It's always fun to start a new year. A whole new batch of films to watch, especially as I keep going back in time. I haven't seen any of these and enjoy when everything is new and unknown. Let's get to it.
1972 Best Supporting Actress
Eileen Heckart - Butterflies Are Free
There is always that wonder when watching an Oscar winner that you don't really know by name or face if they won it because the performance is deserving or for some other myriad of reasons. We all know by now that the Academy has it's favorite or likes to reward veterans or campaigning persuades people to vote a certain way. So it's always kind of fun to watch these winners and see what exactly is going on. That's more of a general statement and doesn't necessarily apply to Heckart here. I didn't find anything to say that she won for any of the other reasons mentioned. Heckart plays the mother of a blind man who lives on his own in San Francisco. She is the overbearing, authoritative, worrywart of a mother. I was initially worried that would be all the performance is but she actually had a bit of a character arc and showed out as being more of a well rounded character in the story. Her blind son lives next door to the flighty, flirty, carefree Goldie Hawn and the two hit it off immediately. But when Heckart drops in unexpectedly, it pisses her son off and we think she is just an interfering mother who wants to control her son. We see eventually that all her prodding and worrying and asking him to come home comes from a place of love and from seeing him get hurt before. She's a protective mother who knows her son better than anyone else and we see that when Goldie brings some other guy late to a dinner with the blind son and then moves out to live with that other guy. Instead of the I told you so grandstanding, Heckart immediately recognizes her son is hurt and comforts him and convinces him to stay in the apartment and be independent. It's a nice little almost redemption from how awful she seemed at first. Heckart, with her husky voice, really kind of is the glue that keeps this film together. It's not really that good and I'm not a fan of Goldie in it, so she was the redemption for the film itself for me. I feel like she won on the performance unless someone alerts me otherwise that she campaigned hard or something. Nevertheless, Heckart does a nice job with her role in a forgettable film and won in a category without any obvious heavy hitting performance. I'll have to see if that holds true at the end of this one.
Jeannie Berlin - The Heartbreak Kid
When searching for this film, don't make the mistake of watching the Ben Stiller remake from a few years ago, you'll thank me later. If you aren't familiar with this film (who is these days?), it's a Neil Simon film and I have been hit or miss with his films throughout this project. This one is a big hit. It's pretty hilarious at times. Charles Grodin plays the lead actor and he reminds me of like a Ray Romano/Jerry Seinfeld (or Ryan Reynolds?) mix and it's fun to watch his awkwardness. He marries Berlin, who is super Jewish in the New York way (not religious, just nasally and annoying). Immediately after the wedding he realizes she ain't for him and he really only just wanted to bang her. He takes a liking to the young, blonde, pretty Cybill Shepherd while honeymooning in Miami. Berlin gets a gnarly sunburn on the first day and is cooped up in the hotel while Grodin goes and meets with Cybill. I have to say that I really like Berlin's character's demeanor. She's playful and devoted and honest and caring. She's also really attractive to me for some reason. That may cloud my judgment a little but I think she really nails the role of the needy, newlywed wife who suspects her new husband is not into her. She's just a young woman who thinks she's going to be forever happy in life, but Grodin is annoyed at every little thing she says and does. You really feel for her character because of his actions but thankfully this is a comedy and we can laugh at the whole situation. Berlin has a lot of funny moments and lines and is easy to like. She does a good job with a rather limited role and left me wanting to see more. Probably not something that will win, but definitely will compete with this lackluster group.
Geraldine Page - Pete 'n' Tillie
Ah, Geraldine Page. She of the 8 Oscar nominations (with a win for her final one) that so far have made me wonder just what in the heck made her such an Academy darling. This is my 4th nomination of hers that I've seen, and while I recognize that she is a good actress, none have really blown me away. Even her win for The Trip to Bountiful was only good, not great. This one just feels like them trying to get her a win for whatever reason. This film is a really interesting, but strange, story. It stars Walter Matthau and Carol Burnett, so you think this is going to be a hilarious joke a minute thing, but boy is it not! The two meet on a blind date and he's this wisecracking, inappropriate man who says whatever he wants and she's a shy, cynical, conservative woman who isn't really into him. Naturally they eventually keep dating and get married and have a kid and all that. What makes the story weird is how very dry and even dark the humor is. This is more like a real life version of how a relationship goes with all the dark, depressing parts. This is almost like the predecessor of films like Kramer v. Kramer and Ordinary People, though more subtly humorous with a negative tinge. It really doesn't feel like a 70s film and is just really fascinating in how almost charmingly unpleasant it can be. You have to watch to see what I mean. As for Page, well she has a brief scene in the beginning as Burnett's friend who sets up the blind date and then disappears for most of the film. She pops back up at the end when she legit fights Burnett for trying to trick her into giving her age, which she doesn't want to tell anyone. It's a weird scene and that's all Page contributes. Definitely not worth an Oscar or even a nomination. Really not sure why or how she got nominated but at least it got me to see an intriguing yet peculiar film.
Susan Tyrrell - Fat City
I didn't know much about this film going in and I was surprisingly pleased that it ended up being a John Huston directed film starring a young Jeff Bridges and a great Stacy Keach as boxers trying to start their career or rekindle it, respectively. A short film at an hour and a half, but one that was really interesting to watch. Keach gives a terrific performance and Tyrrell is the bar floozie he meets and ends up living with for a bit of time. Tyrrell gives what you can consider of a very naked and vulnerable performance. No, she's not nude, but she plays an alcoholic who is never not without a drink and cigarette in her hands and we first meet her in a bar, trashed, running the gamut of drunk emotions. She's loud and angry and apologetic and flirty and mean and sweet and all of that at once. Tyrrell does a good job of making a role that is easily over the top into something a bit more respectable. I think that's the main part where Tyrrell succeeds because she plays her drunk character who moves from man to man and is never actually doing anything other than laying in bed or sitting around drinking, in an honest way. She gets into a fight with Keach because he wants her to eat food he made and she doesn't need him to cook for her so she doesn't want it so he says fine and goes to trash it and then she jumps up ready to eat and knocks some food to the floor and they argue about it some more. It feels very true to life for an alcoholic person to have these crazy mood swings and confrontations over the smallest things. And that's how Tyrrell plays it the entire time. She's never not drunk or out of it. She always has attitude followed by instant placating moments and you see how awful it can be to witness that behavior. Tyrrell does a terrific job of displaying that existence and how pathetic it is. It's a really good performance that does feel over the top at first but once you see what she is doing with the character, you get it. I'm just glad I got to watch this film even though it needed to be fleshed out a lot more.
Shelley Winters - The Poseidon Adventure
One of the films that helped kick off the disaster movie craze. Take a bunch of famous people (this film has 5 Oscar winners and another nominee, plus a bunch of recognizable faces/names), stick them on a ship or in a building or on a plane and make them have to survive while melding in personal drama. The beats are all familiar and you can almost set your watch to how things will progress in the story, but it's still usually entertaining to watch if you don't take it all too seriously. In this one, a big passenger ship is hit by a tidal wave right after midnight on NYE and capsized and everyone has to try and survive. Winters plays a fat lady where her weight becomes part of the drama of trying to escape. I guess Winters put on 35 pounds for the role and then bemoaned late how she could never really work it off after that. She was also a two-time Oscar winner previously which is probably why she was singled out for this film as the lone representative. I would say her big Oscar scene is where she has to dive underwater to go find Gene Hackman and she saves him (she was a champion swimmer in high school as we are told a bunch of times) but then succumbs right after. Winters is fine in the role as the nice old, fat lady who is worried about herself making it through as well as everyone else. She has a very maternalistic presence in the film and is like watching your grandma. The performance isn't all that amazing, however. The whole film is full of overacting and we are here more for the special effects and spectacle and tension rather than the acting. I am more interested in seeing Winters' actual wins to see just what kind of actress she really is because this nomination doesn't say a whole lot other than the Academy really liked her.
Definitely not the best group ever. Really underwhelming overall without any performance blowing me away or strong enough to win outright. Obviously, someone had to win, but this is a really weak group. I think Heckart won because she has the most to work with and gives a real performance. Page is easily out because she's barely in her film and doesn't do much of anything. Briefly funny, her big scene just doesn't quite make sense. The Academy was just trying to get her a win for whatever reason. Winters already had two Oscar wins. You can't give her a third for a role like that. She was mostly the representation from the film itself. Berlin was good in a limited role and I wanted to see more from her. I thought she was very good but mostly plays the aggrieved wife and doesn't really get to shine. I did like Tyrrell, as playing drunk can be hard and she makes it seem pretty realistic. But that's all she plays in the role and if she wasn't so one note, she'd probably be my winner. Heckart is the most well rounded of all the performances and I think that is partially why she won. If you gotta pick someone, might as well be her. That's not a very good endorsement for this year but at least they made me watch some interesting films.
Oscar Winner: Eileen Heckart - Butterflies Are Free
My Winner: Eileen Heckart - Butterflies Are Free
Susan Tyrrell
Jeannie Berlin
Shelley Winters
Geraldine Page
Saturday, March 16, 2019
Saturday, March 9, 2019
Best Picture 1973
I am pumped to be getting closer and closer to the 60's which, even though it's been a long process, still felt like I would never reach this far back at times. This year brings 3 films I have already seen along with one I know absolutely nothing about and a foreign film from a brilliant director that I'm sure will be depressing and slow. I am interested to see how the category stacks up with such a diverse group of nominees so elt's get to it.
1973 Best Picture
The Sting
I have always enjoyed The Sting even before I knew it was a Best Picture winner. Probably from being a big fan of Robert Redford and Paul Newman movies (together and separately). So when I was watching it again for the blog just a couple days after Green Book won Best Picture, I wondered what kind of reaction I would have had back in 1973. I feel like I would have enjoyed it just as much as I do now, but I wondered if I would have disliked it because it was the popular choice? It too was going up against a highly regarded and reviewed foreign film, a popular genre film that captured the public consciousness, a film that made everyone nostalgic and kicked off the teen movies as we know them today, and a film about a likable British lady. Maybe I'm making parallels where there aren't any and I'm stretching, but it made sense to me after watching both so close together. The Academy likes to pretend it's progressive and open but they always go back to the safe picks. That doesn't make this winner a bad film by any means. It's such a fun film to watch that I get sucked into it every time I happen to catch it on TV. It's about a drifter in Redford who unknowingly steals from a money man for the mob and they come after him and his older, black partner. The partner is killed and so Redford goes to Newman (an old friend of his deceased partner) to try and get back at the big mob guy. Then we see all the lead up and preparation for the revenge, with the last part being known as the sting for the big payoff. The beginning is almost a little dark and has a different feel since a dude gets killed, but the film quickly recovers and becomes this fun romp as we see the duo of Redford and Newman set up these elaborate schemes to trick the mob boss into wasting a ton of money. The film is very stylish, hearkening back to the 30s with some of the film tricks like the sideways scene transition wipes and the use of an adapted Henry Mancini score (though that's more before the 30s, but it sounds good). And then there's the Saturday Evening Post-like title cards that say The Set-Up, The Hook, and The Tale. There's a few more, but they are like chapters to the film that describe part of the con man process and adds a cool little flourish to an already really cool film. Obviously the acting of both Newman and Redford (nominated) gives even more style to the film. Newman shows off some comedic chops while also playing a hardass betting house owner. Redford acts as the true Hollywood everyman and gives a very Redford performance. They make the film enjoying to watch as does the supporting cast. It's just a well made film that is a ton of fun to watch and you understand why it was a huge hit that won 7 Oscars. I think it still holds up as a good winner, too. Maybe not groundbreaking or important, but definitely damn entertaining and sometimes that's what is going to win Best Picture.
American Graffiti
I think a lot of people forget or don't even realize that this is a George Lucas film. Yes, before Star Wars, Lucas did other things like write and direct another Best Picture film. I remember watching this a long time ago when I was doing my run through the AFI Top 100 Films list and loved it. I felt nostalgia for a time I wasn't even alive. And I think that's exactly why this film was so well received and landed six Oscar noms. It allowed those old, white Academy guys to fondly remember a time they were a part of. It was only about 10 years prior, but it feels like another time. Incredibly, the studio sat on this film for over 6 months because they thought it was trash and didn't know how to market it or what to do with it. Eventually they released it and it took off in popularity. It's also a little revolutionary in that Lucas wanted to use a ton of songs from the era as the score, essentially, and that just wasn't really done back then. Now it's more than commonplace but was unheard of at the time. And the cast that seems full of names, was in reality a bunch of nobodies. Harrison Ford, Ron Howard (before Happy Days, not completely a nobody with his child acting), and Richard Dreyfuss all star in this along with some other faces and names you might recognize. This film also set off the high school film genre, though I don't really want to use genre. But it made the whole last days of high school theme something to really bank on. It's crazy how influential this film actually is and you can compare it to Star Wars almost in that regard. Lucas sure knew what he was doing. It's fun to watch as we hang out with these kids over one night in their small town before Howard and Dreyfuss are to leave for college. Simple story with lots of plot threads hanging off of it makes for an entertaining couple of hours. Some say it's too nostalgic that it simplifies a time period to being cliche. Others praised it for being more like real life in stead of hot rods playing chicken or slick haired gangs having knife fights or whatever. I definitely think it offers an idealized version of the early 60s but it also stays true to what Lucas experienced growing up. I think that's what makes people latch onto the film and enjoy the ride, I know I did. Negative points, though, for not including the women in the post ending scenes. Bizarre and really chauvinistic choice to not even bother to mention them by Lucas.
Cries and Whispers
Ah, an Ingmar Bergman film. If you know anything about his films, you know they are going to be gorgeously shot with some intense acting with a story that will be depressing and sad. Brighter minds than me have written countless articles and critiques about Bergman's work and what their deeper meanings are all about. I won't pretend to understand his films on an Academic level, I just know that they are well made and influential but not really my style. This film is about three sisters, one of whom is dying. The other two sisters are cold and emotionally distant with the dying sister and each other. We see flashbacks of one sister cheating on her husband with the dying sister's doctor. The other sister has a flashback of herself mutilating her genitals to keep her husband away from her. They all have these horrible relationship issues that prevent each one from becoming close to the others. The dying sister remembers how their mother favored the sister that cheated and felt unloved from that. There are a lot of deeper meanings that can be derived from the sisters' relationships as well as the very close relationship of the maid in the film to the dying sister. The sister ends up dying and the other two sisters eventually see an apparition of her and react in different ways to her presence. The ending seems to be the two sisters going back to life as normal for them while their husbands act indifferently or even annoyed by having been there. Like I said, a lot to unpack from the film and you can interpret it in different ways. The film is one of those great films from a master director who was at the top of his craft. The cinematography rightfully won an Oscar and just seeing the color palette of reds and whites is enough to understand why. It is wonderfully shot with many expertly framed pictures that look like they could be old paintings come to life. Even if the depressing nature of Bergman's films turn you off, all of his films are some of the best looking things in the medium. I'm glad to have watched the film, but it's one of those that I don't find eager to return to and watch again any time soon.
The Exorcist
Widely considered to be the greatest horror film of all time, it easily earns that distinction. It's also really great to see the Academy reward a genre film, even if it is rooted in the personal human element of a drama. I think that's why the film succeeds so much because yes, it is a horror film, but it eschews the normal tendencies of that genre to create something more powerful and longer lasting in effect. A lot of people consider this to be really scary, but I don't find the film to be very scary at all. It's more unnerving that someone could become possessed, whether you actually believe in it or not. The film also has a lot to say about personal faith and it easily starts a good discourse on believing or not believing. The great performance from Jason Miller is where we see that inner turmoil of the soul. He is doubting more and more especially with his mother dying. But we also see his faith in the process of the exorcism since he has to believe in the words he is saying. I like that just a horror picture can have a deeper meaning to it and give us a lot to think about other than how gross the green vomit was or how fucked up Linda Blair's possession was when she crab walks down the stairs or her head spins around. The thing that also stuck out to me while watching this film again is that it still feels timely and even though it's like 47 years old still feels relevant and like it was made only recently. The effects still stand up, the story and acting are great, some of the shots in the film are timeless, and it's just an overall great film film, not just a great horror film. I think it is better served because it was treated like a normal film and not just a vehicle to shock the viewer and be as grotesque as possible. Plus, it was one of the first films about possession and exorcisms, so it got to create the tropes that other films would ape in the future. This is still a great film and a great choice by the Academy.
A Touch of Class
When I was watching this for Glenda Jackson's Best Actress win, I totally forgot that this was also nominated for Best Picture. I didn't realize until after that it was nominated and it made me scratch my head a bit. The other four films I completely understand their inclusion. But this is the clear fifth place winner because the film itself isn't all that amazing. The story is about a married American guy living in London who does insurance stuff. He meet cutes Jackson a couple times and the two hit it off and quickly have tea and plan to hook up. Then it becomes a sort of comedy of errors as something always happens when they try to finally do the deed and end up not doing and the sizzle dies out. So they plan a trip to Spain, but then the guy's family surprises him because they were out of town and then they get included in the trip to Spain but at the last minute don't go. But then he meets a business friend so the trip is more how can they finally get together stuff. You see what the film is like. Jackson is pretty great at being the witty, acerbic British lady with her comebacks and responses. The guy is kind of a bumbling, horny American who doesn't seem to give any shits about his family. Which is where my distaste for the film comes from. He treats his family like crap and we are given no reason to understand why he'd rather fly off to Spain with Jackson while his family is back other than he's just really horny and an awful person. And Jackson seemingly has no problem with this as she is newly divorced, but that seems opposite as to the kind of strong, independent woman that she is. I can't see her being okay with being a mistress and knowing he's figuring out ways to hide it all from his family. It's an icky feeling that the film seems to not really care about addressing. The rest of the film is the two going through their own ups and downs as a couple while life tries to interject. They realize they have feelings for each other yet that is not really addressed in a rushed ending that isn't very satisfying. She calls him out on just being piece of meat for him and that's when they realize they care more about each other than just as objects to use. But then the film is almost over and they just kinda go on their own ways. It doesn't feel like a Best Picture film to me. It does feel very of the times and maybe it just reached audiences that year or something, I don't know. I do know that besides Jackson's performance, I don't really care for this one at all.
Not a bad year at all! I feel like A Touch of Class is the outlier that does not belong in this group and we would have been better served with something else taking it's place. The only reason to see it is for Glenda Jackson's performance and even then that's only because she won. The rest of the films feel like they belong, though. Maybe Cries and Whispers is more of a nod to Ingmar Bergman and obviously isn't his best film, but I feel like it's something to watch at least once and was the Academy finally paying homage to him. Worth diving in to his filmography and the Academy gives us a couple chances of doing that. I'm sure some people will find me putting American Graffiti ahead of Bergman blasphemous, but I honestly would rather watch American nostalgia over Scandinavian guilt and depression any day. It's a fun film that is way more influential than people give it credit for or even realize. All those high school films that came after are because of this film. And it ushered in actual songs as soundtracks for films which seems crazy to think about that it wasn't really done before. The Sting gets runner up simply because I feel The Exorcist is a better longer lasting film. The Sting is the feel good movie that is fun to watch the con man process play out and has some great actors in it and it's just fun. Simply fun to watch. But it feels like a winner that is good but not great even if it's super enjoyable to watch. The Exorcist feels like a winner that would be ranked up in the top of all the Oscar winners for Best Picture. It still stands up even today and is such a classic film that it makes sense to make it my winner. All in all a decent year.
Oscar Winner: The Sting
My Winner: The Exorcist
The Sting
American Graffiti
Cries and Whispers
A Touch of Class
1973 Best Picture
The Sting
I have always enjoyed The Sting even before I knew it was a Best Picture winner. Probably from being a big fan of Robert Redford and Paul Newman movies (together and separately). So when I was watching it again for the blog just a couple days after Green Book won Best Picture, I wondered what kind of reaction I would have had back in 1973. I feel like I would have enjoyed it just as much as I do now, but I wondered if I would have disliked it because it was the popular choice? It too was going up against a highly regarded and reviewed foreign film, a popular genre film that captured the public consciousness, a film that made everyone nostalgic and kicked off the teen movies as we know them today, and a film about a likable British lady. Maybe I'm making parallels where there aren't any and I'm stretching, but it made sense to me after watching both so close together. The Academy likes to pretend it's progressive and open but they always go back to the safe picks. That doesn't make this winner a bad film by any means. It's such a fun film to watch that I get sucked into it every time I happen to catch it on TV. It's about a drifter in Redford who unknowingly steals from a money man for the mob and they come after him and his older, black partner. The partner is killed and so Redford goes to Newman (an old friend of his deceased partner) to try and get back at the big mob guy. Then we see all the lead up and preparation for the revenge, with the last part being known as the sting for the big payoff. The beginning is almost a little dark and has a different feel since a dude gets killed, but the film quickly recovers and becomes this fun romp as we see the duo of Redford and Newman set up these elaborate schemes to trick the mob boss into wasting a ton of money. The film is very stylish, hearkening back to the 30s with some of the film tricks like the sideways scene transition wipes and the use of an adapted Henry Mancini score (though that's more before the 30s, but it sounds good). And then there's the Saturday Evening Post-like title cards that say The Set-Up, The Hook, and The Tale. There's a few more, but they are like chapters to the film that describe part of the con man process and adds a cool little flourish to an already really cool film. Obviously the acting of both Newman and Redford (nominated) gives even more style to the film. Newman shows off some comedic chops while also playing a hardass betting house owner. Redford acts as the true Hollywood everyman and gives a very Redford performance. They make the film enjoying to watch as does the supporting cast. It's just a well made film that is a ton of fun to watch and you understand why it was a huge hit that won 7 Oscars. I think it still holds up as a good winner, too. Maybe not groundbreaking or important, but definitely damn entertaining and sometimes that's what is going to win Best Picture.
American Graffiti
I think a lot of people forget or don't even realize that this is a George Lucas film. Yes, before Star Wars, Lucas did other things like write and direct another Best Picture film. I remember watching this a long time ago when I was doing my run through the AFI Top 100 Films list and loved it. I felt nostalgia for a time I wasn't even alive. And I think that's exactly why this film was so well received and landed six Oscar noms. It allowed those old, white Academy guys to fondly remember a time they were a part of. It was only about 10 years prior, but it feels like another time. Incredibly, the studio sat on this film for over 6 months because they thought it was trash and didn't know how to market it or what to do with it. Eventually they released it and it took off in popularity. It's also a little revolutionary in that Lucas wanted to use a ton of songs from the era as the score, essentially, and that just wasn't really done back then. Now it's more than commonplace but was unheard of at the time. And the cast that seems full of names, was in reality a bunch of nobodies. Harrison Ford, Ron Howard (before Happy Days, not completely a nobody with his child acting), and Richard Dreyfuss all star in this along with some other faces and names you might recognize. This film also set off the high school film genre, though I don't really want to use genre. But it made the whole last days of high school theme something to really bank on. It's crazy how influential this film actually is and you can compare it to Star Wars almost in that regard. Lucas sure knew what he was doing. It's fun to watch as we hang out with these kids over one night in their small town before Howard and Dreyfuss are to leave for college. Simple story with lots of plot threads hanging off of it makes for an entertaining couple of hours. Some say it's too nostalgic that it simplifies a time period to being cliche. Others praised it for being more like real life in stead of hot rods playing chicken or slick haired gangs having knife fights or whatever. I definitely think it offers an idealized version of the early 60s but it also stays true to what Lucas experienced growing up. I think that's what makes people latch onto the film and enjoy the ride, I know I did. Negative points, though, for not including the women in the post ending scenes. Bizarre and really chauvinistic choice to not even bother to mention them by Lucas.
Cries and Whispers
Ah, an Ingmar Bergman film. If you know anything about his films, you know they are going to be gorgeously shot with some intense acting with a story that will be depressing and sad. Brighter minds than me have written countless articles and critiques about Bergman's work and what their deeper meanings are all about. I won't pretend to understand his films on an Academic level, I just know that they are well made and influential but not really my style. This film is about three sisters, one of whom is dying. The other two sisters are cold and emotionally distant with the dying sister and each other. We see flashbacks of one sister cheating on her husband with the dying sister's doctor. The other sister has a flashback of herself mutilating her genitals to keep her husband away from her. They all have these horrible relationship issues that prevent each one from becoming close to the others. The dying sister remembers how their mother favored the sister that cheated and felt unloved from that. There are a lot of deeper meanings that can be derived from the sisters' relationships as well as the very close relationship of the maid in the film to the dying sister. The sister ends up dying and the other two sisters eventually see an apparition of her and react in different ways to her presence. The ending seems to be the two sisters going back to life as normal for them while their husbands act indifferently or even annoyed by having been there. Like I said, a lot to unpack from the film and you can interpret it in different ways. The film is one of those great films from a master director who was at the top of his craft. The cinematography rightfully won an Oscar and just seeing the color palette of reds and whites is enough to understand why. It is wonderfully shot with many expertly framed pictures that look like they could be old paintings come to life. Even if the depressing nature of Bergman's films turn you off, all of his films are some of the best looking things in the medium. I'm glad to have watched the film, but it's one of those that I don't find eager to return to and watch again any time soon.
The Exorcist
Widely considered to be the greatest horror film of all time, it easily earns that distinction. It's also really great to see the Academy reward a genre film, even if it is rooted in the personal human element of a drama. I think that's why the film succeeds so much because yes, it is a horror film, but it eschews the normal tendencies of that genre to create something more powerful and longer lasting in effect. A lot of people consider this to be really scary, but I don't find the film to be very scary at all. It's more unnerving that someone could become possessed, whether you actually believe in it or not. The film also has a lot to say about personal faith and it easily starts a good discourse on believing or not believing. The great performance from Jason Miller is where we see that inner turmoil of the soul. He is doubting more and more especially with his mother dying. But we also see his faith in the process of the exorcism since he has to believe in the words he is saying. I like that just a horror picture can have a deeper meaning to it and give us a lot to think about other than how gross the green vomit was or how fucked up Linda Blair's possession was when she crab walks down the stairs or her head spins around. The thing that also stuck out to me while watching this film again is that it still feels timely and even though it's like 47 years old still feels relevant and like it was made only recently. The effects still stand up, the story and acting are great, some of the shots in the film are timeless, and it's just an overall great film film, not just a great horror film. I think it is better served because it was treated like a normal film and not just a vehicle to shock the viewer and be as grotesque as possible. Plus, it was one of the first films about possession and exorcisms, so it got to create the tropes that other films would ape in the future. This is still a great film and a great choice by the Academy.
A Touch of Class
When I was watching this for Glenda Jackson's Best Actress win, I totally forgot that this was also nominated for Best Picture. I didn't realize until after that it was nominated and it made me scratch my head a bit. The other four films I completely understand their inclusion. But this is the clear fifth place winner because the film itself isn't all that amazing. The story is about a married American guy living in London who does insurance stuff. He meet cutes Jackson a couple times and the two hit it off and quickly have tea and plan to hook up. Then it becomes a sort of comedy of errors as something always happens when they try to finally do the deed and end up not doing and the sizzle dies out. So they plan a trip to Spain, but then the guy's family surprises him because they were out of town and then they get included in the trip to Spain but at the last minute don't go. But then he meets a business friend so the trip is more how can they finally get together stuff. You see what the film is like. Jackson is pretty great at being the witty, acerbic British lady with her comebacks and responses. The guy is kind of a bumbling, horny American who doesn't seem to give any shits about his family. Which is where my distaste for the film comes from. He treats his family like crap and we are given no reason to understand why he'd rather fly off to Spain with Jackson while his family is back other than he's just really horny and an awful person. And Jackson seemingly has no problem with this as she is newly divorced, but that seems opposite as to the kind of strong, independent woman that she is. I can't see her being okay with being a mistress and knowing he's figuring out ways to hide it all from his family. It's an icky feeling that the film seems to not really care about addressing. The rest of the film is the two going through their own ups and downs as a couple while life tries to interject. They realize they have feelings for each other yet that is not really addressed in a rushed ending that isn't very satisfying. She calls him out on just being piece of meat for him and that's when they realize they care more about each other than just as objects to use. But then the film is almost over and they just kinda go on their own ways. It doesn't feel like a Best Picture film to me. It does feel very of the times and maybe it just reached audiences that year or something, I don't know. I do know that besides Jackson's performance, I don't really care for this one at all.
Not a bad year at all! I feel like A Touch of Class is the outlier that does not belong in this group and we would have been better served with something else taking it's place. The only reason to see it is for Glenda Jackson's performance and even then that's only because she won. The rest of the films feel like they belong, though. Maybe Cries and Whispers is more of a nod to Ingmar Bergman and obviously isn't his best film, but I feel like it's something to watch at least once and was the Academy finally paying homage to him. Worth diving in to his filmography and the Academy gives us a couple chances of doing that. I'm sure some people will find me putting American Graffiti ahead of Bergman blasphemous, but I honestly would rather watch American nostalgia over Scandinavian guilt and depression any day. It's a fun film that is way more influential than people give it credit for or even realize. All those high school films that came after are because of this film. And it ushered in actual songs as soundtracks for films which seems crazy to think about that it wasn't really done before. The Sting gets runner up simply because I feel The Exorcist is a better longer lasting film. The Sting is the feel good movie that is fun to watch the con man process play out and has some great actors in it and it's just fun. Simply fun to watch. But it feels like a winner that is good but not great even if it's super enjoyable to watch. The Exorcist feels like a winner that would be ranked up in the top of all the Oscar winners for Best Picture. It still stands up even today and is such a classic film that it makes sense to make it my winner. All in all a decent year.
Oscar Winner: The Sting
My Winner: The Exorcist
The Sting
American Graffiti
Cries and Whispers
A Touch of Class
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Leading Actor 1973
Big names all the way down and I've only seen Redford's performance. I'm excited to watch all these guys do their thing and can only hope it lives up to the last couple years I've done in this category!
1973 Best Actor
Jack Lemmon - Save the Tiger
I am a huge Jack Lemmon fan. I just completely dig his style of acting and the fact that he did it for so long with so many great roles. From his dramas to his comedies and to everything in between, I could watch Lemmon act every day, all day. I was excited to finally see his Best Actor winning performance because I honestly didn't really know anything about it. What I had gathered over the years is that this was a passion project of sorts that would be a great way for him to earn another Oscar. So Oscar bait from Jack Lemmon, if you will. And I'm okay with that! There's a few actors I'll be fine with them gunning for an Oscar and giving us a film that's all about them. This film is certainly all about Lemmon, a garment factory owner who has a moral conflict when it comes to trying to save his business. The films shows all of Lemmon's shady dealings like cooking the books, hiring prostitutes for his prospective buyers, and finally hiring someone to burn down the warehouse so as to collect the insurance money. It's whatever he can do to stay open for another little bit to put out more collections and clothes. But Lemmon as a character is also in a run down marriage. They spend a lot of time apart and when they are together, there doesn't seem to be any real spark. He picks up young female hitchhikers I think in an attempt to sort of feel young again. He cheats on his wife with the girl and is just a pretty unlikable guy, yet Lemmon does all this in a way where you don't truly hate him, you just feel sorry for him. He has these PTSD flashbacks to the war and he has this internal dilemma where he feels he is letting down his buddies that died by being a shady businessman and not living up to the ideals of the American dream. You can see that this clearly is in favor of giving Lemmon a ton to work with and he of course is more than capable of executing everything perfectly. I like his jittery, frenetic, talking a mile a minute acting style. It seems to allow for improvisation and unplanned deviations even though everything was rehearsed before shooting (though there still could have been changes made on the spot, I don't know). I connect with his style, but I sense that others might get turned off by it. I do think that it works really well for him especially in the scene where he smokes some weed with the hitchhiker girl and goes off with wanting to relate to his past and being angry that the girl didn't know some things he was talking about. There was a fine balance being struck to keep from going too overboard in any direction, whether too angry or too sad or too hammy with the content. Again, this was more of an acting showcase for Lemmon and he nails it. He gets all of the screen time, all of the dialogue, and gets to run through all kinds of emotions and act out a lot of inner conflict. It's great to watch someone of his caliber just completely go to town on a role and do so in a way that doesn't actually come off as being Oscar bait. I mean, the guy can be in a scene discussing the complexities of burning his business down and then quickly shout out a baseball player's name he was trying to remember and then go on about that before coming back around to the arson. It just shows how the character's mind works but also how Lemmon can take the inner workings of a person's mind and really show what's going on in someone's head. It's fantastic stuff and I'm glad that Lemmon became the first person in Oscar history to win one each in Supporting and Lead.
Marlon Brando - Last Tango in Paris
I guess I'll start off by saying I was not really into this film. There was a ton of controversy surround this film when it came out and it had an X rating at first and was supposed to be very explicit and almost taboo. And that may have been the case back in 1972-73, but watching this in 2019 makes it hard to see what all the fuss was about. It's pretty tame by today's standards. The nudity is is not really explicit and is mostly done in service to the sexually charged story. The sex scenes are usually brief and don't really show anything titillating. You see more in the 80's erotic thrillers than this. The most controversial part is the butter scene where Marlon Brando uses butter as lube for anal with the lead actress. It's essentially rape in the story and I guess that butter part was never communicated to the actress when it was being filmed, so almost rape just in that sense, too. I would say that's the only real controversial moment in the film. Maybe you can also say the opening scene where Brando forces the woman to have sex after just meeting or in the scene where he has her put her fingers into his ass. I mean, that kinda shows you what this film is about although the sex really takes a back seat at times to the story. Brando's character is not a likable guy, he's very controlling and dour and moody and emotional. This all starts after his wife kills herself and he has to deal with that trauma. He starts a relationship with the young girl, Jeanne, on the pretenses that they just meet and have sex and they don't know anything about each other. It's Brando's way of being able to control the relationship and the feelings and emotions, I think. I feel like his grief has caused him to wildly swing to an extreme of random sex with a young girl he just met. I won't pretend to try and dive into the meaning of the film and all of it's subtext, but it is a very raw film for Brando to open up in. I think Brando does some great acting in parts, but even he admitted that he didn't understand the point of the film and that he didn't know what director Bernardo Bertolucci meant about certain scenes. And that clearly shows, as the performance as a whole falls flat. It's definitely more interesting in parts, in part because it was full of improvisation from Brando who didn't like to memorize his lines and would read lines off cards in the scene or make up new ones. I think that's why the performance feels so incomplete as their isn't a consistency throughout the film. Couple that with me not really liking the film and this Brando performance just doesn't really do it for me. Many people claim this is his best work and one of the best acting performances ever, but it's too hamstrung by a director who wants to be controversial and provocative and edgy. It really misses the mark for me.
Jack Nicholson - The Last Detail
"I am the motherfucking Shore Patrol!" Always wondered where that line came from, now I know. This film sees Nicholson having such a blast in the role of Billy "Badass" Buddusky. Like it's very clear that Nicholson is enjoying every second and just going all out with the role. It's like watching what Nicholson would become in his later years and this is the trial run. His enthusiasm for the role is infectious and this quickly becomes his film, even though the point of the story is about the young shy guy that Nicholson and Otis Young are escorting to naval prison. It's essentially a vehicle for Nicholson to do what he wants with his character and he creates a very memorable one while doing so. While Young plays the straight man, Nicholson gets to be wild and crazy while showing Randy Quaid's character the time of his life before he goes to prison. He seems like a Navy lifer that really needed a bit of adventure to satiate his soul and we get to watch as that process unfolds over the film. Nicholson is surly and mostly an asshole but his softer side comes out and he recognizes that the poor kid he's escorting is a virgin and has no real life experience and decides to change that. They get drunk, they threaten a bartender when he won't serve the underage Quaid, they watch dirty movies, get more drunk, go to a whorehouse, eat lots of food, party with women, and just get into all kinds of hijinks. Nicholson is the one leading the way the entire time and his wild demeanor can be endearing at times. It's not a deep role for Nicholson, but he definitely brings a lot more to the character than I think other actors would. There's an earnestness in his Badass to do the right thing and stick it to those in authority a little bit, as evidenced by his interaction with the Marine Lieutenant at the end of the film. The character isn't just an asshole party boy, but someone with humanity who just shows it in a different way. It's a fun, interesting early performance from Nicholson that I imagine many people haven't ever seen. Well, it's definitely worth watching for Nicholson's performance alone.
Al Pacino - Serpico
This is my final Pacino nomination to review and it's kinda sad that I'm coming to the end of seeing his performances. There are few actors that have the longevity and output that he has had in his career. I've already watched and reviewed The Godfather for 1972, so this is really the end. But it's so easy to see why Pacino was so highly regarded as an actor. He had this stretch of a few years where every role was iconic and everlasting and this is certainly one of them. It's also Pacino boiled down to his essence. This is before all the yelling became his trademark style (you know what I'm talking about, just watch Heat or Any Given Sunday to get that style) and he offers up a fully committed performance that is so reserved yet bombastic at the same time. The film is about a NYC cop who isn't on the take and tries to root out corruption from the top down in the NYPD. We see a man who is driven to the edge of his own humanity and is beaten down by the pressure of doing what is morally right and just. Pacino plays a lot of Serpico as this sort of independent, hippie like character who just wants to do good police work. His fellow cops can't and don't trust him because he's not on the take and that moral power struggle eats at Pacino like a disease. It's fun to watch Pacino use a more minimalist style than the maximum style he'd later be more well known for. He really makes you feel Serpico's distrust and dislike by his fellow cops like you are the one they hate. I would have liked more depth to the character, though. I say that because we see that Serpico is a good cop, but never go too in depth about why he is so steadfast in not taking money on the side and eventually turning on his fellow cops. The relationships he has are strained but also not too well developed for us to explore what makes Serpico tick. He's also kind of a controlling ass who lashes out at his girlfriends, which seems understandable with the immense pressure and life and death choices he makes, but point to a more conflicted person underneath and not the pristine good cop who is the epitome of morality. I feel like there is more to explore and I feel like Pacino in a couple years, or even less, would have allowed us to do just that. But Pacino is truly fantastic in this film and I started this one late on a work night not knowing if I'd finish it in one sitting, yet Pacino's performance sucked me in and next thing I knew it was finished. I was enthralled with Pacino no matter if the story had some repetitive moments of going from precinct to precinct and encountering the same corruption and being hated and moving on. Pacino (and director Sidney Lumet) is what makes the story so intriguing because we invest our self fully into his Frank Serpico and follow his journey. I'm sad that I don't get to see more of this kind of work from him. It's really strong acting and these roles are what cemented him as one of the greatest of his generation.
Robert Redford - The Sting
It's weird to think that Redford only has one acting nomination total for his long, illustrious career. We always think of him as this big Hollywood superstar known for his good looks and charm and forget he is an Oscar winning director, too! I don't think this is Redford's best acting performance ever, it just happens to be in a film that the Academy loved that year and Redford was more the lead than Paul Newman really was. Redford plays a grifter who steals from a mob bag man and his partner is killed as a result. This leads him to Newman, a well known con man, who helps Redford pull off a huge con on the mob boss as revenge. This is a very Redford performance, one where his movie star qualities succeed in making him the everyman and allows the audience to sympathize with a grifter. It's a fine performance and Redford does a good job with the role and is really dedicated to his character, but it's not anything amazing. I think Redford benefits from being in this film and also being in The Way We Were with Barbra Streisand and having that be a huge romantic movie hit. Having two huge box office hits helped get him this nomination and it's almost fitting for his acting career as a whole. And really not much else to say, it's Redford so you know exactly what you are getting and he doesn't disappoint in that. A great film and a great actor to both enjoy.
Another year, another Pacino-Nicholson face off. Both lose, again, although my winner is Pacino - again. This one doesn't have anything to do with righting the make up Oscars giving out later, but just because I really like Pacino in his film and think it's a really strong performance. I love the hell out of Lemmon and see why this performance won him his Best Actor Oscar. But it really is Oscar bait in it's purest form and in a lesser year he is my easy winner. For now he will have to settle for second. Nicholson is in the middle mostly because the performance is kinda the same throughout. It's a lot of fun to watch Nicholson clearly having a blast in the role, so that right there makes it worth the watch. Plus, it's probably way overlooked as it is so why not be one of the few to watch it? Redford is Redford. There are three way better performances though his is no less entertaining. I'm glad he has an acting nomination but he's like Brad Pitt winning his Oscar for something other than acting. Brando brings up the rear. Not a fan of the film and felt the performance was disjointed. I love early Brando, but later Brando is so frustrating to watch. A pretty good year by my standards. No more Pacino-Nicholson battles in my future, but I'm sure there will be something else to look forward to.
Oscar Winner: Jack Lemmon - Save the Tiger
My Winner: Al Pacino - Serpico
Jack Lemmon
Jack Nicholson
Robert Redford
Marlon Brando
1973 Best Actor
Jack Lemmon - Save the Tiger
I am a huge Jack Lemmon fan. I just completely dig his style of acting and the fact that he did it for so long with so many great roles. From his dramas to his comedies and to everything in between, I could watch Lemmon act every day, all day. I was excited to finally see his Best Actor winning performance because I honestly didn't really know anything about it. What I had gathered over the years is that this was a passion project of sorts that would be a great way for him to earn another Oscar. So Oscar bait from Jack Lemmon, if you will. And I'm okay with that! There's a few actors I'll be fine with them gunning for an Oscar and giving us a film that's all about them. This film is certainly all about Lemmon, a garment factory owner who has a moral conflict when it comes to trying to save his business. The films shows all of Lemmon's shady dealings like cooking the books, hiring prostitutes for his prospective buyers, and finally hiring someone to burn down the warehouse so as to collect the insurance money. It's whatever he can do to stay open for another little bit to put out more collections and clothes. But Lemmon as a character is also in a run down marriage. They spend a lot of time apart and when they are together, there doesn't seem to be any real spark. He picks up young female hitchhikers I think in an attempt to sort of feel young again. He cheats on his wife with the girl and is just a pretty unlikable guy, yet Lemmon does all this in a way where you don't truly hate him, you just feel sorry for him. He has these PTSD flashbacks to the war and he has this internal dilemma where he feels he is letting down his buddies that died by being a shady businessman and not living up to the ideals of the American dream. You can see that this clearly is in favor of giving Lemmon a ton to work with and he of course is more than capable of executing everything perfectly. I like his jittery, frenetic, talking a mile a minute acting style. It seems to allow for improvisation and unplanned deviations even though everything was rehearsed before shooting (though there still could have been changes made on the spot, I don't know). I connect with his style, but I sense that others might get turned off by it. I do think that it works really well for him especially in the scene where he smokes some weed with the hitchhiker girl and goes off with wanting to relate to his past and being angry that the girl didn't know some things he was talking about. There was a fine balance being struck to keep from going too overboard in any direction, whether too angry or too sad or too hammy with the content. Again, this was more of an acting showcase for Lemmon and he nails it. He gets all of the screen time, all of the dialogue, and gets to run through all kinds of emotions and act out a lot of inner conflict. It's great to watch someone of his caliber just completely go to town on a role and do so in a way that doesn't actually come off as being Oscar bait. I mean, the guy can be in a scene discussing the complexities of burning his business down and then quickly shout out a baseball player's name he was trying to remember and then go on about that before coming back around to the arson. It just shows how the character's mind works but also how Lemmon can take the inner workings of a person's mind and really show what's going on in someone's head. It's fantastic stuff and I'm glad that Lemmon became the first person in Oscar history to win one each in Supporting and Lead.
Marlon Brando - Last Tango in Paris
I guess I'll start off by saying I was not really into this film. There was a ton of controversy surround this film when it came out and it had an X rating at first and was supposed to be very explicit and almost taboo. And that may have been the case back in 1972-73, but watching this in 2019 makes it hard to see what all the fuss was about. It's pretty tame by today's standards. The nudity is is not really explicit and is mostly done in service to the sexually charged story. The sex scenes are usually brief and don't really show anything titillating. You see more in the 80's erotic thrillers than this. The most controversial part is the butter scene where Marlon Brando uses butter as lube for anal with the lead actress. It's essentially rape in the story and I guess that butter part was never communicated to the actress when it was being filmed, so almost rape just in that sense, too. I would say that's the only real controversial moment in the film. Maybe you can also say the opening scene where Brando forces the woman to have sex after just meeting or in the scene where he has her put her fingers into his ass. I mean, that kinda shows you what this film is about although the sex really takes a back seat at times to the story. Brando's character is not a likable guy, he's very controlling and dour and moody and emotional. This all starts after his wife kills herself and he has to deal with that trauma. He starts a relationship with the young girl, Jeanne, on the pretenses that they just meet and have sex and they don't know anything about each other. It's Brando's way of being able to control the relationship and the feelings and emotions, I think. I feel like his grief has caused him to wildly swing to an extreme of random sex with a young girl he just met. I won't pretend to try and dive into the meaning of the film and all of it's subtext, but it is a very raw film for Brando to open up in. I think Brando does some great acting in parts, but even he admitted that he didn't understand the point of the film and that he didn't know what director Bernardo Bertolucci meant about certain scenes. And that clearly shows, as the performance as a whole falls flat. It's definitely more interesting in parts, in part because it was full of improvisation from Brando who didn't like to memorize his lines and would read lines off cards in the scene or make up new ones. I think that's why the performance feels so incomplete as their isn't a consistency throughout the film. Couple that with me not really liking the film and this Brando performance just doesn't really do it for me. Many people claim this is his best work and one of the best acting performances ever, but it's too hamstrung by a director who wants to be controversial and provocative and edgy. It really misses the mark for me.
Jack Nicholson - The Last Detail
"I am the motherfucking Shore Patrol!" Always wondered where that line came from, now I know. This film sees Nicholson having such a blast in the role of Billy "Badass" Buddusky. Like it's very clear that Nicholson is enjoying every second and just going all out with the role. It's like watching what Nicholson would become in his later years and this is the trial run. His enthusiasm for the role is infectious and this quickly becomes his film, even though the point of the story is about the young shy guy that Nicholson and Otis Young are escorting to naval prison. It's essentially a vehicle for Nicholson to do what he wants with his character and he creates a very memorable one while doing so. While Young plays the straight man, Nicholson gets to be wild and crazy while showing Randy Quaid's character the time of his life before he goes to prison. He seems like a Navy lifer that really needed a bit of adventure to satiate his soul and we get to watch as that process unfolds over the film. Nicholson is surly and mostly an asshole but his softer side comes out and he recognizes that the poor kid he's escorting is a virgin and has no real life experience and decides to change that. They get drunk, they threaten a bartender when he won't serve the underage Quaid, they watch dirty movies, get more drunk, go to a whorehouse, eat lots of food, party with women, and just get into all kinds of hijinks. Nicholson is the one leading the way the entire time and his wild demeanor can be endearing at times. It's not a deep role for Nicholson, but he definitely brings a lot more to the character than I think other actors would. There's an earnestness in his Badass to do the right thing and stick it to those in authority a little bit, as evidenced by his interaction with the Marine Lieutenant at the end of the film. The character isn't just an asshole party boy, but someone with humanity who just shows it in a different way. It's a fun, interesting early performance from Nicholson that I imagine many people haven't ever seen. Well, it's definitely worth watching for Nicholson's performance alone.
Al Pacino - Serpico
This is my final Pacino nomination to review and it's kinda sad that I'm coming to the end of seeing his performances. There are few actors that have the longevity and output that he has had in his career. I've already watched and reviewed The Godfather for 1972, so this is really the end. But it's so easy to see why Pacino was so highly regarded as an actor. He had this stretch of a few years where every role was iconic and everlasting and this is certainly one of them. It's also Pacino boiled down to his essence. This is before all the yelling became his trademark style (you know what I'm talking about, just watch Heat or Any Given Sunday to get that style) and he offers up a fully committed performance that is so reserved yet bombastic at the same time. The film is about a NYC cop who isn't on the take and tries to root out corruption from the top down in the NYPD. We see a man who is driven to the edge of his own humanity and is beaten down by the pressure of doing what is morally right and just. Pacino plays a lot of Serpico as this sort of independent, hippie like character who just wants to do good police work. His fellow cops can't and don't trust him because he's not on the take and that moral power struggle eats at Pacino like a disease. It's fun to watch Pacino use a more minimalist style than the maximum style he'd later be more well known for. He really makes you feel Serpico's distrust and dislike by his fellow cops like you are the one they hate. I would have liked more depth to the character, though. I say that because we see that Serpico is a good cop, but never go too in depth about why he is so steadfast in not taking money on the side and eventually turning on his fellow cops. The relationships he has are strained but also not too well developed for us to explore what makes Serpico tick. He's also kind of a controlling ass who lashes out at his girlfriends, which seems understandable with the immense pressure and life and death choices he makes, but point to a more conflicted person underneath and not the pristine good cop who is the epitome of morality. I feel like there is more to explore and I feel like Pacino in a couple years, or even less, would have allowed us to do just that. But Pacino is truly fantastic in this film and I started this one late on a work night not knowing if I'd finish it in one sitting, yet Pacino's performance sucked me in and next thing I knew it was finished. I was enthralled with Pacino no matter if the story had some repetitive moments of going from precinct to precinct and encountering the same corruption and being hated and moving on. Pacino (and director Sidney Lumet) is what makes the story so intriguing because we invest our self fully into his Frank Serpico and follow his journey. I'm sad that I don't get to see more of this kind of work from him. It's really strong acting and these roles are what cemented him as one of the greatest of his generation.
Robert Redford - The Sting
It's weird to think that Redford only has one acting nomination total for his long, illustrious career. We always think of him as this big Hollywood superstar known for his good looks and charm and forget he is an Oscar winning director, too! I don't think this is Redford's best acting performance ever, it just happens to be in a film that the Academy loved that year and Redford was more the lead than Paul Newman really was. Redford plays a grifter who steals from a mob bag man and his partner is killed as a result. This leads him to Newman, a well known con man, who helps Redford pull off a huge con on the mob boss as revenge. This is a very Redford performance, one where his movie star qualities succeed in making him the everyman and allows the audience to sympathize with a grifter. It's a fine performance and Redford does a good job with the role and is really dedicated to his character, but it's not anything amazing. I think Redford benefits from being in this film and also being in The Way We Were with Barbra Streisand and having that be a huge romantic movie hit. Having two huge box office hits helped get him this nomination and it's almost fitting for his acting career as a whole. And really not much else to say, it's Redford so you know exactly what you are getting and he doesn't disappoint in that. A great film and a great actor to both enjoy.
Another year, another Pacino-Nicholson face off. Both lose, again, although my winner is Pacino - again. This one doesn't have anything to do with righting the make up Oscars giving out later, but just because I really like Pacino in his film and think it's a really strong performance. I love the hell out of Lemmon and see why this performance won him his Best Actor Oscar. But it really is Oscar bait in it's purest form and in a lesser year he is my easy winner. For now he will have to settle for second. Nicholson is in the middle mostly because the performance is kinda the same throughout. It's a lot of fun to watch Nicholson clearly having a blast in the role, so that right there makes it worth the watch. Plus, it's probably way overlooked as it is so why not be one of the few to watch it? Redford is Redford. There are three way better performances though his is no less entertaining. I'm glad he has an acting nomination but he's like Brad Pitt winning his Oscar for something other than acting. Brando brings up the rear. Not a fan of the film and felt the performance was disjointed. I love early Brando, but later Brando is so frustrating to watch. A pretty good year by my standards. No more Pacino-Nicholson battles in my future, but I'm sure there will be something else to look forward to.
Oscar Winner: Jack Lemmon - Save the Tiger
My Winner: Al Pacino - Serpico
Jack Lemmon
Jack Nicholson
Robert Redford
Marlon Brando
Leading Actress 1973
Some decent names! I've been curious about Glenda Jackson for so long that I'm glad I can finally watch her. I know the names but have only seen Burstyn. I look forward to diving in and crossing these off the list!
1973 Best Actress
Glenda Jackson - A Touch of Class
I addressed this in the first of her nominations that I did for her work in Hedda, but she was an actress that won two Oscars and I had no idea who she was. She had a run of a couple years in the 70s with four nominations and two wins and was obviously well liked. She went on to become an MP in British Parliament and stepped down in 2015. She actually just won a Best Actress in a Play Tony Award in 2018, completing the Triple Crown of Acting. I didn't even know she was still working. An impressive lady that I still couldn't pick out of a lineup right now. Hedda was meh, so I went into her second win hoping to see what made her such a hot commodity for a couple years in the 70s. And I get it. She is intensely charming with the classical British wit and repartee, saying the perfect response to any question or comment and being intelligently funny. You definitely need an actress with the timing and ability to pull off landing every verbal punch and Jackson certainly does. Apparently this was a big shock on Oscar night as Burstyn and Mason were more favored, but having now seen them all, I can say that it doesn't seem as big a shock to me strictly speaking about the performances. Jackson here plays a fashion design something who meets a married man and decides to engage in a relationship with him knowing his familial status. I don't quite like the way the film seems to shrug off the cheating aspect and I feel that a woman like Jackson in this film would be a bit more prideful and not stoop to being the other woman. But that's on the film, Jackson at least does what she can with the role she is given. While she is witty seemingly game for the relationship, the two do have their moments when they are at each other's throat or when the remorse starts to set in or when they actually realize they have feelings for one another. Jackson at least makes those moments seem authentic and tries to bring some depth to the character and the situation. Though she isn't digging too deep into either one as this is more of a romantic comedy than anything too dramatic. It seems balanced enough for what the film is and I can understand the appeal of Jackson as she is clearly the best part of this film. The fun is watching her responses to everything and how she acts in the situations. I don't know if this will be my winner, too, but it's much better than the other performance of hers that I've seen. I'll have to see if her other win and nomination stand up to this one.
Ellen Burstyn - The Exorcist
This cements the fact that I am just not an Ellen Burstyn fan. I can easily separate the fandom from the objective criticism, but I can easily say I'm not a fan of Burstyn on both accounts. I'll be honest, I forgot she was even part of this film. It's probably her most well known role and I forgot she was in it. She plays the mother of Linda Blair who becomes possessed and has to deal with her daughter being messed up. What I like about the performance is in the beginning of the film and story. Burstyn plays an actress in DC shooting a movie and her daughter lives with her. When Blair starts exhibiting signs of abnormal behavior, she gets checked out. Burstyn in trying to figure out what is wrong with her daughter and the frustrations of being told this or that or nothing or let's try this is very real. Test after test reveal nothing and we sense her anguish. When things get creepy, we feel her fear and confusion. Burstyn just disappears, though, as the film goes along. That's a natural thing for a film depicting a girl undergoing an exorcism but Burstyn still fades away at the end. In the beginning she was supermom and hands on and all that but by the end we don't see her. It's a front loaded performance and it's really nothing more than reactions. Burstyn doesn't bring some iconic role to the horror genre, she just reacts and fades away. I may not be a fan of Burstyn's style but I can appreciate her realistic style and how interesting it is. Burstyn just doesn't work for me here.
Marsha Mason - Cinderella Liberty
This was my fourth and final Marsha Mason performance and I must say, she's been pretty consistent throughout each of her performances. I'd also say this role gave her less to do than her other nominations and thus she doesn't look as strong. Mason has the fortune of coming off as very warm and gracious and inviting as a performer. She's likable and pretty (with bad eyebrows here) and just has that gosh darn it quality to her. Mason is also very theatrical and at times overacts her character and her scenes in these big ways that feel too rehearsed and unnecessary for what the film(s) call for. In this film, she plays a bar whore that picks up sailors and makes her money that way. She's friendly and fun but also a boozer and a little too tough for her own good. She's got a mixed son and James Caan (in a performance that makes the film a lot better) falls in love with her. They have their ups and downs and the ending isn't exactly a Cinderella story. Decent little film that was hard to find and is very 70s in it's feel. Mason, though, is fine. She actually disappears for some lengths of time since the film is focused on Caan's sailor character. I would say she's Lead but you might be able to argue a little for her to be Supporting. Either way, she does a good enough job in the role. Everything I described above is what Mason entails in this character. I'd say it's almost a hooker with a heart of gold trope, but the ending makes it so she isn't quite a good person as we see she can be. But it feels like what the Academy would like out of an up and coming actress. Playing a hooker, getting naked a bit, holding her own against Caan, being pretty and funny and making it look easy. Very obvious why she was nominated and would continue to be nominated throughout the next decade. It's a good little performance, nothing mind blowing, but at least you can appreciate a good actress at her Oscar start.
Barbra Streisand - The Way We Were
It's a Barbra Streisand nomination. If you know anything about Babs, then you know the types of roles and films that she goes for. They are always going to make her the star and give her the most to do in the film. That holds true for this film and role where Streisand plays an idealistic young communist woman who is very firm in her beliefs yet falls in love with the dreamy Robert Redford who is your typical athletic college hunk who happens to write well. That's the main crux of the film is that these two opposites attract and get married and have successful careers while being madly in love but also still having their very stark differences. The film was a huge hit and had a big song for Streisand and a lot of people consider it one of the best romantic films ever made. It's okay to me, but I'm not the biggest Streisand fan and her appeal is mostly lost on me. She's incredibly talented, however, and she puts all that talent to work in her roles and music and directing and producing and all that. But this was a role designed to make Streisand look good. As I said, she's very idealistic and too perfectly right and sanctimonious all the time. She's the stick in the mud at a party who goes off on everyone for joking about President Roosevelt. The character can get annoying really quickly and then doesn't really recover from there. The romance between her and Redford isn't very believable and you wonder what he could possibly see in Babs who is constantly lecturing him. At the end they divorce and go their own separate ways and it's really the only part of the story that seems authentic. I just don't see how those two could stay together. So again, it's a part meant to be a star turn for Streisand and it succeeded with how much money it made and her getting a nomination here, but I don't think it holds up all that well and feel like it's a relic of the 70s.
Joanne Woodward - Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams
Going into this performance, I was wondering if this was going to be anything like Woodward's final nomination I watched for 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Bridge. In a way, it is. It's a minor forgotten film with an actress who is clearly talented and accomplished but not living up to her full potential. This film as a whole is an odd mess. Broken down into thirds, the first part has Woodward and Sylvia Sidney (playing her mother) go out on the town and talk and then Sidney dies. The next third is Woodward reeling from the death while also thinking about her own mortality and confronting her own past in these visions she has. The final third becomes more about her husband (Martin Balsam, who is terrific in this) and his own inner feelings when they go to Europe and visit old battlefields where he fought in WWII. I don't get how the film comes together since it's so disjointed. It's like everyone is playing a character in a different film, yet are all being filmed at the same time. It's strange but also the film doesn't dive deep or explore it's themes at all. It's all surface acting and seems more an exercise for everyone involved than anything else. Woodward is so good at acting in a natural way and it shines through in this performance. Some of the looks she gives her mother seem unscripted and genuine. But the performance was lacking any power behind it. It's like Woodward was going through the motions but excelling at it because she's such a great actress. There's a moment where she screams in frustration in the middle part where it just seemed like that was something the script asked for, she did it, then continued with everything else. She just coasts through the film and maybe it is because the film doesn't really know what it wants to be, I don't know. I know that I really want to watch Woodward in something where she actually looks like she's putting in effort to make something great. There are flashes in this performance where Woodward shows us what this performance, and film, could really be with some defined effort. I guess I'll have to wait a couple more years to see what she can truly bring to the Oscar world.
I kind hate having to come up with a response to all of these at the end of everything.Sometimes I'm just not clever enough. And sometimes I feel bad for putting down these performances! Woodward isn't bad! She's just kinda blah. I really like her style and the film in a weird way but she's clearly just here to round out the field. I'll put Burstyn 4th. I just don't care for her portrayal. I like her as an idea of an actress but I don't actually like her acting. In anything I've ever seen her in. Which is nuts, but authentic. I'll put Streisand third. This was a big film that showcased her everything but it was also romantic and boring as hell. Just not very lively. I actually liked Mason in her role. I think that might split her films for me. Some I liked, some I hated. If not for Jackson, Mason would have won. Jackson is just hilarious as hell! She is entertaining and I am glad she blessed us with this film and performance. It's an okay group, but also not amazing. So let's pretend all my opinions are correct.
Oscar Winner: Glenda Jackson - A Touch of Class
My Winner: Glenda Jackson - A Touch of Class
Marsha Mason
Barbra Streisand
Ellen Burstyn
Joanne Woodward
1973 Best Actress
Glenda Jackson - A Touch of Class
I addressed this in the first of her nominations that I did for her work in Hedda, but she was an actress that won two Oscars and I had no idea who she was. She had a run of a couple years in the 70s with four nominations and two wins and was obviously well liked. She went on to become an MP in British Parliament and stepped down in 2015. She actually just won a Best Actress in a Play Tony Award in 2018, completing the Triple Crown of Acting. I didn't even know she was still working. An impressive lady that I still couldn't pick out of a lineup right now. Hedda was meh, so I went into her second win hoping to see what made her such a hot commodity for a couple years in the 70s. And I get it. She is intensely charming with the classical British wit and repartee, saying the perfect response to any question or comment and being intelligently funny. You definitely need an actress with the timing and ability to pull off landing every verbal punch and Jackson certainly does. Apparently this was a big shock on Oscar night as Burstyn and Mason were more favored, but having now seen them all, I can say that it doesn't seem as big a shock to me strictly speaking about the performances. Jackson here plays a fashion design something who meets a married man and decides to engage in a relationship with him knowing his familial status. I don't quite like the way the film seems to shrug off the cheating aspect and I feel that a woman like Jackson in this film would be a bit more prideful and not stoop to being the other woman. But that's on the film, Jackson at least does what she can with the role she is given. While she is witty seemingly game for the relationship, the two do have their moments when they are at each other's throat or when the remorse starts to set in or when they actually realize they have feelings for one another. Jackson at least makes those moments seem authentic and tries to bring some depth to the character and the situation. Though she isn't digging too deep into either one as this is more of a romantic comedy than anything too dramatic. It seems balanced enough for what the film is and I can understand the appeal of Jackson as she is clearly the best part of this film. The fun is watching her responses to everything and how she acts in the situations. I don't know if this will be my winner, too, but it's much better than the other performance of hers that I've seen. I'll have to see if her other win and nomination stand up to this one.
Ellen Burstyn - The Exorcist
This cements the fact that I am just not an Ellen Burstyn fan. I can easily separate the fandom from the objective criticism, but I can easily say I'm not a fan of Burstyn on both accounts. I'll be honest, I forgot she was even part of this film. It's probably her most well known role and I forgot she was in it. She plays the mother of Linda Blair who becomes possessed and has to deal with her daughter being messed up. What I like about the performance is in the beginning of the film and story. Burstyn plays an actress in DC shooting a movie and her daughter lives with her. When Blair starts exhibiting signs of abnormal behavior, she gets checked out. Burstyn in trying to figure out what is wrong with her daughter and the frustrations of being told this or that or nothing or let's try this is very real. Test after test reveal nothing and we sense her anguish. When things get creepy, we feel her fear and confusion. Burstyn just disappears, though, as the film goes along. That's a natural thing for a film depicting a girl undergoing an exorcism but Burstyn still fades away at the end. In the beginning she was supermom and hands on and all that but by the end we don't see her. It's a front loaded performance and it's really nothing more than reactions. Burstyn doesn't bring some iconic role to the horror genre, she just reacts and fades away. I may not be a fan of Burstyn's style but I can appreciate her realistic style and how interesting it is. Burstyn just doesn't work for me here.
Marsha Mason - Cinderella Liberty
This was my fourth and final Marsha Mason performance and I must say, she's been pretty consistent throughout each of her performances. I'd also say this role gave her less to do than her other nominations and thus she doesn't look as strong. Mason has the fortune of coming off as very warm and gracious and inviting as a performer. She's likable and pretty (with bad eyebrows here) and just has that gosh darn it quality to her. Mason is also very theatrical and at times overacts her character and her scenes in these big ways that feel too rehearsed and unnecessary for what the film(s) call for. In this film, she plays a bar whore that picks up sailors and makes her money that way. She's friendly and fun but also a boozer and a little too tough for her own good. She's got a mixed son and James Caan (in a performance that makes the film a lot better) falls in love with her. They have their ups and downs and the ending isn't exactly a Cinderella story. Decent little film that was hard to find and is very 70s in it's feel. Mason, though, is fine. She actually disappears for some lengths of time since the film is focused on Caan's sailor character. I would say she's Lead but you might be able to argue a little for her to be Supporting. Either way, she does a good enough job in the role. Everything I described above is what Mason entails in this character. I'd say it's almost a hooker with a heart of gold trope, but the ending makes it so she isn't quite a good person as we see she can be. But it feels like what the Academy would like out of an up and coming actress. Playing a hooker, getting naked a bit, holding her own against Caan, being pretty and funny and making it look easy. Very obvious why she was nominated and would continue to be nominated throughout the next decade. It's a good little performance, nothing mind blowing, but at least you can appreciate a good actress at her Oscar start.
Barbra Streisand - The Way We Were
It's a Barbra Streisand nomination. If you know anything about Babs, then you know the types of roles and films that she goes for. They are always going to make her the star and give her the most to do in the film. That holds true for this film and role where Streisand plays an idealistic young communist woman who is very firm in her beliefs yet falls in love with the dreamy Robert Redford who is your typical athletic college hunk who happens to write well. That's the main crux of the film is that these two opposites attract and get married and have successful careers while being madly in love but also still having their very stark differences. The film was a huge hit and had a big song for Streisand and a lot of people consider it one of the best romantic films ever made. It's okay to me, but I'm not the biggest Streisand fan and her appeal is mostly lost on me. She's incredibly talented, however, and she puts all that talent to work in her roles and music and directing and producing and all that. But this was a role designed to make Streisand look good. As I said, she's very idealistic and too perfectly right and sanctimonious all the time. She's the stick in the mud at a party who goes off on everyone for joking about President Roosevelt. The character can get annoying really quickly and then doesn't really recover from there. The romance between her and Redford isn't very believable and you wonder what he could possibly see in Babs who is constantly lecturing him. At the end they divorce and go their own separate ways and it's really the only part of the story that seems authentic. I just don't see how those two could stay together. So again, it's a part meant to be a star turn for Streisand and it succeeded with how much money it made and her getting a nomination here, but I don't think it holds up all that well and feel like it's a relic of the 70s.
Joanne Woodward - Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams
Going into this performance, I was wondering if this was going to be anything like Woodward's final nomination I watched for 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Bridge. In a way, it is. It's a minor forgotten film with an actress who is clearly talented and accomplished but not living up to her full potential. This film as a whole is an odd mess. Broken down into thirds, the first part has Woodward and Sylvia Sidney (playing her mother) go out on the town and talk and then Sidney dies. The next third is Woodward reeling from the death while also thinking about her own mortality and confronting her own past in these visions she has. The final third becomes more about her husband (Martin Balsam, who is terrific in this) and his own inner feelings when they go to Europe and visit old battlefields where he fought in WWII. I don't get how the film comes together since it's so disjointed. It's like everyone is playing a character in a different film, yet are all being filmed at the same time. It's strange but also the film doesn't dive deep or explore it's themes at all. It's all surface acting and seems more an exercise for everyone involved than anything else. Woodward is so good at acting in a natural way and it shines through in this performance. Some of the looks she gives her mother seem unscripted and genuine. But the performance was lacking any power behind it. It's like Woodward was going through the motions but excelling at it because she's such a great actress. There's a moment where she screams in frustration in the middle part where it just seemed like that was something the script asked for, she did it, then continued with everything else. She just coasts through the film and maybe it is because the film doesn't really know what it wants to be, I don't know. I know that I really want to watch Woodward in something where she actually looks like she's putting in effort to make something great. There are flashes in this performance where Woodward shows us what this performance, and film, could really be with some defined effort. I guess I'll have to wait a couple more years to see what she can truly bring to the Oscar world.
I kind hate having to come up with a response to all of these at the end of everything.Sometimes I'm just not clever enough. And sometimes I feel bad for putting down these performances! Woodward isn't bad! She's just kinda blah. I really like her style and the film in a weird way but she's clearly just here to round out the field. I'll put Burstyn 4th. I just don't care for her portrayal. I like her as an idea of an actress but I don't actually like her acting. In anything I've ever seen her in. Which is nuts, but authentic. I'll put Streisand third. This was a big film that showcased her everything but it was also romantic and boring as hell. Just not very lively. I actually liked Mason in her role. I think that might split her films for me. Some I liked, some I hated. If not for Jackson, Mason would have won. Jackson is just hilarious as hell! She is entertaining and I am glad she blessed us with this film and performance. It's an okay group, but also not amazing. So let's pretend all my opinions are correct.
Oscar Winner: Glenda Jackson - A Touch of Class
My Winner: Glenda Jackson - A Touch of Class
Marsha Mason
Barbra Streisand
Ellen Burstyn
Joanne Woodward
Supporting Actor 1973
This is a truly supporting category. It seems like there are very few of these in this project. There is always some sort of category fraud or an up and coming actor gets his first nomination in Supporting before a big career. But go through this list and you see 4 one and done nominees, and then Gardenia who was a supporting character mostly. I'm sure most casual fans who look at the names don't know anyone but maybe Quaid from his crazy performances and maybe Gardenia if they remember him from Moonstruck. It's kinda nice to not have a big name to review. Opens me up to new faces and names and lets me see some different actors. Let's get this going!
1973 Best Supporting Actor
John Houseman - The Paper Chase
Weird aside, when I started this project many years ago, there was a site called Strike Gently, that was mostly a place to download the latest hardcore/metalcore/indie album and see music videos and random current movies and memes before it was a thing. But the dude that ran it randomly had this film to stream and download and I remember watching part of it because I recognized it from my Oscar spreadsheet I was making at the time. I started watching but then stopped because of buffering and never finished. That's what comes to mind every time I see John Houseman's name. What a strange way to be remembered! What's neat about his nomination is that was his first real role (he had one minor thing a few years prior) and he wins an Oscar that you might mistake for being a veteran gift. But he was mostly a producer and a teacher (I think I read at Julliard) before this. Here, he plays an old Harvard law professor who commands his lecture hall with an overbearing, magisterial presence. He never smiles or laughs, just trudges on in a matter of fact way. His humor is sharp and droll and cuts like a surgeon's knife, though it can be hard to discern between the dry case explanations and law speak. It's partly why I enjoy Houseman in this mostly one not performance. He just does that one note to perfection. Once you've seen a few minutes of him at the lectern looking like Alfred Hitchcock and almost sounding the same, that's all you need to see. Though it might not appear to be much, the role is rather showy and lets Houseman find the character within the confines of a restrictive role. We don't learn all that much about the professor even when a student is involved with his daughter. I would have liked to know more, but sometimes knowing less makes the performance work. I'd rather know him as the professor with the distinct proper sounding voice who wryly belittles his students so as to harden them for life as a Harvard law student and does so without ever cracking a smile. It's an interesting win and I'll have to see how Houseman plays against the rest of the field.
Vincent Gardenia - Bang the Drum Slowly
I feel like if you are into baseball or sports movies, you've probably at least heard about this film. I know I recognized it from lots of best sports movie lists and being talked about a little bit in the sports blogosphere when it came time for some random ranking of sports movies. Anyway, this is a baseball movie and it stars Robert De Niro as a slow witted catcher, Michael Moriarty (one of my favorite actors from the Law & Order franchise) as a hotshot pitcher, and Gardenia as their crusty old manager. The film is about the bond between pitcher and catcher because De Niro's character has been diagnosed with a fatal cancer before a new season starts. Moriarty won't sign unless he is on the team and the two share a close bond as teammates and friends. Gardenia thinks something is up and tries to figure out why Moriarty wants De Niro around and sort of plays detective and lawyer at various times to do so. Gardenia is a perfectly supporting character and his performance is what you'd want out of this category. It doesn't overwhelm, it's not category fraud, it's not a veteran or up and coming nomination. No, Gardenia brings an obvious acting talent to his manager role and elevates a character that probably wouldn't be much of an afterthought. He's funny and serious and compelling and the focal point in a scene where he holds court in a bathtub while he smokes and lets the ash fall on his chest while trying to trip up the two and where they were in the offseason. He thinks Moriarty is trying to get one over on him and the team by not wanting to sign a subpar contract and champions De Niro's catcher. It's a good performance and it helps that Gardenia here looks like a smaller John Goodman. Gardenia's character just wants control of his team and really takes control of the film. It's a very good supporting performance and I definitely like this a lot more than his turn in Moonstruck.
Jack Gilford - Save the Tiger
Going in to these supporting nominations where I don't recognize the name, I always wonder what type of nominee it's going to be. There's the nominee who gets swept in along with a film or another actor who might win in Lead. There's the veteran nominee who is being recognized for a solid career. And then there's a legitimately good performance that the Academy decided to reward with a nomination. I think Guilford fits all three for me. I do think he kinda gets swept along with Jack Lemmon's Best Actor win and that he was being rewarded for his hard work in his career as an actor and activist. But Gilford does a really solid job with the character and the role. Gilford plays the business partner of Lemmon and is the reluctant and hesitant foil. It's one of those perfectly supporting roles that just enhances the other leading actor and the story as a whole. You can see he is used to dealing with a Lemmon that makes all kinds of rash decisions and puts the company in precarious positions often in order to stay afloat. Lemmon and the company are in decline and Gilford tentatively goes along with a plan to burn down their garment business to collect the insurance. What I like about the performance is just how honest Gilford keeps his character. He tells Lemmon exactly what he thinks at every moment and comes off as someone deeply tormented inside about what's going on with Lemmon and the company. There's no extra floruishes from Gilford, he plays it exactly as he should and is more restrained in comparison to Lemmon's jittery, mile a minute talking style. The two play off each other so well that you can feel Gilford's frustration at having to go along with Lemmon's ideas. I think that Gilford is exactly what you need in a supporting character, especially when the film is essentially made to get Lemmon another Oscar. Gilford helps elevate Lemmon's performance and definitely deserves this nomination.
Jason Miller - The Exorcist
It's interesting when you start to research the years and they all say well this one performance was better than all the rest and it should have won and was so good. So you get to that nominee and look at it with a different eye, a more discerning eye. Maybe, like Miller here, it's something I've already seen before. I hold judgment until I see all of them but file away that everyone seemed to like this particular one. Often times they are right and Jason Miller is no exception. I always knew him as the other priest who doubts his faith and calls in Max von Sydow to do the exorcism. But after revisiting the film, I see that Miller is really the only character that gets an actual character arc in the whole thing. Watching now, I love that his character is this super serious, self doubting guy who falls out of faith because his mother dies. He is a psychologist in the Catholic faith but loses his way and we see that transition of guy who is stressed because his ma is not doing well and he has to take care of her and then she has an issue and goes to the hospital and it's not good enough and she's in pain and he can't do anything - and Miller just loses more and more of his faith as this goes on. We see that gradual loss. But we also see that he is helpful and caring and he talks to Ellen Burstyn about her issues with her daughter and tries to tackle it but has to call in the big guns. The exorcism itself is interesting because he starts it himself with no experience really doubting that Linda Blair is possessed. But he soon realizes he is dealing with forces beyond his comprehension. He is the horror of the film. He is the one that gets broken down and succumbs to the demon that possesses the girl. And we are lead to believe it is because of his lack of faith but that ultimately tells a very interesting story of a guy trying his best. The fascinating thing about this nomination is that it was Miller's first film credit and was plucked from obscurity in a play by the director. Crazy how many first time movie nominations there are. Miller is great and probably one of the best performances ever in a horror film.
Randy Quaid - The Last Detail
Who would have thought that crazy Randy Quaid is an Oscar nominated actor? I bet most people forget this or don't even realize that he was an Oscar nominee once a long time ago. It's also interesting seeing a very, very young Quaid play a shy, reserved, quiet sailor. That's in stark contrast to the characters he would be known for later and his life currently which is plenty crazy. Quaid's sailor is a kleptomaniac who stole from some charity that some Admiral's wife loved so he got sentenced to 8 years in military prison. The film is about Jack Nicholson and Otis Young having to bring him to Portsmouth. Along the way, those two show Quaid the time of his young life. Through a lot of the film, Quaid just plays his character as this quiet, hulking, oafish boy. He hasn't really experienced anything in the world and Quaid portrays that naivete and simpleness perfectly. It's why Nicholson and Young take pity on the man and promise to get him laid and get him drunk and see different cities along the way. Quaid makes all of that seem believable. The character doesn't really have much of an arc, though, and that's okay. He gets to finally experience all these adult things in life and he meets each one with an innocent mindset. That's what Quaid brings to the role and the film is better off for it. There are moments where reality sets in for Quaid and he tries to escape or panics and it all feels real considering what his future holds. It's an interesting performance that shows that Quaid could have been a really good serious actor instead of the goofy, crazy roles that has defined his career.
A very good supporting group! It's very supporting and I like that. This doesn't have any can't miss performances but they are all serving their films which is nice to see. Honestly, not one in the bunch I dislike. Gardenia is last for me just because he is decent but forgettable. And really only has like two good scenes. He is not used to his full potential but still does a good job. Gilford is good. He's very serious in the role and it contrasts Jack Lemmon which is very necessary for the film. Some say he came along for the ride but I think Gilford earns it on his own. Quaid is interesting. Who knew he had this in him? He's very good as the shy, quiet prisoner getting shown the time of his life. I love his big oafish performance and it really fits the film. I really love Houseman in his role. It's memorable and fun to watch and I think sets the tone for similar characters in the future. A great performance but he was going up against a strong contender in Miller. Miller gets the win because he has a fully realized character in a horror film and makes him relatable. It's really good stuff and I wish both could win but here we are. A decent year! I enjoy years like this even if I'd love iconic performance after iconic performance. On to the next one!
Oscar Winner: John Houseman - The Paper Chase
My Winner: Jason Miller - The Exorcist
John Houseman
Randy Quaid
Jack Gilford
Vincent Gardenia
1973 Best Supporting Actor
John Houseman - The Paper Chase
Weird aside, when I started this project many years ago, there was a site called Strike Gently, that was mostly a place to download the latest hardcore/metalcore/indie album and see music videos and random current movies and memes before it was a thing. But the dude that ran it randomly had this film to stream and download and I remember watching part of it because I recognized it from my Oscar spreadsheet I was making at the time. I started watching but then stopped because of buffering and never finished. That's what comes to mind every time I see John Houseman's name. What a strange way to be remembered! What's neat about his nomination is that was his first real role (he had one minor thing a few years prior) and he wins an Oscar that you might mistake for being a veteran gift. But he was mostly a producer and a teacher (I think I read at Julliard) before this. Here, he plays an old Harvard law professor who commands his lecture hall with an overbearing, magisterial presence. He never smiles or laughs, just trudges on in a matter of fact way. His humor is sharp and droll and cuts like a surgeon's knife, though it can be hard to discern between the dry case explanations and law speak. It's partly why I enjoy Houseman in this mostly one not performance. He just does that one note to perfection. Once you've seen a few minutes of him at the lectern looking like Alfred Hitchcock and almost sounding the same, that's all you need to see. Though it might not appear to be much, the role is rather showy and lets Houseman find the character within the confines of a restrictive role. We don't learn all that much about the professor even when a student is involved with his daughter. I would have liked to know more, but sometimes knowing less makes the performance work. I'd rather know him as the professor with the distinct proper sounding voice who wryly belittles his students so as to harden them for life as a Harvard law student and does so without ever cracking a smile. It's an interesting win and I'll have to see how Houseman plays against the rest of the field.
Vincent Gardenia - Bang the Drum Slowly
I feel like if you are into baseball or sports movies, you've probably at least heard about this film. I know I recognized it from lots of best sports movie lists and being talked about a little bit in the sports blogosphere when it came time for some random ranking of sports movies. Anyway, this is a baseball movie and it stars Robert De Niro as a slow witted catcher, Michael Moriarty (one of my favorite actors from the Law & Order franchise) as a hotshot pitcher, and Gardenia as their crusty old manager. The film is about the bond between pitcher and catcher because De Niro's character has been diagnosed with a fatal cancer before a new season starts. Moriarty won't sign unless he is on the team and the two share a close bond as teammates and friends. Gardenia thinks something is up and tries to figure out why Moriarty wants De Niro around and sort of plays detective and lawyer at various times to do so. Gardenia is a perfectly supporting character and his performance is what you'd want out of this category. It doesn't overwhelm, it's not category fraud, it's not a veteran or up and coming nomination. No, Gardenia brings an obvious acting talent to his manager role and elevates a character that probably wouldn't be much of an afterthought. He's funny and serious and compelling and the focal point in a scene where he holds court in a bathtub while he smokes and lets the ash fall on his chest while trying to trip up the two and where they were in the offseason. He thinks Moriarty is trying to get one over on him and the team by not wanting to sign a subpar contract and champions De Niro's catcher. It's a good performance and it helps that Gardenia here looks like a smaller John Goodman. Gardenia's character just wants control of his team and really takes control of the film. It's a very good supporting performance and I definitely like this a lot more than his turn in Moonstruck.
Jack Gilford - Save the Tiger
Going in to these supporting nominations where I don't recognize the name, I always wonder what type of nominee it's going to be. There's the nominee who gets swept in along with a film or another actor who might win in Lead. There's the veteran nominee who is being recognized for a solid career. And then there's a legitimately good performance that the Academy decided to reward with a nomination. I think Guilford fits all three for me. I do think he kinda gets swept along with Jack Lemmon's Best Actor win and that he was being rewarded for his hard work in his career as an actor and activist. But Gilford does a really solid job with the character and the role. Gilford plays the business partner of Lemmon and is the reluctant and hesitant foil. It's one of those perfectly supporting roles that just enhances the other leading actor and the story as a whole. You can see he is used to dealing with a Lemmon that makes all kinds of rash decisions and puts the company in precarious positions often in order to stay afloat. Lemmon and the company are in decline and Gilford tentatively goes along with a plan to burn down their garment business to collect the insurance. What I like about the performance is just how honest Gilford keeps his character. He tells Lemmon exactly what he thinks at every moment and comes off as someone deeply tormented inside about what's going on with Lemmon and the company. There's no extra floruishes from Gilford, he plays it exactly as he should and is more restrained in comparison to Lemmon's jittery, mile a minute talking style. The two play off each other so well that you can feel Gilford's frustration at having to go along with Lemmon's ideas. I think that Gilford is exactly what you need in a supporting character, especially when the film is essentially made to get Lemmon another Oscar. Gilford helps elevate Lemmon's performance and definitely deserves this nomination.
Jason Miller - The Exorcist
It's interesting when you start to research the years and they all say well this one performance was better than all the rest and it should have won and was so good. So you get to that nominee and look at it with a different eye, a more discerning eye. Maybe, like Miller here, it's something I've already seen before. I hold judgment until I see all of them but file away that everyone seemed to like this particular one. Often times they are right and Jason Miller is no exception. I always knew him as the other priest who doubts his faith and calls in Max von Sydow to do the exorcism. But after revisiting the film, I see that Miller is really the only character that gets an actual character arc in the whole thing. Watching now, I love that his character is this super serious, self doubting guy who falls out of faith because his mother dies. He is a psychologist in the Catholic faith but loses his way and we see that transition of guy who is stressed because his ma is not doing well and he has to take care of her and then she has an issue and goes to the hospital and it's not good enough and she's in pain and he can't do anything - and Miller just loses more and more of his faith as this goes on. We see that gradual loss. But we also see that he is helpful and caring and he talks to Ellen Burstyn about her issues with her daughter and tries to tackle it but has to call in the big guns. The exorcism itself is interesting because he starts it himself with no experience really doubting that Linda Blair is possessed. But he soon realizes he is dealing with forces beyond his comprehension. He is the horror of the film. He is the one that gets broken down and succumbs to the demon that possesses the girl. And we are lead to believe it is because of his lack of faith but that ultimately tells a very interesting story of a guy trying his best. The fascinating thing about this nomination is that it was Miller's first film credit and was plucked from obscurity in a play by the director. Crazy how many first time movie nominations there are. Miller is great and probably one of the best performances ever in a horror film.
Randy Quaid - The Last Detail
Who would have thought that crazy Randy Quaid is an Oscar nominated actor? I bet most people forget this or don't even realize that he was an Oscar nominee once a long time ago. It's also interesting seeing a very, very young Quaid play a shy, reserved, quiet sailor. That's in stark contrast to the characters he would be known for later and his life currently which is plenty crazy. Quaid's sailor is a kleptomaniac who stole from some charity that some Admiral's wife loved so he got sentenced to 8 years in military prison. The film is about Jack Nicholson and Otis Young having to bring him to Portsmouth. Along the way, those two show Quaid the time of his young life. Through a lot of the film, Quaid just plays his character as this quiet, hulking, oafish boy. He hasn't really experienced anything in the world and Quaid portrays that naivete and simpleness perfectly. It's why Nicholson and Young take pity on the man and promise to get him laid and get him drunk and see different cities along the way. Quaid makes all of that seem believable. The character doesn't really have much of an arc, though, and that's okay. He gets to finally experience all these adult things in life and he meets each one with an innocent mindset. That's what Quaid brings to the role and the film is better off for it. There are moments where reality sets in for Quaid and he tries to escape or panics and it all feels real considering what his future holds. It's an interesting performance that shows that Quaid could have been a really good serious actor instead of the goofy, crazy roles that has defined his career.
A very good supporting group! It's very supporting and I like that. This doesn't have any can't miss performances but they are all serving their films which is nice to see. Honestly, not one in the bunch I dislike. Gardenia is last for me just because he is decent but forgettable. And really only has like two good scenes. He is not used to his full potential but still does a good job. Gilford is good. He's very serious in the role and it contrasts Jack Lemmon which is very necessary for the film. Some say he came along for the ride but I think Gilford earns it on his own. Quaid is interesting. Who knew he had this in him? He's very good as the shy, quiet prisoner getting shown the time of his life. I love his big oafish performance and it really fits the film. I really love Houseman in his role. It's memorable and fun to watch and I think sets the tone for similar characters in the future. A great performance but he was going up against a strong contender in Miller. Miller gets the win because he has a fully realized character in a horror film and makes him relatable. It's really good stuff and I wish both could win but here we are. A decent year! I enjoy years like this even if I'd love iconic performance after iconic performance. On to the next one!
Oscar Winner: John Houseman - The Paper Chase
My Winner: Jason Miller - The Exorcist
John Houseman
Randy Quaid
Jack Gilford
Vincent Gardenia
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Supporting Actress 1973
Supporting Actress is always interesting. It's usually where there are these completely random films that if not for this category and these nominations, no one would ever remember them. This year doesn't look like this is the case but I do like that I get some different flavors in this category. I have seen a couple of these and am looking forward to the others based off what I've heard.
1973 Best Supporting Actress
Tatum O'Neal - Paper Moon
I have made no effort to hide the fact that I mostly despise child acting nominations. For the most part they are all pretty bad or too precocious or just are not actual acting (looking at you Quvenzhane Wallis). Sometimes they are actually not bad (Anna Paquin) and I am glad that those performances exist. So when I see child actors pop up from time to time, I instantly groan and then hold my breath that it will be something worth watching. This year has two child actors and a winner that has been held up as a legit child acting win. Let's also preface this by saying this is blatant out and out category fraud. Tatum is clearly a leading actress in her film and is only in this category because it gave her a better shot to win and because Academy politics at the time seemed to push all kids to Supporting. But how is the actual performance you ask? Tatum is better than most child actors and she gets the bonus of acting with her dad which clearly put her at ease in most scenes. It also helps that director Peter Bogdanovich treated her like any other actress and made her do take after take to get the desired performance. With all that said, Tatum really was perfect for the role of a young girl who looks like a boy and is mature enough to quickly understand the world around her. Thus she works well as a budding young con artist with her dad, playing up the young/female angle but acting wise beyond her years when it comes to interacting with dad and other grownups. She also has an expressionless face that allows her to come off as being more than a precocious, bubbly acting kid. That expression also shows that she's watching the world around her and reading every situation and how to act accordingly. Tatum is good with instantly changing from her usual controlled self to a whiny or annoying typical young girl. There are some moments where you can see some instinctual acting where Tatum let's us into the mind of her character and it's nice to see how natural she can be. I think I like the performance because it isn't the typical showy nominated type of thing. She's kind of an asshole and she plays her character with a unsentimental flourish. Not sure if she'll be my winner but at least she was enjoyable to watch even if this is category fraud through and through.
Linda Blair - The Exorcist
And now the other child actor nomination. Blair was only a couple years older than Tatum and was found after an exhaustive search that even her on agent didn't think she would be good for. Her mother had to take her to the audition. Now everyone knows Linda Blair purely for playing the possessed girl who spewed green pea vomit and masturbated with a crucifix. I'm sure she loves that. But what I think is the best thing about Blair's performance is the actual physicality of what is needed from her character. In the beginning she plays the precocious young girl and does a great job with that. I thought her reactions seemed true and didn't seem like forced young actress fluff. But the physical nature of this role is what is impressive. All of the bouncing around her bed and being contorted into all kinds of shapes and acting with all of her demon makeup on while saying outrageous things was something I feel a lot of kids would have failed at. People were amazed at that aspect as well as the voice acting, which wasn't known until after nominations that it was actually Mercedes McCambridge (herself an Oscar winner). Many people were surprised to learn that truth and even wanted to rescind her nomination but Academy rules forbid that from happening. I still think she deserved a nomination just for everything that she as put through and giving an adult level performance. I don't think it's this amazing piece of acting on the level of a Meryl Streep, but it certainly was really impressive for a 14-15 year old girl. Especially considering that the possessed girl has to be believable and scary enough to drive the story and the impact of the film as a whole. Blair succeeds in doing that and the film is much better for her efforts.
Candy Clark - American Graffiti
This is such an interesting performance. It's one that you really have to see to grasp all the things that get said about it. Clark plays a ditzy blonde bimbo who hangs out with the uber nerd of the film and the two hit it off. Cliche a bit, yes, but Clark's interpretation of the stock role is anything but cliche. Her line readings are strange, like she is slurring her words or has never acted before. Yet, the way she speaks is part of her charm. It can be hard to understand her, but I'm paying extra attention when she talks. She's very beautiful and the role could easily become some vapid characterization of a dumb blonde, but Clark plays her role as the restless and bored woman trying to get hers. Yeah, she's opportunistic and maybe deliberately obtuse when it comes to believing Toad, but she makes the character interesting. When's the last time you found a pretty, dumb blonde role to be actually interesting and worth keeping an eye on? It's the blase way she says things and interacts with Toad that is just so intriguing to watch. It's like she's acting in her own film that just happens to coincide with this one. Normally that would be a negative mark, but here it kinda works. I have no idea why she was singled out in this cast, maybe because the other roles are all sorta basic, I dunno. But at least a performance in this film decided to something a little different. The story really doesn't care about Clark but she makes us pay attention to the character. And good on her for doing something different, whether intentional or not. Maybe the Academy wanted to get behind an up and coming actress like they have done so many times, I don't know. But it gave us a really interesting take on a very cliched and boring role.
Madeline Kahn - Paper Moon
Having just seen Kahn as a German seductress who dances and sings in Blazing Saddles, I was hoping to see a different side of Kahn's acting ability. Though she is a carnival dancer/entertainer in this film, we at least don't see her do any actual dancing. Yet she still plays the same type of character, albeit with out the thick accent and comedic touches. I was really hoping for something different to see how broad her acting chops were but we get a lot more of the same in this performance. She is a seductress but in a different way where in this one she latches onto men and uses them for their money before moving on. It's still somewhat of a comedic role, she kinda plays a goofy fool going from place to place using her beauty and bosom to make a living. In most films, she would be the needed shot in the arm of waking up a sagging picture, but her presence here sort of interrupts the father-daughter dynamic that is actually compelling and built up the right way. Kahn feels like a detour in a pretty good film. Not to say Kahn is awful in the part, just that the film doesn't need that shot in the arm. Kahn gets her moment to shine in a scene where she is trying to convince Tatum to get back in the car after a picnic and has a real heart to heart with her - in a very Kahn-esque way. It's a bit of funny mixed with honesty and sincerity from a woman who knows she will be moving on to the next guy soon but also doesn't really want to be inconvenienced or hated by Tatum. She wins Tatum over by saying tits (which Kahn in real life didn't want to do because it was too raunchy so her embarrassed look is real) and in that scene we get why Kahn is nominated. It's a truly supporting job that does a lot to build up our understanding of Tatum as it is to have some lighthearted, yet emotional realism. She's a desperate woman trying to make her own way in the world, just as Tatum and her dad are. It's a decent performance and I don't mind the detour, just wish it was more picnic acting than flirty exotic dancer acting we also get. Basically, more of the emotional honesty stuff.
Sylvia Sidney - Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams
This was a scary one! No, not the performance, but in actually being able to find this film online. I've only ran into about 3 or 4 that I've either had to buy or spend days in the bowels of Google searching for a copy. Luckily I found a good one and was able to watch Sidney as an old New York woman who calls up her daughter for a routine day out where they nitpick at each other and act like annoyed family members. They go see a movie and Sidney dies of a heart attack. This only about 20 some minutes into the film and that's all we get of Sidney besides late in the film when she appears as a hallucination of Joanne Woodward, her daughter. That is literally it. She has the smoker's voice coated with the New York accent and nags her daughter, but takes just as much as she gives. Sidney isn't bad, but obviously we don't get nearly enough of her in the film. It's a wisp of a performance and the film would probably have been better off with her in it for the entirety. The film is severely disjointed and a little odd in tone so having Sidney around to get some zingers in on her daughter would have been fun to watch. By the end of this film, you'd swear Sidney was in something else entirely. Competent but just not enough for me to do anything with unfortunately. Sidney was really nominated because she had been out of the film business for like 17 years and this was her return. So as the Academy does, they rewarded her with a career achievement nomination for whatever reason. Why Sidney? I don't know, but I won't hate on this one too much. She's entertaining in her short time and that's about it.
Not a terrible group by any means, but definitely a minor supporting group. I actually watched two child performances that I mostly liked, so at least this year had that going for it. The others, though, are pretty brief or at least feel very minor as far as supporting roles go. Sidney just isn't in the film enough and is probably nominated for the wrong reasons anyway. If there was more to the role, I probably would have liked it. While I liked Clark with her unique take on a ditzy, fun loving blonde, her nomination just feels like a representation of the acting in the film as a whole. As if the Academy wanted to nominate someone and chose Clark in this category. It happens and nothing really wrong with it, but she's not gonna win this ever. Next up would be Kahn. I liked some of the performance and was meh on the other, so right in the middle feels apt for her. She was an okay detour that wasn't totally necessary for the film itself. I can't really muster up anything else to say about it. Now the choice comes down to the two child actors. I liked both Tatum and Blair. Tatum is clearly the Lead in her film and is obvious category fraud, so it's kinda tough to even compare them. Tatum has so much more to work with and actually do with her character. I do like that Blair was perfect in the physical aspect of her role. If it was a truly supporting group, I'd give it to Blair. But Tatum at least is more fully realized and we can see a character arc with her and she's actually fun to watch (as is Blair). So she gets my win also and that might be a first and only time a child actor wins with me!
Oscar Winner: Tatum O'Neal - Paper Moon
My Winner: Tatum O'Neal - Paper Moon
Linda Blair
Madeline Kahn
Candy Clark
Sylvia Sidney
1973 Best Supporting Actress
Tatum O'Neal - Paper Moon
I have made no effort to hide the fact that I mostly despise child acting nominations. For the most part they are all pretty bad or too precocious or just are not actual acting (looking at you Quvenzhane Wallis). Sometimes they are actually not bad (Anna Paquin) and I am glad that those performances exist. So when I see child actors pop up from time to time, I instantly groan and then hold my breath that it will be something worth watching. This year has two child actors and a winner that has been held up as a legit child acting win. Let's also preface this by saying this is blatant out and out category fraud. Tatum is clearly a leading actress in her film and is only in this category because it gave her a better shot to win and because Academy politics at the time seemed to push all kids to Supporting. But how is the actual performance you ask? Tatum is better than most child actors and she gets the bonus of acting with her dad which clearly put her at ease in most scenes. It also helps that director Peter Bogdanovich treated her like any other actress and made her do take after take to get the desired performance. With all that said, Tatum really was perfect for the role of a young girl who looks like a boy and is mature enough to quickly understand the world around her. Thus she works well as a budding young con artist with her dad, playing up the young/female angle but acting wise beyond her years when it comes to interacting with dad and other grownups. She also has an expressionless face that allows her to come off as being more than a precocious, bubbly acting kid. That expression also shows that she's watching the world around her and reading every situation and how to act accordingly. Tatum is good with instantly changing from her usual controlled self to a whiny or annoying typical young girl. There are some moments where you can see some instinctual acting where Tatum let's us into the mind of her character and it's nice to see how natural she can be. I think I like the performance because it isn't the typical showy nominated type of thing. She's kind of an asshole and she plays her character with a unsentimental flourish. Not sure if she'll be my winner but at least she was enjoyable to watch even if this is category fraud through and through.
Linda Blair - The Exorcist
And now the other child actor nomination. Blair was only a couple years older than Tatum and was found after an exhaustive search that even her on agent didn't think she would be good for. Her mother had to take her to the audition. Now everyone knows Linda Blair purely for playing the possessed girl who spewed green pea vomit and masturbated with a crucifix. I'm sure she loves that. But what I think is the best thing about Blair's performance is the actual physicality of what is needed from her character. In the beginning she plays the precocious young girl and does a great job with that. I thought her reactions seemed true and didn't seem like forced young actress fluff. But the physical nature of this role is what is impressive. All of the bouncing around her bed and being contorted into all kinds of shapes and acting with all of her demon makeup on while saying outrageous things was something I feel a lot of kids would have failed at. People were amazed at that aspect as well as the voice acting, which wasn't known until after nominations that it was actually Mercedes McCambridge (herself an Oscar winner). Many people were surprised to learn that truth and even wanted to rescind her nomination but Academy rules forbid that from happening. I still think she deserved a nomination just for everything that she as put through and giving an adult level performance. I don't think it's this amazing piece of acting on the level of a Meryl Streep, but it certainly was really impressive for a 14-15 year old girl. Especially considering that the possessed girl has to be believable and scary enough to drive the story and the impact of the film as a whole. Blair succeeds in doing that and the film is much better for her efforts.
Candy Clark - American Graffiti
This is such an interesting performance. It's one that you really have to see to grasp all the things that get said about it. Clark plays a ditzy blonde bimbo who hangs out with the uber nerd of the film and the two hit it off. Cliche a bit, yes, but Clark's interpretation of the stock role is anything but cliche. Her line readings are strange, like she is slurring her words or has never acted before. Yet, the way she speaks is part of her charm. It can be hard to understand her, but I'm paying extra attention when she talks. She's very beautiful and the role could easily become some vapid characterization of a dumb blonde, but Clark plays her role as the restless and bored woman trying to get hers. Yeah, she's opportunistic and maybe deliberately obtuse when it comes to believing Toad, but she makes the character interesting. When's the last time you found a pretty, dumb blonde role to be actually interesting and worth keeping an eye on? It's the blase way she says things and interacts with Toad that is just so intriguing to watch. It's like she's acting in her own film that just happens to coincide with this one. Normally that would be a negative mark, but here it kinda works. I have no idea why she was singled out in this cast, maybe because the other roles are all sorta basic, I dunno. But at least a performance in this film decided to something a little different. The story really doesn't care about Clark but she makes us pay attention to the character. And good on her for doing something different, whether intentional or not. Maybe the Academy wanted to get behind an up and coming actress like they have done so many times, I don't know. But it gave us a really interesting take on a very cliched and boring role.
Madeline Kahn - Paper Moon
Having just seen Kahn as a German seductress who dances and sings in Blazing Saddles, I was hoping to see a different side of Kahn's acting ability. Though she is a carnival dancer/entertainer in this film, we at least don't see her do any actual dancing. Yet she still plays the same type of character, albeit with out the thick accent and comedic touches. I was really hoping for something different to see how broad her acting chops were but we get a lot more of the same in this performance. She is a seductress but in a different way where in this one she latches onto men and uses them for their money before moving on. It's still somewhat of a comedic role, she kinda plays a goofy fool going from place to place using her beauty and bosom to make a living. In most films, she would be the needed shot in the arm of waking up a sagging picture, but her presence here sort of interrupts the father-daughter dynamic that is actually compelling and built up the right way. Kahn feels like a detour in a pretty good film. Not to say Kahn is awful in the part, just that the film doesn't need that shot in the arm. Kahn gets her moment to shine in a scene where she is trying to convince Tatum to get back in the car after a picnic and has a real heart to heart with her - in a very Kahn-esque way. It's a bit of funny mixed with honesty and sincerity from a woman who knows she will be moving on to the next guy soon but also doesn't really want to be inconvenienced or hated by Tatum. She wins Tatum over by saying tits (which Kahn in real life didn't want to do because it was too raunchy so her embarrassed look is real) and in that scene we get why Kahn is nominated. It's a truly supporting job that does a lot to build up our understanding of Tatum as it is to have some lighthearted, yet emotional realism. She's a desperate woman trying to make her own way in the world, just as Tatum and her dad are. It's a decent performance and I don't mind the detour, just wish it was more picnic acting than flirty exotic dancer acting we also get. Basically, more of the emotional honesty stuff.
Sylvia Sidney - Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams
This was a scary one! No, not the performance, but in actually being able to find this film online. I've only ran into about 3 or 4 that I've either had to buy or spend days in the bowels of Google searching for a copy. Luckily I found a good one and was able to watch Sidney as an old New York woman who calls up her daughter for a routine day out where they nitpick at each other and act like annoyed family members. They go see a movie and Sidney dies of a heart attack. This only about 20 some minutes into the film and that's all we get of Sidney besides late in the film when she appears as a hallucination of Joanne Woodward, her daughter. That is literally it. She has the smoker's voice coated with the New York accent and nags her daughter, but takes just as much as she gives. Sidney isn't bad, but obviously we don't get nearly enough of her in the film. It's a wisp of a performance and the film would probably have been better off with her in it for the entirety. The film is severely disjointed and a little odd in tone so having Sidney around to get some zingers in on her daughter would have been fun to watch. By the end of this film, you'd swear Sidney was in something else entirely. Competent but just not enough for me to do anything with unfortunately. Sidney was really nominated because she had been out of the film business for like 17 years and this was her return. So as the Academy does, they rewarded her with a career achievement nomination for whatever reason. Why Sidney? I don't know, but I won't hate on this one too much. She's entertaining in her short time and that's about it.
Not a terrible group by any means, but definitely a minor supporting group. I actually watched two child performances that I mostly liked, so at least this year had that going for it. The others, though, are pretty brief or at least feel very minor as far as supporting roles go. Sidney just isn't in the film enough and is probably nominated for the wrong reasons anyway. If there was more to the role, I probably would have liked it. While I liked Clark with her unique take on a ditzy, fun loving blonde, her nomination just feels like a representation of the acting in the film as a whole. As if the Academy wanted to nominate someone and chose Clark in this category. It happens and nothing really wrong with it, but she's not gonna win this ever. Next up would be Kahn. I liked some of the performance and was meh on the other, so right in the middle feels apt for her. She was an okay detour that wasn't totally necessary for the film itself. I can't really muster up anything else to say about it. Now the choice comes down to the two child actors. I liked both Tatum and Blair. Tatum is clearly the Lead in her film and is obvious category fraud, so it's kinda tough to even compare them. Tatum has so much more to work with and actually do with her character. I do like that Blair was perfect in the physical aspect of her role. If it was a truly supporting group, I'd give it to Blair. But Tatum at least is more fully realized and we can see a character arc with her and she's actually fun to watch (as is Blair). So she gets my win also and that might be a first and only time a child actor wins with me!
Oscar Winner: Tatum O'Neal - Paper Moon
My Winner: Tatum O'Neal - Paper Moon
Linda Blair
Madeline Kahn
Candy Clark
Sylvia Sidney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)