I am just super glad to be in the 70s now. I was thinking about this earlier in that I'm getting into territory where I haven't seen a thing and I'm starting to get some legit older classics to finally watch. It's nice to finally be watching history unfold. I have only seen Guinness as Obi-wan Kenobi and the others have a lot to live up to.
1977 Best Supporting Actor
Jason Robards - Julia
I am fucking bewildered. What the fuck is it about Jason Robards that the Academy had a damn hard on for? Like, the dude is a good actor, yeah absolutely. But I've seen him in Melvin and Howard in a very short performance that wasn't nomination worthy at all that was nominated. I saw him in Magnolia where he was fine, but everyone was clamoring for him to be nominated (he wasn't). And then I go into this with an open mind and after, I'm thinking, that's it? Robards plays Dashiell Hammett, a writer who is the friend and lover of Jane Fonda's Lillian Hellman. During the beginning of the film he is catching fish and cooks for Fonda and encourages her to keep writing. There is no big Oscar moment, there is no scene you can point to on a highlight real for Robards that includes this film. He is just playing a famous writer and I guess that's supposed to be enough? He seems like a very manly man as he is the one going out and fishing and then cleaning and cooking the fish while doling out advice for Fonda. The scenes don't last long and really don't stick out for Robards in any meaningful way. We see him for brief moments later in the film but that's all there is to his performance! The film doesn't care about the relationship of Hammett and Hellman and makes that quite clear by glossing over their interactions. So Robards doesn't have that to hang his hat on. It's just him giving advice and fishing and that's it. This fucking dude won his second consecutive Oscar, one of only 5 people in history along with Tom Hanks, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, and Luise Rainer. I don't even think this should have been nominated. His character needed to be explored more which means paying more attention to the relationship and Hammett's issues himself. This is not good and I seriously don't understand why it won. Someone convince me that it's actually decent before I go crazy.
Mikhail Baryshnikov - The Turning Point
This will probably be a short review. Baryshnikov is only nominated here because the Academy loved this film so much for whatever reason and because he is a world renowned ballet dancer who was at the height of his popularity at the time. Try and name another ballet dancer, male or female. Baryshnikov would be the only name I could give you as an answer which speaks to how popular he was and his effect on popular culture. The Academy most likely nominated him for his dancing in the film which I do take exception to. This is an acting nomination and not a dancing nomination so I feel the performance should reflect that. Baryshnikov isn't a stinker but he certainly isn't that great of an actor. His stumbling block is his thick Russian accent that makes it hard to understand him at times. Like I said, not much of a performance outside of the dancing, which is incredible obviously. Sometimes the Academy just nominates, and sometimes rewards, performances of individuals who are better at something else, like singing, rather than the acting bit. They gave a win to Jennifer Hudson for her awful singing in one of the worst decisions by the Academy, so it happens. I won't be mad at this nomination because it's not Baryshnikov's fault and he is a good dancer without much of a role outside of that besides being a playboy. He's fine even if you can't understand him, but the precedent for a nomination should be good or great acting and not anything else.
Peter Firth - Equus
You might have heard of this film before because it has such a weird premise . It's about a young man who gets sent to a nut house for evaluation after blinding a bunch of horses. The weird aspect is that the young man, played by Firth, is in love with horses and likes to be naked with them and do other things with them. You might have also heard of this story because Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe, played Firth's part on stage and was naked a lot - just like Firth is in this film. That always seems to be the big takeaway from this performance is that is has long, sustained male frontal nudity a couple different times throughout the film and was somewhat groundbreaking in that regard. What is also interesting to me was that Firth played this role on stage first and scored a Tony Award nomination a couple years before the film version came out. Firth played this character over a thousand times on stage before bringing it to the big screen and it shows. Firth is supremely comfortable as the mentally unstable young man and his passion for the character shines bright. Though, when Firth is on screen, it sometimes looks like he's acting on stage. I guess that doing it on stage so much would bleed over into the film version but a minor quibble at best. Firth knows what he's doing with his character even if the performance seems more theatrical at times. He recounts his past indiscretions to Richard Burton and you get a sense that they are real. I don't want to say that Firth is any better than he is in the role but he is comfortable and does a great job of bringing an emotionally disturbed young man to life even if it might not be as memorable as the nudity. I do think Firth is good, just not overwhelmingly so. I feel like this performance should be a lot better than it is due to how much Firth had already played the character. That might be a little unfair but I wasn't wanting more than just the crazed young man. I needed nuance and subtlety, really. Firth is a decent supporting performance that I'll have to let marinate some more.
Alec Guinness - Star Wars
I wasn't even sure if I was going to rewatch Star Wars for this project (I did) because I've seen it so many times growing up. I was not, and still am not, a huge Star Wars fan. I haven't even seen any of the new films and I actively dislike the prequels. But there isn't anything quite like the original. For this review I was going to just write simply: Obi-wan Kenobi. You know the character and you know the performance just from reading those words. There's the iconic hooded figure overlooking look in the beginning of the film that sort of sets the tone of this mysterious figure whose past we don't know anything about. I do believe Guinness brings the proper amount of dedication to the role, though one thing has always seemed funny to me when I watch him in this film. Guinness at times seems like he'd rather be anywhere else and I could never quite figure out if that was real or part of his character who was off on his own reluctantly coming back to fight the Empire. I tend to think it might of been a bit of both as this role isn't all that challenging for Guinness and the dialogue is certainly not amazing. But Guinness does help turn Kenobi into an iconic character and it's something we remember decades later. I don't think much else really needs to be said. If the Academy had given the Oscar to Guinness for this performance, I don't think there would be much gruff about it. It even would have validated the film as even more than just a blockbuster. It might even be my winner, I'm not sure yet, but everyone enjoys Obi-wan.
Maximilian Schell - Julia
You know, I saw that this film had two Supporting Actor nominees and thought that either this film was beyond amazing with a bunch of acting nominees or that one of these came along for the ride while the other was more deserving. After watching the film, I'm wondering what happened. I've read the reviews and all that and people seem to love Robards and seem to think Schell is as good or sometimes better. But Schell doesn't have much of a role. He is a liaison between Redgrave and Jane Fonda. He meets Fonda at a hotel and gives her information on where to be and then leaves. He is just someone who moves the plot along and also explains some missing information like what organization Julia (Redgrave) is a part of. We then see him at the train station and he gives Fonda some more information in a clever way and then that's all we see of Schell. He does what is necessary of the character and is quite warm and calming but that's not worthy of a nomination. If this film wasn't so loved for some stupid reason, Schell would never have been nominated. I think that the Academy saw his name and knew he was a previous Oscar winner and nominated him. Simple as that. Same as with Robards. Why either of them were nominated is beyond my comprehension. They are short, nothing roles that you can't even explain away with flowery writing. I don't get this at all.
After letting the choices marinate some, I do think Guinness would be a fine winner that no one would really complain about. But I also feel that Firth put in a lot more work, even if born on stage, to create a performance that was vital to the film. He is danger close to being a leading performance himself so I guess that should be taken into consideration, too. But I like Firth and Guinness, though giving the win to Firth seems the better choice right now. The other three are just garbage nominees. A little harsh on Baryshnikov's part because he was only nominated for his dancing and famous name. He wasn't ever really given much to do but still, this is an acting award and he didn't do much of that. I put him last for that reason though I think I'd rather give him an Oscar over Robards and Schell. Schell does nothing in a very brief performance other than be mysterious. Robards just tries to be Robards and that's it. One of the worst wins I've encountered so far and completely undeserved. Can't believe he won for that crap. Whatever. 1976 better be leaps and bounds ahead of this group.
Oscar Winner: Jason Robards - Julia
My Winner: Peter Firth - Equus
Alec Guinness
Jason Robards
Maximilian Schell
Mikail Baryshnikov
No comments:
Post a Comment