I was worried we might get another unearned win but I do think he fully earns this win. It's crazy that he is the lone representative of the men in this film because there could have been two other nominees in Jack Warden and Hal Holbrook, stretches, sure, but great acting no doubt. I am all for this win even though I have the rest of the field to watch, too, but finally Robards delivers for me and I couldn't be happier about it.

Ned Beatty - Network

I actually really liked this performance. Just as with Beatrice Straight's performance, Beatty is in only two scenes with the first scene being super brief before he gets to his own shouting scene. Seemingly everyone in this film at some point gets to dramatically shout and Beatty was rewarded for his turn. But his performance is so much more than just plain old yelling. He plays the Chairman of the fictitious broadcasting company, UBS, and in this one scene (in which he only worked one single day on the film for) he gets to lay into Howard Beale (Peter Finch). I think on the surface a lot of people will just see the shouting but there's a lot more to Beatty's version. Beatty is more demonstrative and in control, very succinctly enunciating his speech (the writing of the film was rightfully called hyper-articulate by another reviewer) and hammering home his points. He also uses Beale's own words against him from the first speech Beale gave about being on TV and speaking the truth. There's a moment in Beatty's speech where he is shouting but then calmly asks Beale if he is getting through to him and then proceeds to more calmly talk to him in a blatant power move by standing over him in dark lighting like he is the voice of God or at least someone of power to be listened to. Beatty is so deliberate in his speech and his movements and his bearing that once you look past the yelling and shouting you can actually find a real performance there. That's why I liked the performance so much because Beatty actually did something with the words besides just reciting them. I mean, his tone and vocal inflections and all that are used in combination to give this powerful message about Beale needing to do as he and the company want him to. So this does past my test of short performances of whether it leaves a lasting impact on the film because it sets in motion the assassination later on and because I wanted more of Beatty in the film. This is a performance worth paying attention to a little more closely than usual.

Burgess Meredith - Rocky

I think you remember this performance more because of the sum of it's parts. He was in a couple Rocky films and you remember him as the manager ringside laying into Rocky Balboa and having that rough voice. But take it in the context of only this film. Meredith doesn't care about Rocky because he's not a contender and then when Apollo Creed pulls Rocky's name out of a book and decides to fight him, Meredith comes crawling back like a little bitch. I think too many people remember this role as being a fun one where Meredith is Rocky's manager, but remember in this film he was a groveling piece of shit who wanted Rocky only when he had a title fight by chance. So forget Meredith in this film because he's an awful person and Rocky calls him out on it when he comes by his apartment begging to be his manager. Rocky toys with him about being a money grubber before saying okay. But the fact remains is that Meredith, who you may remember from those Lipton Ice Tea commercials, isn't as magnanimous as you may think. I hate his character. All he does is screech at Rocky and doesn't even really train him in this film, yet takes the credit. Rocky trains himself mostly. And the dude never really offers up anything worthy of an actual performance. I say that not as a hater of him but as an Oscar watcher. He's a manager but he never really has any strong moments. He exists on the periphery of the story and is never strong in this film as you remember him to be. Subsequent films, yes he is, but here he is just an opportunist. I think too many people have a romantic notion of the film and it's actors.

Laurence Olivier - Marathon Man

I will admit that while watching this film, I had no idea at first who Olivier was playing. I know what he looks like, sure, but he's older here and I didn't think he was going to be the villain in this and didn't think he would look so different. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I didn't know what old Olivier looked like. It's interesting that his last two nominations were for films about Nazis (along with The Boys from Brazil). In the latter he was hunting them down, in this one he is essentially a playing a version of Dr Josef Mengele. He's an evil Nazi dentist who comes to America because his brother is killed in a traffic accident and was holding a stash of diamonds or something. Olivier comes and is confronted by Roy Scheider is a government agent but Olivier kills Scheider. Dustin Hoffman is Scheider's brother and the agency feels like he was told what Scheider knew about the dentist, but doesn't know anything. And from there it's a weird action thriller of Hoffman and Olivier. Which sounds pretty rad, right? But it's kind of an absurd, messy film that feels like it belongs in the 80s but probably could only be done in the 70s. And it is gorgeous to look at with a ton of great scenes and probably should have been nominated in Best Cinematography. Olivier is perfectly evil. He's menacing enough in his first couple scenes and especially the famous scene where he drills Hoffman's teeth and keeps saying "Is it safe?" over and over. I think that plus him being Olivier got him nominated because after that scene, he is mostly a pathetic figure. Going around trying to get his diamonds and lashing out at Jews, he is mostly on the run until Hoffman finds him again. There's a brief scene in some water area that Olivier tries to be menacing again for but doesn't quite pull it off. I like that he can be both scary and utterly pathetic looking in the same scene. It's decent but it's also Olivier, and we know he can do a lot better and that he's probably here on stature. Not sure this will win for me but I do recommend this film as it is pretty interesting even if Olivier isn't that strong in it.

Burt Young - Rocky

I know some people who really like this performance. Let's be clear: this ain't a winner. Young plays the sister of Adrian from "Yo Adrian, I did it!" fame (that's Rocky II). Adrian is the pet shop cashier who Rocky likes and then eventually dates. Young is her alcoholic dumb shit brother who wants a piece of the protection racket money that Rocky gets for being an enforcer. Young wants in to the game but Rocky denies him at every avenue. Young is also the guy who works at a meat packing plant who lets Rocky in so he can pound some frozen beef in a pretty famous scene. That's about all Young does. Is he effective in the performance? Yes. Is he good in the performance? No. Young is entirely forgettable and really shouldn't have been considered for an Oscar for that kind of performance. Young is just a classic drunk fuck up and while he plays the role perfectly, it doesn't mean he gives an award worthy performance. He just comes along for the Rocky ride and I can't take anyone seriously that thinks he ever had a shot or that he ever deserved a shot because he didn't and is a pretty wasted nomination. At least Meredith is a little more involved and a previous nominee. Young is only here because the Academy loved the hell out of the film. Five seconds after reading this you will forget who he is in the Rocky universe. Just a fun nomination but nothing else.



Well, this group was a little better than 1977. And, whew lad, was I harsh on Burgess Meredith! I guess I wasn't too happy about the Rocky Supporting characters because I didn't that any of them deserved to be nominated. Hell, I'd rather have Carl Weathers get nominated than the other two guys. But for real, Meredith really doesn't do much. His role expands in the sequels but is just an opportunist in this film and so that means Meredith doesn't do much besides be cantankerous. Sorry, not sorry. Young isn't any better, though I can appreciate what his role was about. Still don't think it should have been nominated. Olivier is up next and at first I didn't even realize it was him. He was a fun evil character but I don't feel like he had all that much to do in the film besides run and be evil Nazi guy. We all know Olivier is capable of delivering more than that. Beatty surprised the hell out of me. I really dug his one scene where he gets to yell but does so in a more controlled and purposeful way. I felt it wasn't just yelling and I liked that that short speech/scene had actual depth to it. Pretty good short nomination. Robards finally hits one home for me. The whole film is almost perfect and that goes for Robards, too, who is great as the editor. I was waiting for him to deliver and he did and it's a strong performance in an even stronger film. He is the easy winner for me. So if you take out the Rocky guys, you've got a pretty good year here. Hopefully 1975 is even better.

Oscar Winner: Jason Robards - All the President's Men
My Winner:  Jason Robards - All the President's Men
Ned Beatty
Laurence Olivier
Burt Young
Burgess Meredith

Supporting Actress 1976

It's rare that this category gets so many strong films (on paper, anyway) and ones that were nominated for Best Picture. So in seeing that, I'm hoping that we will get some really good performances out of the bunch.

1976 Best Supporting Actress

Beatrice Straight - Network

Blink and you'll miss it. I believe that Straight has the shortest amount of screen time for an Oscar winning performance at just over five minutes, which is pretty incredible to think about. Although, when it comes to this film, Ned Beatty only worked on the film for one day and still got a nomination out of it. Straight plays the wife of William Holden's character and legit has only two scenes, I think. The first one was just a very brief moment in bed and then came the moneymaker. Straight gets to deliver her dramatic shouting scene as Holden tells her he is in love with Faye Dunaway's character and not with her. I feel like Straight uh, plays it straight. She delivers what is necessary for an emotional, shout-y, personal moment of reacting to someone you've known for a quarter century. It has the right intensity, doesn't go overboard in hysterics, and feels like a genuine moment between a husband and wife. It's good work for a hugely cliche role but then that work is trampled over when the writing gets too on the nose and Holden's character narrates their little scene as if it's part of some television program and then the two immediately have a laugh at the absurd nature of what's going on. That's where the satirical nature of the film lets down a character like this that would have trouble getting a foothold even in a purely dramatic film. It's not for lack of ability or trying by Straight - she does what she can with a role that doesn't have much purpose in the film itself. And I feel like you have to measure these short winners by the impact their performances leave on the film and Straight unfortunately is betrayed by the writing because you never really care about her character once she's gone. I do feel it's a little strange she won but the film did seem to strike a chord acting wise with the Academy so maybe it just got swept up in the voting. I was just never left wanting more of her so I'll have to see where she ranks with the rest of the group.

Jane Alexander - All the President's Men

I have enjoyed both of Alexander's performances that I have seen so far. She blew me away in Testament and I just loved that performance. I wasn't as blown away by her Kramer vs. Kramer role but understood it was still good and came along with the film. I was intrigued by this nomination because I knew this was a short one. That's all anyone talked about when she was brought up. She has about eight minutes of screen time and is only listed as Bookkeeper which was part of the intrigue. She basically has just two scenes: one answering questions from Hoffman's Bernstein and the other answering more questions from Woodward and Bernstein together. But I felt she, as the only real female character in the film of any importance, nailed her scenes. She plays a reluctant bookkeeper of an accounting firm tied to the Committee to Re-Elect the President and doesn't want to talk at all because she's been advised not to, yet Bernstein persists and eventually finds that she knows a ton about the illegal dealings that helps point them to bigger leads. I love that she is so hesitant and her face is a roadmap of worry and fear and anxiety and reluctance and calmness, too. She's so calm but nervous at the same time which sounds stupid to describe but Alexander captures that dichotomy perfectly. I think she knew speaking was the right thing because of what transpired but was told to be quiet so she's super fearful. But the men get her to reveal information without fully revealing things and putting her more at ease and it's just a wonderful give and take by all three and shows how a witness interrogation can not really be an interrogation. Hoffman is prodding for facts but does so in a delicate manner that Alexander responds to and thought the first scene is a bit tense, it has it's release in knowing that she is doing the right thing. I do think that Alexander being the only real female character makes her scenes feel more important than they probably should, but there is no denying she adds a dynamic to the film that is missing and needed. I think she's good in her brief scenes but can understand why others might be hesitant to vote for her. It will be interesting to see where she ranks with me.

Jodie Foster - Taxi Driver

There is a lot to this actual nomination. I guess I should briefly mention that Foster was the obsession herself in real life by a deranged man who went on to almost kill President Reagan which of course mirrors part of this film. I think people forget that there was an assassination plot of a Presidential candidate in this film which is why the synergy of the two events is crazy. But about Foster herself - she was twelve years old in this film and I dare you to watch that film and actually think of her as twelve years old. She comes off as incredibly mature and that's not just the script or her acting, that's just her as a person. So she seems much older which the role needs for you to believe her character could be a hooker that Travis Bickle wants to save. Now, I'm on record as loathing child performances but this is no child performance. This is the performance of an actress who knew what she was doing and could interpret her character as she saw fit. By that I mean, she wasn't just memorizing lines in a cutesy, precocious way or pretending to be an adult when she clearly wasn't - all those pet peeves that bug the hell out of me. No, Foster delivers a fully realized performance at age twelve and is even able to milk sympathy out of Travis, as pathetic as he is. She goes toe to toe with De Niro, who at that time was a super dedicated method actor and even rehearsed the diner scene with her days and days for hours at a time. The fact that she put up with that tells you about her own dedication and obviously we know she became an accomplished actress with two Oscar wins and it all started here. This may not be my winner right now, but she sure is up there for a vote because who else can contend with an actual performance like hers so far? She's a plausible person who ran away from home and then was manipulated by her pimp into thinking he loved her and that she should turn tricks for him. It's not just a twelve year old playing twenty-two, it's a girl who is in over her head and trying to deal with things with a confidence that wavers. It's easy to see how Foster would go on to be a huge actress.

Lee Grant - Voyage of the Damned

What you should know about this nomination is two things: Lee Grant was a previous Supporting Actress the year before for Shampoo in 1975 and that this film was filled - I mean filled - with famous people cameos. Lots of famous actors were in this film. Some I know by name and others I don't recognize at all but IMDB tells me they were famous. This film is about the ship that left Germany with hundreds of Jewish refugees but was denied port at many places and eventually had to disperse it's occupants to different countries. This is a real thing that happened and history and is pretty sad to think about. Thing is, Grant is singled out because she had just won and represented a film that had Max von Sydow, Faye Dunaway, Orson Welles and many others. It's not a particularly good film, however. It's long and poorly written with characters that aren't anywhere close to being fully fleshed out. Grant is a married woman with a husband who is sick and a daughter that is shy, who she tells to go make friends on the ship. I tell you this because tragedy occurs to both of them and Grant gets what is probably the one big Oscar scene where she cuts her hair in desperation and grief and atonement. It's also a bit schlocky. And shows the over the top nature of the film and performances littered throughout it. I always feel like Grant is going through the process of acting, trying to find the right emotion and thought for the character. Never does it feel like she really is the character, just an actress still trying to fine tune a performance. Which matches the rest of the actors in the film who don't even bother putting in any effort or are too involved in looking like they are acting. The cast gives such a wide range of different performances so Grant still fine tuning hers comes as no surprise here. Overall, it's an entirely forgettable performance for a film that deserved better in every facet of itself. It's an interesting look into the 70s and actors of the time if you are ever curious, though.

Piper Laurie - Carrie

I have stated in past reviews that I'm not a big fan of horror films and most of that is just how derivative they all are. But if a horror film is able to make it into the Oscars that usually means it's pretty great and/or unique. Carrie would certainly rate as being unique, though I would question how great it really is. It's a short film (hour and a half) about a girl with a super religious mother who keeps her in fear about the world and her own body. The girl gets bullied at school and it goes so far as for them to have the hot guy at school ask her to prom where she is crowned Prom Queen and then they dump pigs blood all over her. We all know the scene. Carrie then unleashes her telekinetic powers and kills almost everyone in the school before killing her mother and herself. Really quick, simple story. The religious mother is Piper Laurie and her performance is way over the top. Now, I know there are a lot of people who think this is a glorious performance and just overall great and fantastic and amazing but it's not. Laurie herself thought that the film was going to be a dark comedy and even when assured it was a horror film, she still felt her performance was more black comedy than horror. If Laurie says her performance was over the top and completely ridiculous and was laughing in between takes because the dialogue was cringe worthy, then maybe don't take this performance so seriously, either. By that I mean, Laurie is very effective as the crazy religious nut of a mother she portrays and does deliver something memorable, but let's not conflate it's importance as being some kind of all time performance. The over the top nature of the performance suits the film well because it's a pretty ridiculous story anyway and it really hammers home the evil nature of the mother and that leads to Carrie's breaking point. I think it's a fun performance to watch but I'm not on the boat that things this is some superior acting class. I think Laurie's final monologue scene where she talks about Carrie's father and liking his whisky breath really sells the performance as not being a complete disaster. So there is some good to find in the performance but don't pretend it's not a bit goofy as well.



Not as awesome as I was hoping this group would be, but it could have been worse. Grant was the sole representative for a film stuffed with famous actors that was pretty bad for the most part. I never felt like she found the character and was just trying things out. Just not much there. Laurie at least knows she is playing an absurd character and makes the most of it with an over the top performance that is a little bit fun and menacing, too. Even Laurie thought her performance was pretty out there so she can't be higher than fourth for me. I put Straight in the middle because if you remove her from the film, no one would notice or care. It's an unnecessary character and plot element that is extremely short, though Straight herself isn't bad at all. It's just why would you vote for her to win for that kind of performance? I really thought hard about putting Foster as my winner as she is mature beyond her years and gives a fully formed performance for a character that should probably be super cliche. She doesn't get the win because she's young and would give better performances later on in her life. Alexander is almost a default winner here though I really enjoyed the subtlety she brought to her role. She doesn't want to talk explicitly about what she knows but she also kinda does and just that inner turmoil being expertly portrayed by Alexander sets her apart for me. I think she delivers something worth watching there. All in all, this group should have been better but it wasn't the worst ever. As always, I'm hoping the next year is better.

Oscar Winner: Beatrice Straight - Network
My Winner:  Jane Alexander - All the President's Men
Jodie Foster
Beatrice Straight
Piper Laurie
Lee Grant

Best Picture 1977

The one thing that stood out about this year, especially in the Best Picture race, is the fact that almost all of these films are anchored by Leading Actresses and it accounts for four out of the five. You could even make a case for Princess Leia in Star Wars being the fifth one. I am not sure there has ever been a year quite like this one for women. I would have to look at the 40 years I've already done and see what the future holds but this is a hallmark, I'm pretty sure. And it's awesome because there should be more years like this. At least in today's world where there are up to 10 nominees, you can have a lot more women lead films. I am looking forward to watching these.

1977 Best Picture

Annie Hall

I look at this Best Picture win as the culmination of my Woody Allen journey. I have gone backwards right alongside the project in watching all his films and here we are at his only Best Picture win, which came early in his career. I was excited to finally watch this because I've heard great things and because it's a female lead driven comedy in some respects. A culmination because this will be at the top or near the top of any definitive Woody Allen best of list and because this is the first film of his to garner awards love (which means it's the last Allen film I'll ever review most likely). There is a lot to love about this film. I think you have to find Allen funny, which I do, because that makes this film and his style just hilarious at times. What I especially liked were all those breaking the fourth wall moments. There is a scene where he is arguing with a man in line for movie about some director and then goes well let's ask him if your interpretation is correct and bring the director from off screen. That sort of absurdity works well within the framework of an Allen film and other moments like Allen and Keaton talking while subtitles show what they are actually thinking are hilarious and poignant at the same time. Hell, there's even a brief animated scene which tells you how different this film really was. I was expecting a normal Allen film where he dissects his relationship with Keaton in a straightforward way but we get all these fun, unique moments and a non-linear version of the relationship that keeps things fresh. The most interesting part for me is that I can see the rest of Allen's career in this film. There are a lot of familiar beats and ideas that will be explored further as the years go on, but this does feel like a leitmotif of Allen's future film output. Allen goes back in time to watch his youth and see his colorful family in a brief scene and he lived under a roller coaster on Coney Island, both which are explored multiple times in later films. It's also nice that Allen isn't too annoying as an actor in this like he will be in some of his later films. Keaton is good and their chemistry together is obvious and makes the film a better experience overall. This is definitely one of Woody Allen's best films and it getting rewarded with Best Picture makes sense to me.

The Goodbye Girl

Oh man. Okay. The progression of going backwards for this project can be a little teasing. You see a film you really enjoy by an actor/director/writer and see that they have other nominations in the past that you will get to. So you get excited for those and then you watch them and are either totally underwhelmed or feel they just plain suck. So you wonder how things would have gone if you saw those films first and then got to the great one. How would that have affected your thoughts on the person? I'll never really know but I loved the hell out of Marsha Mason and Neil Simon's first collaboration I saw, which means it was their last nomination together ever. So I have looked forward to their work and have been subsequently let down by everything I've watched. The Goodbye Girl is no exception. Simon reminds me of a lamer Aaron Sorkin. He has polished, overworked, finely tuned scripts that feel unnatural most of the time because of their rapid fire deliveries and their peculiar words/diction. This film is about a single mother who is freshly left by the man she was with who leased his apartment to another actor friend. Mother/daughter have no claim to the apartment and Richard Dreyfuss shows up one rainy night and tries to get in. The place is locked and he's told to go away so he leaves but then calls from a rainy phonebooth that the apartment is rightfully his. Eventually he gets in and for some reason doesn't call the cops or throw out the mother/daughter though they are squatting in his legally rented apartment. That's the first thing that I disliked about the film was that Dreyfuss allowed them to stay despite Mason demanding he adhere to her rules and pay money and all this. The film would end there as I threw them out no matter what. It continues with us seeing the three all clash because he plays guitar at night and meditates in the morning and they are so different. Okay. Eventually they come to an agreement to live together peacefully. They become friendly and then of course Dreyfuss and Mason fuck and the kid finds out and is heartbroken and jealous. Then Dreyfuss gets offered a film role in Seattle and accepts and oh, drama. Psyche! Flight delayed and he invites Mason to live with him. But oh yeah, drop the kid off at a relative. Don't care about spoilers because this is not a flipping Oscar worthy film! Everything about the two grownups relationship is manufactured. Why would you put up with some squatter? Why would you allow someone to interrupt you as you prepare for your NYC play debut? The romance between Mason and Dreyfuss is hamfisted and rushed for the convenience of the plot. It makes no sense and just starts with no warning. So then they are together and then Dreyfuss gets his movie role offered and that's the part of the film that actually feels real. He takes that thing in a heartbeat and was gonna leave behind this mother/daughter combo that doesn't mean shit to him. But does at the very end when he calls her to come get on the plane with him. There are some nice romantic scenes and some nice familial scenes but this romantic comedy is just so not what should be nominated for Best Picture. I have no clue why the Academy loved it other than Neil Simon and Richard Dreyfuss but it sticks out as a sore thumb because it just doesn't gel. There are too many parts that make you wonder why it was nominated at all. A subpar romantic comedy should never be rewarded like this by the Academy.

Julia

For some reason, I was intimidated by this film when looking at years to come. I saw that it had five different reviews to write and that always seemed like more for whatever reason, even though it was the same as The Turning Point from this year. Maybe it was that the film was about a writer, Lillian Hellman, who goes on a search for her friend Julia just before WWII in Europe. That sounded very epic and the cast seemed very epic and the nominations made it all seem very epic. It wasn't epic. The film is just under two hours and is honestly a little boring. The story is as described above but isn't all that interesting or full of the mystery and intrigue it thinks it is. The beginning shows how Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave grew up as good friends but then drifted apart as life got in the way. The eponymous Julia, Redgrave goes to medical school in Europe and gets involved in the leftist ideals of the time fighting communism (which is a good thing, mind you) but is wounded during some skirmish and Fonda is sent for. Once Fonda arrives to the hospital Redgrave is at, Redgrave is eventually taken away for "treatment" and Fonda spends the rest of the film trying to track her down. It sounds a lot more interesting than it is and the large portion of the middle of the film is mostly Fonda traveling to find Julia. She gets help from various people all working to make sure she gets to Berlin to see her friend. Then she meets Julia but it's brief and she mentions she has a daughter but Fonda must go and they will try to meet up in America again and it's all very rushed. I get that there is secrecy and intrigue and all that going on but the majority of the film is Fonda traveling. I think the film feels it is more important than it really is as evidenced by being virtually forgotten about in today's world. And that's my thing with this film is that it feels grander than it is and is more of a simple story really. That could be the bias I've built up over years of hearing about it and it might be different if you go into it stone cold but for being a much beloved Oscar film based on nominations, it's not all that amazing. I was hoping for an epic film but got an epic letdown. But really, the cast is only okay. The two nominated supporting actors are in the film briefly and don't do much. Fonda carries the film but in that long traveling stretch she just looks confused and surprised then whole time while the others around her do the work. Redgrave is fine and her win seems okay but I was just expecting so much more and didn't get that. If you like this, please let me know what you loved about it.

Star Wars

This is another one of those reviews where I feel I could just leave it blank and you'd understand. This is Star Wars. This is a franchise that is still going on today with an offshoot film about to drop in a couple weeks about Han Solo. It's at almost eleven total films. Almost everyone has seen one of the films and if they haven't, they at least know what Star Wars is. I don't think there is any other film that can match what this franchise has accomplished even on a global scale. And this is one of the first true blockbuster films after Jaws did it first. It set the box office record until E.T. took the record from it almost six years later. Luke, Leia, Solo, Chewie, Vader, Yoda, R2D2, C3PO. You know those characters intimately and could probably fashion the film in your mind just from their names alone. The visual effects changed the game and made the blockbuster into a legit thing that would happen every summer. The story is great, the actors who were in the film are remembered even today and have gone on to do great things. The music is iconic. The sound is amazing. The ideas it presented set off a science fiction boom that is still felt to this day. There's not really much else to say other than this is one of the greatest culminations of things coming together to create something unique and memorable and iconic. I say all this as if this will be my winner but as great as this film is and everything it spawned, I do like the actual winner a lot so it will be really tough to choose who wins. But obviously, Star Wars will live on for generations to come because it's filled with such wonder and excitement and that's something indeed.

The Turning Point

So this film received 11 Oscar nominations and went home empty handed (one of only two films, the other was The Color Purple) and yet somehow I have never really heard of this film. Certainly not before starting this project, but even since it's rarely talked about even today by Oscar nuts. I read that this labored in development for years and years because the idea that a film about ballet wouldn't sell well or be too appealing. I don't know why the Academy latched onto this film like it did but it does seem very of the times. It's a very short film, too. I was fully expecting this to be an two plus hour film but it clocks in at just over an hour and a half. And a good amount of that time (maybe twenty plus minutes) is dedicated solely to ballet performances. So it's a really interesting look at what could be a Best Picture contender back then. The story is about Shirley MacLaine and Anne Bancroft basically healing old wounds. MacLaine was a star ballerina who got pregnant and decided to get married and move to Oklahoma and open a dance studio. Bancroft was another ballerina who got her opportunity when MacLaine left to become a huge success in the ballet world. Bancroft's theater company did a traveling show that MacLaine attended with her family and after her older daughter is offered a spot in the prestigious company. So MacLaine goes with her daughter and son to NYC to be with them as they train. Old wounds are reopened between the two leads and the mother-daughter relationship is strained as the daughter becomes a star. By the end, the ladies all hash everything out and accept everything that has happened. Nice little story with lots of interesting behind the scene looks at ballet with the main draw being the actual ballet performances and the acting of MacLaine and Bancroft. It is a bit short and if you don't like ballet, you probably won't be interested in this. I still kinda scratch my head at how this got 11 total nominations but it's not an awful film like I was preparing myself for. The two leads do give us a nice combination performance and the dancing is certainly impressive to watch. Is it worthy of a Best Picture nod, though? I'm not so certain it is and probably wouldn't have been a choice for me this year. I like that the Academy exposes me to subjects and stories I would otherwise ignore. I don't want to be too harsh on this film because it's definitely not outright bad, it just probably wouldn't be nominated so much in today's world.



This is an interesting year. I'll go from bottom up because The Goodbye Girl had no business being nominated for Best Picture. It's not that good of a film, first of all. And second, it's got some bad acting and a stupid fucking story to boot. I don't like it and don't think it should have been a nominee. I don't like when the Academy gets obsessed with a certain writer or director to the point of crap like this getting nominated. Neil Simon ain't that great. Julia would be next up. I honestly thought this was going to be some epic about a woman going to Europe to meet her friend turned revolutionary, but this is just a boring mess. Fonda isn't that great and half the film is just her traveling to Europe to try to find her friend. It's about people you don't care about and once introduced to them, still don't care about them. It's that Oscar film that purports to be really important and well made that turns out to be boring shit. I mean, I get it as a fifth nomination but nothing more. It got way too much love it didn't deserve. Next up is The Turning Point. A film about two older women jealous of each other's lives because one has a family and the other has a prima ballerina career. More interesting than it seems, the lure is the actual ballet dancing and the relationship of the two older women. It's actually not bad but was way over nominated. It went 0-for-11 and was the first of two films to do that. Says all you need to know about it. Decent but not 11 nominations great. My runner up would be Star Wars. Yeah, I know. It has a more lasting impact than Annie Hall but god damn if I don't like that Woody Allen film. Star Wars is great but it also would have set a bad precedent as a win, I think. Is it the actual Best Picture or is it simply the most fun and well liked because space explosions and aliens and all that? It has it's flaws for sure. The same things used to praise it could be the flaws. Acting, story, effects, music - all are not flawless. So I stick with the Academy and think Woody Allen does deserve a Best Picture win. Easy to say 40 years later knowing he'd put out a film per year but it just feels right that he should have a win here. And Annie Hall is a good choice from his oeuvre. The top half of this category is great while the bottom half is garbage. I'm fully expecting 1976 to be amazing based off my cursory glance at the films on that list.

Oscar Winner: Annie Hall
My Winner:  Annie Hall
Star Wars
The Turning Point
Julia
The Goodbye Girl

Leading Actor 1977

No little insights into me or any cool little anecdote or whatever. Let's just get to the actors and see what they have to offer this year.

1977 Best Actor

Richard Dreyfuss - The Goodbye Girl

I'll admit right off the bat that this performance just doesn't do all that much for me. I enjoy Dreyfuss in Jaws, Close Encounters, and even Mr. Holland's Opus, but not this film. I think most of that stems from not liking the film and because the character Dreyfuss plays is such an asshole. The film is supposed to be a sort of romantic comedy where Dreyfuss tries to enter a new apartment he has rented only to find a mother and daughter living there already. They all are antagonistic towards each other at first and then warm up into a family unit. A basic story but the motivations of the characters are just bizarre and done only for  convenience. I don't feel like any of the relationships established are authentic in the slightest little bit. Part of the dislike towards the character is that Dreyfuss is playing a theater actor, come to NYC to star in his first play. The stress of it not going as planned (because the director wants him to play Richard III as gay) actually does feel real and the building animosity between he and Marsha Mason is understandable. I like that Dreyfuss creates that portrait of a New York actor. That part is fine, it's just the inevitable love story that drags everything down. The two grownups seem to despise each other, with good reason, and then on a dime, the dynamic flips to one of respect and love and loins. That's the writing, of course, but Dreyfuss certainly doesn't help sell it and make it believable. I think that's the main takeaway of the beginning of the film. Dreyfuss is a total asswipe and pretty annoying and doesn't do anything to endear his character to the audience. Which wouldn't be a problem if they didn't turn the character around 180 degrees and make him into a sympathetic, caring family man. That would have been an actual character arc but that doesn't exist here. The blame has to partially fall on Dreyfuss for not building that arc and letting the character stay unconvincing. As the film goes on, Dreyfuss shows his warmth as he falls in love with Mason and is nice to her daughter (though some of the interactions bordered on creepy, I must say). He's sweet and charming and loving and realizes he's happy and then he gets an offer for a film and that goes right out the window. Again, that abrupt change would be better if the tonal shifts weren't so starkly contrasted. And the fact that I didn't find him all that great in the beginning only to kinda warm up to him by the end says everything about his performance. I feel that he won because he had this film and Close Encounters in the same year and the Academy rewarded him for it. I don't know if that's true but more often than not, some wins are given because an actor has a bunch of highly visible and well liked roles. Looking at the rest of the list, he may have just been the default choice. I'll find out soon enough.

Woody Allen - Annie Hall

This was the first and only time Woody Allen was nominated for acting and it feels apropos that it would be for Annie Hall and that it would be so early in his long career. A lot of people don't enjoy Allen as an actor because he's so frenetic and neurotic and annoying. If you've watched all his films, you'll see that Allen is very much the same in almost every single one of them. That's just Woody Allen playing Woody Allen. Often times it works, a lot of times at the end of his acting days, it doesn't. Allen works for me in this performance. He's got that standup comedian sense of dry humor and uses to great effect in this film. He's hilarious at times but not always obviously so. His neurosis also works well for the characters he plays, but especially in this performance because it's who he is as an actor and a person. The story is about his relationship to Diane Keaton, so you can see the Allen you know from real life in the character. I think it just depends on how annoying you find that style as to whether you like this performance or not. To me, it's not anywhere close to as grating as it is in his later performances. He's more subdued and dialed back and more focused on the comedy and telling a good story. Now, should Allen have won an Oscar for acting? No way. I don't think he was ever anything amazing as an actual actor, he's just good at playing Woody Allen. So it's nice that he has one acting nomination to go with all his writing and directing nominations but he certainly didn't deserve a win. Allen is good in Annie Hall and him being nominated isn't a problem for me. If he had won, maybe I would have taken him down a bit more but one nomination is fine for his career (which of course no one could tell how long that would be back then, but you get my point). I like the nomination and Woody would be well rewarded for this film anyway.

Richard Burton - Equus

This is a weird film based on a play that still gets put on even today about a boy who blinds a bunch of horses but also loves them, as in really loves them. They boy is naked a lot with his horse and they like to horse around and bad puns aside, this is about sex with a horse. So yeah, the subject is weird but I actually was really into the film mostly because of Burton's performance. I think it was also because of Sidney Lumet's direction, but mostly it was Burton. We first see him with just half his face in shadow as he delivers a monologue to the camera and it is a striking scene. It's buoyed by Burton who just commands the screen with a deep voice grabs your attention. I later read that Burton did all eight or so of his monologues in one day of shooting because of scheduling issues or something which hammers home how amazing and effective they are. He did all of them in one day and they don't at all feel like someone who just learned his lines and recited from memory. The monologues feel lived in and carefully studied and have their own presence within the film. I was hooked from there as we follow him interview Peter Firth and his family and others about the horse stuff and be a concerned therapist. I think Burton is solid in this. The film might be strange but he gives the role his all and nails all of those monologues, which is very impressive to me. I love how he goes from building rage that peaks to immediately becoming almost a narrator with a return to his normal voice. You'll see what I mean when you watch it, but how he goes from passionate to normal so quickly without skipping the beats of the performance is amazing stuff. It also feels like a throwback performance which makes sense as Burton is a veteran actor who was very much a huge actor in the 50s and 60s where this style would feel at home. I also like how self reflective the performance is when Burton's character talks with his lady friend and sort of drills down into his own psyche and mind about what's going on in his life. I just like this performance a lot. There are times where you watch something and it instantly clicks for you and Burton's performance was just that for me. This was Burton's 7th nomination and he didn't win any, but I am now looking forward to his performances if this is any indication of his work. For what most people will probably dismiss as weird and veteran, this nomination delivered for me.

Marcello Mastroianni - A Special Day

I had to look at my first review of Mastroianni to remember that I did indeed enjoy him in that first nomination I saw of his. I remember it being a lot more involved as far as performances go and I was hopeful that this one might be as interesting. And it lives up to the latter nomination as this Italian performance is quietly engaging. So Mastroianni doesn't show up until thirty minutes in and only is in the film for an hour. This is more a Sophia Loren film, though. She has a bird fly out her apartment and asks to come into his apartment to retrieve it. This all happens in a big apartment block while everyone else is out at the parade for Hitler coming to Italy. We see Mastroianni getting his affairs in order and it looks like he's going to kill himself before he's interrupted by Loren. We learn later that he is gay and an anti-fascist (fuck all fascists, by the way) and is going to be imprisoned on Sardinia. The two then engage in friendly banter and enjoy each other's company and it's a sweet moment for all involved. Mastroianni is human throughout his time onscreen. That sounds weird but in a film where a fascist speaker is the undertone for the whole film, it's nice to see a man be kind and gentle and funny and not at all an evil person. Mastroianni builds his character slowly and I do think that works for the film as we are made aware of certain things deliberately which makes their impact land with a more resounding noise. He's a man at his end, yet still has the effort to laugh and be human with Loren, knowing what's going to happen to him very soon. I didn't like the part where the two have sex, though it meant nothing to Mastroianni and is more of a release for Loren in her shitty marriage, but still it was ill conceived. Mastroianni is charming and bittersweet at the same time and I really enjoyed his nuanced performance of a man basically waiting out his time to go die. The performance is good, but short lived. In this year, though, he might just have a shot to win it all with me.

John Travolta - Saturday Night Fever

Okay, admit that when you see the name John Travolta and the film Saturday Night Fever, it conjures up visions of him in a white suit doing the whole disco point thing in a club. The two are synonymous but what a lot of people don't realize is that he was nominated for an Oscar for this performance and that he was fucking good. This is a star making performance and the Academy recognized that and nominated him for it. I think they wanted to be all in on the next big thing and Travolta has the swagger to pull off the hot shot dancer. I think that's his greatest attribute here is all the confidence he has as he dances and as he woos the ladies and as he tells his father to fuck off for complaining about him getting a raise. He's just so energetic for all the same reasons. He's full of rhythm and you can tell he just wants to bust a move at any given moment. He also tells it like it is with his family, with his boss at work, with his friends, and with the ladies he bangs. That part surprised me about the film because I guess I only ever saw the TV version and this one is a very vulgar film, but naturally so. Everyone is cussing and talking about pussies creaming and all this stuff that feels like legit young guys in Brooklyn in the late 70s who have been brought up in Italian households talking. I remembered it as a goody two shoes disco movie and it's way more than that. What's also good about the performance is that he is more than just the usual Italian kid stereotype. Sure, he has all those qualities but he gives the character more depth that he probably deserves. It's like he's conflicted in that he wants to treat women good but is still a guy who uses them as his plaything. He wants to do more than just stay in the neighborhood and be a loser like his father. He wants to move out to Manhattan and do greater things. He says racist things but recognizes that the Hispanic couple should have won the dance competition because they were flat out better. He seems like a genuinely good guy who is defined by the times. There's just a lot more to the performance than just the dancing and I think most people forget that. It wasn't going to win but it definitely deserves to be highlighted with these other men. It's nice to see that it wasn't just the good looks and dancing that got him nominated, but the depth of the performance that put him here.


Again, I'm pretty happy with this Best Actor group. When I put the Oscar winner last, it can only be good from there. I did not like Dreyfuss' performance in that film. I did not like that film. He was a partial reason why, though his performance got better as the film went on. But still, I did not like how much of an asshole he was and how unlikable the character was overall. He won because of this film and his work in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I think it does come down to that. Mastroianni has grown on me since I watched that film. It's a sweet, deeply affected performance. There are missteps in it but I did enjoy it more than I thought I would. Allen is Allen. We've seen that same performance many times but this was probably the best iteration of it. He was rewarded with a Best Picture and Best Director win and even a Best Original Screenplay win. So he's fine at third with his only acting nomination. Travolta was way more impressive than I remember him being. There is way more depth to his performance than I think most people realize. It's also a star making turn and he nailed it and did a fantastic job. Easy number two. Burton, though, wow. I had no expectations going into his performance because I just didn't know. Maybe it was a veteran type of thing but I didn't know and then I was knocked the hell over by this amazing piece of acting. I enjoyed the monologues and the acting and just the whole intensity of his performance. It makes the film for me and for that he is my winner. This was a pretty good group and that's all I can ever ask for as I go backwards through the years.

Oscar Winner: Richard Dreyfuss - The Goodbye Girl
My Winner:  Richard Burton - Equus
John Travolta
Woody Allen
Marcello Mastroianni
Richard Dreyfuss