Best Picture 1974

Looking at this list, I know there are two instant classics with The Godfather Part II and Chinatown. Those are given and I haven't even seen the latter one yet. I'm looking forward to Lenny and The Conversation because of their pedigree and actors involved. And I know The Towering Inferno is the outlier but I want to see if it stands with the rest or is a disaster in its own right.

1974 Best Picture

The Godfather Part II

Many people consider this film to be the greatest film of all time and even better than the first installation. A lot of people think it's a true masterpiece and point to this film as the bellwether to which all other mafia films are compared to. After seeing the two films back to back again, I'm on the side that thinks The Godfather is the better of the two films. To me, it's such a complete film with little error and every character fits in perfectly for an incredibly compelling story. Part II continues Michael's story, though now he is trying to keep control of his power while steering the family into a legitimate business out in Las Vegas. The thing that knocks this film down for me is that Michael no longer has much of an arc. He's the Godfather now and maintains his position throughout, instead dealing with power plays from outside adversaries and betrayals from within. Michael continues to become even more cold and hardened, so watching his performance isn't as satisfying as in the original, though it is still really great. Part II also loses a bit of luster due to the lack of Sonny and decreased role of Tom Hagen, who get replaced by Frank Pentangeli and Hyman Roth, both of whom are entertaining and strong characters but not quite the same. What I do love a ton about this film is the flashback scenes with Robert De Niro as a young Vito Corleone. I could watch a whole film of just those early days and I find myself longing for De Niro whenever we returned to the present day with Pacino. It was fascinating to see exactly how Vito came to power just as it was fascinating to watch Michael come to power in the first film. I think I just prefer the first film overall but that's not because this one is all that much less of a film. I'd easily watch this film over and over when compared to some other Oscar Best Picture films! It really is a great film and the flashback narrative works well, especially when comparing Vito and Michael's rise to power. The film also makes great use of Fredo where the first film mostly overlooked him. Cazale is terrific and heartbreaking and helps show his brother Michael's ruthlessness. There's a lot going on in this film and a lot to love about it, too. I don't mean to make this out to be any lesser than it is. It just comes down to preference between two downright amazing films and I prefer the first one. This is still a worthy and deserving winner for Best Picture.

Chinatown

I love noir films. I really like well made noir films in color. I have been saving this film for the project because there were so many chances to finally watch this, and you know by now, I'd rather have a fresh take and avoid having to watch something for the 10th time and not be as excited to watch it. So this was my first time with Chinatown and maybe it was slightly not what I was expecting. I think I was expecting a more straight ode to the older noir films and this has the 70s touch and is almost a mix of a thriller, as well. I like it's almost languid pace with relaxed and deliberate beats that knows when to turn up the intrigue. I guess that does describe a great noir but it holds true here. The direction from Roman Polanski is so efficient that there doesn't seem to be any wasted scenes. Everything moves the story forward and there's no stumbles or turns to nowhere. Even the romantic situation is brief and in service to the story. Polanski also knows how to frame a scene and there is some really beautifully shot scenes that would make for great individual pictures. He makes LA look necessarily dry and sun drenched but also not too of the 70s. We get to see a very strong and iconic performance from Jack Nicholson as Jake Gittes. The rest of the cast fills out nicely and adds to an overall great acting class. The music sets the tone of the film and is iconic itself and something that is so great to just listen to like I am as I write this. Oh, and the film is about Nicholson as a private investigator who gets dragged into a criminal battle over the water rights of LA which sounds boring on the surface but ends up being intensely compelling. The screenplay is held up as the gold standard and one of the best ever written. It, of course, is the only Oscar win the film got out of 11 nominations. In any other year, this film probably cruises to a ton of wins. I am glad I can finally say I've seen this film and that it totally and absolutely lived up to the hype. A classic you shouldn't wait to see like I did.

The Conversation

What's truly amazing about this film is that it was made by Francis Ford Coppola in between the two Godfather films. Which is simply mind blowing that he could make two incredible films that each hold up on their own in the same year. One of the few times a director has two of their films up for Best Picture (Steven Soderbergh did it with Erin Brockovich and Traffic in 2000). From the opening scene of this film I was hooked. The way sound is used in this film is unmatched in anything I have ever seen. A film about a guy (Gene Hackman) who uses surveillance equipment to spy on and record a couple for an anonymous Director. So obviously sound is at the forefront of the film and of utmost importance for the viewer. It's used in such a strong story telling way that it becomes like it's own character. It's a really neat inclusion to the story and it keeps you glued to what's going on. Also, the piano score from David Shire is ever present and really lends itself to setting the tone of the film. I think it would be really interesting to watch this one without a score, though, to see if it immerses the viewer even more into the story. That dichotomy of silence and sound would be something the film could have explored and made Hackman's slide into delusion and paranoia even better. But the score itself is fantastic and the film works as is. I do think the film would have been better served without showing us that what Hackman's character thought was real was actually something else entirely. If we are left to wonder if what he saw was real or not, the message of the film would be much stronger than immediately showing us what actually happened. This is definitely really great filmmaking and it's clear that Coppola was just on another level entirely for a couple years where stuff like this was his norm. This is a film that is definitely worth the watch and is still extremely relevant to today's world. I'm very surprised that Hackman didn't get a Best Actor nomination out of this because he does give a very good conflicted performance. Still crazy to think that Coppola could knock out two amazing films like this in the same year.

Lenny

I do love me some Bob Fosse films. I actually forgot that he directed this until it came time to sit down and watch it and once I saw it was from him, I knew this would be something extraordinary. Lenny tells the story of comedian Lenny Bruce, who was harassed and arrested over and over for obscenity charges and thus railed against the establishment on free speech grounds. He was a hilarious observationist about cultural and societal bullshit that the kids today would call "woke" but it really does fit him. He made jokes about things that just weren't talked about openly in the late 50s and early 60s and got in trouble for saying the word cocksucker or joking about tits and ass. A lot of his joking tied in with a social message that made him ahead of his time and ushered in future comics to push the boundaries like George Carlin and Bill Hicks and others. It's an interesting story to tell for a biopic and I'm so glad that Fosse found a way to tell it in an interesting style. The film is shot in a documentary style for the most part where people from Lenny's life are interviewed after his death while scenes of Lenny's stand up is spliced in and moments of his life in a typical biopic fashion are mixed in as well. It's a really engaging style and it makes the biopic feel refreshing to watch that it's not just a recreation of life events. Those life event scenes are tied into whatever the stand up is talking about in a broad sense and what the interviews are reacting to, so you get this really great synergy with all three of the different scenes. The film is wonderfully shot in black and white which allows for some really great shots of Hoffman on stage with the spotlight and maybe smoke from the room and whatnot. It gives the film a certain ambience that adds to the documentary like feel. I don't know if that style had ever been used before or if Fosse was creating something new or not, but I do know that it's remarkable to watch and makes the film have a bit more poignancy to what Lenny does and says, along with Hoffman's brilliantly sincere take on Lenny. I don't know why this film seems to get so overlooked today because it's honestly extremely relevant to today's cultural climate. Probably due to being in the same year as The Godfather Part II and Chinatown, but I wish it would be held up as the innovative and impressive film that it is. I highly recommend watching this one if you haven't yet done so, you won't regret it.

The Towering Inferno

So let's be real about this one, disaster films were all the rage in the 70s and this was the crowning achievement for them all. You had Airport and The Poseidon Adventure that came before with big budgets and big casts so it seems only fitting that the Academy would finally pay attention. Now the question becomes does it actually deserve to be here. On one hand, I can see it representing the popular films and capturing the zeitgeist of the time (this was one of 3 disaster films in 74 alone that were in the top 10 grossing films for the year). On the other hand, it wasn't as entertaining as I thought a big film about a skyscraper's grand opening and then having a huge fire break out while stars run around could actually be. I think the biggest knock on the film for me is that this thing feels so long. It's two hours and forty-five minutes and feels like it's even longer. I do feel like it could have been tightened up a bit and made even more intense and thrilling for the audience by trimming some fat. The practical effects are pretty amazing, especially considering it's a lot of fire and smoke that the cast has to deal with. I am amazed at what they were able to accomplish effects wise back in 1974. That's what makes this film memorable. The story is secondary to the spectacle and focuses on some half baked personal drama plots that aren't satisfying in the slightest. We want to see more fire and escape attempts and brave sacrifices and all that kinda stuff. The tragedy is more interesting than lame love attempts. So the film succeeds when we see the firemen doing their job and having to deal with a multitude of issues and figure things out. We love seeing our first responders in action and that's no different in a disaster film from 1974. Paul Newman and Steve McQueen give some earnest performances in a film that really should have done more with what they gave. Both are pretty great in some pretty basic roles but their gravitas and natural charisma make them worth watching and paying attention to. I mean, the film is a bit ridiculous at the end but I think what disaster film isn't by their end, right? So this was never going to win anything, it just happened to be a high grossing film that captured what film goers wanted to see and the Academy took note. I'd say see it if you have some time to kill to take in all that 70s disaster films have to offer, but don't expect Oscar worthy story or acting.



I said that 1975 was one of the best group of Best Picture nominees ever, but this year is right up there as well! It's not as strong due to The Towering Inferno being included, but it's an entertaining year at least. That film is more about the spectacle and being a crowd pleaser than being a legit Best Picture candidate. It's fun but definitely too long. I've got The Conversation next and that should tell you what I think about this year overall. I loved the way that film used sound and it really caught me off guard with how well made and compelling the whole thing is. I think the ending and some scenes like the dream sequence kinda lower the rating a bit for me (though I understand what they are used for) but it's a very interesting film to take in, which you should. Next up would be Lenny because it has such a unique way of telling its story that in other years, I'd think of it as a possible winner. Great performance from Hoffman and just wonderfully directed by Bob Fosse. An under seen and underrated little gem that you should also check out. Chinatown would be an easy winner in any other year but got stuck in a year with The Godfather Part II. Bad luck. That film is incredible, though, and really is one of the best noir films ever. The score is amazing and Nicholson helps drive the film home. Not much else needs to be said other than don't wait to see it like I did. The winner is part of the best one - two punches in cinema history. It's an easy winner and a classic for a reason. If you haven't ever seen it or the first one, what are you even doing here? Go watch them now! And see why this year is pretty amazing with all it's contenders. Let's hope 1973 can stand up to these last two years!

Oscar Winner: The Godfather Part II
My Winner:  The Godfather Part II
Chinatown
Lenny
The Conversation
The Towering Inferno

Leading Actor 1974

Some heavy hitters in this category along with a hugely controversial winner. For as long as I've been reading up on the Oscars, this has always been one big topic for everyone to chime in on - even if they have seen the winner or not. So I'm looking forward to finally judging for myself if he deserves the win or not. Which makes it seem like I'm the only who can say for sure, but you get what I mean! Anyway, let's get to what should be a good group.

1974 Best Actor

Art Carney - Harry and Tonto

I feel like this is a loaded Best Actor winner in the sense that it won over a more well known and impressive field in classic films. There is a lot of talk from people online that this is a terrible winner because just look at who Carney beat! And more often than not, those people haven't even bothered to watch the actual performance to judge it. I've seen it described as one of the worst winners ever and one of the biggest mistakes by the Academy. So this win always comes with these caveats that it sucks because of who he beat. One of those Academy anomalies that are hard to explain. Well, I have wanted to see for myself why exactly Art Carney, well known for his TV work (The Honeymooners) more so than his film work, won Best Actor over a couple iconic performances in films that rank up there as classics. Carney plays an old man who lives with his cat, Tonto, who is forced to move out of his apartment because they are razing it and ends up traveling around the country with Tonto in tow. They meet a bunch of people and it's a sweet little film. A meditation on old age and mortality, Carney is a one man show. He's a widower who spends the whole film talking to his cat or the random people he meets along the way and we see these touching little scenes where Harry is faced with what happens when we get old. He's forced to move from a home he knew for years, a good friend dies, he meets the first woman he fell in love with at a retirement home but she doesn't really remember him. Sad little things that Harry takes in stride. Like I said, it's a charming, funny little film that while not amazing filmmaking, is easy to like. So it's even more easy to see why an Academy made up of old white men would connect with a film aimed right at them. It helps that Carney gives an earnestly sweet performance, too. I can understand why it won and don't agree that it's one of the worst choices by the Academy ever. But! When you watch all the rest of this group and the phenomenal performances they gave and then watch this one, you start to understand why people get upset that Carney won. I like the performance. Carney keeps the film from being too schmaltzy and mawkish, which this performance and film could easily devolve into. I don't think it's enough for a win, though, as likable as the performance is. You should judge it for yourself, though, and not just look at the other actors in this group for a decision.

Albert Finney - Murder on the Orient Express

I'll be honest, going into this film, I forgot Finney was nominated and that I needed to pay attention to him. I saw he was nominated right before I started watching and felt like this may just be one of those ones you just enjoy but it won't be amazing. It's just a Hercule Poirot performance. But it's also an Albert Finney performance, which is the part I should have been paying attention to instead. He is such an underrated actor that never got his due from the Academy. And Finney is terrific as our favorite little Belgian detective. It probably is the quintessential portrayal of Poirot in any medium and he's such a delight to watch do his thing. He is hilarious with his sarcastic, biting comebacks when perturbed and it's fun to watch him shuffle around and get so wildly animated when explaining things. He honestly reminded me of Bruno Ganz as Hitler in Downfall at times (and yeah, that's a hell of a weird comparison to make!). I don't think you really need to get too in depth about the performance to explain that he's really entertaining but that he does it in such an earnest way that isn't just a character. Finney inhabits Poirot and makes it his own creation. It's so easy for Poirot to be this big goofy manneristic caricature that we laugh at and not with. But Finney finds a way for us to relate to Poirot on a human level and see him as more than just the perfect detective. I don't know given the other names in this group if Finney did enough for a win, but he certainly gave us a great interpretation of Hercule Poirot that has become the standard to which all other versions of the character are compared to and that's pretty impressive in itself. He definitely is worthy of a nomination and I'm looking forward to my final nomination of his in the 60s.

Dustin Hoffman - Lenny

This seems to be the one Hoffman nomination that no one has seen or heard about and that's a damn shame. I wasn't sure what to expect going into this one because Hoffman more often than not just plays Hoffman to me with some variations here and there. But this is a truly committed and great performance from Hoffman that I wasn't expecting to get. The film itself is incredibly well made and offers a different take on a biopic which was truly refreshing to watch. Hoffman is the eponymous Lenny Bruce, a comic who was way ahead of his time and paved the way for the likes of George Carlin and Bill Hicks and your Louis CK's and the like. He was continuously harassed and arrested by police for what they deemed obscene content in his shows which today would be pretty mild stuff. Hoffman is the star and even if you have no idea who Lenny Bruce is and have never heard his shtick, you know that Hoffman somehow channeled Bruce from the other side and gave a fully involved performance like he really was the Lenny Bruce. It's mesmerizing to watch because Hoffman does Lenny's stand up routines which lean somewhat raunchy to a whole lot socially aware and enlightening. But Hoffman gets the beats of a comic down and if you told me this was legit filmed in front of an audience at a club while Hoffman did his thing, I'd believe it. He has to make these scenes work for the film to succeed like it does. To me, its the most important part of the film and Hoffman nails it. There are other scenes from Lenny's life where Hoffman is in acting mode and it's good, but the stand up scenes are breathable, lived in moments of time. Hoffman just had the bad fortune of going up against two other iconic performances and two veterans in a juggernaut of a year. Hoffman's intensity in the role is palpable and really gets you jazzed up and pissed off that stuff like this was considered obscene and worthy of extended jail time. It's a hell of a sincere performance from Hoffman and easily becomes one of my favorites of his.

Jack Nicholson - Chinatown

It seems like every Nicholson nomination is another iconic performance and I guess that just shows what a fantastic actor he was and why he ended up winning three Oscars in his career. I'm glad I finally got to watch this performance because I really love noir films and wanted to see his take on a private detective. Nicholson later in his career tended to rely on his own personal mannerisms in his roles and Jack always shined through the roles, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. As I go back in time, I see less and less of that classic Jack style. It's almost absent here though Jack has always been able to deliver one liners and quips that land effectively. So that works well as a smart ass private eye who has to be a smooth talker at times. I really like this quiet intensity that he has in this role instead of hamming it up at times like he maybe would have later. It really serves the story and the character well because it tells us a lot about a guy we don't really know any backstory to. Was a cop and now isn't and loves making money and the thrill of the investigation. We also sense that he's got this noble quality to him that makes it so easy to like him, even though he's not oozing charisma. More like Nicholson is projecting this dogged determinism that just strikes a chord in me. Nicholson is in every scene of the film and really drives the film with his acting. I think with a lesser actor the film fails to have the same tone and quality, even with the great script and wonderful directing. Simply a performance that is nearly flawless in a stacked year that will be hard to figure out a winner. Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown.

Al Pacino - The Godfather Part II

Pacino again reprises his role as Michael Corleone, this time the undisputed head of the family and the eponymous Godfather. A lot of people consider this to be a masterclass in acting and really strong performance overall, one of the best ever. I personally prefer Pacino's performance in the first film because his character arc is so rewarding and satisfying to watch. We see him grow and change and transition into a powerful man whereas his character in this film stays mostly the same throughout. He's not really gaining any power or changing much, he just has to deal with power struggles from outside and within. His character becomes increasingly cold and calculated, more so than in the previous film, so it can be hard to relate to Michael and ultimately care about what's happening. Pacino is terrific in the role and completely owns the character but this just comes down to preference for me again and I side with the first performance. I like that Michael can see the Cuban revolution thing coming and plays Frank Pentangeli by bringing in his brother and finally gets Hyman Roth after baiting him. He's a master manipulator behind the scenes and I like how Pacino can portray that with looks and not saying much. It just continues Michael's path to being as powerful as his father but in a different kind of way. Vito was all about connections and Michael is all about manipulating people in a subtle way. Pacino is great but this is a pretty tough year so it will be interesting to see if I go with him or someone else.



Probably one of the better groups as a whole in some time. And a repeat of 1975, although 75 would be the repeat of this year, but eh you get it. Again, we have great performances from Nicholson and Pacino, both iconic, and both lose. Hoffman gives a really great performance in an underrated film that I loved. Finney gives the quintessential Hercule Poirot performance and it's entertaining and I'd say worthy of the 5th spot. The crux of the whole category has always been Carney and what you think of him. He gives a delightfully charming performance that many people hate only because it beat Michael Corleone and Jake Gittes. And they have probably never even seen it! It's good but I don't see it as being a winner. Maybe in a down year, but not when there's 3 legit performances that could win and maybe 1 you can argue could win but probably not. That doesn't make Carney's performance bad or one of the worst ever. It's just one of those weird, disappointing wins that most likely set in motion other wins that impacted history. Pacino doesn't win here and gets a makeup Oscar in the 90s. Nicholson wins the next year so not much impact but maybe Pacino wins there. Hoffman doesn't win here but gets probably a well deserved win for Kramer vs. Kramer, that maybe Pacino could have won or Roy Scheider. Finney was a long shot but you never know. I imagine the three young guys split the vote and the older Academy contingent went for Carney who they knew from TV. I dunno, just trying to figure out how he could have won. Regardless, it's a win that sticks out. I'd give the win to Pacino just to hopefully avoid his make up win in the early 90s. A very good group of actors.

Oscar Winner: Art Carney - Harry and Tonto
My Winner:  Al Pacino - The Godfather Part II
Dustin Hoffman
Jack Nicholson
Art Carney
Albert Finney

Leading Actress 1974

This is an exciting group of women. I have seen none of these performances but have heard great things about almost all of them, so I want to see what they have to offer. I'm starting to get back into my Oscar groove, so leet's go!

1974 Best Actress

Ellen Burstyn - Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore

I feel like I should let this one sink in a bit more but after watching it, I'm not completely won over that this performance got the Oscar. I like Burstyn as an actress, but I've never been wowed by her. Lots of people felt that she should have also won for Requiem for a Dream, but I wasn't into that performance as much. So maybe I'm just not a huge fan of Burstyn's style. The win could also be because she was in the midst of a good run having been nominated for The Last Picture Show, The Exorcist the year before and was in Harry and Tonto for which Art Carney won Best Actor in this year. She was an It Girl and well thought of by the Academy so maybe it was just her time to win. I say this like she is truly awful in this film but she is definitely not. Burstyn plays a woman with a son whose husband dies unexpectedly and has to move and tries to become a lounge singer but ends up as a waitress at a diner. It's a very independent woman type of film (directed oddly enough by Martin Scorsese) that fits Burstyn's style very well. Burstyn has such an effortless acting style that makes it seem very improvisational and unscripted, which is something I like about her work. But it can often lead to an inconsistent tone like she is searching for the character within herself and trying out different ways to reach the final one. Burstyn's Alice is definitely a very emotional person who at times tries to play confident and independent but the reality is she's a mix of timid and afraid and unsure of who she is and wants to be. Like I said, Burstyn's style fits that kind of character but I dunno, it just seems slightly off to me. Like this film is more of a showcase for Burstyn rather than being about the character and the story. I just constantly found myself think well, what if some other actress had played this, how would that scene have gone? So when I'm actively thinking things like that while watching the Oscar winner, how can I even think about her as my winner. I know I haven't really said much about the acting but she does do a fine enough job and she definitely holds the film together. I was just wanting a lot more out of an Oscar winning performance than what I got. I also realize that Burstyn just simply may not be my cup of tea. I say watch the film and see whether or not I make any sense about Burstyn or if my opinion is off.

Diahann Carroll - Claudine

The more I read up on Diahann Carroll, the more excited I was to watch her performance. She was the first black female actress to win a Tony Award and had other award nominations and was a Jill of all trades. Also the fact that as I go back in time, black actors are going to become even more scarce so when they pop up, it must mean they give a great performance. After watching, I see why Carroll was nominated and why she was a heavily awarded actress in various mediums. She is stunningly beautiful, but also a very gifted actress. In this film, she is able to play many different  roles with the same character. She can be sexy and sensuous when alone with James Earl Jones. She can be the sassy, independent woman who has to raise six kids alone. She can be stern, yet tender and loving with her kids as they all have different personalities that tests her patience. She can be vulnerable and emotional that the man she loves doesn't show up to a party or when they have to look good for the state welfare rep. She can be serious and determined like when dealing with Jones or the welfare rep or anyone else in the film really. She goes through all these emotions seamlessly and is able to craft a fully fleshed out character that you immediate get drawn to. The only issue for me is that the film is only an hour and a half and I feel like Carroll works wonderfully with what she is given, but she could have been better served with more time to inhabit her character. We are left wanting more not because Carroll leaves something out of the performance, but because the film leaves Carroll out of more scenes. There's always the worry that this could just be a token nomination for whatever reason, but Carroll solidifies in my mind that she was nominated here for her own merits. I'm surprised Carroll didn't have continued success since she was pioneering in TV and the stage for her roles and award wins. I really wish this film offered up more of Carroll and let her stretch her legs and show us what she was absolutely capable of, even though what we got was impressive to me still.

Faye Dunaway - Chinatown

I am again going to be honest, I was expecting much more from this performance because of everything I've heard about the film and Dunaway in it. She plays the femme fatale role of a noir without really being overly seductive or dangerous. So in a way, just a slightly romantic lead with Nicholson and a reserved character overall. Dunaway is the wife of the man who is murdered and thus is wrapped tightly within the fabric of the story. She initially wants to sue Nicholson for treading into her private life but then hires him and eventually sleeps with him, as you do. She is there through much of the film and is pivotal to the ending. Yet with being so involved with the plot, Dunaway plays her character in such a subdued, quiet manner. Maybe I was expecting it to be much more flashy and confident like a true femme fatale character but she never really overtakes any scene she's in. She still holds her own against Nicholson and is strong in her actions and revelations in service to the story. And I think that might be where I'm landing with this performance is that it is very much something memorable because of the script and direction and the acting of Nicholson. As I said, Dunaway holds her own but she allows everything else to work around her. I mean that in a good way. She can be the glue that holds her scenes together or the light everyone else buzzes around. I think it's a good performance in a really well made film that I feel could have been stronger and more assertive in tone. Dunaway had a kind of re-emergence this year and was in three Oscar nominated films from 1974 (this, The Towering Inferno, and The Four Musketeers) so she was very much in the spotlight and public conscious so her getting nominated for a classic film seems deserved.

Valerie Perrine - Lenny

I went into this performance not knowing anything about the actress or the character or really what the film was about besides a comic who got into trouble for pushing what obscenity really is. It's a hell of a film, one that you should see as soon as you get the chance. Perrine plays Lenny's wife/ex-wife/baby mama and a lot of her scenes are set up as documentary-like interviews. She gets asked questions about life with Lenny so she's in close up a lot of the time and reacting to barely heard questions. It's a tough role because she's mainly there to talk about Lenny and be an almost supporting player to him. I did read some talk online about how this could have gone in the Supporting category (where it would have easily been my winner) but I feel it's fine in Lead because she's really the only female presence in the film, save Lenny's mom. There are times where she can disappear from the film but it's understandable given the film's title is Lenny. Anyway, Perrine meets Lenny as a showgirl/stripper (which I guess Perrine was early in her career) and her personality is one where she laughs a lot and seems a bit precocious as the two hit it off. That is the antitheses of what we see in the interview portions where Perrine is this older, tired, clearly gone through hard times and hard substances kind of woman. The laughter still shines through at times but you can see how hard life has been to her. Credit to Perrine for being able to play both sides of the same coin in very different ways. Unfortunately, Perrine does play second fiddle to Hoffman and doesn't really get to stand out on her own, though her performance is much better than being a simple love interest. A decent little performance probably carried into this category on the back of the film but worth a spot on its own.

Gena Rowlands - A Woman Under the Influence

Not gonna lie, this nomination took me like a week of starting and stopping watching it to finally sit my butt down and watch Gena Rowlands do her work. Sometimes I want to give all of my attention plus some for certain performances and this was one of those. A lot of people consider this to be the greatest female acting performance on film and other merely consider it one of the greatest. I've heard this through the years and was excited to finally watch it to see for myself. It's a John Cassevetes (her husband) film and it's a very intense and intimate look at woman who is having/will have/has had a mental breakdown. She's a damaged woman trying to hold on to the thinnest piece of her sanity. I can understand why people see it as one of the best ever, I'm just not sure I agree. I do think Rowlands is very good in the role and totally commits herself to the woman on the verge performance. She has all these mannerisms and tics and the acting is very involved. It can feel labored to me and can become slightly annoying only because those mannerisms feel like deliberate choices made by an actress and not the reactions of a mentally ill person. I don't want to denigrate this performance too much because it is strong acting, and acting I haven't seen much of during this time period. So it's a unique performance in that regard and Rowlands has such an expressive face and huge eyes that do at least show the torment in her mind, body, and soul. And Rowlands is not grating through the entire film, just in short pieces where she breaks down. I actually do like the way she can run through a bunch of different emotions in a matter of seconds without getting too wild with the transitions. I like how in the beginning of the film she is fretting about in her home worried about the children leaving so that she can have a nice night with her husband (Peter Falk) but he doesn't show up because something comes up at work. So she gets drunk and goes out and is this fluttering, little wisp of herself almost like a manic pixie dream girl type and she picks up a guy. The acting in those scenes are very good and seem a lot less constructed than the breakdown scenes. To me, anyway. It's a good performance that I don't think resonated with me as much as I wished and wanted it to after everything I'd heard about it. But Rowlands does deliver something memorable and worth checking out to see if you agree with others that it's one of the best female performances ever. Maybe it needs to marinate more in my mind or I should revisit it later. Rowlands is strong and unique, but ultimately something feels off to me.



This year is pretty decent and actually pretty hard to figure out who goes where on the list. They each have their merits and they each have their reasons why I'm not as into them as I could be. I really don't even know where to start. I think I'd put Dunaway last because while she's interesting to watch and all over the film, she is a little too subdued in the character. Next I'd have Perrine. She plays two sides of the same woman to great effect but also takes a backseat to Hoffman in the film. I wanted to see her shine more. Which seems to be the them for this year for some reason. Next would be Burstyn. I honestly am not all that big on Burstyn in everything I've seen her in. I appreciate what she brings but it's not always my style. I kinda dig how carefree and natural she is in the role that gave her an Oscar. It's a different look from say Rowlands, but also not just super straight forward acting. Then I'd put Carroll. She was really fantastic. She kinda blew me away with how she took on the role. I'm sad there's not much in her filmography to really see more of her. Only real knock is that the film is so short and it doesn't let Carroll build up an even better portrayal. My winner would then be Rowlands. I know I was kinda wishy washy above on her performance but she is doing something that I haven't seen any other actress do during this time period so far. It was an intimate and intense look into a damaged woman and I think that there are some missteps in my eyes but I can see others loving. I understand why it's so beloved and respected and I, too, can respect it. That's why it wins for me. I feel like I'll grow to enjoy it even more over time. So a really interesting year where I liked everything in different ways. I'll take that.

Oscar Winner: Ellen Burstyn - Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
My Winner:  Gena Rowlands - A Woman Under the Influence
Diahann Carroll
Ellen Burstyn
Valerie Perrine
Faye Dunaway

Supporting Actor 1974

Moving right along, this is always my favorite category and I already know the winner is one of the better wins in this category possibly ever, but definitely over the last few years I've watched now. De Niro is great but I want to see if any of the others can challenge him at all.

1974 Best Supporting Actor

Robert De Niro - The Godfather Part II

This was a well deserved win for De Niro. Every time the film flashbacked to his young Vito Corleone, I was enthralled. I wish the whole film would have been about De Niro because he was so compelling. Anytime the film returned to the present, I was a little sad because I'd rather watch the early days. De Niro got everything perfectly right in respect to Brando's version of Vito. It's clear that De Niro studied everything that Brando did for his performance, right down to the increasingly raspy voice. It's not just the physical aspects that De Niro got right, but also the calm, powerful demeanor of Vito as well. You can play De Niro's Vito followed by Brando's Vito and easily see that this is the same man without any difficulty. Vito is so intelligent and aware of how to read people and this sensibility is illustrated through De Niro's performance. You can see he's always reading people and the situation and thinking about how to move ahead for the betterment of his family. He puts family first just as Brando did and it's so astounding to see just how alike the two performances are. His ascendance is gradual and not this power hungry grab, but a more noble pursuit that seems true to Vito's ethos. I think this performance is tremendous and lives up to it's lofty partner in Brando.

Fred Astaire - The Towering Inferno

I knew before I even watched his performance what this nomination was all about. You know Fred Astaire for his dancing and his black and white films and for just being a classic, old school Hollywood icon. This was easily a career achievement nomination and nothing more for Astaire. The funny thing is that the Academy had already given him an honorary Oscar back in 1950 for his contribution to motion pictures. So this wasn't necessary at all. And Astaire isn't even in the film very much. His supporting role is minuscule and his character is just a con man that goes to the grand opening of this huge skyscraper to con an old lady (Jennifer Jones as it were) but the fire breaks out and he tells her what he was going to do in the face of possible death and they bond. But she eventually dies and Astaire doesn't know what happened to her and we have a brief serious scene where he runs and yells for her. It's not enough for me. That may be slightly Oscarific but come on, give me more! That's a boring, overused idea/plot and neither Astaire nor the film made it memorable. He's in a few forgettable scenes and gets an Oscar nomination out of it because he can dance pretty good. And he doesn't even dance in this film! You'd think they give him a little nod like that but nah, they just nominate because of his name. Don't watch this for Fred, watch this for the cool fire scenes.

Jeff Bridges - Thunderbolt and Lightfoot

It's kind of apropos that I watched this right after Bridges got his career achievement award at the Golden Globes and he was talking about working with Michael Cimino on his first film, which was this one. And it's a really interesting film that stars Clint Eastwood (and has George Kennedy) and he is a bank robber on the run and meets Bridges and then they get with some old buddies of Eastwood's that was initially hunting them down and decide to do one last heist. The film is interesting because there are these seemingly random scenes that build the relationship between Eastwood and Bridges' characters. Like one scene where the two are hitchhiking and this muscle car stops and this crazy hick dude with a raccoon in the front seat is driving and he's got the exhaust going into the cabin while he drives like a maniac and then they roll over and the dude gets out with a shotgun and has a trunk full of white rabbits and starts throwing them out and shooting at them. It's nuts! Just read that sentence again. But it works for the film weirdly and the reason the film works is due in large part to Bridges. He's extremely charismatic and energetic and just plain magnetic. Seriously, Bridges easily takes over this film and makes it his while Eastwood sticks to his brooding, misunderstood bad guy type of role. The film is worth watching simply for Bridges' performance because you see what would make him one of the best actors of his generation and it's really fun to see how young he is and how he started out. And I haven't even mentioned the tragic way the film ends which Bridges plays to great effect. This is a nice little role that Bridges had that I suspect a lot of people have never seen. I am eagerly looking forward to his first Oscar nomination which is coming up soon.

Michael V. Gazzo - The Godfather Part II

Gazzo portrays Frank Pentangeli, an older mobster who now controls or runs the New York territory for the Corleone family. He's a capregime, so one of the top underlings and with the Corleones out in Nevada, he's the guy back in New York. Gazzo stands out right from the beginning because his character and performance are unlike anything we've seen in the series so far. He's gruff and loud and talks to Michael in a more frank and carefree way, so to speak. We see him first when he's a bit drunk at a christening and immediately get that this man has spent his life in the mafia and moved his way up and paid his dues. There's a bit of respect when Michael lets him act this way without really doing anything. Gazzo turns up the performance, however, and gives us a brash character that the series hadn't really seen up to that point. For the rest of the film, Gazzo is told to do things in New York that are contrary to what he wants to do by Michael so the character ends up confused and frustrated and pissed off. Frank is almost killed for this and then turns State witness and then reneges on that deal to protect the family. He stays a good family man until the end and that's essentially what Gazzo's performance is all about. A loud, gruff mobster who we understand is begrudgingly committed to the family. It's not an amazing performance, though it is good. It just is very noticeable and leaves a mark on the film.

Lee Strasberg - The Godfather Part II

There's really only one reason Strasberg was nominated here and that's because he was a renowned acting coach that helped pioneer method acting. He had many famous understudies, some of whom were in this film and this series. So no wonder he would get voted in by an Academy where he'd probably helped a large number of them learn acting. Not to take away from his role as Hyman Roth, a Jewish mobster and businessman. Strasberg is technically great and it's obvious that he knew a lot about acting as everything he does adds to the character and makes him more complex underneath. Hyman is upset that his buddy Moe Greene was killed in the last film and wants to take down and kill Michael. So in that respect, Hyman is the bad guy of the film and Strasberg plays him to great effect. Hyman is warm and engaging to Michael when they first meet and you get a sense of how the guy operates and that he's a little more sinister underneath all the pretense. That's where Strasberg's acting ability comes in to great effect. Hyman is always playing this sort of dual role where what he says and what he means are markedly different. The character is really interesting because of this and Strasberg does a great job of bringing this complex character to life. He might even be worth a vote if De Niro weren't also in this category.



This is a pretty good group if you try and forget Astaire's ridiculous nomination. Seriously, I hate those kinds of nominations. They are absolutely pointless and just prevent someone else that is more deserving from getting the honor. But the other four all very good! Gazzo and Strasberg are actually very good and bring a lot to their roles and to the film as a whole. They may not be as good as the original guys from the first film but still are worthy. Gazzo gives his take on a certain kind of old school mobster, while Strasberg is more than just an acting teacher while delivering a good performance as his Jewish mobster. I think they stand on their own but certainly came along with the film, too. Bridges really wowed me. I'd say it surprised me but honestly it didn't. He always does great work even with his lesser known nominations/films and this was no exception. A weird little film where he outshines Clint Eastwood easily and is the reason the film is entertaining. A possible winner in other years, but not this one. De Niro is a slam dunk winner. Probably one of the best Supporting Actor wins ever, this is a no brainer. If you don't like this performance, you don't like acting. Pure and simple. So my favorite category turns out another pretty good group of guys and I can't wait to see what is next!

Oscar Winner: Robert De Niro - The Godfather Part II
My Winner:  Robert De Niro - The Godfather Part II
Jeff Bridges
Lee Strasberg
Michael V. Gazzo
Fred Astaire

Supporting Actress 1974

Yeah, I know, I was gone for so long again. Just one of those things where life hits you hard and fast and I just didn't feel like writing or watching anything at all. I'm in a much better place now after my little break, just in time for another Oscar season which has reinvigorated me. Can't wait to finish up the 70s and try and keep this train moving. I've seen two of these nominees before and am somewhat intrigued by the other three. Just hoping for some good films and performances now that I'm back in action.

1974 Best Supporting Actress

Ingrid Bergman - Murder on the Orient Express

Oh boy. So if anyone has followed this blog at all or read even a few entries, it should be well known by now that I cannot stand when the Academy gifts an Oscar to a veteran actor just because they like them and because they are/were huge stars. And that's exactly what has happened here with Bergman's third Oscar win. I am saying this having only seen this one and Talia Shire's performance. But I already know it's an accurate statement. Bergman had last won almost twenty years before this so I guess it was time for the Academy to reward her again for some reason. Like in other wins, Bergman is decent! She's not bad at all playing a Swedish missionary aboard the Orient. She is a very religious woman with a thick accent (that apparently Bergman needed to relearn how to do since her English was so good) who you think is just caught up in a wrong place at the wrong time kinda deal. Bergman doesn't have all that much screen time in this film, though. It's a huge cast and she plays a minor role compared to others. Everyone seems to point to a scene where she and Hercule Poirot go through an interrogation as where she won the Oscar but nothing really stands out in that back and forth scene to me. She's okay, but I thought the other actresses were just as good in their scenes and Bergman never really stood out to me. I feel like they could have nominated Lauren Bacall, Wendy Hiller, or Vanessa Redgrave (without giving them the win, possibly) and it would have been justified. I dunno. I don't think Bergman deserved a third award and didn't earn it here, either. They wanted to reward her so they jumped at the chance, but like so many of these cases, the actor comes back a couple years later with a great performance that gets nominated that maybe would have been a little better for a win if they were so dead set on getting her a third (Autumn Sonata two years later). I can't stand when these types of wins happen and this one does nothing to shake my feelings on that.

Valentina Cortese - Day for Night

On Oscar night, when Ingrid Bergman won her undeserved third Oscar, she seemed to realize she probably shouldn't have won and basically said that she thought the award belonged to Cortese this year. Also kind of a slap in the face to the other three women but whatever. That should tell you that this performance is at least worth paying attention to and probably worth considering for a win. This film is a delightful one, about the making of a movie and what goes on behind the camera with the cast and crew. It's also a Truffaut film, so one of those influential French directors that everyone loves but who delivers a very accessible and loving picture here. Cortese plays an older actress whose stardom is in days past and now drinks a lot and forgets her lines. She's a bit difficult to work with but the director (Truffaut in a very nice performance) appeases her and goes along with her messy antics and the film perseveres. Cortese is a loud, drunken mess but also pretty entertaining like in the scene that she has to repeat over and over for forgetting her lines where she places written lines all over the set that she can read from but is hidden from the camera. She plays each take of that scene in a different way and is fun to watch the mess devolve into this flamboyant, diva-like creation. The thing about Cortese in this performance is that the character could be extremely cliche and take over a film with her loud actions but that doesn't happen. Cortese is restrained in the role and makes the character seem more natural and real in how she acts and thus doesn't become an annoyance in the film. I did want to see more from Cortese to see what else she could offer from the character but maybe it was best that she did have a more limited role so as not to become unbearable. Still, I enjoyed her performance and she is definitely worth thinking about for the win.

Madeline Kahn - Blazing Saddles

I've seen this film a few times and didn't know who Madeline Kahn was. I thought she was an older lady that said crazy things, but she is not. This film is held up as one of the funniest films ever and it is indeed flipping hilarious at times. Mel Brooks is a bonafide genius. But this kind of film could never get made today which is kinda sad to think about. Anyway, Kahn actually plays Lili von Shtupp, a heavily accented German seductress who is hired to kill the black sheriff. Oh, in case you didn't know (which you should have seen this film before, come on) a black man is hired as a sheriff for a small western town in hopes that will drive the residents away but backfires. She fails by the way and legit is only in the film for a couple scenes. Her only real scene is the song 'I'm Tired' which is actually decently funny but not in the slightest Oscar worthy. I'm really at a loss as to why Kahn was nominated. She was nominated the year before in 1973 so maybe she just had some momentum. Maybe they wanted to reward the film or Mel Brooks on a great year and gave Kahn the nod but while the song is funny, it's not something that could ever win an award. Hilarious film that you should see once because it ranks up there in the all time greats, but not an actual piece of great supporting actress acting. Maybe the joke is on me for not getting it but hey, you got to watch Blazing Saddles out of the deal so you really do win on this one.

Diane Ladd - Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore

This is the last performance I watched for the group and spoiler alert, none of them are really that amazing. For the most part I liked them, but having to choose one of these as a winners feels a bit empty since I don't know if any would be a good winner. In saying that, I did enjoy Ladd's performance and liked her character but there isn't all that much to her. Though her character, Flo, has become a stereotype in itself and even spawned a TV series called Alice. So I guess you can say Ladd left her mark with Flo. But I review only the performance and Ladd is the sassy, foul mouthed, loquacious waitress who juxtaposes Ellen Burstyn's timid, unsure, emotional character. Ladd has confidence in spades and her filthy phrases are pretty funny to hear and she just has that vibe of a gruff, southern tinged busy diner waitress. It's essentially a trope at this point in time but back then might have been a bit different, I don't know. But she uses the sass to great effect and another reviewer called her "sweet and sour" which is a pretty apt description. She'll call anyone out and doesn't care what they think about her or what she says about them but also has tender side that recognizes when to pull aside Burstyn and talk with her about whatever is making her emotional. It's a limited performance that Ladd wrings out everything she can from and while it's not an amazing piece of acting, it's effective and entertaining and in this year that might just be enough to win.

Talia Shire - The Godfather Part II

I kinda feel like Shire was included as part of the sweep of nominations the film garnered rather than explicitly on the merits of her performance in this film. I also think you could say this might even be a leftover nomination from the previous film which had no women nominated at all. The thing about Shire's performance is that she's not around in this film all that much. She shows up in the beginning at the christening with a new man after her divorce and Michael doesn't approve which causes tension for her. She comes off like a spoiled brat, which she is, and that's essentially what her character and performance are for this first part of the film. Then she mostly disappears for the rest of the film until the very end where she finally comes back and ask to be with the family again and live with Michael and basically be a good, obedient sister again. She really becomes in charge of Michael's kids but that's about the breadth of her performance. Really not much else to it, unfortunately. There's not many strong female characters in the series and Shire doesn't really stand out except for being the only female in the Corleone family (besides the mother, of course). It's a basic performance that is here solely because of the film it's in and that's it.



This is a mostly disappointing group. I was really hoping for much better than this. I mean we start off with Bergman's third win and you think that maybe there's a reason she won a third for this. But no, it's a career achievement handout that is easily the worst of the bunch. And probably one of the worst decisions by the Academy for a win. It's totally undeserved. The next two spots are pretty meh, honestly. Shire gets carried along by her film and really doesn't do much compared to the first one, so this nomination just seems weird. Maybe a make up for not nominating her for the first one? Who knows. Easy 4th. Kahn is kinda funny and entertaining but one song and not much depth brings her down. It's cool a comedic performance like that was nominated but it would be a 5th in most years. Now the final two performances I liked, but neither wowed me. They are both truly supporting and I'm fine with them being nominated but I can't say I would champion either as a winner in most other years. I liked Ladd's character a lot and thought Cortese had an interesting play on an old drunk actress. I think right now I'd give an ever so slight edge to Ladd even though I liked Cortese's film more. A disappointing year with a ho hum winner.

Oscar Winner: Ingrid Bergman - Murder on the Orient Express
My Winner:  Diane Ladd - Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
Valentina Cortese
Madeline Kahn
Talia Shire
Ingrid Bergman

Best Picture 1975

I am so glad to be done with 1975 because I feel like I've been in it forever, or at least a whole year. I took a break in the middle of this year to stop and do 2017 and then came back to this year. Plus, it has a lot of films to watch: 15 out of 25 possible spots are different films. Some years just seem to drag and I'm excited to move on, but first let's get to what on paper looks like a hell of a Best Picture race. I've seen three of them already and know they are pretty great and the other two are always held up as being great films in their own right. This could be right up there with 1976 in terms of quality.

1975 Best Picture

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

One of three films ever to win the big five awards (Picture, Director, Lead Actor/Actress, and one of the writing awards) along with It Happened One Night and Silence of the Lambs. Good company, for sure. It tells the story of Jack Nicholson, a criminal who is sent to an asylum to be monitored to determine if he's crazy and should be committed. He's a head strong man who likes to challenge others and runs into the notorious Nurse Ratched. He also meets a whole cast of crazy/not so crazy patients and Nicholson pushes things to the limit. Now, the film did win both lead acting awards and did so with legitimately great acting from Nicholson and Louise Fletcher. They are joined by a ton of good actors who play the fellow patients like Danny Devito, Brad Dourif, Christopher Lloyd, and William Sampson (Chief). The story is pretty simple and tells the power struggle of the two leads as McMurphy resents authority but grows to hate Nurse Ratched over time. Nurse Ratched wants to exert control over her patients and be the power figure of the asylum and McMurphy challenges that ideal by turning the patients against her. It's just a really well made film that is made all the better because of the tremendous acting. Nicholson has to carry most of the film with his character being this domineering presence who leads the patients on an escape trip to go fishing, has an after hours party in the ward, and gets everyone to demand their privileges. Fletcher is also a domineering presence in that she's the ice cold head nurse who controls everything that goes on in her ward. Just the name Nurse Ratched alone conjures up the evil, vindictive head nurse. It's almost become it's own pejorative to call people you don't like. Sometimes I have little narratives that I like to get across about films but I don't have anything for this film. It's just a plain good film. I've seen it a few times now and it never feels worn out or dated. It's also probably one of the better Best Picture winners, at least for me. Also, I wanted to mention that this film reminds me so much of Cool Hand Luke. I feel like they are so similar with a bravura man coming into a new situation with a lot of supporting guys in prison/asylum and this man uplifts those men with fun little scenes before an ultimately tragic ending. I always think of the one with the other and I dunno, it's just an observation I've always had that I wanted to get out there. Anyone else agree? Both are great films.

Barry Lyndon

I remember watching the very beginning of this film once after another film had ended on TCM and being completely sucked in. I had to turn it off because I didn't want to have to rewatch a three plus hour film somewhere down the line but I thought the film looked sumptuous and the production was perfect. There are scenes that look like they were straight up lifted from some old painting and I do think that the production value and look of this film is the big draw. It's simply gorgeous to look at and rightfully won Best Cinematography for it's efforts. The film itself is based off a novel about the (mis)adventures of the title character (though it starts out as Redmond Barry), an Irishman who tries many different ways to improve his lot in the world. The short of it is he falls in love with his cousin, duels a British Officer that she likes to win her over, flees after shooting him and then enlisting in the British Army and fighting for a while before deserting and then joining the Prussian Army. After, he becomes a spy but it's just a ploy to get back to England where he mingles in high society because of contacts made while a spy and meets Lady Lyndon and then eventually they marry. As you can tell, a lot goes on, yet the film never feels too busy and never overstays it's welcome on any one part of the plot. The film can move along at a brisk pace while also lazily lingering on scenes and somehow the two work harmoniously together and makes the film stronger. It's like everything has a purpose even when it doesn't and the kudos for that goes to Kubrick. This is an obvious labor of love that took over two years to finish and the details in this film are evident from the Oscar winning wardrobes, to the background locations, to the almost one hundred percent natural lighting used for the film - which is incredibly impressive to me. I think this film gets overlooked as one of Kubrick's many classics because he has so many of those, but this is just as strong and worth at least one watch just like his others. I really like that a period piece film like this doesn't ever feel stuffy or proper and yet that kind of language is used but it's used to great effect. It almost feels peppy or punchy or dynamic. That sounds kinda weird but the language adds a layer to the film that makes it interesting and not just stiff upper lip boring British accent crap. You might think I'm reaching with that one but it works for me, maybe it's the way a lot of the dialogue is said with a dry with or a straight face with something obviously hammy. Anyway, the details of the film add up to make a legit classic film and a great nomination by the Academy.

Dog Day Afternoon

This is such a good film and it's one of those I've seen many times, even before starting this project. So why am I having such a hard time writing this review, when I easily wrote about Al Pacino and Chris Sarandon? Their performances are the highlight of this film along with John Cazale and Charles Durning. What's really fascinating about all that is director Sidney Lumet allowed the actors to mostly improvise the script and get inside the characters and deliver something raw and real. From the opening of the film, you know what you are going to get is realistic and authentic. The film opens with everyday scenes of New York City with an Elton John song playing over it before we land on Pacino and his cohorts. The film is simply about a bank robbery gone awry but obviously the film goes much deeper than that. We see this comedy of errors develop as the manic Pacino has to deal with all the issues that arise while things look more and more bleak for him. We later learn his relationship with his family is terrible, his relationship with his wife and kids is pretty lousy, and his relationship with his gay lover/wife is pretty rocky as well. There's not much right going on in Pacino's life and we see the weight of all that hardship on his shoulders. Pacino is incredible and this is one of his best roles, if not the best role of his career, in terms of pure acting. The improvisation leads to many great scenes in the film from the Attica chant, to the phone call with Sarandon, to Pacino just yelling at the cops on the street. I think this film shows that a simple story can be elevated to great heights with high quality acting. There's no musical cues in this, no snappy editing or camera tricks, no special effects. It's just a straightforward story that is one of the better films of the 70s.

Jaws

I will admit I'm not even going to watch this film again because this is one of those movies that I've seen countless times. It is/was always on some station on the weekend growing up or there was some Jaws marathon and it would find it's way onto the TV. And these days, my brother always seems to have it on when we go over there. It's always on somewhere. So yeah, don't need to watch it again. The thing that I think some people don't know or forget is that Jaws was the first ever summer blockbuster. It really created that whole machine. The powers behind the film gave it an unprecedented marketing push with tons of ads and made sure it was in the most theaters possible. And because of that, people flocked to the film and watched it over and over, putting Jaws firmly in the front seat of most money made at the box office ever (for a short time anyway). Thing is, Jaws is a good movie. It's not some crummy Hollywood blockbuster of today where the story and actual filmmaking elements take a back seat to spectacle and big stars. The film has great acting from Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw, and Richard Dreyfuss. The music is undeniably memorable and has been riffed on and parodied ever since, yet still can inspire dread when you hear it. I mean, the film turned a generation of people into being frightened by sharks and scared of the open water and it's hard to blame them given the impact of Spielberg's classic. He does a great job of making the shark into this fearful, horrifying thing by controlling when we finally see it so that it's reveal has the most impact. And there's a bunch of memorable scenes including the opening shot of the girl swimming alone in the dark, the story of the USS Indianapolis, the moment the shark pops up when Scheider is chumming the water, and you could go on and on. There was always one scene that stuck out to me even when I was little and that was when the beach is full of holiday vacationers and someone yells Shark! and we get that deep focus pull back zoom on Scheider sitting up from his beach chair, cigarette hanging limply from his mouth. I always marveled at how that was accomplished because it just looked so cool and probably helped really get me interested in how films are made. Which reminds me that the mechanical sharks, nicknamed Bruce, were such a problem for the production that it's a miracle the film ever got completed. They worked in salt water in the open ocean and that was because Spielberg insisted on location shooting instead of shooting in a tank on some sound stage. I think that location aspect really serves the film well because it feels more authentic and looks better than some joyless tank. Any way you look at it, Jaws is a great film and is a pretty awesome choice by the Academy to include in a Best Picture field.

Nashville

If you're not a fan of Robert Altman or country music, you are going to hate this film. Like most of his other films, this one involves a whole lotta characters with different stories who all intersect at various points and have a crazy ending. And as you probably could have guessed from the title, the story takes place in, and is all about, Nashville. So that means it's full of country music characters and focuses mainly on that, although there are some other non country singing people, too. The story is about twenty four characters in the city and it follows them around for about five days as we watch them go about their lives. With that many characters, there are of lot of plot threads going on, some that are fulfilling and some that don't really go anywhere. That's to be expected with so much going on, but I must confess, I was expecting a lot more from this film. I really like some of Altman's other films like The Player and Short Cuts, but this was a letdown especially when you hear how much praise it gets as a quintessential film. Some of that reasoning is probably due to the fact that I'm not a country music fan at all and this film is essentially a musical. Altman had his actors write and then sing their own songs for the film and that has a detrimental effect on the film for me. Most of the songs are really awful, even if they are lampooning the country music genre a little bit. So having to sit through characters sing these full songs every so often wasn't much fun. The standouts were by Keith Carradine's character who actually won a Best Song Oscar for his effort. I really liked his individual song and the one's he sings with his country/folk band. The people of the city of Nashville didn't like the film very much and the country stars hated it, too. I'd say mostly because it lampoons their city and identity a bit, but also because the country music stars didn't get to write and sing in the film. I think they were mad that they weren't included and regular actors were singing in their place. The positives about the film are the strong acting by most everyone involved and that includes a ton of interesting female characters. The Golden Globes actually nominated four women from this film in their Best Supporting Actress category and I could have seen Oscar doing three or four, too, without it feeling undeserved. Also, Jeff Goldblum plays this ridiculously kooky guy who drives a huge three wheeled motorcycle and doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to be different than all the conservative country folk. He wears crazy outfits and is gloriously Goldblum like, you can't not like him. So there is a lot to like but as I said, the country songs are ever present and if that's not your thing, this will be a little tough to get through, though I guess you could just fast forward them. The political plot that runs through the film can get annoying when the campaign van blares speeches throughout most of the film. I understand why it's included and relevant but it still gets on your nerves after a bit. So yeah, this film has a lot of great acting and the scenes of Nashville are pretty cool, especially the ending which is set at the Parthenon. It's a real thing in Nashville and is supremely awesome to see and experience in person. I do recognize that this is very talented filmmaking and seems like a bit of Americana in it's own right, it just wasn't as great as I thought it would be.



This is certainly one of the best group of five Best Picture nominees that I have yet encountered and most likely that I will encounter throughout this project. Every film in this group is excellent. Plain and simple. Not a bad film in the bunch. I may not have been as gushing about Nashville as I was with the other films, but it is definitely a great film with some memorable female performances and it's slice of Americana is like opening a time capsule. It's just that the whole country music thing brings it down slightly for me. If you love country music, though, it might be a contender for you. Barry Lyndon is gorgeous to watch and is like a comforting film to just put on in the background and pay attention every now and then. That sounds like a knock, but really it's one that I could watch without really having to pay attention and just enjoy the scenes on screen. Just a well put together film by Kubrick that I think a lot of people overlook because it's not as famous as some of his other films. Dog Day Afternoon is such an interesting film. It seems small in focus but it has such great depth that it delivers in every conceivable way. Not to mention it might be Pacino's best work, it just has so much working in its favor that you can't help but love it. That leaves me with two more and some might be surprised that I put Jaws in second place, considering the hefty classics it is up against and it being a summer blockbuster film. But it is the quintessential summer blockbuster film and the first real one, at that. Yet it holds up even 40 years later with so many iconic scenes and beats within the film that you forget that it originated almost all of those beats. It's also a film that I've seen so many times and am still not tired of watching. It's fun and entertaining, yes, but it's also a great piece of filmmaking on its own. That leaves One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest as my winner for the year and I think that's a good choice by the Academy, too. With what is possibly Nicholson's best work of his career, the film leaves a lasting impression on the viewer and American culture. It's still a scathing indictment on how we treat our mentally ill and still very relevant to today's world. It tells a tragic, yet engaging story and is a bonafide classic, just like the other four in this group. None of these are bad or even mediocre, and you could easily mix them up and any film on top would be a good winner. What a year!

Oscar Winner: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
My Winner:  One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Jaws
Dog Day Afternoon
Barry Lyndon
Nashville